"Groundbreaking, Bipartisan Agreement" To Modernize TSCA

May 22: U.S. Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and David Vitter (R-LA) announced what they called a "groundbreaking, bipartisan agreement" to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and ensure the safety of everyday consumer products to better protect American families. The Senators said the legislation would significantly update and improve TSCA, which has proven ineffective and is criticized by both the public health community and industry. The Lautenberg-Vitter legislation would, for the first time, ensure that all chemicals are screened for safety to protect public health and the environment, while also creating an environment where manufacturers can continue to innovate, grow, and create jobs.

    The Lautenberg-Vitter "Chemical Safety Improvement Act of 2013" is co-sponsored by U.S. Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Charles Schumer (D-NY), James Inhofe (R-OK), Tom Udall (D-NM), Susan Collins (R-ME), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Joe Manchin (D-WV), John Boozman (R-AR), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and John Hoeven (R-ND).

 

    Under current law, U.S. EPA can call for safety testing only after evidence surfaces demonstrating a chemical may be dangerous. As a result, EPA has only been able to require testing for roughly 200 of the more than 84,000 chemicals currently registered in the United States, and has been able to ban only five dangerous substances since TSCA was first enacted in 1976. These shortfalls led the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to identify TSCA as a "high risk" area of the law in 2009.

    Senator Lautenberg, who first introduced legislation to reform TSCA in 2005 said, "This bipartisan agreement is an historic step toward meaningful reform that protects American families and consumers. Every parent wants to know that the chemicals used in everyday products have been proven safe, but our current chemical laws fail to give parents that peace of mind. Our bipartisan bill would fix the flaws with current law and ensure that chemicals are screened for safety." Senator Vitter, the Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee said, "Our bill strikes the right balance between strengthening consumer confidence in the safety of chemicals, while also promoting innovation and the growth of an important sector of our economy. Chemical manufacturing is a big part of Louisiana's economy and across the country, and the Chemical Safety Improvement Act establishes a program that should provide confidence to the public and consumers, by giving the EPA the tools it needs to make critical determinations while providing a more transparent process. The benefit of such a system is that industry should also have more confidence that the federal system works to facilitate innovation and grow our economy." 

    Richard Denison, Senior Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said, "This bill is both a policy and political breakthrough. It gives EPA vital new tools to identify chemicals of both high and low concern, and to reduce exposure to those that pose risks. And while this bill represents a hard-fought compromise, it opens, at last, a bipartisan path forward to fix our badly outmoded system to ensure the safety of chemicals in everyday use." While supporting the bill, EDF also said, "There are some deficiencies in the legislation. . . The bill contains too few deadlines by which EPA needs to initiate and complete actions. Also, while EPA would be required to consider the heightened vulnerability of some subpopulations (including infants and children), EPA would have only limited means to address disproportionately high chemical exposures experienced by residents in many communities in America."

    Cal Dooley, President and CEO of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) said, "From life-saving medicines, to energy efficient build materials, chemistry is responsible for countless innovations that have transformed society. America's chemical industry is a critical source of economic growth and good-paying jobs across the country. Achieving sound, balanced TSCA reform that enhances public confidence in the safety of chemicals and enables America to remain the world's leading innovator is our top priority. This bipartisan compromise legislation will put safety first, while also promoting innovation, economic growth and job creation -- goals that are critical to our industry, to our nearly 800,000 employees and to the many other industries that rely on the products of chemistry. In particular, we appreciate the tremendous work of Senators Lautenberg and Vitter and their staffs to develop a solution that could garner support from both the environmental community and industry. Through their deep commitment to this issue, we now have a historic legislative opportunity that can be embraced by both sides of the aisle, an accomplishment all too rare in Washington today."

    According to a release from the Senators, in contrast to existing law, the Lautenberg-Vitter "Chemical Safety Improvement Act of 2013" would:

• Require Safety Evaluations for All Chemicals: All active chemicals in commerce must be evaluated for safety and labeled as either "high" or "low" priority chemical based on potential risk to human health and the environment. For high priority chemicals, EPA must conduct further safety evaluations.
• Protect Public Health from Unsafe Chemicals: If a chemical is found to be unsafe, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the necessary authority to take action. This can range from labeling requirements to the full phase-out or ban of a chemical.
• Prioritize Chemicals for Review: The Environmental Protection Agency will have to transparently assess risk, determine safety, and apply any needed measures to manage risks.
• Screen New Chemicals for Safety: New chemicals entering the market must be screened for safety and the EPA is given the authority to prohibit unsafe chemicals from entering the market.
• Secure Necessary Health and Safety Information: The legislation allows EPA to secure necessary health and safety information from chemical manufacturers, while directing EPA to rely first on existing information to avoid duplicative testing.
• Promote Innovation and Safer Chemistry: This legislation provides clear paths to getting new chemistry on the market and protects trade secrets and intellectual property from disclosure.
• Protect Children and Pregnant Women: The legislation requires EPA to evaluate the risks posed to particularly vulnerable populations, such as children and pregnant women, when evaluating the safety of a chemical-a provision not included in existing law.
• Give States and Municipalities a Say: States and local governments will have the opportunity to provide input on prioritization, safety assessment and the safety determination processes, requiring timely response from EPA, and the bill establishes a waiver process to allow state regulations or laws to remain in effect when circumstances warrant it.

    Access a release from the Senators (click here). Access a separate release from ACC (click here). Access a separate release from EDF (click here). [#Toxics]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

U.S. Chamber Report Critical Of "Sue and Settle" Process

May 20: A report released by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce entitled, Sue and Settle: Regulating Behind Closed Doors, indicates that the "sue and settle" process, where environmental advocacy groups sue Federal agencies to issue regulations by a specific deadline, is being abused, "resulting in interested parties being shut out of regulatory decisions by key federal agencies, particularly the Environmental Protection Agency" (U.S. EPA). The report identifies at least 60 different occasions between 2009 and 2012 where the EPA chose not to defend itself in lawsuits brought by special interest advocacy groups and in each case agreed to settlements on terms favorable to those groups. The settlements directly resulted in EPA agreeing to propose more than 100 new regulations, many of which would impose compliance costs in the tens of millions and even billions of dollars. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has also been receptive to sue and settle lawsuits, agreeing to propose adding over 700 new candidates to the Endangered Species list. The "sue and settle" issue has been a major concern of Senate Republicans during the nomination process for the President's nominee of Gina McCarthy to head EPA [See WIMS 5/16/13].

    Bill Kovacs, the Chamber's senior vice president for the Environment, Technology and Regulatory Affairs said, "It is clear that the sue and settle process is increasingly being used as a technique to shape agencies' regulatory agendas, without input from the public or the regulated community. From a new wave of endangered species listings to the EPA's federalization of the Chesapeake Bay cleanup program, to the federal takeover of regional haze programs, this report outlines how recent sue and settle arrangements have been used to serve the ends of a few favored interest groups."

    In a release the Chamber indicates that as a result of the sue and settle process, the agency submits to the binding terms of settlement agreements, using congressionally appropriated funds to achieve the demands of specific outside groups. This process also allows agencies to avoid the normal protections built into the rulemaking process -- review by the Office of Management and Budget and the public, and compliance with executive orders -- as the agency's new obligation is created.

    The Chamber indicates that regulations resulting from sue and settle agreements include the Utility MACT rule, costing up to $9.6 billion annually; the Chesapeake Bay Clean Water Act Rules, costing up to $18 billion; and the various regional haze rules that EPA has imposed on the states, which are estimated to total $2.16 billion in new costs. FWS spent more than 75% of their FY 2011 allocation for endangered species listing and critical habitat designation to take actions required by court orders or settlement agreements resulting from litigation. Kovacs added, "Sue and settle allows agencies to avoid the normal protections built into the rulemaking process, including Congressional oversight and reviews by the public. The most effective solution to sue and settle lies with Congress, and they should pass recently-introduced legislation to address this issue without delay. Our hope is that by shining the light on how this process is abused by special interest groups, we can enact much-needed reforms to protect the integrity of the rulemaking process."

    Representative Doug Collins (R-GA), and Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA), have introduced companion legislation, H.R.1493 & S.714, respectively, to eliminate "sue and settle." The Members issued a joint release on April 11, 2013. Senator Grassley said, "Sue-and-settle litigation damages the transparency, public participation and judicial review protections Congress has guaranteed for all of our citizens in the rulemaking process.  And, it's a tremendous burden on job-creating businesses, especially small businesses. This kind of regulatory litigation also adversely affects the ability of the executive branch to engage in sound and principled decision-making. The goal of this bill is to make sure all citizens, especially those directly impacted by a proposed regulation, have a meaningful opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process and help ensure the procedure and process used to create these regulations are made in the open. America's system of lawmaking and judicial review shouldn't be distorted or manipulated."

    Representative Collins said, "The Obama Administration has empowered agencies to subvert the legislative process and manipulate the rulemaking system to achieve their pro-regulation agenda. Strong reforms are needed to protect communities and businesses against burdensome regulations that circumvent the rulemaking process. This legislation sheds light on the regulation through litigation that is crippling small businesses in my district and across the nation. Improving the public participation and transparency protections of the Administrative Procedure Act is vital to preserving the integrity of the rulemaking process."

    As part of the nomination process for Gina McCarthy for EPA Administrator, Senator David Vitter (R-LA) has indicated that among other concessions, EPA has agreed to: ". . . post notices of intent on the EPA website as well as commits to establishing a website to post petitions for rulemaking submitted to the Agency." Additionally, Republicans have requested EPA to: "Give intervenors immediate notice of any initiation of settlement discussions that come from legal actions brought against the Agency."

    Access a release from the Chamber (click here). Access an overview, list of rules, recommendations, executive summary, and the complete 54-page report (click here). Access a release from the Members on the legislation (click here). Access the release, letter and agreements from Sen. Vitter (click here). Access legislative details for S.714 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.1493 (click here). [#All]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

President Signs Infrastructure Permitting Memorandum

May 17: The White House reports that as part of the Administration's effort to make America a magnet for jobs by building a 21st Century infrastructure, the President Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum that will modernize the Federal infrastructure permitting process, cutting timelines in half for major infrastructure projects while creating incentives for better outcomes for communities and the environment. In March 2012, the President issued an Executive Order launching a government-wide initiative to improve the efficiency of Federal review and permitting of infrastructure projects.  Since then, agencies have expedited the review and permitting of 50 major projects, including bridges, transit projects, railways, waterways, roads, and renewable energy.  In just one example, Federal agencies recently approved the Tappan Zee Bridge replacement project in New York, saving up to three years on the timeline of a multi-billion project that will help put Americans back to work.

 

    As a result of the President's Executive Order, agencies have also identified a set of best practices for efficient review and permitting, which range from expanding information technology (IT) tools to strategies for improving collaboration, such as having multiple agencies review a project at the same time, instead of one after the other. The Presidential Memorandum institutionalizes these best practices, directing all relevant agencies to put them into effect.

 

    The permitting modernization effort represents an important component of the President's larger effort to grow the economy, accelerate job creation, and improve U.S. competitiveness by building a 21st Century infrastructure.  Notably, the President's Budget calls for immediately investing $50 billion in our Nation's transportation infrastructure, with $40 billion devoted to "fix-it-first" projects that target areas in the most urgent need of repair. The President also proposed a "Rebuild America Partnership," creating tools to encourage partnerships between the private sector and Federal, State, and local governments to enhance the role of private capital in U.S. infrastructure investment and ensure America has the best transportation, electric, water, and communications networks in the world.

 

    Among other items, the Memorandum provides that, "The Steering Committee on Federal Infrastructure Permitting and Review Process Improvement (Steering Committee), established by Executive Order 13604, shall work with the Chief Performance Officer (CPO), in coordination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), to modernize Federal infrastructure review and permitting regulations, policies, and procedures to significantly reduce the aggregate time required by the Federal Government to make decisions in the review and permitting of infrastructure projects, while improving environmental and community outcomes."

 

    Access a White House release and link to the first annual Report to the President and the Administration's Infrastructure Permitting Dashboard (click here). Access the Memorandum (click here). [#All] 

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

DOI Releases Updated Proposed Fracking Safety Standards

May 16: The Department of the Interior (DOI) announced the release of an updated draft proposal that would establish what they indicated were "commonsense safety standards" for hydraulic fracturing (or fracking) on public and Indian lands. Following the release of an initial draft proposal in 2012, Interior received extensive feedback, including over 177,000 public comments that helped inform the updated draft proposal. The new proposal maintains important safety standards, improves integration with existing state and tribal standards, and increases flexibility for oil and gas developers. The updated draft proposal will be subject to a new 30-day public comment period.

    DOI Secretary Sally Jewell said, "As the President has made clear, this administration's priority is to continue to expand safe and responsible domestic energy production. In line with that goal, we are proposing some commonsense updates that increase safety while also providing flexibility and facilitating coordination with states and tribes. As we continue to offer millions of acres of America's public lands for oil and gas development, it is important that the public has full confidence that the right safety and environmental protections are in place." DOI indicated that approximately 90 percent of wells drilled on Federal and Indian lands use hydraulic fracturing, but the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) current regulations governing hydraulic fracturing operations on public lands are more than 30 years old and were not written to address modern hydraulic fracturing activities. The revised proposed rule will modernize BLM's management of hydraulic fracturing operations, and help to establish baseline environmental safeguards for these operations across all public and Indian lands.

    DOI indicated that the updated draft proposal maintains the three main components of the initial proposal: requiring operators to disclose the chemicals they use in fracturing activities on public lands; improving assurances of well-bore integrity to verify that fluids used during fracturing operations are not contaminating groundwater; and confirming that oil and gas operators have a water management plan in place for handling fluids that flow back to the surface. Building on preliminary input from key stakeholders and recommendations from the Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary's Advisory Board in 2011, the BLM proposed a draft rule in 2012 that took into account technologies already in use by companies to protect water resources, and existing methods for improving transparency through disclosure of the chemicals used in fracturing fluids [See WIMS 5/4/12].

    The updated draft proposal addresses many of the more than 177,000 public comments that the BLM received during the initial 120-day public comment period that ended last fall, as well as other feedback received during eight forums and other meetings held with representatives of American Indian tribes. BLM Principal Deputy Director Neil Kornze said, "We know from experience that hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling methods can be used safely and effectively, employing many of the best management practices reflected in this draft rule. Our thorough review of all the comments convinced us that we could maintain a strong level of protection of health, safety, and the environment while allowing for increased flexibility and reduced regulatory duplication."

    DOI indicated that the supplemental proposal being released revises the array of tools operators may use to show that water is being protected, and provides more guidance on trade secret disclosure, while providing additional flexibility for meeting these objectives. While the revised draft seeks to establish baseline environmental safeguards across all public and Indian lands, it also complements efforts of several states that are regulating hydraulic fracturing, including Colorado, Wyoming, North Dakota, and Texas. The proposal includes a variance process that allows for deferring to states and tribes that already have standards in place that meet or exceed those proposed by this rule.

    Although the BLM is not proposing a material change in the provision that allows hydraulic fracturing flowback fluids to be stored either in tanks or in lined pits, the BLM is seeking comments on the costs and benefits of requiring flowback fluids to only be stored in closed tanks. A 30-day comment period begins when the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register. DOI indicated that once comments on the updated draft have been collected and analyzed, the BLM expects to issue a final rule that will ensure that operators apply proven cost-effective safety and environmental protection processes when engaging in hydraulic fracturing on public and Indian lands.

    U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources (ENR) Committee said, "It's my belief that the states are prudently regulating hydraulic fracturing, and that BLM's revised rule should closely track state regulations. Federal regulators seem to acknowledge as much by asking for comments on a process that would allow drilling companies to follow state and tribal regulations that meet or exceed those proposed by this rule. While I'm still reviewing the full rule, it appears BLM has addressed some of the concerns, but we still must guard against duplicative and potentially contradictory regulations."

    The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) President Frances Beinecke issued a statement commenting on the proposed rules saying, "These rules protect industry, not people. They are riddled with gaping holes that endanger clean, safe drinking water supplies for millions of Americans nationwide.  They also put the fate of millions of acres of America's last remaining wild places in jeopardy. With fracking already moving full steam ahead on federal lands, we need protective ground rules for communities and the environment. Instead, this draft is a blueprint for business-as-usual industrialization of our landscapes. The administration has a responsibility to be a leader in guarding against the risks of fracking. They must shift the direction away from industry wish lists and toward drinking water protection. That means addressing the major shortfalls in this draft before issuing a final rule, and preventing expanded fracking from moving forward unless and until sufficient safeguards are in place."

    Michael Brune, Executive Director of the Sierra Club, issued a statement saying, "The Sierra Club is alarmed and disappointed by the fundamental inadequacy of the Bureau of Land Management's new proposed fracking regulations. After reviewing the draft rules, we believe the administration is putting the American public's health and well-being at risk, while continuing to give polluters a free ride. The draft BLM rules ignore the recommendations of the president's own shale gas advisory committee, which called for transparency, full public chemical disclosure, environmental safeguards, and pollution monitoring.

    "Although no amount of regulation will make fracking acceptable, the proposed BLM rules fail even to take obvious steps to make it safer. This proposal does not require drillers to disclose all chemicals being used for fracking and continues to allow trade-secret exemptions for the oil and gas industry. There is no requirement for baseline water testing and no setback requirements to govern how close to homes and schools drilling can happen. The new rules also continue to allow the use of toxic diesel fuel for fracking, as well as open pits for storing wastewater -- two practices that we know to be environmentally hazardous. If President Obama honestly wants to tackle climate change, then he must look for every opportunity to keep dirty fossil fuels in the ground and to double down on clean energy solutions like wind, solar, and energy efficiency. The last thing we should be doing is opening up still more public land to drilling and fracking."

    Erik Milito, the American Petroleum Institute (API) director of upstream and industry operations questioned the Bureau of Land Management's proposed rules. He indicated that rigorous state rules and state-based tools, such as FracFocus.org, are already in place to ensure responsible oil and natural gas development. He said, "States have led the way in regulating hydraulic fracturing operations while protecting communities and the environment for decades. While changes to the proposed rule attempt to better acknowledge the state role, BLM has yet to answer the question why BLM is moving forward with these requirements in the first place. The production of oil and natural gas from shale and tight sand formations is the most significant development in U.S. energy in generations. Confusing the regulatory system would stand in way of economic growth, job creation and the opportunity to generate billions in revenue for federal, state and local governments. We urge the administration and Congress to take a close look at this and other regulatory actions regarding oil and natural gas development. Smart energy policy will position the U.S. to be the world leader in energy development and realize the economic and energy security benefits of that leadership."

    Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber's Institute for 21st Century Energy commented saying, "BLM's rule is a solution in search of a problem. States are much better suited to regulate hydraulic fracturing and have done an effective job. The new rule is duplicative to state regulation and the Department of Interior's rule fails to provide a credible rationale as to why another set of regulations are needed. Given that over three quarters of federal lands onshore are already off limits to exploration thanks to this Administration, this draft rule will make what little remains even more expensive and less feasible. This effort by the Administration comes at a time when America should be taking greater advantage of our natural resources to create jobs and improve our economy.  Even more troubling, it could be a harbinger for things to come by setting the stage for regulation on private and state lands as well. "

    National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) Vice President of Energy and Resources Policy Ross Eisenberg commented saying, "While we appreciate that BLM has acknowledged our concerns with the previously deeply flawed regulations, we are disappointed by the decision to still move forward with new regulations that could negatively impact a significant energy source for manufacturers. States have long been the primary regulators of hydraulic fracturing, and right now they are hard at work updating their regulations to protect public health and the environment. Rather than duplicate the states' efforts with a one-size-fits-all federal rule, we believe BLM should first work with states to identify any potential gaps or deficiencies and if any exist, help the states fix them. Reactive federal regulations can harm gains resulting from increased exploration of shale oil and gas. Limiting the comment period for this rule to only 30 days is simply not enough time to evaluate such complex regulations. . . Government policies should encourage development of these resources, and we fear that poorly-crafted regulations could accomplish the opposite. . ."

    Access a release from DOI (click here). Access the prepublication Federal Register notice of Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Comment  (click here). Access a release from Sen. Murkowski (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). Access a release from API (click here). Access a release from the U.S. Chamber(click here). Access a release from NAM (click here). [#Energy/Frack]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Senate EPW Votes 10-8 To Nominate McCarthy As EPA Head

May 16: Following last week's boycott by Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee [See WIMS 5/9/13], the GOP Members attended today's meeting and unanimously voted against the nomination of Gina McCarthy to be the next Administrator of the U.S. EPA. The 10 Democrats also attended and voted to move the nomination forward for consideration by the full Senate.

 

    Senator David Vitter (R-LA), the Ranking Member of the EPW Committee issued a statement saying that Republicans would attend the meeting. He said that at his meeting yesterday with acting EPA Administrator Bob Perciasepe, EPA committed to take additional steps forward in fulfilling the transparency requests of the Senate EPW Committee Republicans. Vitter responded this morning in a letter saying, "Because these steps forward are significant, we want to thank you and acknowledge progress, including by moving forward with the Committee mark-up of Gina's nomination. Because these steps forward are limited, and do not include everything required under the law, we want to request additional progress, and the EPA's follow through will determine how this nomination process goes forwards. We'll absolutely be holding the EPA to it."

 

    Sen. Vitter specifically said in his letter, "Should major additional progress be made in all of the five categories over the next two weeks, I will strongly support handling the McCarthy nomination on the Senate floor without a cloture vote or any 60 vote threshold. Should all of our requests in the five categories be granted, I will support the McCarthy nomination." The five categories identified and outlined in the letter include: Email and FOIA Policy; Unredacted Emails; Underlying Research Data; Economic Analysis; and "Sue-and-Settle." The letter summarizes the specific "agreed to" actions under each category.

   

    In a related matter,  the American Petroleum Institute (API) Downstream Group Director Bob Greco sent a letter to Sen. Vitter refuting what he called, "inaccurate and misleading statements" about the research being conducted by the Coordinating Research Council (CRC) made by EPA administrator nominee Gina McCarthy in a recent letter.  Greco indicated that McCarthy said EPA and DOE were "denied" a role in the extensive testing on E15 -- a mixture of 15 percent ethanol and 85 percent gasoline -- by the CRC that found the fuel could be dangerous for millions of cars on the road today.

 

   Greco said, "The record shows that before and during the CRC mid-level ethanol blends research program, EPA and DOE played significant roles either directly or through the U.S. national laboratories. . . CRC is a research organization that has been conducting research on fuels, engines and vehicles for more than 70 years. The CRC tests are developed and managed by the same company automotive engineers who design and build cars. We have great confidence in the ability of the automotive and fuels experts who sit on CRC committees to conduct well-conceived and thorough technical investigations of consumer acceptance and vehicle safety-related issues associated with the use of mid-level ethanol blends in vehicles operated by our mutual customers. . . The key objective for the oil and the auto industries in undertaking the comprehensive CRC mid-level ethanol blends research program was to ensure that the safety and performance of our mutual customers' vehicles are not compromised or otherwise adversely affected by E15. CRC met those goals -- EPA and DOE did not."

 

    Access a webcast of today's nomination meeting (click here). Access the statement from Sen. Vitter and the letter to Perciasepe (click here). Access a release from API with links to related information including the letters (click here). [#All]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

GAO On Adapting To Climate Change Impacts On Local Infrastructure

May 14: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report entitled, Climate Change: Future Federal Adaptation Efforts Could Better Support Local Infrastructure Decision Makers (GAO-13-242, Apr 12, 2013). The report was requested by Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) Chairman Subcommittee on Oversight and Max Baucus (D-MT) Chairman Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, both of the Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW).

    GAO indicates that the Federal government invests billions of dollars annually in infrastructure, such as roads and bridges, facing increasing risks from climate change. Adaptation -- defined as adjustments to natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climate change -- can help manage these risks by making infrastructure more resilient. GAO was asked to examine issues related to infrastructure decision making and climate change. This report examines: (1) the impacts of climate change on roads and bridges, wastewater systems, and NASA centers; (2) the extent to which climate change is incorporated into infrastructure planning; (3) factors that enabled some decision makers to implement adaptive measures; and (4) Federal efforts to address local adaptation needs, as well as potential opportunities for improvement. GAO reviewed climate change assessments; analyzed relevant reports; interviewed stakeholders from professional associations and Federal agencies; and visited infrastructure projects and interviewed local decision makers at seven sites where adaptive measures have been implemented.

    GAO found that according to the National Research Council (NRC) and others, infrastructure such as roads and bridges, wastewater systems, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) centers are vulnerable to changes in the climate. Changes in precipitation and sea levels, as well as increased intensity and frequency of extreme events, are projected by NRC and others to impact infrastructure in a variety of ways. When the climate changes, infrastructure-- typically designed to operate within past climate conditions -- may not operate as well or for as long as planned, leading to economic, environmental, and social impacts. For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) estimates that, within 15 years, segments of Louisiana State Highway 1 -- providing the only road access to a port servicing 18 percent of the nation's oil supply -- will be inundated by tides an average of 30 times annually due to relative sea level rise. Flooding of this road effectively closes the port.

    GAO indicated that decision makers have not systematically considered climate change in infrastructure planning for various reasons, according to representatives of professional associations and agency officials who work with these decision makers. For example, more immediate priorities -- such as managing aging infrastructure -- consume time and resources, limiting decision makers' ability to consider and implement climate adaptation measures. Difficulties in obtaining and using information needed to understand vulnerabilities and inform adaptation decisions pose additional challenges.

    Key factors enabled some local decision makers to integrate climate change into infrastructure planning. As illustrated by GAO's site visits and relevant studies, these factors included: (1) having local circumstances such as weather-related crises that spurred action; (2) learning how to use available information; (3) having access to local expertise; and (4) considering climate impacts within existing planning processes. As one example, the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District managed risks associated with more frequent extreme rainfall events by enhancing its natural systems' ability to absorb runoff by, for instance, preserving wetlands. This effort simultaneously expanded the sewer system's capacity while providing other community and environmental benefits. District leaders enabled these changes by prioritizing adaptation, using available local level climate projections, and utilizing local experts for assistance.

    The GAO report identifies several emerging Federal efforts under way to facilitate more informed adaptation decisions, but these efforts could better support the needs of local infrastructure decision makers in the future, according to studies, local decision makers at the sites GAO visited, and other stakeholders. For example, among its key efforts, the Federal government plays a critical role in producing the information needed to facilitate more informed local infrastructure adaptation decisions. However, as noted by NRC studies, this information exists in an uncoordinated confederation of networks and institutions, and the end result of it not being easily accessible is that people may make decisions -- or choose not to act -- without it. Accordingly, a range of studies and local decision makers GAO interviewed cited the need for the Federal government to improve local decision makers' access to the best available information to use in infrastructure planning.

    GAO recommends, among other things, that a Federal entity designated by the Executive Office of the President (EOP) work with agencies to identify for local infrastructure decision makers the best available climate-related information for planning, and also to update this information over time. Additionally, GAO recommended the Federal agencies: clarify sources of local assistance for incorporating climate-related information and analysis into infrastructure planning, and communicate how such assistance will be provided over time; finalize guidance on how federal agencies can consider the effects of climate change in their evaluations of proposed federal actions under the National Environmental Policy Act; and work with relevant professional associations to incorporate climate change information into design standards.

    Access the complete 99-page GAO report with links to referenced information (click here). [#Climate, #Water, #Transportation]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

170 Countries Adopt Stricter Chemical & Waste Protections

May 13: The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) announced that representatives from 170 countries have adopted a series of measures to strengthen protections against hazardous chemicals and waste during a United Nations conference in Geneva. The conference brought together three UN conventions -- the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm treaties -- that together regulate chemicals and hazardous waste, and sought to promote synergies among them. The United States is a signatory to the three Conventions, but has not ratified any of them.

    The three autonomous Conventions convened the joint meeting to strengthen cooperation and collaboration between the Parties to the treaties, with a view to enhancing the effectiveness of their activities on the ground. Each Convention then continued individually over the two-week period to deal with its own specific topics of the global chemicals and waste agenda before returning in a joint session at the end of the week to finalize their outcomes. In a press conference, UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner said the meeting was "a unique historic event coming at a time of unprecedented change and progress in the arena of global environmental governance. The strengthening of UNEP and the synergies process of chemicals and waste multilateral environmental agreements are complementary parts of the ongoing reform to fortify the environmental dimension of sustainable development."

    FAO Director-General José Graziano da Silva noted that countries need to find more sustainable ways to produce food while using chemical pesticides responsibly. He said, "Around 70 per cent of the chemicals addressed by the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions are pesticides, and many are used in agriculture. It is in the best interest of all countries to ensure that the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions can work together, effectively and efficiently, to address various aspects of the chemical life-cycle."

    Steiner and Graziano da Silva, along with Global Environment Facility CEO Naoko Ishii also pledged to deepen cooperation and collaboration as part of a broader effort to raise the profile of chemicals and waste issues, promote green growth and alleviate poverty. On Friday (May 10) the conference hailed the "Geneva Statement on the Sound Management of Chemicals and Waste" which welcomed the UNEP-led consultative process on financing options for chemicals and waste. Jim Willis, Executive Secretary of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions said, "The Parties have agreed to strengthen capacity building and technical assistance for countries by investing the savings realized over the past two years into an enhanced technical assistance programme that better meets the needs of developing countries and countries with economies in transition. In an era of financial austerity, we have learned through synergies how to deliver more to parties while living within the economic limits faced by governments today."

    The Parties also adopted a framework for the environmentally sound management of hazardous wastes and other wastes, and agreed, over the next two years, to develop technical guidelines on movements across borders of electronic and electrical wastes. The Basel Convention regulates the export and import of hazardous waste and waste containing hazardous chemicals. It was adopted in 1989 and entered into force in 1992. It currently has 180 Parties. The Rotterdam Convention regulates information about the export and import of 47 hazardous chemicals listed in the Convention's Annex III, 33 of which are pesticides and 14 of which are industrial chemicals. It was adopted in 1998 and entered into force in 2004. It currently has 152 Parties. Adopted in 2001, the Stockholm Convention regulates 23 toxic substances that are persistent, travel long distances, accumulate in organisms and are toxic. The treaty entered into force in 2004. It currently has 179 Parties.

    Access an overview release from the UN (click here). Access a more detailed release from the Conventions (click here). Access complete information, details and background from the UN Synergies website including links to the three separate Convention websites (click here). [# Toxics, #Haz]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals