Preview Newsletter
ACC AM June 5
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S., Canada Move Closer Together On Pesticides, Chemicals, Hazmat Transport
Jun 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz, Rachel Leven and Pat Rizzuto
The release of updated work plans from the United States-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council, or RCC, is a sign that regulatory incongruities between the two countries are fading away, albeit slowly. The RCC was established in 2011 to find ways to make trade between the two North American neighbors easier and more efficient. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemtura Says Sale More Likely Than Major Acquisition
Jun 4, 2015 | Bloomberg
By Jack Kaskey
Chemtura Corp., a U.S. chemical maker that emerged from bankruptcy four years ago, said it’s more likely to sell itself than make a major acquisition as it evaluates its strategic options. “There is a lot of interest in the company and the portfolio,” Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Craig Rogerson said in an interview. “The reality is you ... -
(ACC Mentioned) Administration Drafts Version of Stalled Toy Regulation Bill
Jun 5, 2015 | Capital
By Scott Waldman
With just days left in the legislative session, the Cuomo administration is proposing its own version of a stalled bill to regulate the use of chemicals in the manufacture of children's toys and other products. Negotiations between Assembly and Senate staffers and the administration have not yet produced a final version of the Child Safe ... -
(ACC Mentioned) Know What is Microwave-Safe
Jun 5, 2015 | AsiaOne Health
By Joyce Teo
For busy urban people, takeaway food is a godsend. But before you pop that plastic container into the microwave oven to warm the food up, there are safety issues to consider. Not all take-out food containers are safe for microwave use. Plastic containers that are not microwave safe could melt -
New Use Rules for 22 Chemicals Issued; EPA Says Two Subject to Consent Orders
Jun 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Direct final regulations providing the Environmental Protection Agency oversight of new uses of 22 chemicals are scheduled to be published in the June 5 Federal Register. Under the significant new use rules (SNURs), a new manufacturer, importer or processor of the 22 chemicals would have to notify the agency 90 days before using... -
Senate Bills to Revamp Procedures for Rules, Force Independent Agencies to Weigh Costs
Jun 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
Independent agencies from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board would have to weigh the costs their rules impose on the economy, under a bill being readied by Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), the senator said June 4. -
Ruptured California Pipeline Found Corroded At Failure Site, Latest PHSMA Order Says
Jun 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Corrosion had degraded the walls of the Santa Barbara County, Calif. pipeline that spilled more than 100,000 gallons of crude oil last month, according to preliminary findings by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Examinations indicate an opening of roughly 6 inches in length in the bottom of the affected... -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemists Applaud Senate Hearing On National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Jun 5, 2015 | EP Newswire
By Caitlin Nordahl
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) said on Wednesday that it welcomed the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s hearing about the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). “We welcome today’s hearing on the impact... -
Amendments on ‘Sense of Congress' On Oil Export Ban May Get Votes, Aides Say
Jun 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
An amendment that would express the sense of Congress that the president should use existing authorities related to natural gas and crude oil exports to aid vulnerable allies and partners may receive a vote the week of June 8, Senate aides told Bloomberg BNA. “It's to make the larger point that... -
EPA Gives Republicans New Ammo In Fight Against Fracking Regs
Jun 4, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new hydraulic fracturing report is entering national and state debates over regulating the practice and giving Republicans ammunition to fight the rules. In the report, the EPA said that it found some instances of drinking water contamination caused by fracking, but overall, it found no “widespread... -
Draft EPA Fracking Assessment Prompts Fight Over Drinking Water Risks
Jun 4, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA's long-awaited draft analysis of hydraulic fracturing's potential impacts on drinking water finds no “widespread” risks to water supplies but identifies some “vulnerabilities,” triggering a fight between environmentalists and the energy sector over whether the conclusion bolsters claims that fracking is safe or that it needs further regulation. -
The EPA Fracking Miracle
Jun 4, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
So even the Environmental Protection Agency now concedes that fracking is safe, which won’t surprise anyone familiar with the reality of unconventional oil and natural gas drilling in the U.S. But if no less than the EPA is saying this, then the political opposition doesn’t have much of a case left. -
EPA: Fracking’s No Big Threat To Water
Jun 4, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
The EPA’s long-awaited report on fracking dismayed liberal green groups Thursday while pleasing the oil and gas industry — the latest episode in both sides’ fraught relationship with President Barack Obama. The study, more than four years in the making, said the EPA has found no signs of “widespread, systemic” drinking ... -
Lawmakers Spar Over EPA Study's Bottom Line
Jun 4, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The release of U.S. EPA's long-awaited hydraulic fracturing study prompted a flurry of reactions on Capitol Hill today, as Democrats who first commissioned the report praised its acknowledgment of fracking's risks, and Republicans cheered its conclusion that drinking water has not been widely affected. -
EPA Study Cites Hydraulic Fracturing Risks But Sees No ‘Widespread, Systemic Impacts'
Jun 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Hydraulic fracturing and associated oil and natural gas drilling activities can threaten the quality or quantity of drinking water resources, but the instances of contamination have been relatively few, the Environmental Protection Agency said June 4 in the release of a long-awaited study. -
Perry Promises To Boost Energy Industry 'On Day One'
Jun 4, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jennifer Yachnin
Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry today kicked off his second attempt to win the GOP presidential nomination, vowing to make a series of executive orders on energy policy on his first day in office. In a speech near Dallas, Perry pitched his candidacy with a mix of personal anecdotes, criticism of the Obama administration and praise for the state where... -
Wisconsin Utility Files Lawsuit to Compel EPA Response on Power Plant Operating Permits
Jun 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
A Wisconsin utility is seeking a court order that would require the Environmental Protection Agency to respond to three petitions on Clean Air Act operating permits issued to two of the utility's power plants (Wis. Pub. Serv. Corp. v. EPA, W.D. Wis., No. 3:15-cv-337, 6/3/15). The Wisconsin Public Service Corp., in a complaint filed June 3... -
Major Coal Producers Left Unscathed As Divestment Campaign Rumbles On
Jun 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Thomas Biesheuvel and Jesse Riseborough
The biggest names in mining have so far found themselves immune to a rapidly expanding campaign that is seeking to curb the use of the most polluting fossil fuel. From Norway's $900 billion sovereign wealth fund to France's biggest insurer and the Church of England, investors are starting to turn the screw on coal producers by selling down their... -
Georgetown Joins Stanford, Other Universities In Divesting Its Endowment From Coal
Jun 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Michael McDonald
Georgetown University will no longer make direct investments in coal companies, joining Stanford and other schools that have targeted the industry because of its contribution to climate change. Georgetown, a Catholic university in Washington with a $1.5 billion endowment, said it will encourage external investment companies that help manage... -
Georgetown To Divest Endowment From Coal Companies
Jun 4, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Georgetown University's board of directors approved a plan Thursday to divest its endowment from coal companies. The Washington, D.C., university said its endowment — worth $1.5 billion — does not include many investments in coal to begin with, but that divesting now, and taking steps to prevent future investments, aligns with the school's... -
KY. Republicans Press Moniz For Strategy On Shuttered Plant
Jun 5, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Hannah Northey
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his Republican colleagues from Kentucky yesterday pressed Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz to lay out a long-term strategy for the shuttered gaseous diffusion plant in Paducah, Ky. McConnell, House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power Chairman Ed Whitfield... -
California Leaders See Climate Action as a Winning Political Issue
Jun 4, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Lauren Faber
It’s always inspiring to see people stand up and fight for issues that matter to them. In our world, when politics can at times seem petty or backwards, it’s especially uplifting to see politicians do this. And that’s exactly what’s happening inside California’s state capitol. The three most powerful political leaders in the state... -
New Air Monitoring Methods Can Be Used To Determine Attainment With EPA Standards
Jun 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Several new air quality monitoring methods have been approved by the Environmental Protection Agency for use by state and local air quality agencies in charge of monitoring ambient pollution levels. The EPA, in a notice scheduled for publication in the Federal Register June 5, designated new reference and equivalent methods for air quality... -
EPA Threatened With Lawsuit for Alleged Failure to Act on State Ozone Plans
Jun 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Sierra Club intends to sue the Environmental Protection Agency over an alleged failure to take required action on state plans for implementing the 2008 national ambient air quality standards for ozone. The environmental group said the EPA failed to approve or disapprove of six state plans for meeting their “good neighbor” obligations under... -
Senate Moderates Mum on Bill Forcing Redo Of Waters Rule, as Path to Passage Seen
Jun 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Moderate Senate Democrats remain coy about whether they will support legislation forcing a rewrite of a controversial Clean Water Act regulation, giving proponents hope the chamber may be within striking distance of passing it. The Federal Water Quality Protection Act (S. 1140) already has the support of three moderate Democrats... -
EPA Agrees With GAO's Call For New Policy On Lawmakers' SAB Inquiries
Jun 4, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
EPA is agreeing with the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) call to craft a new policy for how to respond to Congress' inquiries about its Science Advisory Board (SAB) and other advisory panels, though GOP lawmakers say that GAO has found broader flaws with the SAB process that warrant legislation to overhaul the board. -
EPA to Update Procedures for Processing Congressional Requests to Science Panel
Jun 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency plans to update its procedures for processing and documenting congressional requests for advice from the Science Advisory Board. The EPA said in a Government Accountability Office report released June 4 that it will either update the charter for the Science Advisory Board or issue additional written... -
NS 9-1-1 Honors First Responders
Jun 4, 2015 | Railway Age
By William C. Vantuono
At Washington, D.C.’s Union Station, Norfolk Southern dedicated its latest commemorative locomotive, an SD60E painted in a vibrant red, white and black livery with gold accents and insignia recognizing police, fire, and emergency services, honoring first responders. Numbered 9-1-1, the locomotive will enter general revenue service on...
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S., Canada Move Closer Together On Pesticides, Chemicals, Hazmat Transport
Jun 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz, Rachel Leven and Pat Rizzuto
The release of updated work plans from the United States-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council, or RCC, is a sign that regulatory incongruities between the two countries are fading away, albeit slowly.
The RCC was established in 2011 to find ways to make trade between the two North American neighbors easier and more efficient.
The International Trade Administration's May 28 release of new RCC work plans contained new agreements that will make marginal yet significant changes to the way the countries regulate pesticides, chemicals and the transportation of hazardous material.
Work on the chemicals management and other work plans has been under way for several months, but the May 28 announcement was the official release of both governments' agreements (103 DEN A-22, 5/29/15).
Pesticide regulators in the U.S. and Canada agreed to new timelines on three cooperative projects: re-evaluating neonicotinoid insecticides, establishing a joint template for project chemistry reviews and upgrading information technology systems used in pesticide registrations.
The neonicotinoid re-evaluation has been subject to intense scrutiny from industry and environmental groups because the insecticides have been scientifically linked to widespread declines in recent years in the populations of many pollinator insects.
Through the RCC, the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Pesticide Programs and Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency agreed to share some data on neonicotinoids and to publish a report on the two countries' progress on this issue at the end of this year.
Countries to Propose New Template
The two agencies also agreed to formally propose their new joint chemistry review template later this month, with an eye on issuing a final template in February 2016.
Doug Nelson, a senior international trade adviser at the pesticide industry group CropLife America, called this merging of testing protocols a logical and sensible step in the right direction for the two countries.
“There's no difference between Canadian plants and U.S. plants, Canadian people and U.S. people,” he told Bloomberg BNA. “Toxicology, epidemiology, all those tests—there's no reason why those tests need to be done twice.”
However, Nelson noted that ecological tests of pesticides will still need to be conducted separately since environmental conditions can differ widely between the two countries.
RCC Moving at ‘Measured Pace.'
Though the RCC is moving at “a measured pace,” the pesticide industry is happy the two countries are streamlining their requirements and moving toward a less duplicative system, Nelson said.
However, Nelson said there could be a potential monkey wrench to this slow progress: Canada's parliamentary elections scheduled for October.
Current Prime Minister Stephen Harper is running for re-election on a nationalistic platform, and this could make him reluctant to take any pre-election measures that might appear to minimize Canada's independence or standing, Nelson said.
Chemicals Plan Addresses Work Streams
The chemicals management work plan addresses two topics or “work streams”: new use rules in each country and risk assessments.
Technical working groups with representatives of industries and nongovernmental organizations have been established for both work streams, an EPA official confirmed June 4.
New use rules in Canada and the U.S. are, respectively, called significant new activity notices (SNAcs) and significant new use rules (SNURs).
The reason that either country issues these types of rules is essentially the same. The rules provide a mechanism under which either government can oversee new uses of a chemical that could harm human health or the environment.
Working Group Discusses Predictability
The technical working group is discussing issues, including ways to increase the predictability of new use rules, strategies to increase interested parties understanding of the conditions that would trigger either country to pursue new use rules and ways to improve compliance with these rules, according to the work plan.
The exact number of working group participants varies but currently includes 23 industry and four nongovernmental representatives, the EPA official said.
Key deadlines detailed in that work plan include:
• an October meeting to discuss ways the two countries' new use rules could be aligned and another to discuss best practices for improving compliance;
• a June 2016 web conference to update interested parties on possible alignment and compliance recommendations; and
• a workshop in January 2017 to discuss findings, recommendations and the countries' plans to implement them.
Chemical Risk Assessments Under Way
Regarding chemical risk assessments, Environment Canada, Health Canada and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency already are analyzing similarities and differences in the methods they use to evaluate chemicals under their respective laws: the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, issued in 1999, and the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act, which became law in 1976.
The countries also are identifying priorities they both face as they work to improve assessments such as ways they could better formulate problems an assessment will evaluate and the roles and responsibilities of divergent parties that conduct, track or provide information for risk assessments.
The technical working group on risk assessments currently includes up to 13 industry and three NGO representatives, the EPA official said.
The governments will be holding multiple web conferences throughout 2015, 2016 and 2017.
Manufacturers Welcome Joint Effort
Christina Franz, senior director of regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council and a member of both chemicals management working groups, discussed reasons chemical manufacturers welcome the U.S.-Canadian effort.
“They offer a wonderful opportunity to be at the table with both governments. We hear the challenges they face, and they hear the challenges we face. Together we can work to find common solutions, better ways of working together,” Franz told Bloomberg BNA June 4.
Among the documents issued by the RCC are work plans related to transportation of dangerous goods and plans on rail safety, including movement of oil by rail.
The dangerous goods movement work plan includes three initiatives to be completed by different points within the July 2015 to January 2018 time frame and an additional initiative that already was completed in July 2014 that aligned Canadian and U.S. placarding requirements.
These initiatives generally aim to more closely align the counties’ regulations and inspections for hazardous materials transportation, which would result in less duplication across the border, the plan said.
Upcoming Hazmat Initiatives
The three upcoming initiatives include:
• mutual recognition of standard pressure receptacles,
• recognition of inspection and repairs under U.S. requirements for highway transport and
• alignment and mutual recognition of tank truck (cargo tank) standards, including vehicles used to transport bulk explosives.
Cynthia Hilton, executive vice president for the Institute of Makers of Explosives, told Bloomberg BNA her group is pleased that the initiative could improve harmonization and reciprocity, while ensuring that safety and security aren't undermined.
The work plan could result in more efficient use of companies’ resources for her industry—for example, allowing more companies to use the same trucks to transport bulk explosives on both sides of the border, Hilton said.
The rail safety work plan includes goals to consult on development of key standards, establish policy direction on key standards and conduct joint safety inspections and inspections of equipment.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemtura Says Sale More Likely Than Major Acquisition
Jun 4, 2015 | Bloomberg
By Jack Kaskey
Chemtura Corp., a U.S. chemical maker that emerged from bankruptcy four years ago, said it’s more likely to sell itself than make a major acquisition as it evaluates its strategic options.
“There is a lot of interest in the company and the portfolio,” Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Craig Rogerson said in an interview. “The reality is you create value on a higher probability basis selling than buying right now with the multiples that are out in the market place.”
Chemtura is weighing a sale amid a jump in the volume of diversified-chemical deals in the U.S., which stands at $21.1 billion so far in 2015. That puts the industry on course for its busiest year of dealmaking since 2007, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
Rogerson told investors in February that Philadelphia-based Chemtura lacks scale and is looking at options for acquisitions, a sale or merger. Its revenue has shrunk by half after selling businesses including pool chemicals and pesticides.
Chemtura’s four remaining businesses include petroleum additives and bromine, a mineral used in fire retardants and deepwater drilling. The shares climbed as much as 4.7 percent, and closed up 1.3 percent to $29.65 in New York, giving the company a market capitalization of $1.99 billion.
The company may end up taking a “complex” route to selling itself with some potential buyers interested in specific assets, Rogerson said Wednesday in Colorado Springs, where he was attending the annual meeting of the American Chemistry Council. Possible Acquisition
For instance, a deal could be structured like Monday’s announced sale of OM Group Inc. to Apollo Group Management LLC, in which the buyout firm will sell two OM units to Platform Specialty Products Corp. at closing.
Another possibility is a tax-efficient Reverse Morris Trust deal, which involves spinning off a unit that then merges with a smaller company. That’s what Dow Chemical Co. did in March when it agreed to sell its chlorine business to Olin Corp.
“We are kind of ripe for that type of transaction,” Rogerson said.
A formal sale process may develop should Chemtura get a commitment for one part of the company and need to solicit buyers for the rest, he said. Morgan Stanley bankers led by Vice Chairman Susie Huang are advising Chemtura.
While a large acquisition remains a possibility for Chemtura, Rogerson, 58, said such a deal would need to be in an industry area similar to those it’s already involved if it’s to win support from investors. That narrows the possibilities.
It would be hard for Chemtura to get any bigger in bromine, urethanes or organometallics, and it would need to look downstream into customers’ markets to make an acquisition in petroleum additives, he said. An adhesives purchase is possible, he added.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Administration Drafts Version of Stalled Toy Regulation Bill
Jun 5, 2015 | Capital
By Scott Waldman
With just days left in the legislative session, the Cuomo administration is proposing its own version of a stalled bill to regulate the use of chemicals in the manufacture of children's toys and other products.
Negotiations between Assembly and Senate staffers and the administration have not yet produced a final version of the Child Safe Products Act.
The administration's version, a copy of which was obtained by Capital, proposes that the Department of State rather than the Department of Environmental Conservation regulate the ban on certain chemicals used not only in toys, but in car seats, personal care products and some school supplies. To do that, the department could receive additional staffing, and the state attorney general's office would enforce the law.
A Cuomo administration spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment Thursday.
The governor included a toy-regulation proposal in his budget book as something the administration wanted to pass this year. The legislation easily passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly in April but has stalled in the Republican-controlled Senate.
Though not among the high-profile issues dominating the end of the legislative session, such education tax credits and rent regulations, the Child Safe Products Act stands apart because it is backed 41 senators, both conservative and liberal. That's more than enough support to pass it.
But the Republicans who control the committees that need to pass the bill before it can go to the full chamber have not moved it. The bill is not on any committee agendas and State Senate Majority Leader John Flanagan has dodged questions about its fate.
On Wednesday, the bill's primary sponsor, Republican senator Phil Boyle of Long Island, said the legislation was not dead and that he was optimistic it can be passed this session. But another senator, speaking on background, said so much attention will be given to other issues that the Child Safe Products Act will likely fall by the wayside.
In the meantime, the League of Conservation Voters and Clean and Healthy New York have renewed their campaign to get the bill passed. The six-figure effort includes phone banks and mailers to pressure eight Republican senators to vote on the legislation, L.C.V. spokesman Jordan Levine said.
The effort targets Flanagan, as well as Carl Marcellino, Tom Croci, Jack Martins and Michael Venditto, all of Long Island, Terrence Murphy of the Lower Hudson Valley, Richard Funke of Rochester and George Amedore of the Capital Region.
“We are doing everything in our power to get a bill passed this year,” Levine said.
The bill also has the support of some health and environmental groups, but is opposed by the American Chemistry Council and the Toy Industry Association, both of which have increased pressure on lawmakers in recent weeks, as well as the Business Council of New York State and the New York chapter of the National Federation of Independent Business.
The Toy Industry Association is lobbying lawmakers in an attempt to get language into the bill that would prevent individual counties from establishing local versions of the law, according to a draft of the language obtained by Capital. The Cuomo administration has not inserted that language into the version it drafted.
On Tuesday, the Suffolk County legislature unanimously passed a bill to require the county to test toys on store shelves for possible toxins. The legislatures in Albany and Westchester counties passed similar laws earlier this year. The toy industry has said such bans could mean most toys will be removed from store shelves by Christmas, though proponents say that's not true.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Know What is Microwave-Safe
Jun 5, 2015 | AsiaOne Health
By Joyce Teo
For busy urban people, takeaway food is a godsend. But before you pop that plastic container into the microwave oven to warm the food up, there are safety issues to consider.
Not all take-out food containers are safe for microwave use. Plastic containers that are not microwave safe could melt and may leach chemicals into food. And styrofoam containers, for instance, cannot withstand high heat and are unsuitable for microwave use, said Dr Lee Mun Wai, senior manager (packaging innovation) at the Food Innovation and Resource Centre at Singapore Polytechnic.
To err on the safe side, always use microwave-safe containers.
Containers without any microwave-safe labels are not considered unsafe, but the user might not be assured that the containers have been evaluated and qualify for microwave heating applications, said Dr Lee.
Additives or coatings added into the packaging to enhance other properties might render the container unsuitable for microwave use, he said.
Apart from a microwave-safe label, it is also possible to tell if a container is safe for microwave reheating by its recycling code, said Dr Wong Seng Weng, medical director of The Cancer Centre, a Singapore Medical Group clinic.
This code resembles a triangle formed by three arrows with a number, from 1 to 7, in the centre.
Generally, only code 5 is able to withstand the heat from microwave reheating.
Here, we look at why some common food containers and kitchen items are suitable for use in the microwave while others are not.
PLASTIC CONTAINERS
When plastic containers are labelled as microwave safe, it means that only very minuscule amounts of plasticisers (within the limits of human health safety) are released into the food when subjected to heat, said Dr Wong, a medical oncologist.
"One has to be careful because the covers of many food containers are not made with the same material," he said.
"If the container is labelled code 5 and the code is unspecified on the cover, remove the cover before reheating."
Whether plasticisers are indeed carcinogenic is still controversial and inconclusive, said Dr Wong.
"There is a lot of talk on the Internet about dioxin (a known carcinogen) leaking into food from plastic containers during microwave reheating," he said.
"But plastic generally does not contain dioxin and, hence, such fearmongering is misleading."
Some plastics, however, contain bisphenol-A (BPA). "While the evidence is not conclusive, there is some concern that BPA may increase the risk of breast and prostate cancer," said Dr Wong.
Polycarbonate plastic (code 7) is more likely to contain BPA, he said.
Plastic wrap is not heated by microwave energy but it can warp or even melt if it comes into contact with extremely hot food.
Most manufacturers recommend leaving an inch of air space between the food and the wrap, said the American Chemistry Council.
As with other plastic packaging, use only microwave-safe plastic wrap. You can also use wax paper or white paper towels.
The council also said that many plastic containers in which foods are sold, such as those used for butter and cottage cheese, are designed for cold storage and not intended for cooking or reheating. And most plastic trays provided with pre-packaged meals are intended for one-time use only, it said.
GLASS AND CERAMIC WARES
These are suitable for microwave ovens as they are able to withstand high temperatures.
However, if the glass or ceramic wares are not certified microwave safe, there are safety issues to consider as the presence of micro-bubbles in a glass container might cause it to crack, for instance, said Dr Lee.
Do not use a glass bowl with a metal rim in a microwave oven.
METAL BOWLS, PANS AND ALUMINIUM FOIL
These should not be used in a microwave oven, as metal containers tend to reflect the microwaves, which prevents them from penetrating the container to reach the food, said Dr Lee. The food may be unevenly cooked.
Furthermore, metals are known to possess free electrons, which can possibly damage the oven. In extreme incidences, holes can be created in the metallic wall of the microwave oven due to the high heat, said Dr Lee.
Dr Wong said that the inner layer of many canned food containers are lined with BPA-containing resin. "Hence, heating canned food in its original container may not be safe, either."
MELAMINE-BASED TABLEWARE
Melamine ware is for serving and should not be used in a microwave, said Dr Lee.
He pointed out that the United States Food and Drug Administration has advised against the use of such tableware in a microwave oven as there is a risk of chemicals migrating into food, particularly high-acid food, when heated to temperatures beyond 71 deg C.
-
New Use Rules for 22 Chemicals Issued; EPA Says Two Subject to Consent Orders
Jun 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Direct final regulations providing the Environmental Protection Agency oversight of new uses of 22 chemicals are scheduled to be published in the June 5 Federal Register.
Under the significant new use rules (SNURs), a new manufacturer, importer or processor of the 22 chemicals would have to notify the agency 90 days before using the substances in a way the regulation defines as new. The notification would allow the agency to oversee the new use and determine whether additional regulation is warranted.
The rules will become effective Aug. 4 unless the agency receives by July 6 an adverse comment or a notice that an interested party will file an adverse comment.
The 22 chemicals include two substances for which the EPA already has managed potential, unreasonable health or ecological risk concerns it had under consent orders their manufacturers agreed to comply with, the agency said in a prepublication copy of the new use rules (RIN 2070-AB27). Consent orders, which are authorized under Section 5(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act, are issued when the agency determines a chemical that would be newly made or sold in the U.S. might pose an unreasonable risk.
Two Chemicals Subject to Consent Orders
The generic names and general uses of the two chemicals are: substituted bis 2,6-xylenol, which is used to make plastics; and graphene nanoplatelets, which are used in printed electronic, solar energy and other applications.
The EPA already has allowed each of the 22 chemicals to go into production, with protective measures outlined either in consent orders or in premanufacture notices (PMNs) submitted by the original manufacturers or importers.
The SNURs adopt those conditions so they would apply to other manufacturers that want to make or process the same substances.
Any manufacture or use of a chemical that does not take into account the protective measures—use of personal protective equipment, for example—would be considered a new use and require notification to EPA. That notice must be filed 90 days prior to the proposed new manufacturing or use of the chemical.
The agency's concerns about new manufacturing methods or uses—as with most SNURs—largely involved the chemicals' potential to cause aquatic toxicity.
Possible Worker, General Population Concerns
For nine chemicals, however, the agency also had concerns about potential human health effects they could cause to exposed workers or the general public. The EPA rules describe the agency's concerns and how to address them. The nine chemicals are:
• graphene nanoplatelets (PMN No. P-14-763), which in addition to the above uses also are used to make composite materials;
• substituted bis 2,6-xylenol, (PMN No. P-13-390), which is used to make plastics;
• aluminum phosphate (PMN No. P-13-690), a flame retardant for industrial plastics;
• heteropolycyclic diacrylate (PMN No. P-14-20), a coating resin;
• substituted cyclosiloxane (PMN No. P-14-605), a component in light-emitting diode (LED) chips;
• 2-butene, 1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-, (2Z)-, (Chemical Abstracts Service No. 692-49-9), which is a heat transfer fluid;
• bismuth nitrate oxide (Bi3(NO3)O4) (CAS No. 1417164-49-8), which is used to make polymer-based insulation sheets;
• methanaminium, N-[4-[[4-(dimethylamino)phenyl]phenylmethylene]- 2,5-cyclohexadien-1-ylidene]-N-methyl-, ethanedioate, ethanedioate (2:2:1) (CAS No. 2437-29-8), a component of industrial inks and dyes; and
• oxiranemethanaminium, N,N,N-trimethyl-, bromide (CAS number: 13895-77-7), an intermediate used to make plastics.
-
Senate Bills to Revamp Procedures for Rules, Force Independent Agencies to Weigh Costs
Jun 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
Independent agencies from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board would have to weigh the costs their rules impose on the economy, under a bill being readied by Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), the senator said June 4.
Portman told a Senate regulatory panel that he is drafting a second bill—the Regulatory Accountability Act—to require agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, to analyze a broad array of costs before pursuing regulations. The RAA also would steer agencies to select the least burdensome regulatory option.
Portman told Bloomberg BNA June 4 that he is working with Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) in drafting the Independent Agency Regulatory Analysis Act and will introduce it as soon possible and well before the August recess. The RAA bill “will probably take a little longer,” he said.
The Ohio Republican spoke at a roundtable on regulatory reform ideas held by Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management.
Portman has introduced both bills in previous congressional sessions, but neither reached the Senate floor. Republican control of the Senate has improved their prospects; the House version of the RAA (H.R. 185) already passed that Republican-controlled chamber in January (15 DEN A-19, 1/23/15).
Heightened OIRA Role?
Previous versions of the independent agency bill included provisions requiring them to submit their cost analyses to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an office within the Office of Management and Budget that acts as the executive branch's regulatory gatekeeper.
The bill doesn't directly impact regulatory agencies not considered independent, such as the EPA and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Earlier in the day, Republicans on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee highlighted what they say are examples of EPA regulatory overreach, including first-time limits on carbon pollution emitted by power plants, more stringent air pollution limits on ozone and requirements expanding Clean Water Act jurisdiction over certain waterways, the so-called waters of the U.S. rule.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said the EPA over the last year “has released some of the most expensive and expansive regulations in its history” and decried what he said is a continuing “onslaught” of regulations by the agency under the Obama administration.
Chamber Urges Effort Aimed at EPA
Bill Kovacs, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs, said Congress should consider legislation to force the EPA to be more transparent about scientific findings it uses to underpin regulations.
But the ranking Democrat on the committee, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), said the hearing only served to demonstrate continued Republican opposition to environmental regulations.
“Unfortunately today's hearing is just a continuation of the same familiar theme we have heard in this Congress—resistance to the EPA's efforts to carry out its mission to protect the nation's environment and the public health—resistance that is unsupported by the scientific evidence,” she said.
-
Ruptured California Pipeline Found Corroded At Failure Site, Latest PHSMA Order Says
Jun 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Corrosion had degraded the walls of the Santa Barbara County, Calif. pipeline that spilled more than 100,000 gallons of crude oil last month, according to preliminary findings by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
Examinations indicate an opening of roughly 6 inches in length in the bottom of the affected Plains All American Pipeline LP pipe—Line 901—at its “failure site,” according to the June 3 amended corrective action order that added more corrective requirements for the company.
Plain's Line 903, a pipe that moves crude oil from the same Gaviota Pump Station in the county as Line 901, had been diagnosed with “metal loss anomalies” in the past as well and has similar characteristics to the pipeline that spilled crude oil May 19, the order said.
“[H]aving considered the uncertainties as to the cause of the Failure, the location of the Failure, the similarities between the characteristics of the Affected Pipeline and Line 903, the material being transported, and the proximity of the pipelines to the Pacific Ocean and environmentally sensitive areas, I find that a failure to issue this Order expeditiously to require immediate corrective action would result in the likelihood of serious harm to life, property, or the environment,” said the order signed June 3 by Jeffrey Wiese, PHMSA associate administrator for pipeline safety.
The cause of the pipeline failure hasn't been determined, and both Line 901 and Line 903 are currently shut down, the order said. The May 19 spill has affected up to 28 miles of coastline and aquatic and wildlife, and is now the subject of a class action lawsuit .
Corrective Actions
The order adds more corrective steps for Plains to take on top of those required under a May 21 corrective action order (100 DEN A-1, 5/26/15).
New corrective actions for Line 901 include investigation requirements for in-line inspection results over a 10-year time frame and remediation of problems identified and requirements for a third party to conduct non-destructive testing analysis of each anomaly identified by in-line inspection surveys.
For Line 903, PHMSA implemented a pressure restriction, required a review of the line and addressing of anomalies identified, required submission of previous in-line inspection surveys and similarly required a third party to conduct nondestructive testing analyses of relevant anomalies.
Finally, PHMSA required Plains to implement additional preventative and mitigative measures for both pipes, such as daily inspections of pump stations to identify leaks or other abnormalities, and submission a documentation report.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemists Applaud Senate Hearing On National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Jun 5, 2015 | EP Newswire
By Caitlin Nordahl
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) said on Wednesday that it welcomed the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s hearing about the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
“We welcome today’s hearing on the impact and achievability of EPA’s proposal,” the council said in a press release. “We remain concerned about the agency’s plan to lower the ozone standards, which is unsupported by health science evidence, will not result in cleaner air and could stall manufacturing growth.”
The EPA’s planned revisions would lower the ozone standards from 75 parts per billion (ppb) to a range of between 65 and 70ppb. The changes have faced challenges from lawmakers, private businesses and industry groups due to their potential to adversely affect manufacturing.
“Today’s ozone standard is the most stringent ever and has not been fully implemented across the country,” the ACC said. “EPA should focus on helping states come into compliance, as the agency pledged to do when it issued final implementation rules this past March. We hope the administrator will use her discretion under the Clean Air Act to retain today’s standard.
The statement goes on to support bills currently before Congress that would require a more in-depth examination of the implementation issues presented by the proposed revisions. - See more at: http://epnewswire.com/stories/510547962-chemists-applaud-senate-hearing-on-national-ambient-air-quality-standards#sthash.rzuOgEdQ.dpuf -
Amendments on ‘Sense of Congress' On Oil Export Ban May Get Votes, Aides Say
Jun 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
An amendment that would express the sense of Congress that the president should use existing authorities related to natural gas and crude oil exports to aid vulnerable allies and partners may receive a vote the week of June 8, Senate aides told Bloomberg BNA.
“It's to make the larger point that this is an element of soft power, people like to talk about boots on the ground, but this is another way we can undermine [Russian President Vladimir] Putin's intimidation and coercion in Europe and the Ukraine,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the Senate's No. 2 Republican, told reporters June 4.
The amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (H.R. 1735) also would require the U.S. intelligence community to conduct an assessment of the energy supply and security of countries that border the Russian Federation, according to a summary.
Senate bill managers announced on the floor they planned to hold a vote on the amendment June 4, but the vote didn't occur, and a Senate Republican aide said Cornyn's office was “hopeful” the vote would occur when the Senate resumes consideration of the legislation.
Opposing Amendment Will Get Vote
As part of an agreement to have his amendment considered, Cornyn said a separate amendment by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), an opponent of lifting the 40-year-old trade prohibition, would get a vote as well.
Markey's amendment would “express the sense of Congress that exports of crude oil to United States allies and partners should not be determined to be consistent with the national interest if those exports would increase energy prices in the United States for American consumers or businesses or increase the reliance of the United States on imported oil,” according to its text.
“The United States right now, along with China, is the largest importer of oil in the world,” Markey said in remarks on the Senate floor. “We are very near the level of imports of oil in our country that we were back in 1975 when we put a ban on the exportation of oil in our country.”
Support for, Opposition to Ban
The ban, which was put in place in the wake of the Arab embargo, is supported by refiners such as Alon USA, Monroe Energy, PBF Energy and Philadelphia Energy Solutions and opposed by oil companies that include Marathon Oil and ConocoPhillips.
While congressional backers of lifting the ban such as Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, have argued such a move would reduce Russia's influence, the Congressional Research Service, in a memo obtained by Bloomberg BNA June 3, cast doubt on the ability of U.S. crude oil exports to displace Russian crude oil within Eastern Europe.
The memo, dated May 29, said potential impediments to U.S. crude supply include infrastructure, refining capacity and pricing.
For instance, European refiners would need to reconfigure operations to process U.S. crude “which may result in reducing the attractiveness to U.S. producers,” the memo said.
-
EPA Gives Republicans New Ammo In Fight Against Fracking Regs
Jun 4, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new hydraulic fracturing report is entering national and state debates over regulating the practice and giving Republicans ammunition to fight the rules.
In the report, the EPA said that it found some instances of drinking water contamination caused by fracking, but overall, it found no “widespread, systemic impacts” on the drinking water supply. Republicans say that the EPA’s findings disprove the need for further restrictions on fracking.
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said the report proves that the Interior Department’s fracking rules for federal land are unnecessary.
“After five years of study, the EPA learned exactly what the states, industry and even some of the more competent bureaucrats in the Obama administration have known for some time — hydraulic fracturing is not a threat to drinking water,” Bishop said in a statement.
“This report is damaging for the administration and contradicts a predominant claim the White House has used to justify a federal fracturing rule,” he continued.
Republicans have blasted the rule and the drilling industry has filed lawsuits to overturn it.
Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.) used the research to call for New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) to roll back the state’s ban on fracking that he instituted last year after a years-long hiatus.
“I fully expect Gov. Cuomo to reverse his previous decision to ban fracking which was based upon controversial scientific studies and made to appease far left environmentalists,”
Collins said in a statement.
“Hardworking New Yorkers deserve the job opportunities and economic growth fracking has clearly produced in other states, including neighboring Pennsylvania,” he said.
Collins tweeted a link to a news report on the study to Cuomo, writing “not going to say I told you so.”
The Business Council of New York State agreed, calling on New York and Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Joseph Martins to allow fracking.
“Now that the EPA has confirmed what top scientists have said all along, that fracking is safe and has no widespread impact on drinking water, we are calling on Commissioner Martens and the state Department of Environmental Conservation to rescind the temporary ban on high-volume hydraulic fracturing in New York State,” Heather Briccetti, the group’s president, said in a statement.
New York’s fracking ban has been extremely controversial, because parts of upstate New York sit on the gas-rich Marcellus and Utica shale formations, which have brought billions of dollars to neighboring Pennsylvania.
But Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, said the EPA study was not a stamp of approval.
“Today’s announcement will be spun by industry lobbyists as a clean bill of health for oil and gas developers around the country,” he said in a statement. “Nothing could be further from the truth, as EPA’s own findings have shown. Irresponsible oil and gas development puts water quality at risk for millions of Americans, and no amount of spin can change that.”
-
Draft EPA Fracking Assessment Prompts Fight Over Drinking Water Risks
Jun 4, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA's long-awaited draft analysis of hydraulic fracturing's potential impacts on drinking water finds no “widespread” risks to water supplies but identifies some “vulnerabilities,” triggering a fight between environmentalists and the energy sector over whether the conclusion bolsters claims that fracking is safe or that it needs further regulation.
During a June 4 call with reporters, EPA Science Advisor Thomas Burke said while EPA believes the draft report, which includes a review of more than 900 separate studies, is the most comprehensive assessment to date on the potential impacts of fracking to drinking water, that it is “not designed to inform specific policies.”
“There are limitations in the data, but I think that's an important finding” because it helps identify possible research gaps, Burke said about the “Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas on Drinking Water Resources.” The agency plans to seek input from its Science Advisory Board (SAB) on the study with SAB meetings Sept. 30 and Oct. 28-30, and will take public comment on the study through Aug. 28.
Despite EPA's attempt to play down the utility of the assessment in making regulatory decisions, industry groups, environmental organizations and lawmakers are seizing on the findings to try and boost their arguments for or against requiring greater regulatory controls on fracking. Environmentalists say the draft report underscores the need for stronger health protections to guard against fracking's potential harms to drinking water, while industry groups are touting the draft finding that there were no identified systemic impacts, saying it shows fracking is safe.
“This study provides solid scientific analysis that fracking has contaminated drinking water around the country,” the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said. “The report, while limited, shows fracking can and has impacted drinking water sources in many different ways. We agree that the public needs better protections.”
The League of Conservation Voters argues that the “vulnerabilities” identified by the agency “require further analysis and future regulation,” and that the draft findings underscore “that we should move away from dirty fossil fuels because of the risks they pose to our valuable natural resources, like clean water and air.”
But Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), chairman of the Senate environment panel, said in a June 4 press release that the draft report is the “latest in a series of failed attempts by the administration to link hydraulic fracturing to systematic drinking water contamination.” Inhofe has been critical of the Obama EPA's efforts to investigate cases of reported drinking water contamination near drilling sites in Pennsylvania, Wyoming and Texas and has launched investigations into those studies. “The Obama administration is now zero for four,” Inhofe said.
Industry groups also say the report makes the case that fracking is safe. Energy in Depth said in a June 4 press release that “The report contradicts the most prevalent claim from anti-fracking activists, which have made 'water contamination' the very foundation of their campaign against hydraulic fracturing.”
Similarly, the American Petroleum Institute's Upstream Group Director Erik Milito said in a separate statement that, “After more than five years and millions of dollars, the evidence gathered by EPA confirms what the agency has already acknowledged and what the oil and gas industry has known. Hydraulic fracturing is being done safely under the strong environmental stewardship of state regulators and industry best practices.”
Fracking Assessment
Congress in a budget law required EPA to conduct the analysis. EPA in the draft report says that it did not find evidence that the mechanisms it identified by which fracking could potentially impact drinking water have “led to widespread, systemic impacts” in the United States. Those mechanisms include water withdrawals in areas of low water availability; spills of fracking fluids and wastewater; fracking directly into underground sources of drinking water; underground migration of liquids and gases; and inadequate wastewater management.
The draft report examined findings across five phases of the fracking- water lifecycle for potential impacts: water acquisition, chemical mixing, well injections, flowback and produced water, and wastewater management. For example, for chemical mixing, EPA found that the frequency of on-site spills from hydraulic fracturing activities could be estimated for two states, Colorado and Pennsylvania, from approximately 0.4 to 12.2 spills per 100 wells, but not nationally due to data availability constraints.
For wastewater management, EPA found that publicly owned treatment works do not have effective processes for treating the total dissolved solids (TDS) at levels often present in fracking wastewater, which backs EPA's recent proposal to set a zero discharge limit for those facilities to treat shale oil and gas wastewater.
The draft report also found, as EPA is launching a study on centralized waste treatment (CWT) facilities' ability to treat oil and gas wastewater, that while CWTs may be effective as removing TDS and other contaminants often present in fracking wastewater, “It is unknown whether advanced treatment systems are effective at removing constituents that are generally not tested for.”
But while the draft analysis identifies a comparatively small number of cases in which polluted drinking water was linked to one of the identified mechanisms, EPA in the draft report cautions that “This finding could reflect a rarity of effects on drinking water resources, but may also be due to other limiting factors.”
For example, EPA says that insufficient pre- and post-fracking data on the quality of drinking water sources, not enough long term systematic studies, and instances where other potential sources of contamination precluded a link to fracking, and the “inaccessibility” of some information on fracking could hinder the assessment.
Report's Limitations
NRDC noted the report's limits, saying it is “missing some critical elements, hamstringing its comprehensiveness” citing reports that industry was not cooperative in providing data and that planned “prospective” field studies documenting start to finish drilling impacts were not orchestrated in time for inclusion in the final analysis.
“But despite the holes, it is clear EPA has found impacts -- they just cannot be sure how widespread those impacts are,” says NRDC -- one of several groups to urge EPA to issue strict new rules for fracking.
Democratic lawmakers that have pushed legislation to give the agency new powers to regulate fracking said the study highlights data gaps that are the result of inadequate federal rules for the sector.
“While the current draft indicates that the overall percentage of contamination cases may be small, it acknowledges there have been contamination events. When it comes to the water we drink, every instance of contamination must be considered serious. It is also important to note that this study relied on voluntary reporting, which affects both the quality and scope of the data available. This is an unfortunate consequence of the lack of federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing,” said three top Democrats on the House Energy & Commerce Committee.
“Congress must be looking closely at ways to close these data gaps moving forward in order to prevent any further contamination,” said full energy panel ranking member Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), oversight subcommittee ranking member Diana DeGette (D-CO) and energy subcommittee ranking member Paul Tonko (D-NY).
Similarly, House Natural Resources Committee ranking member Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) said, “Today’s announcement will be spun by industry lobbyists as a clean bill of health for oil and gas developers around the country. Nothing could be further from the truth, as EPA’s own findings have shown. Irresponsible oil and gas development puts water quality at risk for millions of Americans, and no amount of spin can change that.”
He added, “Congress has wrongly exempted energy developers from laws that protect the very resources they most frequently damage, including our drinking water. Those exemptions need to end.”
Fracking's Supporters
Inhofe and other lawmakers supportive of the existing approach to fracking regulation said that EPA's draft findings bolster their position. For example, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) says that the administration has confirmed that fracking is a safe and reliable way to take advantage of energy resources and that the draft report's findings should persuade the administration to “get out of the way” and let the industry develop those resources.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), chair of the Energy & Natural Resources Committee, said the study shows that any new federal regulation of fracking “would only stand in the way of the successful work that states have been doing to regulate this process,” according to a press release from the panel. “Today’s study confirms what we already know. Hydraulic fracturing, when done to industry standards, does not impact drinking water,” Murkowski said. “States have been effectively regulating hydraulic fracturing for more than 40 years and this study is evidence of that.”
In the House, Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) suggested that the assessment helps to push back on calls for legislation to tighten regulation of fracking. “After five years of study, the EPA learned exactly what the states, industry and even some of the more competent bureaucrats in the Obama Administration have known for some time -- hydraulic fracturing is not a threat to drinking water. This report is damaging for the Administration and contradicts a predominant claim the White House has used to justify a federal fracturing rule,” Bishop said.
-
Jun 4, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
So even the Environmental Protection Agency now concedes that fracking is safe, which won’t surprise anyone familiar with the reality of unconventional oil and natural gas drilling in the U.S. But if no less than the EPA is saying this, then the political opposition doesn’t have much of a case left.
“We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States,” the EPA observes in a 1,399-page report and multiple appendices. By mechanisms, the researchers mean the practice of injecting water and chemicals into shale at high pressure to extract oil or natural gas.
The environmental movement has stoked speculative fears about chemical mixes leaching into aquifers, poisoned potable water and toxic spills. States including New York, Maryland, California and Vermont have used this pretext for fracking moratoriums or bans. Yet the EPA study is the most exhaustive review ever conducted of the scientific literature and fracking in practice. Dozens of researchers spent five years and likely tens of millions of dollars.
EPA’s conclusion really is remarkable. The agency has yearned for an excuse to take over fracking regulation from the states, which do the job well. So if there was so much as a sliver of evidence that fracking was dangerous, the EPA would have found it. Think of this as the Obama Administration’s equivalent of the Bush Administration failing to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
The truth is that state oversight, industry best practices and especially innovation in technology and engineering are more than adequate to protect water and the wider ecology, as well as the prosperity that fracking underwrites. The EPA paper even accepts that the domestic energy boom has “increased domestic energy supplies and brought economic benefits to many areas of the United States.”
Some areas—but not all. One exception is New York, where Governor Andrew Cuomo banned fracking by executive order after winning re-election last year. The Democrat hinted during his campaign that he was open to drilling, especially upstate atop the oil-and-gas-rich Marcellus Shale that straddles Pennsylvania and the Empire State.
But suddenly his health department rolled out a report full of dubious science concluding that it could not say with “absolute scientific certainty”—as if such a thing exists—that fracking does not endanger the public. The department cited “potential water contamination” and “the potential to affect drinking water quality.”
In other words, Mr. Cuomo’s sleuths couldn’t find conclusive evidence that fracking harms drinking water, so he banned it until they can. Even as formerly depressed and deindustrialized Pennsylvania regions benefit from drilling, over the border the unlucky saps must bow to the green superstitions of New York City elites.
The Rochester and Buffalo metro areas are the third and fourth poorest cities in America after Detroit and Cleveland, according to the Census, but they could become the northeastern capitals of the U.S. energy renaissance. When even the EPA blesses fracking, the self-serving political hackery behind Mr. Cuomo’s ban is exposed for all the world to see.
-
EPA: Fracking’s No Big Threat To Water
Jun 4, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
The EPA’s long-awaited report on fracking dismayed liberal green groups Thursday while pleasing the oil and gas industry — the latest episode in both sides’ fraught relationship with President Barack Obama.
The study, more than four years in the making, said the EPA has found no signs of “widespread, systemic” drinking water pollution from hydraulic fracturing. That conclusion dramatically runs afoul of one of the great green crusades of the past half-decade, which has portrayed the oil- and gas-extraction technique as a creator of fouled drinking water wells and flame-shooting faucets.
The report also jibes with Obama’s global warming policies, which have openly promoted the use of natural gas as a more climate-friendly alternative to coal. But for both anti-fracking groups and the industry, it came as yet another example of Obama’s mixed messages on fossil fuels — from the same administration that has stalled the Keystone XL pipeline and pushed to wipe out the oil industry’s tax breaks, yet is also moving to open up much of the East Coast and the Arctic to offshore drilling.
“This study’s main finding flies in the face of fracking’s dangerous reality,” Rachel Richardson, director of Environment America’s Stop Drilling program, said in a statement. “The fact is, dirty drilling has caused documented, widespread water contamination across the country.”
Thursday’s congressionally mandated EPA report, a compilation of past studies, found isolated incidents in which water pollution was attributable to the use of fracking. But it failed to back up the idea that fracking poses a major threat to water supplies, contradicting years of activists’ warnings dramatized by images of burning tap water in the Oscar-nominated documentary “Gasland.”
Those images have helped fuel a brush fire of grassroots resistance against fracking, a technology that has fostered energy booms in states like Pennsylvania and North Dakota while prompting authorities to ban the practice in places like New York state, Pittsburgh and even Denton, Texas.
Obama’s simultaneous embrace of both natural gas and an ambitious green-energy agenda has been one of the great paradoxes of his presidency — he has even lumped the two together under the heading of “wind, solar and natural gas.”
Marty Durbin, chief of the industry group America’s Natural Gas Alliance, described the EPA report as a sign of “real evolution in the president” when it comes to the economic and environmental benefits of gas. Still, Durbin was not prepared to declare Obama had become a complete booster of gas: “I’d hesitate to say that he’s either fully in our corner or working against us at every step.”
Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton has largely followed the same policy as Obama, calling for curbs on methane pollution from gas drilling sites while saying the fuel plays “an important bridge role in the transition to a cleaner energy economy.”
Some prominent Democrats remain split, though — New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has rejected fracking, for example, while California Gov. Jerry Brown supports it. The debate over fracking has been especially loud in the political swing states of Pennsylvania and Ohio, where fracking has created jobs and brought billions of dollars in new investments but also burdened communities with drilling rigs and heavy traffic.
Republicans are largely united in supporting fracking. And they made it clear they’ll use Thursday’s report as ammunition to oppose even the modest fracking regulations that the Obama administration has proposed, such as restrictions on the practice on public lands.
“The administration should now reconsider the burdensome regulations it intends to place on hydraulic fracturing on federal lands, and should certainly refrain from any notion of broader federal involvement in an issue that states and communities are safely managing,” House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said in a statement.
“States have been effectively regulating hydraulic fracturing for more than 40 years and this study is evidence of that,” Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said in a statement.
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said the EPA report should help “keep the federal government out of the lane of states” in overseeing fracking. Congress prohibited the EPA from regulating most forms of fracking in a 2005 update to the Safe Drinking Water Act — a change that greens have labeled the “Halliburton loophole” due to the presumed influence of then-Vice President Dick Cheney.
Earlier this year, 10 Senate Democrats joined every Republican in voting against a measure that would have rolled back that loophole. The EPA’s latest findings on drinking water promise to deepen that divide within Obama’s party over how closely the federal government should monitor fracking at a time when environmentalists hope to corral new support for reining in a shale drilling boom they warn would put the nation on an unsustainable path of continued greenhouse gas emissions.
But green groups found reasons to welcome the EPA’s study, even as they lamented the narrow data sets it used and criticized the energy industry for fighting against a more complete analysis. For example, environmentalists hailed EPA for belying oil and gas producers’ frequent claim that no documented case exists of groundwater contamination linked to the fracking process.
In the wake of Thursday’s report, the industry is no longer “saying there’s no problem,” Natural Resources Defense Council senior policy analyst Amy Mall said in an interview. “Their message has shifted in a way that has to acknowledge there have been some problems found here.”
Thomas Burke, EPA’s deputy assistant administrator for research and development, denied charges by multiple green groups that drillers had deliberately stymied the study by withholding key data. The agency had “a generally very cooperative relationship with industry” over the course of its research,” Burke told reporters.
Burke also noted that the study, which remains in draft form while it awaits review by outside EPA advisers and a public comment period, was not intended to judge the effectiveness of existing fracking regulations or the value of new limits, “nor was it intended to be a numerical catalogue of all episodes of contamination.”
The study did, however, put Obama’s EPA in a spot it rarely occupies: basic alignment with a fossil-fuel industry that has long fought fiercely against federal regulations.
Chris Tucker, a spokesman for the Independent Petroleum Association of America’s Energy in Depth project, contrasted the EPA report with the public health-focused report that the Cuomo administration released to support the New York state fracking ban.
While that New York report was “complete invention,” Tucker said by email, “what we have here is a product from EPA that, while not perfect, acknowledges officially what most of us have known forever, which is that there’s nothing inherently unsafe about this technology. Far from it.”
-
Lawmakers Spar Over EPA Study's Bottom Line
Jun 4, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The release of U.S. EPA's long-awaited hydraulic fracturing study prompted a flurry of reactions on Capitol Hill today, as Democrats who first commissioned the report praised its acknowledgment of fracking's risks, and Republicans cheered its conclusion that drinking water has not been widely affected.
The study, requested by Democrats in 2010, documented specific instances of drinking water contamination from fracking but concluded the evidence did not show any "widespread, systemic" impact on the nation's water. EPA officials declined to say whether the results mean fracking is "safe" or "unsafe," leaving stakeholders from both sides sparring over the report's bottom line (Greenwire, June 4).
"Today's announcement will be spun by industry lobbyists as a clean bill of health for oil and gas developers around the country," Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said in a statement. "Nothing could be further from the truth, as EPA's own findings have shown. Irresponsible oil and gas development puts water quality at risk for millions of Americans, and no amount of spin can change that."
The release did manage to create some consensus among lawmakers: that the results verify what they have believed for years. For Republicans, that long-held belief is in fracking's safety; for Democrats, in its risks.
"This draft report verifies what we have known for years, that hydraulic fracturing and related activities have the potential to severely impact drinking water and endanger public health and the environment," Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said in a statement. "While the number of cases studied may be small, the impacts to public health and safety are large."
Republicans, meanwhile, touted a long history of production and regulation in many of their home states as evidence of a safe track record.
"This EPA study confirms what we've known in Texas for more than 65 years; there is no direct link between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water contamination," Rep. Gene Green (R-Texas) said in a release. "Scientific evidence has long indicated that because there are thousands of feet of geologic separation between fracking activities and surface water, contamination by migration is extremely unlikely."
Other Republicans in Congress have indicated that the study's conclusion of no widespread impact undermine the Obama administration's justification for the Interior Department's new rule for fracking on public and American Indian lands.
"After five years of study, the EPA learned exactly what the states, industry and even some of the more competent bureaucrats in the Obama Administration have known for some time -- hydraulic fracturing is not a threat to drinking water," House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) said in a statement. "This report is damaging for the Administration and contradicts a predominant claim the White House has used to justify a federal fracturing rule."
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) signaled that Republicans may use the findings to try to block the fracking rule.
"I look forward to working with my colleagues to use the EPA's report to keep the federal government out of the lane of states who are responsibly monitoring and regulating the development of domestic energy resources," he said in a statement.
The study is a final draft, still subject to peer review and public comment, and is expected to be finalized next year.
-
EPA Study Cites Hydraulic Fracturing Risks But Sees No ‘Widespread, Systemic Impacts'
Jun 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Hydraulic fracturing and associated oil and natural gas drilling activities can threaten the quality or quantity of drinking water resources, but the instances of contamination have been relatively few, the Environmental Protection Agency said June 4 in the release of a long-awaited study.
“We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States,” the EPA said in its draft assessment of risks to drinking water.
“Of the potential mechanisms identified in this report, we found specific instances where one or more mechanisms led to impacts on drinking water resources, including contamination of drinking water wells. The number of identified cases, however, was small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells,” the report said.
The report used an expanded definition of drinking water resources, including in the category for undrinkable saline waters on the theory that those waters might someday be desalinated and used for drinking.
The importance of the 998-page report is that it can serve as a critical resource for federal, state, local and tribal authorities and for industry to better protect drinking water, said Thomas Burke, deputy assistant administrator of the EPA Office of Research and Development, during a telephone news conference.
EPA Official Cautious on Study
Several industry and environmental advocacy groups saw the draft assessment as a vindication of what they have been saying for years, despite their opposing views.
Burke was more cautious. The study is a compilation of data drawn from case studies and more than 950 other studies that can be used by policymakers and regulators as reference material for their work, Burke said.
“The study is not a human health risk assessment,” Burke said. Nor is it a policy document, nor does it identify policy options, he said. Nor was the study developed to quantify instances of contamination, he said.
The study itself said, “Although no attempt has been made in this assessment to identify or evaluate comprehensive best practices for states, tribes, or the industry, we describe ways to avoid or reduce the impacts of hydraulic fracturing activities as they have been reported in the scientific literature.”
The report, requested by Congress and planned by EPA in 2011, was released for public comment and peer review. The EPA Science Advisory Board will conduct the peer review and has scheduled three public teleconferences and a two-day meeting during Sept. 30-Oct. 30. Results of the peer review are not expected before 2016.
Contamination Risks Detailed
The draft assessment found that hydraulic fracturing poses the risk of contamination to drinking water from spills at the well site, mishandling of wastewater, underground leaks from flaws in well casing or well cementing, and drilling directly into drinking water resources—risks that have been recognized for decades.
“In the draft report, the agency appears to take a very broad definition and scope of fracturing and categorizes some processes that are not part of actual fracturing activity, such as casing and cementing of wells,” said Barry Russell, president of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, in a statement released after the report appeared.
The study repeatedly referenced “fracturing-related” activities connected to contamination incidents, leaving unclear the question of whether it was fracturing itself or something like poor well casing that led to a spill. Those factors can be interrelated, Burke indicated.
“There are instances where fracking itself led to problems with well construction that led to contamination,” Burke said.
The study cited examples drawn from 2006-2012 state and industry data.
“Casing at a production well near Killdeer, N.D., ruptured following a pressure spike during hydraulic fracturing, allowing fluids to escape to the surface,” the report said. “Brine and tert-butyl alcohol were detected in two nearby water wells. Following an analysis of potential sources, the only potential source consistent with the conditions observed in the two impacted wells was the well that ruptured.”
Water Resources Viewed Broadly
The study complicated the issue through its definition of drinking water resources. That had bearing especially on the report's treatment of drilling into some saline aquifers as drilling directly into drinking water resources.
The report did not make clear whether drilling and fracturing were ever conducted in freshwater resources.
Similarly, the report's examples of contamination through leaks typically referred to drinking water resources without specifying whether the leaks were into freshwater aquifers or untapped saline aquifers.
The definition for drinking water resources used by the EPA study was any water with total dissolved solids below 10,000 milligrams per liter. That is a common dividing point between moderately and highly saline water, and it is used, for example, by the U.S. Geological Survey.
U.S. drinking water systems typically restrict drinking water to less than 500 m/L total dissolved solids.
Data Limits Noted
“This study provides solid scientific analysis that fracking has contaminated drinking water around the country,” said Amy Mall, a senior policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defence Council, an activist group, in a statement released June 4.
“This study is missing some critical elements, hamstringing its comprehensiveness. Among other things, there are reports industry has not cooperated in providing important information,” Mall said.
The study cited some limitations on information available, such as claims of confidentiality for some chemicals used, sealed documents in litigation, or the scarcity of baseline water sampling prior to oil or gas drilling.
“There is a lack of baseline surface water and ground water quality data. This lack of data limits our ability to assess the relative change to water quality from a spill or attribute the presence of a contaminant to a specific source,” the study said.
But for the work on the five-year study, oil and gas companies were helpful, Burke said, remarking, “We had a generally very cooperative relationship with industry.”
Industry Sees Verification of Safety
Industry groups and some Republicans in Congress welcomed the study as a verification of the safety of hydraulic fracturing as practiced by U.S. companies and regulated by states.
“After more than five years and millions of dollars, the evidence gathered by EPA confirms what the agency has already acknowledged and what the oil and gas industry has known,” said Upstream Group Director Erik Milito of the American Petroleum Institute, an industry group. “Hydraulic fracturing is being done safely under the strong environmental stewardship of state regulators and industry best practices.”
Similar statements were released by Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), the chairmen, respectively, of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee.
Statements from Inhofe and Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, suggested the Obama administration has been looking for excuses to increase regulation of hydraulic fracturing, as it did with its final rule in March to update regulations for oil and gas drilling on federal lands (55 DEN A-14, 3/23/15).
Action by Congress Suggested
Three members of Congress focused in part on the study's notes about data limitations. “Congress must be looking closely at ways to close these data gaps moving forward in order to prevent any further contamination,” said a statement from Reps. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) and Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.).
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said, “This draft report verifies what we have known for years, that hydraulic fracturing and related activities have the potential to severely impact drinking water and endanger public health and the environment. While the number of cases studied may be small, the impacts to public health and safety are large.”
Markey may have been making a general reference to case studies that have appeared elsewhere when he mentioned public health and safety.
The EPA draft assessment said it “did not contain a human health risk assessment” and it “does not identify populations that are exposed to chemicals, estimate the extent of exposure, or estimate the incidence of human health impacts.”
-
Perry Promises To Boost Energy Industry 'On Day One'
Jun 4, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jennifer Yachnin
Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry today kicked off his second attempt to win the GOP presidential nomination, vowing to make a series of executive orders on energy policy on his first day in office.
In a speech near Dallas, Perry pitched his candidacy with a mix of personal anecdotes, criticism of the Obama administration and praise for the state where he served as governor for 14 years.
"There is nothing wrong in America today that a change in leadership will not make happen," Perry said. "We're just a few good decisions away from unleashing economic growth and reviving the American Dream."
During his remarks, Perry promised to take a number of executive actions "on day one" if he is elected to the White House, including approving permits for the Keystone XL pipeline and authorizing the export of domestic oil and gas. He also vowed to "issue an immediate freeze" on any pending regulations.
"Energy is vital to our economy, and I might add to our national security. On day one, I will sign an executive order authorizing the export of American natural gas and oil, freeing our European allies from dependence of Russia's energy supplies," Perry said. "Vladimir Putin uses energy to hold our allies hostage. So here's our message: If energy is going to be used as a weapon, America will have the largest arsenal."
Perry went on to also touch on international negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, vowing to work in opposition to those efforts.
"My very first act as president will be to rescind any agreement with Iran that legitimizes their quest to get a nuclear weapon," Perry said.
Perry briefly waded into the last GOP presidential primary fight, but flamed out in January 2012 after poor showings in both Iowa and New Hampshire, and memorable stumbles on the campaign trail including his infamous "Oops" moment at a November 2011 debate.
Perry became a punchline following that debate when he pitched plans to cut a trio of federal agencies if elected, but then couldn't recall the name of the third agency -- the Department of Energy -- that he wanted to dismantle.
A recent Fox News survey put Perry in the middle of the large Republican field, trailing front-runners including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush -- who announced today that he will make his own official campaign announcement June 15 in Miami -- and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who has not formally entered the race.
According to the poll of 1,006 registered voters conducted Sunday to Tuesday, Perry received 4 percent, tied with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Bush and Walker led the field with 12 percent each. The poll had a 3-point margin of error.
Other candidates in the GOP primary include Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, retired surgeon Ben Carson and former Hewlett-Packard Co. CEO Carly Fiorina.
-
Wisconsin Utility Files Lawsuit to Compel EPA Response on Power Plant Operating Permits
Jun 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
A Wisconsin utility is seeking a court order that would require the Environmental Protection Agency to respond to three petitions on Clean Air Act operating permits issued to two of the utility's power plants (Wis. Pub. Serv. Corp. v. EPA, W.D. Wis., No. 3:15-cv-337, 6/3/15).
The Wisconsin Public Service Corp., in a complaint filed June 3, alleged that the EPA is in violation of a Clean Air Act requirement that the agency must grant or deny the petitions within 60 days. All three petitions requested that the EPA object to certain provisions of Title V operating permits issued to WPSC power plants.
The utility in 2011 asked the EPA to object to a permit issued to the 187-megawatt De Pere generating facility in De Pere, Wis. The petition requested that the EPA object based on vague and unenforceable emissions limits included in the permit by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
The other two petitions deal with an operating permit issued to the 985-megawatt, coal-fired Weston plant in Rothschild, Wis.
The WPSC asked the agency to object the petition in 2013, alleging that the permit granted by the state impermissibly imposes or modifies preexisting requirements; imposes vague and unenforceable emissions limits and monitoring requirements; and failed to incorporate adequate averaging periods into compliance assurance monitoring provisions.
Wisconsin Agency Issued Revised Permit
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources in 2014 granted a revised permit for the Weston plant, but that permit didn't address all of the issues raised by the Wisconsin Public Service Corp. The utility then petitioned the EPA in November 2014 to object to the permit revisions.
The complaint requested that the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin issue a judgment compelling the EPA to respond to the 2011 De Pere petition and both the 2013 and 2014 Weston petitions under an “expeditious schedule” to be prescribed by the court.
-
Major Coal Producers Left Unscathed As Divestment Campaign Rumbles On
Jun 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Thomas Biesheuvel and Jesse Riseborough
The biggest names in mining have so far found themselves immune to a rapidly expanding campaign that is seeking to curb the use of the most polluting fossil fuel.
From Norway's $900 billion sovereign wealth fund to France's biggest insurer and the Church of England, investors are starting to turn the screw on coal producers by selling down their holdings.
The criteria they use to select candidates for divestment exempt some of the biggest producers, however. That is because those companies are large, diversified miners and only get a small part of their revenue from coal.
Dodging the divestment bullet, at least for now, are companies such as Glencore Plc, the world's biggest exporter of coal used in power stations, BHP Billiton Ltd., Rio Tinto Group and Anglo American Plc. Among them they mine more than 350 million tons, about one-third of the world's coal trade.
“There's a view that if they stop investing in it, or take a stance, that coal will go away,” said Mick Buffier, chairman of the World Coal Association and also an executive at Glencore. “Our view is different. Coal will continue to be needed. It's going to be used by these developing nations.”
Norwegian lawmakers last week agreed to ban the country's fund from investing in companies that make 30 percent of their sales from coal, while Axa SA said it will divest mining companies that get more than 50 percent of their revenue from coal (100 DEN A-9, 5/26/15). The Church of England has vowed not to invest in any business that gets more than 10 percent of its revenue from the carbonized plant matter (85 DEN A-10, 5/4/15).
Starting Point
“I definitely think that's a valid starting point,” said Philip Ripman, an environmental, government and social analyst at Storebrand ASA, referring to the 30 percent benchmark. The Norwegian fund manager started divesting from coal, power utilities and oil-sands companies in 2013.
Storebrand, which has $64 billion under management and doesn't set a revenue metric for coal investments, has so far excluded 41 companies including miners, utilities and oil-sands producers.
The pragmatic approach from investors has allowed them to land a symbolic blow against coal without having to risk dropping companies that make up a significant part of investment indexes. The four miners have a combined market value of about $280 billion.
The Church of England said it is able to engage with the biggest miners as they're not so dependent on coal for their future.
Constructive Role
The major miners “have the possibility of playing a constructive role in public policy on climate change in a way that is more clearly against the interests of pure play or less diversified companies,” the church said in a statement.
The addition of mainstream investors like Axa has added fresh impetus to the coal divestment campaign that's been dominated by churches, universities and socially conscious funds such as the Rockefeller Brothers. Last month Oxford University joined Stanford in saying it would halt investments in coal (96 DEN A-10, 5/19/15).
Key to the movement is the concern that rising temperatures caused by burning fossil fuels makes holding coal company shares a risky investment.
The UCL Institute for Sustainable Resources in London says 80 percent of coal should stay in the ground and unused before 2050 to limit temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), the maximum scientists say is safe.
Glencore Coal
Glencore, led by billionaire and former coal trader Ivan Glasenberg, mines coal from Australia to Colombia producing almost 150 million tons a year. Its revenues from the fuel are dwarfed by its commodity-trading operations that shift wheat, cotton, oil and zinc across the globe. Its coal business accounts for a mere 6 percent of sales.
Glencore is bullish on the longer-term outlook for the fuel and sees rising demand for decades to come, the Swiss company's head of coal Peter Freyberg said June 4 in Melbourne.
“There needs to be acknowledgment that coal is not going to be wished away,” Freyberg said, adding that 1.3 billion people remain without access to electricity. “Building coal-fired power is still the cheapest way of powering people out of poverty.”
Glasenberg is a vocal proponent of coal and sitting atop 4.3 billion tons of reserves of the fuel says he expects efforts to keep its fossil-fuels in the ground to fail in the face of world energy demand.
Impartial Approach
BHP, the world's biggest miner, produced about 70 million tons of thermal coal last year, while Rio mined 25 million tons, accounting for less than 10 percent of sales at both companies. Anglo American made about 11 percent of its sales from thermal coal last year, meaning it would fall short of the Church of England's investment criteria.
“Our key message is if you really want to address climate change you must provide more support on an impartial basis to the reducing of emissions from coal-fired generation and other uses of coal,” said Buffier of the World Coal Association. It represents the largest producers of the fuel and counts Glencore, BHP, Rio Tinto and Anglo American as members.
Peter Grauer, the chairman of Bloomberg LP, the parent of Bloomberg News, is a senior independent non-executive director of Glencore.
-
Georgetown Joins Stanford, Other Universities In Divesting Its Endowment From Coal
Jun 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Michael McDonald
Georgetown University will no longer make direct investments in coal companies, joining Stanford and other schools that have targeted the industry because of its contribution to climate change.
Georgetown, a Catholic university in Washington with a $1.5 billion endowment, said it will encourage external investment companies that help manage its portfolio to also avoid coal companies. The board's decision came in response to a student-led campaign seeking divestment from 200 publicly traded companies with the largest reserves of oil, gas and coal.
“The work of understanding and responding to the demands of climate change is urgent and complex,” President John DeGioia said in a statement. “It requires our most serious attention.”
Other Schools Not on Board
Divestment campaigns are dividing colleges across the U.S. as some of the wealthiest schools such as Harvard and Yale decline to cut their holdings. These schools say investment pools should be managed to generate the strongest returns and that the colleges are fighting climate change through research and teaching.
Georgetown is still evaluating its portfolio, according to spokeswoman Rachel Pugh. She said “an insubstantial amount” of the endowment is invested in companies whose principal business is coal mining.
Student activists with Georgetown Fossil Free thanked the school for what they called a “tiny step.” The group said Georgetown hasn't gone far enough because it will still hold stakes in oil and gas companies, “undermining its Jesuit values and global reputation as a moral leader.”
Stanford, which has a $21.4 billion endowment, made a similar announcement in May last year after students demanded it divest from all fossil fuel companies. Oxford University last month said that while it had no direct holdings of coal and oil sands companies, it would make those investments off limits in the future.
-
Georgetown To Divest Endowment From Coal Companies
Jun 4, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Georgetown University's board of directors approved a plan Thursday to divest its endowment from coal companies.
The Washington, D.C., university said its endowment — worth $1.5 billion — does not include many investments in coal to begin with, but that divesting now, and taking steps to prevent future investments, aligns with the school's Jesuit background.“The work of understanding and responding to the demands of climate change is urgent and complex," Georgetown President John DeGioia said in a statement. "It requires our most serious attention. As a university community, we can best respond to this evolving and ongoing challenge when we acknowledge the tensions embedded in this work — and the variety of perspectives that are present in this moment."
Georgetown University Fossil Free, a student-led campaign to convince the school to divest its fossil fuel holdings, said the new policy doesn't go far enough. The group had hoped Georgetown would end its investments in the 200 companies with the largest oil, gas and coal reserves, and it said the school's decision to divest only from companies directly tied to coal "is not a victory."
"If the Board had made their decision for principally moral reasons, then they would have supported full divestment from both direct and commingled funds from coal, oil and gas companies," the group said in a statement.
"If Georgetown understands coal investments to be immoral, the only reason not to divest from commingled funds which include coal would be because doing so is more logistically difficult than divesting from direct investments, a meager excuse considering the urgency of the climate crisis."
A spokesman for the Independent Petroleum Association of America said the group would have preferred Georgetown reject any level of divestment — as Santa Clara University did on Monday — but he said "no honest activist will consider this a victory."
“I think what you have is a school that took a really hard look at the divestment question and ended up concluding, like the vast majority of other institutions being solicited by activists, that divesting from oil and gas is a really bad idea," Matt Dempsey said.
-
KY. Republicans Press Moniz For Strategy On Shuttered Plant
Jun 5, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Hannah Northey
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his Republican colleagues from Kentucky yesterday pressed Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz to lay out a long-term strategy for the shuttered gaseous diffusion plant in Paducah, Ky.
McConnell, House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power Chairman Ed Whitfield, and Sen. Rand Paul met with Moniz and stressed the importance of cleaning up and reindustrializing the site.
"The Paducah DOE site is extremely important to the people of Paducah, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and to each of us," the Republicans said in a joint statement. "It is crucial that DOE develop a long-term strategy for the site to ensure that ongoing deactivation work and future decontamination and decommissioning work is done properly and executed in a timely manner. The DOE must maximize the resources it has been provided to promote job growth and preservation in Paducah, and we remain dedicated to ensuring that DOE commits to a long-term plan."
The plant was leased and operated by the U.S. Enrichment Corp. -- a subsidiary of Centrus Energy Corp. -- until October 2014. The facility produced low-enriched uranium fuel for commercial nuclear power plants in the United States and around the world from the 1960s to 2013.
Last year, McConnell debuted a six-figure television campaign touting his work to safeguard employees who developed cancer after working at the plant. McConnell at the time was facing a Republican primary challenge from businessman Matt Bevin, a tea party activist.
The ad featured the whispery voice of throat cancer survivor Robert Pierce, a former worker at the 60-year-old gaseous diffusion plant.
"Like many, I was exposed to radiation, and I got cancer," Pierce said in the ad. "But Mitch McConnell fought for us, creating cancer-screening programs and providing compensation for sick workers."
-
California Leaders See Climate Action as a Winning Political Issue
Jun 4, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Lauren Faber
It’s always inspiring to see people stand up and fight for issues that matter to them. In our world, when politics can at times seem petty or backwards, it’s especially uplifting to see politicians do this. And that’s exactly what’s happening inside California’s state capitol.
The three most powerful political leaders in the state – Governor Brown, Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León, and Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins – are moving in lockstep to enact an ambitious long-term climate and clean energy agenda. Yesterday, we witnessed a major demonstration of that political leadership when the pro tem and speaker marshalled support to move fundamental pieces of legislation through a key part of the lawmaking process – passing bills through their respective houses of origin.
The bills currently under consideration put in place a climate pollution reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 and reaffirm the ongoing role of market-mechanisms like cap-and-trade in California. They accomplish this while also codifying the governor’s goals to meet half of our energy demand with renewable energy, double energy efficiency in existing buildings, cut our harmful petroleum addiction in half, and reduce climate pollution 40 percent below 1990 levels all by 2030.
This practical, common-sense agenda to clean up California’s air builds on the state’s legacy of proven policies that deliver economic, social, and environmental wins. These same policies are also attracting growing industries, adding local advanced energy jobs, and creating more affordable and clean energy, transportation, and lifestyle choices.
A proven track record makes for good politics
The governor, pro tem, and speaker are not alone in their focus on climate action. Recent polling indicates that 70 percent of Californians support AB 32 – California’s 2006 landmark climate change law setting a goal of reducing climate pollution to 1990 levels by 2020. Better still, 83 percent of Californians support the goal of getting to 50 percent renewable electricity by 2030. Break these figures out by different regions across the state and the numbers remain high across every demographic, everywhere. With support from a diverse set of stakeholders including healthcare providers, multinational corporations, environmental justice organizations, and labor, it is clear these bills represent a winning formula for California.But California is not a political utopia – we haven’t won over everyone. The good news is, evidence is piling up that climate and clean energy policies are what’s right for California, regardless of your political affiliation or where you live in the state. This agenda does not have to be a partisan political agenda, because we are proving it is a people agenda.
Consider how our existing climate and clean energy policies are boosting our economy, expanding opportunities, and improving public health. In the midst of implementing the country’s most ambitious climate protection program, California is growing faster than the national average by every indication: gross domestic product (GDP), jobs, venture capital investment, and clean tech. In 2014 alone, California captured more than half of the total U.S. clean tech venture capital investment ($2.8 of the $5.5 billion), and over $20 billion since AB 32 (the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) was passed – more than the rest of the country combined. Over 400,000 Californians are now employed in the clean energy economy and these jobs are growing at a rate 10 times faster than the rate of overall job growth. And these are just the results we have seen so far.
By 2030, the state’s innovative clean transportation policies will save Californians over $8 billion on health care costs due to fewer asthma attacks, respiratory and cardiac hospitalizations, and premature deaths from poor air quality. Asthma is the leading cause of school absenteeism, one of the reasons why the California PTA recently called climate change “a children’s issue” and called for further action in the classroom and in policy circles.
The road ahead
In an exciting era where the news is increasingly dominated by headlines such as “California Helps Low Income Drivers Switch to Electric Cars,” “California Plans to Offer Free Solar Panels to Its Poorest Citizens,” and “Best State for Business? Yes, California” elected officials are eager to see progress continue.Thanks to the first three years of cap-and-trade, over $3 billion of auction funds have been budgeted and are starting to make their way out the door to deploy more distributed energy like solar, invigorate public transit, make cleaner cars more affordable, and increase the health and resilience of working and natural lands. Even in parts of the state where political leaders have not fully embraced climate action, we are already seeing tens of millions of dollars of investment being deployed which result in tangible benefits, especially in economically and environmentally disadvantaged communities.
Yesterday’s events represent a major step in the policymaking process to combat climate change and promote a sustainable economy powered by clean energy – and our elected officials rose to the challenge. Now, we need to keep this momentum up through the end of the legislative session this summer, and continue to expand the circle of supporters for this critical and transformational agenda.
As usual, the eyes of the world are trained on California, and as our climate policies are attracting economic growth at home, we are attracting new partners in other states and countries. World leaders will be gathering in Paris later this year for the U.N. climate conference and California’s long-term commitments and early wins will set an inspiring example for others to follow.
-
New Air Monitoring Methods Can Be Used To Determine Attainment With EPA Standards
Jun 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Several new air quality monitoring methods have been approved by the Environmental Protection Agency for use by state and local air quality agencies in charge of monitoring ambient pollution levels.
The EPA, in a notice scheduled for publication in the Federal Register June 5, designated new reference and equivalent methods for air quality monitoring that can be used to determine an area's compliance with national ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter.
The agency designated a new reference method for measuring fine particulate matter based on a sampler made by Met One Instruments Inc., which has been manufacturing particulate matter monitors since 1995. The EPA describes federal reference methods as the “gold standard” of air pollution monitoring. Designating federal methods help ensure that data collected at different monitoring sites are accurate and can be compared, according to the EPA.
The agency also designated several equivalent methods, which are based on different technologies than reference methods but are required to be just as accurate. The newly approved equivalent methods are:
• a Class II equivalent method for measuring fine particulate matter using a low-volume air particulate sampler made by Ohio-based Tisch Environmental Inc.;
• an equivalent method for measuring fine and coarse particulate matter using a pair of filter samplers from Tisch Environmental; and
• two new methods for monitoring ozone with automated analyzers that use ultraviolet absorption photometry.
The new reference and equivalent methods are now acceptable for use, provided state and local air monitoring agencies follow configuration or operations settings described in the notice, as well as the instruction manual associated with the monitors, the EPA said.
-
EPA Threatened With Lawsuit for Alleged Failure to Act on State Ozone Plans
Jun 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Sierra Club intends to sue the Environmental Protection Agency over an alleged failure to take required action on state plans for implementing the 2008 national ambient air quality standards for ozone.
The environmental group said the EPA failed to approve or disapprove of six state plans for meeting their “good neighbor” obligations under the Clean Air Act to address emissions of ozone precursors that could affect downwind areas.
The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to take final action on all infrastructure state implementation plan submittals within 12 months after a plan is deemed administratively complete, a deadline that the agency hasn't met for Louisiana, Montana, Nevada, New York, South Dakota and Wisconsin.
The Sierra Club also alleged that the EPA failed to promulgate federal implementation plans covering California and Kentucky after the agency determined those states hadn't submitted sufficient plans for implementing aspects of the 2008 ozone standards of 75 parts per billion. The agency was required to issue a federal plan for California by Feb. 14 and for Kentucky by April 8, but it failed to do so, according to the environmental group.
This wouldn't be the first lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club over implementation of the 2008 ozone standards. A federal district court earlier in May granted summary judgment to the Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians on the agency's failure to find that 26 states hadn't submitted required good neighbor plans for the ozone standards and required the EPA to act on those plans over the next 16 months (Sierra Club v. McCarthy, 2015 BL 133964, N.D. Cal., No. 4:14-cv-5091, 5/7/15; 95 DEN A-1, 5/18/15).
EPA Given 60 Days to Respond
The notice of intent to sue, dated June 1, gives the EPA until July 31 to respond.
The Sierra Club said it would prefer to resolve the issue without litigation, but said it will file a lawsuit if the agency doesn't contact the group's counsel within 60 days.
Robert Ukeiley, counsel for the Sierra Club, told Bloomberg BNA June 2 that a court order requiring the EPA to promulgate a federal implementation plan for Kentucky would mandate that the state obtain emissions reductions that downwind states, such as Delaware and Connecticut, are entitled to, albeit seven years after the standards were issued.
Ukeiley said it is notable that the EPA has failed to promulgate a federal plan for Kentucky, given that the agency used the existence of the good neighbor provision to deny requests by Delaware and Connecticut to designate broad, multi-state nonattainment areas to address the issue of ozone transport. The agency opted not to designate multi-state nonattainment areas for the 2008 standards, but also refused to implement the other tool to address ozone transport, Ukeiley said.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit June 2 denied all challenges to the EPA's area designations for the 2008 standards, including the challenges raised by Delaware and Connecticut. The three-judge panel gave deference to the agency's interpretation of the word “nearby” to include counties within the same metropolitan area as a county that violates the ozone standards and to not adopt the broader definition sought by Delaware and Connecticut (Miss. Comm'n on Envtl. Quality v. EPA, 2015 BL 133964 (D.C. Cir. 2015); 106 DEN A-2, 6/3/15).
-
Senate Moderates Mum on Bill Forcing Redo Of Waters Rule, as Path to Passage Seen
Jun 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Moderate Senate Democrats remain coy about whether they will support legislation forcing a rewrite of a controversial Clean Water Act regulation, giving proponents hope the chamber may be within striking distance of passing it.
The Federal Water Quality Protection Act (S. 1140) already has the support of three moderate Democrats—Sens. Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) and Joe Manchin (W.Va.)—but would need the support of three more and all of the Republican caucus to overcome a potential filibuster.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Donnelly, the bill's sponsors, said they continue to build support for the proposal and are working to secure a veto-proof majority of 67 votes for their measure.
Senate Democrats interviewed by Bloomberg BNA the week of June 1 expressed continuing reservations about portions of the rule—though several noted significant improvements from the proposal—but declined to state whether they would support S. 1140.
“We're still looking at it,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) told Bloomberg BNA. “I'm glad they made the improvements on ditches. That's all I have right now.”
Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and the office of Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) all indicated they were still reviewing the final waters of the U.S. regulation, finalized by the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers May 27, and declined to take a position on the legislation.
“There are things I like in it—it's better than I expected in some ways,” McCaskill told Bloomberg BNA. “There's other parts of it where I still have some concerns, but we want to wait until we get to the end of the process” to “figure out the right way forward.”
Rule Provides Clarity
The EPA said its final regulation would provide clarity over which wetlands and waterways could be regulated under the Clean Water Act. The joint rule (RIN 2040-AF30) would cover all ephemeral, intermittent and perennial streams and potentially certain other isolated waters to be determined on a case-by-case basis (102 DEN A-1, 5/28/15).
Controversial since the beginning, critics say the final rule will impose significant burdens on farmers, ranchers and other industries, harm job growth and that it exceeds the regulatory authority of both agencies.
Partially in response to those concerns from the agricultural and construction industries, Donnelly and Barrasso introduced their bill on April 30. The legislation would require both agencies to rewrite the clean water rule no later than Dec. 31, 2016, and force them to follow prescriptive guidelines outlined in the legislation.
The bill takes a different approach than the House-passed Regulatory Integrity Protection Act (H.R. 1732), which would force the withdrawal of the current rule and outlines broader requirement for a new one. Senate proponents say their legislation contains specific guidelines meant to attract moderate Democratic support (92 DEN A-3, 5/13/15).
“Senator Donnelly introduced the bipartisan Federal Water Quality Protection Act with Senator Barrasso because the EPA wrote this rule without much input from some of the people who care about this rule the most—farmers, small business owners, and leaders of towns and cities,” Elizabeth Shappell, a spokeswoman for Donnelly, told Bloomberg BNA. “He will continue to work with his colleagues from both sides of the aisle to build support for and pass the Federal Water Quality Protection Act to require the EPA to get this right.”
Additional Feedback Required
Many of those moderate Democrats targeted by bill proponents said they needed to get additional input from affected parties before deciding how to proceed on the legislation.
“Sen. Warner will carefully review the administration's proposal and looks forward to discussing it with Virginia families, farmers and producers, environmental advocates, local governments and businesses in the weeks ahead,” a spokesman for the Virginia Democrat told Bloomberg BNA.
While many Democrats expressed lingering concerns over the regulation, some thanked the EPA for incorporating changes they sought into the final version of the rule. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), ranking member on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, told Bloomberg BNA the revisions in the final rule made a total rewrite unnecessary.
“I think they've done, certainly, what we asked them to do in agriculture,” Stabenow said. “I'd have to see what [the bill] was, but I don't think a total rewrite is necessary.”
-
EPA Agrees With GAO's Call For New Policy On Lawmakers' SAB Inquiries
Jun 4, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
EPA is agreeing with the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) call to craft a new policy for how to respond to Congress' inquiries about its Science Advisory Board (SAB) and other advisory panels, though GOP lawmakers say that GAO has found broader flaws with the SAB process that warrant legislation to overhaul the board.
In EPA's response to a June 4 GAO report, “EPA’s Science Advisory Board: Improved Procedures Needed to Process Congressional Requests for Scientific Advice,” John Reeder, the agency's deputy chief of staff, says it will either amend SAB's charter, develop separate guidance or both to “clarify the process by which congressional requests will be received and addressed,” including new criteria for crafting responses to those inquiries.
GAO's report, prepared in response to a request from Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW) Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK) and House Science, Space & Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX), finds that EPA has recently adopted conflicting policies on responding to congressional requests for data or analysis from the SAB.
The report says a 2014 EPA guidance tasks each science panel's designated federal officer with evaluating congressional requests on a case-by-case basis, while SAB's charter, which is up for renewal in 2015, “ indicates that they should be handled through the EPA Administrator and provides no further information.”
“While EPA has documented its policies, they are not clear,” and no policy “clearly documents EPA’s procedures for reviewing congressional committee requests to determine which questions would be taken up by the SAB,” it says.
The report further notes that “EPA policy documents do not specify how the SAB would respond on its own initiative to a congressional committee’s request for scientific advice unrelated to an existing EPA charge question,” as it would be required to do under the Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA).
EPA's Reeder in his May 22 response to an earlier draft of the GAO report pledges that the agency will develop a single policy for evaluating and responding to Congressional requests to SAB, although he gives no hint of what the substance of that policy will be.
“We are pleased that the GAO's report, as evidenced in the recommendations, recognizes that the agency is authorized to establish procedures for the review and processing of congressional requests for scientific advice from the SAB . . . and will move to establish procedures for agency review and processing of such requests,” Reeder says in the response.
He adds that in the future the agency will post SAB letters and reports prepared in response to requests from Congress on its public website as well as sending copies to the relevant legislative committees, in order to address GAO criticism that EPA had no written procedure for relaying the documents, which could lead to the perception “that EPA is withholding information from Congress.”
Legislative Push
Although EPA is agreeing with GAO's recommendations, Inhofe and other GOP legislators are citing the report as proof that new legislation is necessary to reform SAB and make EPA science more transparent.
In a joint June 4 press release, Inhofe and Smith cite findings in the report that EPA's SAB policies “do not ensure compliance with ERDDAA” because of the lack of guidance for responding to legislators' requests.
They also note GAO's findings that the agency has chosen not to seek advice from the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) on social, economic or energy effects from its national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) rules -- which EPA critics have urged it to do.
“This is in part because NAAQS are to be based on public health and welfare criteria, so information on the social, economic, or energy effects of NAAQS are not specifically relevant to setting NAAQS,” the report says.
But Smith in the release counters that “Given the importance of ensuring that Congress and EPA have high quality scientific information, the findings of the GAO are troubling. The GAO found that EPA limited both the SAB and CASAC from conducting full reviews and providing complete scientific advice, as required by law. As a result, the valuable advice of these experts has been wasted.”
Smith and Inhofe argue that the report shows the need for S. 543, which would require a percentage of SAB members come from state or tribal governments, provide financial disclosure statements to prevent conflicts of interest and add opportunities for public comment during the review process.
But environmentalists have charged that the bill would undermine the scientific process underpinning agency rulemakings, while the White House has issued a veto threat for a similar House bill, H.R. 1029, that cleared the lower chamber in a 236-181 vote March 17. “H.R. 1029 would negatively affect the appointment of experts and would weaken the scientific independence and integrity of the SAB. For example, the bill would impose a hiring quota for SAB members based on employment by a State, local, or tribal government as opposed to scientific expertise,” among other concerns about the legislation that prompted the veto threat,” says a Statement of Administration Policy.
-
EPA to Update Procedures for Processing Congressional Requests to Science Panel
Jun 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency plans to update its procedures for processing and documenting congressional requests for advice from the Science Advisory Board.
The EPA said in a Government Accountability Office report released June 4 that it will either update the charter for the Science Advisory Board or issue additional written procedures to clarify the process by which congressional requests are presented to the panel.
The EPA had been processing congressional requests to the advisory board as it would its own internal requests, which includes reviewing whether the questions pertain to science or policy and whether they present important questions for the agency.
The Government Accountability Office said in its report, “EPA's Science Advisory Board: Improved Procedures Needed to Process Congressional Requests for Scientific Advice,” that approach may not comply with the requirements of the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978, which allows some congressional committees to seek advice from the EPA's Science Advisory Board, regardless of the agency's evaluation of the request.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said the report's findings underscore the need for Congress to reform the EPA's Science Advisory Board.
“Under the Obama Administration, a pattern has emerged where EPA compromises the independence of its science advisors, in part, by limiting the ability for advisors to review critical science and regulatory actions,” Inhofe said in a June 4 statement.
Boozman Introduced Bill to Address Concerns
Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.) has introduced the Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015 (S. 543), which would amend the 1978 law to revise the process of selecting the board's members, guidelines for participation in board advisory activities and terms of office.
However, senators raised concerns about politics prompting reforms to the advisory board during a May 20 hearing (98 DEN A-16, 5/21/15).
The GAO report was requested by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
As part of its review, GAO said the EPA also has failed to seek advice from its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee on any adverse social, economic or energy impacts of revising its national ambient air quality standards, which must be reviewed every five years. The committee has said it would provide that advice to the EPA if requested, but it has never been included in the charge questions.
Issue Raised in 2014
Jeff Holmstead, an attorney with Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, had raised that issue in 2014 during the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee's review of the air quality standards for ozone (103 DEN A-2, 5/29/14).
The EPA has proposed (RIN 2060-AP38) to set the ozone standards to somewhere in the range of 65 parts per billion to 70 ppb, a regulation that the agency estimates could cost up to $16.6 billion annually. The agency has a court-ordered deadline of Oct. 1 to issue a final decision on whether to revise or retain the standards.
-
NS 9-1-1 Honors First Responders
Jun 4, 2015 | Railway Age
By William C. Vantuono
At Washington, D.C.’s Union Station, Norfolk Southern dedicated its latest commemorative locomotive, an SD60E painted in a vibrant red, white and black livery with gold accents and insignia recognizing police, fire, and emergency services, honoring first responders. Numbered 9-1-1, the locomotive will enter general revenue service on NS’s 22-state network.
No. 9-1-1, its paint scheme designed by NS’s Visual Communications department and painted at the railroad’s Juniata Locomotive Shop in Altoona, Pa., features the Maltese Cross of fire services, the Emergency Medical Services’ “Star of Life,” and the Police shield. It also features the logo for Transportation Community Awareness and Emergency Response (TRANSCAER), a national outreach organization dedicated to providing education and resources to help raise the level of emergency preparedness for the unlikely event of a rail incident. “9-1-1” recognizes the national universal phone number to request emergency assistance, as well as the Norfolk Southern OAR (Operation Awareness & Response) shield. OAR is an NS program to educate the public about the economic importance of the safe movement of hazardous materials by rail to connect emergency first responders in NS communities with information and training resources.
NS says it is “a nationally recognized leader in providing training and educational resources to first responders. NS earned TRANSCAER’s 2014 National Achievement Award, the 15th time TRANSCAER has recognized NS for its efforts to help communities prepare for and respond to hazmat transportation incidents.” The railroad conducted or participated in 98 TRANSCAER community outreach events in 17 states during 2014. These included classroom and hands-on training, tabletop simulations and full-scale exercises that provided training for 5,442 emergency first responders. NS assisted in the development of the AskRail app that allows first responders to use their mobile phones to look up commodity and response information on shipments. NS also reaffirmed its commitment to providing high-level training at the Security and Emergency Response Training Center at TTCI in Pueblo, Colo.
“The relationships we have with first responders across our network are vital components of operating a safe transportation system,” said NS President and CEO Jim Squires. “We hope everyone who sees this locomotive will think about the dedication, the expertise and the sacrifices first responders make to serve our communities. We at Norfolk Southern are grateful for their support, bravery, and partnership. Incidents involving trains and hazardous materials are rare. This is a safe mode of transportation. To make it even safer, communities and Norfolk Southern work together to raise the level of emergency preparedness, which is why we continuously facilitate training, dialogue and partnerships with emergency response leaders across our network.”
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested