Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 6/8
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Honors Companies for Environment, Health, and Safety Performance
Jun 7, 2016 | Powder & Bulk Solids
Three member companies of the American Chemical Society (ACC) received the organization’s Responsible Care Company of the Year award for achievements and leadership in environmental, health, safety, and security activities in their businesses, the organization announced Tuesday. -
(ACC Mentioned) New Report Shows Chemicals Industry Workforce in Decline
Jun 7, 2016 | Powder & Bulk Solids
Chemical companies in the US may face future disruptions, safety concerns and higher costs in operations because of a workforce shortage as Baby Boomers retire and job turnover by millennials, a new survey from the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and Accenture shows. -
(ACC Mentioned) Celanese Advances Plans for 2nd US Methanol Pant
Jun 7, 2016 | ICIS
By Joseph Chang
US-based Celanese is continuing to work with partner Mitsui & Co on a potential second methanol project in the US and should have a clearer view on it by the end of the year, Celanese’s CEO said on Tuesday. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chassis May be Among Few Metallic Auto Parts
Jun 7, 2016 | ICIS
By Al Greenwood
Plastics are continuing to substitute metals in automobiles, to the point where the chassis may be among the few components of a vehicle made of the material, an executive with US-based styrenics and synthetic-rubber producer Trinseo said on Tuesday. -
(ACC Mentioned) Senate Approves Update of Toxic-Chemical Regulations
Jun 7, 2016 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport
The Senate on Tuesday gave final approval to an overhaul of the nation’s 40-year-old law governing the use of toxic chemicals in homes and businesses, sending the bill to President Obama for his expected signature. -
(ACC Mentioned) Congress Sends Obama Bill to Regulate Toxic Chemicals
Jun 8, 2016 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Matthew Daly
Congress on Tuesday sent President Barack Obama a sweeping bill that would for the first time regulate tens of thousands of toxic chemicals in everyday products, from household cleaners to clothing and furniture. -
(ACC Mentioned) Senate Passes Chemical Reform Bill, It Now Heads to President
Jun 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs, Pat Rizzuto,Dean Scott and Steven Gibb
With a unanimous consent voice vote, the Senate passed legislation June 7 to fundamentally revise the Toxic Substances Control Act, the nation's primary chemicals law. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Safety Reform Passes After ‘Perfect Storm’
Jun 8, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode and Alex Guillen
Republicans in Congress took a break from bashing EPA and voted overwhelmingly to give the agency sweeping new powers to regulate tens of thousands of chemicals used to make everything from car parts to cleaning products. -
(ACC Mentioned) US Congress Passes TSCA Reform Bill
Jun 8, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US Congress has passed a bill to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
(ACC Mentioned) With Chemical Safety Law, Congress Hands EPA Herculean Task
Jun 8, 2016 | Bloomberg Politics
By Catherine Traywick and Jack Kaskey
Hormone-disrupting chemicals used to make your shower curtain or water bottle could face stiffer rules under a measure passed by Congress this week. -
Sweeping Overhaul of Nation’s Chemical-Safety Laws Clears Final Legislative Hurdle
Jun 7, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin
The Senate passed legislation Tuesday evening that will overhaul the way the federal government regulates every chemical sold on the market in the United States. -
Now That TSCA Reform Is Here—What's Next?
Jun 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark N. Duvall, Ryan J. Carra, Sarah A. Kettenmann, Timothy J. Serie, Beveridge & Diamond PC
Waiting for TSCA reform has been like waiting for Godot—it never comes. Except that it has (almost) come—finally. -
Senate Sends Chemical Overhaul to Obama
Jun 8, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Senate on Tuesday approved a bipartisan overhaul of the country’s standards for chemical safety, sending the bill to President Obama for his signature. -
Historic TSCA Reform Bill Heads to White House
Jun 8, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Arianna Skibell
After years of false starts and acrimonious debate, senators yesterday by voice vote approved a long-awaited and heavily negotiated bipartisan deal to update the nation's chemical safety law for the first time in 40 years, sending the measure to President Obama's desk to be signed into law. -
Congress Passes Strong TSCA Reform, First Major Environmental Legislation in Over Two Decades
Jun 7, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Today, the truly remarkable happened: The U.S. Senate passed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act with strong bipartisan support and sent it to the President, who is expected to sign it into law. -
(ACC Mentioned) BASF Backs Off of $1.4 Billion Freeport Plant
Jun 7, 2016 | Fuel Fix
By Jordan Blum
The German company BASF confirmed it will postpone building a massive chemical plant at its existing Freeport complex as the Gulf Coast petrochemical boom continues to slow down. -
(ACC Mentioned) BASF to Delay $1.4 Billion Plant Expansion
Jun 7, 2016 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
German company BASF said Tuesday that it will postpone building a massive chemical plant at its Freeport complex as the Gulf Coast petrochemical boom continues to slow. -
(ACC Mentioned) New Marcellus Shale Cracker Plant in Pennsylvania Will Create Thousands of Jobs
Jun 7, 2016 | Energy in Depth
By Nicole Jacobs
Plans have been underway for years for Shell to build an ethane cracker plant in the region due to the abundance of shale gas in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio. -
(ACC Mentioned) Shell's Ethane Cracker Seen Having Far-Reaching Impact Throughout Appalachian Basin
Jun 7, 2016 | NGI Shale Daily
By Jamison Cocklin
Shell Chemical Appalachia LLC's decision to build a multi-billion dollar ethane cracker in Western Pennsylvania marks the first time in more than 20 years that such a facility has been built in the United States outside of the Gulf Coast. -
(ACC Mentioned) Shell Sees Cost Benefit with East US Cracker, PE Units
Jun 8, 2016 | ICIS
By Joseph Chang
Shell sees a major cost advantage with its Pennsylvania cracker and polyethylene (PE) units – not just globally but also within the US, the head of its chemical business said on Tuesday. -
(ACC Mentioned) Shell to Tap Pennsylvania Shale Gas for New Plastics Plant
Jun 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jack Kaskey
Royal Dutch Shell Plc committed to opening the first ethylene plant in the next decade, planning a chemical complex in western Pennsylvania that will use gas from nearby shale deposits to make plastics beginning in the early 2020s. -
(ACC Mentioned) Shell FIDs Pennsylvania Ethane Cracker, Fueled by Marcellus, Utica Natural Gas
Jun 7, 2016 | NGI's Shale Daily
By Carolyn Davis
A unit of Royal Dutch Shell plc has pulled the trigger to build an ethane cracker northwest of Pittsburgh, designed to rely on natural gas supply from the Marcellus and Utica shales to produce 1.6 million metric tons/year (mmty) of polyethylene. -
Rocky Path Seen for Energy Bill Conference
Jun 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The path ahead for the House and Senate to reconcile their versions of broad energy legislation appears to be rocky, with some analysts questioning whether a formal conference between the two chambers will occur. -
Dems Ready to Fight Over Energy Bill
Jun 8, 2016 | Politico (Morning Energy)
By Eric Wolff
Senate Democrats will keep poring over an energy bill conference proposal the House sent over before recess, but they are digging in. -
Conference Fate Rests with Senate Democrats
Jun 8, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
Whether or not the Senate launches the first conference committee on energy legislation in a decade is in the hands of Senate Democrats, who continue to express concerns with the House's revised version. -
Measures Attacking Obama Green Agenda Advancing to House Floor
Jun 8, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
The House Rules Committee took triple-barreled aim at the Obama administration's environment and energy agenda last night, clearing the way for floor votes this week on a bill to delay U.S. EPA's new ground-level ozone standard, as well as two resolutions offering symbolic opposition to potential climate change policies. -
EPA Objects to Suspended Briefing in Power Plant Lawsuits
Jun 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The briefing schedule for lawsuits challenging carbon dioxide limits for new power plants can be amended to incorporate expected challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency's denial of petitions to reconsider the rule administratively without suspending the existing briefing format, the agency and environmental groups argued (North Dakota v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1381,opposition filed 6/6/16). -
Controversial Methane Drilling Push May Become Law
Jun 8, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Colby Bermel
As lawmakers push to launch a conference committee on the first significant energy reform bill in nearly a decade, a controversial provision may end up becoming law. -
Methane Emissions - Latest Non-Problem for Natural Gas
Jun 7, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Dr. J. Winston Porter
Methane emissions have been identified by anti-fracking activists as an argument of last resort to stop everything from more production of natural gas to the construction of gas pipelines in New England. -
GOP to Rule Out Carbon Tax
Jun 8, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
House Republicans this week will vote to condemn taxes on carbon dioxide emissions, slamming the door on an idea that some members of their party have flirted with in the past. -
Perspective: PTC Technology Increases Efficiency
Jun 8, 2016 | Progressive Rail Roading
Positive train control (PTC) is primarily a safety technology, but many of its components have the potential to be used to increase operational efficiency. -
When Oil Transport Goes Off the Rails
Jun 7, 2016 | The New Yorkeer
By Michelle Nijhuis
Last Friday, shortly after noon, I looked up from my computer to see a plume of brown smoke outside my window. -
(ACC Mentioned) House to Vote on Rep. Olson's Ozone Standards Bill
Jun 8, 2016 | Bloomberg BNA
By Patrick Ambrosio
Later today, the House of Representatives is set to consider H.R. 4775, the Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2016. -
(ACC Mentioned) Ozone Delay Bill Threatened With Veto Prior to Vote
Jun 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
President Barack Obama's advisers would recommend that he veto legislation (H.R. 4775) that would delay implementation of the 2015 ozone standards and make various changes to the Environmental Protection Agency's process for reviewing and revising national ambient air quality standards, the administration announced June 7. -
EPA Seeks Dismissal of North Carolina Ozone Petition Lawsuit
Jun 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ben Remaly
The Environmental Protection Agency says North Carolina has no standing to file a lawsuit compelling the agency to respond to a petition brought by Northeastern states seeking additional pollution controls from nine Southern and Midwestern states (Van der Vaart v. McCarthy, E.D. N.C., No. 5:16-cv-cv-138, motion filed 6/3/16). -
White House: Obama Would Veto GOP Bill Blocking Ozone Rule
Jun 7, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
White House officials warned Tuesday that the Obama administration opposes a House GOP bill to delay implementation of a new federal standard on surface-level ozone, or smog. -
Inspector General Probes Clean Air Act Investigators
Jun 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency's Inspector General will probe whether Clean Air Act investigators are receiving proper training as part of a new investigation announced June 7. -
States Warn Dismissing 11th Circuit CWA Rule Suit Would Set Bad Precedent
Jun 7, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Several states are urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to reject EPA's bid to dismiss a suit over the agency's Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule in deference to a related 6th Circuit suit, arguing it would set a bad precedent as the 6th Circuit's decision to hear its case is based on a ruling that the 11th Circuit has said is wrong. -
The Overreach of the Administration on Climate
Jun 7, 2016 | The Hill - Opinion
By Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas)
Last year the Environmental Protection Agency finalized its highly controversial Waters of the United States regulation. This set in motion the largest government power grab in our nation’s history.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Honors Companies for Environment, Health, and Safety Performance
Jun 7, 2016 | Powder & Bulk Solids
Three member companies of the American Chemical Society (ACC) received the organization’s Responsible Care Company of the Year award for achievements and leadership in environmental, health, safety, and security activities in their businesses, the organization announced Tuesday.
Chevron Phillips Chemical Company, SABIC, and Ethyl Corporation were the recipients of this year’s awards.
“Responsible Care is our industry’s commitment to doing more and continually doing btter,” said Cal Dooley, president and CEO of the ACC in a statement. “Chevron Phillips Chemical, SABIC, and Ethyl Corporation each embody what it means to be a Responsible Care company. They are leaders in environment, health, safety, and security performance, as well as product stewardship.”
To meet the criteria of the award, companies have to show that they have a documented injury rating in the top 10% of companies of comparable size; demonstrate positive performance trends in process safety, transportation safety, and reduction of emissions; the availability of product stewardship information to the public; and timely completion of required performance metrics reporting.
In 2014, Chevron Phillips initiated a set of company-wide “Life Saving Rules,” which provided clear safety instructions to employees that bolstered the company’s existing safety practices.
“Since our company’s inception, we have remained steadfast in our commitment to operate a business that adds value and is sustainable for all stakeholders,” said Chevron Phillips’s president and CEO Peter Cella in the statement. “We believe the keys to success in Responsible Care can be found in the 9,000 men and women who walk through our gates every day, guided by three simple philosophies – work safely or not at all, there is always time to do it right, and, if it’s worth doing, do it better.”
SABIC created its Process Hazard Analysis to help manage hazard communication and internal risk-assessment procedures, used to identify and correct safety issues. Under the company’s program, SABIC saw 60% improvement from 2014 to 2015 in its “Days Away From Work” safety rate.
“This award is recognition for SABIC, that EHS&S is more than just a priority – it’s a core value, a deeply held belief that is driving actions and behaviors of our employees,” said SABIC Vice President Mike Walsh. “Embracing the Responsible Care ethic has driven SABIC to adopt a sustainable mindset into all of our activities. By striving for a sustainable future, we have made improvements in our use of energy, water and raw materials to protect the global environment.”
Ethyl’s plant in Houston established two teams in 2014 to develop energy efficiency projects geared toward reducing the facility’s overall energy consumption. The company said that it has reduced kw hours used per production at its Houston location by 43% in the past decade. In terms of safety, the Houston plant had recordable injuries from 2013 to 2015.
“Responsible Care fits very well with our own core values – unquestioned integrity, respect for our people, respect for the community, respect for the environment and the highest standards for worker health and safety,” said Ethyl Corporation President John Street. “Congratulations go to everyone at Ethyl Corporation. And we will continue to improve, because what is excellent today, will become normal tomorrow.”
The ACC said that since its Responsible Care performance initiative was established in 1988, companies recognized by the organization have worker safety records that are “five times better” compared with the American manufacturing industry as a whole.
“Responsible Care companies reduced hazardous releases to the air, land and water by 77 percent, improved energy efficiency overall,” the ACC’s release said.
http://www.powderbulksolids.com/news/ACC-Honors-Companies-for-Environment-Health-and-Safety-Performance-06-07-2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) New Report Shows Chemicals Industry Workforce in Decline
Jun 7, 2016 | Powder & Bulk Solids
Chemical companies in the US may face future disruptions, safety concerns and higher costs in operations because of a workforce shortage as Baby Boomers retire and job turnover by millennials, a new survey from the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and Accenture shows.
The survey, conducted among 500 chemical industry representatives, indicated that many respondents are concerned the pool of experienced labor available after the Baby Boom generation retires. 20% of the chemicals industry workforce is set to retire in the next four to five years, said 40% of respondents.
Costs are expected to grow as a result of the dwindling workforce in the form of hiring and training costs. 86% of respondents said the chemical industry’s profitability will significantly suffer if the Baby Boomers’ positions are not replaced within the next five years.
Aside from issues of replacing the aging workforce, another major problem identified by the survey is the high turnover of millennial employees. The ACC paints an encouraging view of the job market in the chemical industry, despite the challenges of retaining millennial employees in an industry often considered stale.
"Abundant supplies of domestic natural gas from shale have moved the U.S. from being a high-cost producer of key petrochemicals and resins to among the lowest cost producers globally, creating a period of unprecedented growth," said ACC President and CEO Cal Dooley in a press release. "We currently have more than 262 new chemical projects announced that are valued at over $161 billion. For the first time in more than a decade, the U.S. chemical industry is once again creating good, high-paying American jobs and it's vital that we be able to attract and retain a talented workforce that helps us continue to drive economic expansion, innovation, and global competitiveness."
Technological developments, changes in workforce dynamics, and competition among companies for talent are presenting companies with a variety of challenges to meet in the coming years.
"When you sum it all up, we are fighting the war for talent on many fronts," said Inga Carus, ACC board member and chair of Carus Corporation. "We must not only hire the right people as older workers retire and transfer their knowledge to a younger work force, we must bridge the gap with millennials and get them excited about what we do with chemistry as we develop new products to meet the needs of their generation."
http://www.powderbulksolids.com/news/New-Report-Shows-Chemicals-Industry-Workforce-in-Decline-06-7-2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) Celanese Advances Plans for 2nd US Methanol Pant
Jun 7, 2016 | ICIS
By Joseph Chang
US-based Celanese is continuing to work with partner Mitsui & Co on a potential second methanol project in the US and should have a clearer view on it by the end of the year, Celanese’s CEO said on Tuesday.
“We’ve done the preliminary engineering and more work is due at the end of the year when we should have an updated business case,” Mark Rohr said in an interview with ICIS on the sidelines of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) annual meeting in Colorado Springs.
Celanese’s first US methanol plant with joint venture partner Mitsui & Co in Clear Lake, Texas, came online in October 2015.
“This would be a replica of that plant as that way we can minimise capital costs,” said Rohr.
The first plant, with capacity of 1.4m tonnes/year, is running full out, he said.
If everything proceeds as planned, the second methanol plant could start up in three to three-and-a-half years, said Rohr, putting the timeframe in the 2019-2020 range.
While there should be more clarity on the second project by the end of 2016, it won’t necessarily be a binary decision as to whether a final investment decision is made, or the project is dropped, he said.
Including the 25% share of its methanol joint venture in Saudi Arabia with SABIC and an affiliate of Duke Energy, Celanese produces around half the methanol it consumes for downstream products, said Rohr.
“We like being in the methanol market. It gives us a handle on the global economic environment as well,” said Rohr.
On the slew of US methanol projects being planned, Rohr said, “A lot more have been announced than will happen. The methanol needs a home, and unlike many others, we have a big sink.”
http://www.icis.com/resources/news/2016/06/07/10005938/celanese-advances-plans-for-2nd-us-methanol-plant/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chassis May be Among Few Metallic Auto Parts
Jun 7, 2016 | ICIS
By Al Greenwood
Plastics are continuing to substitute metals in automobiles, to the point where the chassis may be among the few components of a vehicle made of the material, an executive with US-based styrenics and synthetic-rubber producer Trinseo said on Tuesday.
Automobile producers are eager to replace heavier metal components with those made of plastics to lighten the weight of their vehicles, in an attempt to meet stricter emission standards.
In 1960, an automobile had an average of 40lb (18kg) of plastics, mainly in knobs and handles, said Kevin Swift, chief economist of the American Chemistry Council (ACC). Now, the average vehicle has 350lb of plastics.
Material substitution is helping automakers remove several pounds of weight from their vehicles, said Martin Pugh, chief operating officer for Trinseo. He made his comments on the sidelines of the ACC's annual meeting.
He noted that the latest Land Rover Discovery weighs 400kg less than its predecessor.
Trinseo also makes engineered compounds and blends of plastics under its performance plastics segments. Many of these are made from polycarbonate(PC) and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS).
Trinseo's plastics are already involved in the interior components of automobiles, as their plastics have lower density and better appearances, Pugh said. They are now being used for external and semi-structural components.
The company's resins led to a 50% weight reduction in the spoiler of the Opel Astra Sport Tourer, Pugh said.
For some lift gates and tail gates, Trinseo resins cut 20% of the weight, he said.
In most cases, Trinseo's plastics are replacing metals, Pugh said. But there is some plastic substitution as well.
Looking ahead, automakers will use plastics for a growing number of components. Pugh said the next areas ready for substitution include door components and front-end modules. These modules house headlights and radiator grills.
Some auto parts will be more difficult to replace with plastic parts.
Trinseo also makes PC under its basic plastics and feedstocks segment.
For years, there has been talk about making front windshields with PC instead of glass.
PC would lighten the weight of the vehicle and could simplify manufacturing processes by allowing multiple parts to be cast in the same mould.
For example, the windshield and adjoining panelling could be made with two different shots of resin.
However, glass also plays a structural role in automobiles, making its replacement with another material difficult, Pugh said. In addition, the front windshield needs to be scratch resistant.
Given those challenges, front windshields are not among the areas on which Trinseo is focusing, he said.
In other cases, automakers are adopting plastics not because they reduce the weight of a vehicle, but because they make them look better, Pugh said. Aesthetics are also increasing demand for plastics.
There is also the potential for ABS to look good enough without the need for paint, he said. That could result in huge cost savings.
The annual meeting runs through Wednesday.
http://www.icis.com/resources/news/2016/06/07/10005921/chassis-may-be-among-few-metallic-auto-parts/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Senate Approves Update of Toxic-Chemical Regulations
Jun 7, 2016 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport
The Senate on Tuesday gave final approval to an overhaul of the nation’s 40-year-old law governing the use of toxic chemicals in homes and businesses, sending the bill to President Obama for his expected signature.
The Senate passed the measure on a voice vote; the House approved it last month, 403 to 12. The measure would update the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, requiring new testing and regulation of thousands of chemicals used in everyday products as varied as laundry detergents and car seats. However, some public health and environmental advocates have criticized the legislation, saying that while it slightly strengthens the existing law, the bill’s authors ceded too much to chemical companies.
Public health advocates and environmentalists complained for decades that the 1976 law was outdated and riddled with gaps that left Americans exposed to harmful chemicals. Under current law, around 64,000 chemicals are not subject to environmental testing or regulation.
But efforts to tighten the law had stalled for years. The authors of the bill say their breakthrough represents a pragmatic, politically viable compromise between better environmental standards and the demands of industry. Senator Tom Udall, Democrat of New Mexico, worked closely with the American Chemistry Council to come up with language that would win the support of the industry and pass through the generally regulation-averse Republican Congress.
The new bill would require the Environmental Protection Agency to begin conducting tests on those 64,000 chemicals, but at a fairly slow pace: the agency would examine about 20 chemicals at a time, with a deadline of seven years per chemical. It would also allow the agency’s regulations to pre-empt stronger state-level rules.
Environmental groups had pushed for an earlier iteration of the bill, which would have required the E.P.A. to test more than 100 existing chemicals a year, and which would have allowed states to enact stronger regulations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/us/politics/senate-approves-update-of-toxic-chemical-regulations.html?_r=0
-
(ACC Mentioned) Congress Sends Obama Bill to Regulate Toxic Chemicals
Jun 8, 2016 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Matthew Daly
Congress on Tuesday sent President Barack Obama a sweeping bill that would for the first time regulate tens of thousands of toxic chemicals in everyday products, from household cleaners to clothing and furniture.
In a rare display of bipartisanship in an election year, the Senate backed the measure on a voice vote after Republicans and Democrats spoke enthusiastically about the legislation. Backers of the bill said it would clear up a hodgepodge of state rules and update and improve a toxic-chemicals law that has remained unchanged for 40 years.
The Senate vote follows approval in the House last month. Obama is expected to sign the measure.
The wide-ranging bill was more than three years in the making and had support from a broad coalition, ranging from environmental and public health groups to the chemical industry and the National Association of Manufacturers.
The bill would set new safety standards for asbestos and other dangerous chemicals, including formaldehyde, styrene and Bisphenol A, better known as BPA, that have gone unregulated for decades. The rules will impact an $800-billion-a-year industry.
The measure would update the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act to require the Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate new and existing chemicals against a new, risk-based safety standard that includes considerations for particularly vulnerable people such as children and pregnant women. It also establishes written deadlines for the EPA to act and makes it harder for the industry to claim chemical information is proprietary and therefore secret.
Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., one of the bill’s chief sponsors, said the bill’s passage ensures that “for the first time in 40 years, the United States of America will have a chemical safety program that works ... and protects families from dangerous chemicals in their daily lives.”
The bill is named after the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat who worked for years to fix the toxic-substance law before his death in 2013.
Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, called the bill “historic” and “a great example of the Republican-led Congress working for the American people by enacting meaningful and common-sense legislation.”
Some environmental groups opposed the bill, saying it did too little to protect consumers from dangerous chemicals that have been linked to serious illnesses, including cancer, infertility, diabetes and Parkinson’s disease. Under current law only a small fraction of chemicals used in consumer goods have been reviewed for safety.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., also opposed the bill, calling it a “sweeping federal takeover of chemical regulation.” Paul said the bill would pre-empt state regulations in favor of “overzealous” federal regulations.
Business groups have been asking Congress to bring clarity to what they say in a dizzying array of state regulations, with tough rules required by liberal-leaning states such as California, Massachusetts and Vermont, and looser standards in conservative states such as Texas and Louisiana.
The American Chemistry Council, which represents the chemical industry, said the bill would provide greater certainty to industry while holding the EPA accountable to impose reasonable requirements.
Final passage of the legislation will “bring chemical regulation into the 21st century ... and have far-reaching benefits for America’s economy and public health,” the group said a statement.
The chemical bill is “not perfect,” but “meets the high goals set by the administration for meaningful reform,” the White House said in a statement. The legislation is likely to restore public confidence in the safety of chemicals while improving public health and environmental protections, the White House said.
The 181-page bill declares that any state law or rule in place before April 22 would not be pre-empted by federal law. The legislation also would allow states to work on some regulations while federal rules are being developed, a process that can take up to seven years.
States that do not regulate chemicals closely would follow the federal standard.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/congress-sends-obama-bill-to-regulation-toxic-chemicals/2016/06/07/4b559cf4-2d04-11e6-b9d5-3c3063f8332c_story.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Senate Passes Chemical Reform Bill, It Now Heads to President
Jun 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs, Pat Rizzuto,Dean Scott and Steven Gibb
With a unanimous consent voice vote, the Senate passed legislation June 7 to fundamentally revise the Toxic Substances Control Act, the nation's primary chemicals law.
“For the first time in 40 years, the United States will have a chemical safety program that works,” said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), who has led the Democratic effort to secure passage of the bill since 2013 after the death of Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), for whom the legislation is named.
Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) called the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (H.R. 2576) “the most significant environmental law passed in this generation.”
“The old law did not work. This one is going to protect the American people,” Markey said.
Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who co-sponsored the bill with Udall, thanked all who participated in the multi-year effort to craft bipartisan legislation with “an often brutal stretch of negotiations. Several times, we walked away to come back together again.”
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who opposed the bill for years, highlighted key changes that have convinced her the legislation would be better than current law.
Getting to that point, Boxer said, “has been the most complicated journey I have ever had to take on any piece of legislation.”
Udall Highlights Key Changes to Current Law
Udall highlighted key changes the bill would make to existing TSCA. In contrast to current law, he said, that H.R. 2576 would:
• require the EPA to protect the most vulnerable people: children, the elderly, pregnant women, and chemical workers;
• give the EPA new authority to order testing and ensure chemicals are safe, with a focus on the most risky chemicals, such as known carcinogens and those with high toxicity;
• ensure the EPA reviews new chemicals before they go on the market;
• set mandatory, enforceable deadlines for the EPA to act;
• provide the EPA with resources to do its job and require that industry do its share to support the program by paying up to $25 million in fees annually; and
• allow all states multiple ways to act on chemicals, including unfettered authority on chemicals where the EPA is not acting, and options for state co-enforcement and waivers from federal preemption where the EPA has acted to restrict a chemical.
Boxer tackled head on a concern held by states that have been regulating chemicals due to the lack of EPA regulations.
“If a bad EPA takes no actions, states will be free to act,” Boxer said. “We have a much better balance between the states and the federal government.”
The Senate's passage of the TSCA-reform legislation was quickly hailed by divergent groups.
Reaction from NGOs, Industry, Academia
Richard Denison, lead senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund,blogged: “Today, the truly remarkable happened: The U.S. Senate passed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act with strong bipartisan support.”
“Of course, in many ways the real work now begins,” Denison wrote. “Implementing the new law will take the same level of hard work and dedication it's taken to get us to this point—and that will be a real challenge in an area fraught with contention and conflict.”
American Chemistry Council CEO Cal Dooley said, “The path to more modern chemical regulation has been decades in the making and it's been over three years since work to achieve TSCA reform began in earnest.”
Jay Timmons, president and chief executive officer of the National Association of Manufacturers, said in a statement that, “By delivering clear, modernized rules, this reform will make it easier for manufacturers to ensure the safety of our products and deliver quality goods to our customers.
“The regulations on these chemicals will be clearer and more straightforward, meaning time and resources that would have been spent trying to navigate outdated, confusing rules can now be spent on driving innovation and creating jobs.”
Not Unalloyed Praise
Not all environmental groups expressed support for the measure. The Environmental Working Group's Senior Vice President for Government Affairs Scott Faber said, “While the legislation Congress now sends to the president makes improvements to the worst environmental law on the books, it does not meet the reasonable expectations of American consumers. In particular, the bill may not provide EPA with the resources or clear legal authority the agency needs to quickly review and, if needed, ban dangerous chemicals linked to cancer and other serious health problems.”
Long Wait
Bill Farland, a former senior EPA official who now is senior adviser to the vice president and professor at Colorado State University, told Bloomberg BNA: “In my 37-year affiliation with EPA (27 as an employee), we expected TSCA reform several times.
“Now it is about to happen. Congratulations to all involved in the efforts, from the Congress, NGOs, industry and academia.
“The bill will give the agency many of the tools it lacked and additional access to resources to assess priority chemicals and protect public and environmental health,” Farland said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=91090888&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=495991000&searchid=27753660&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Safety Reform Passes After ‘Perfect Storm’
Jun 8, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode and Alex Guillen
Republicans in Congress took a break from bashing EPA and voted overwhelmingly to give the agency sweeping new powers to regulate tens of thousands of chemicals used to make everything from car parts to cleaning products.
In fact, Congress sent the EPA-fortifying chemical safety bill to the White House at a time when presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump is promising to gut the agency if elected president. Trump has not addressed the issue, but the oil executives he is trying to woo support the congressional effort to overhaul the badly outdated Toxic Substances Control Act, as do an array of interest groups across the ideological spectrum, from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the National Wildlife Federation.
Story Continued Below
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) says the fact that "you had extremists in both sides in agreement" was a key factor in getting the bill to the president's desk.
“You had people who liked it because it was a major environmental achievement and then people who liked it for just the opposite reason,” Inhofe told POLITICO.
While the bill arguably represents Congress' most significant environmental achievement under President Barack Obama, its path to success may be tough to replicate.
“I clearly believe that was a perfect storm that these events came together,” said Rep. John Shimkus, the lead House GOP negotiator and chairman of the House Environment and the Economy Subcommittee.
Environmentalists, business groups and lawmakers from both parties all agreed that EPA had a responsibility to protect Americans from toxic chemicals — and that it had been unable to do so, having only banned or restricted just five substances since TSCA was enacted in 1976. Meanwhile, the public was growing more concerned about how chemicals in everyday products like children's toys and furniture were affecting their health, and aggressive regulators in states like California and New York were stepping in for an absentee EPA, creating a patchwork of rules that kept the chemicals industry second guessing where it actually stood.
The American Chemistry Council — whose members include DuPont and BASF as well as affiliates of major oil and gas companies — outlined its principles for chemical safety reform in 2009, as did environmental groups and EPA in separate documents that same year. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), one of the industry's biggest champions, teamed up with Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), an ardent public health advocate, to turn those diverse principles into law. In the end, their initial framework largely survived partisan rancor, election-year politics, intraparty disagreements and even Lautenberg's death.
“There are a lot of members of Congress that know someone whose daughter got breast cancer at age 30, or has an autistic kid or has trouble conceiving a child, and there’s more and more evidence that links chemical exposure to those health concerns ... and so it does play a little bit differently,” said Richard Denison, who led the TSCA effort for the Environmental Defense Fund.
“A lot of this oddity or rarity that you have Republicans supporting giving EPA more authority is based on the recognition by the industry that it was losing the PR battle on chemicals and they were willing to accept a stronger federal system,” he added.
Obama plans to sign the bill into law, but he has mostly been a non-entity in the negotiations. EPA has provided ample technical support for lawmakers and their aides, but chemical safety reform has elicited nary a mention from the president himself, unlike his marquee climate change regulations or first-term legislative push to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
“The administration hung in with us the whole way, in a much more technical role I think probably than they did on cap and trade,” said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), who became the lead Democrat on the bill after Lautenberg's death. “I think the president was more prominent [on cap and trade] and he was speaking out, he was right in the midst of it.”
The president's absence insulated the talks from an increasingly hot-blooded political climate. It also helped that although TSCA is a far-reaching statute, it is also immensely obscure and complex, dissuading all but those lawmakers most dedicated to a deal.
“We offered some other members to help us get involved in the room, but I think because of the complexity they just said ‘No, go ahead, you take care of it,’” Shimkus said. “Which is in the end good for us because more people in the room doesn’t always mean you get to a quicker solution.”
Rather than the usual partisan skirmishes, the effort was marred more by civil wars among Democrats. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who is retiring at the end of this year, was in a unique position to influence the bill as ranking member of the environment committee but not as a co-sponsor of the bill. Boxer wanted to limit the bill's preemption of state-level chemical laws, and she ostracized colleagues at times, even at the sake of longtime friendships, in aggressively pursuing her priorities.
House Energy and Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), a close friend of Lautenberg who was endorsed by his family when he unsuccessfully sought to succeed him in the Senate, supplanted Boxer as chief troublemaker later in the bicameral talks, including against language prized by fellow New Jersey Democrat Cory Booker, who had beat him for Lautenberg’s seat in 2013.
Boxer and Pallone eventually backed the compromise, which passed the House last month 403-12 and, after a two-week delay triggered by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), cleared the Senate via a voice vote.
“Federalizing chemical regulations is like settling with the slip-and-fall malingerers,” Paul said shortly before the bill was passed, arguing that many Obama-era regulations started off as minor “guidance” that snowballed into costly rules and that TSCA reform might “morph into a war on chemical companies.”
“I can't, in good conscience, vote to make the EPA stronger,” Paul concluded.
Still, most EPA critics like Inhofe felt that federal chemical regulation was one of the missions the agency should be focused on.
“This is one of the legitimate functions that EPA should do,” Inhofe said. “It’s something that is extremely important but nobody knows about it.”
The chemical safety law was written more narrowly than other landmark laws of the era, such as the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act, and it has not been updated since. TSCA has not led to any aggressive action from EPA to parallel its climate change rules for power plants or its new regulation over streams and wetlands, some of the most hated Obama rules among Republicans.
It turned out that the law's scope was too limited, preventing EPA from curbing exposure to chemicals that were widely acknowledged to be dangerous. A 1991 court ruling striking down EPA’s original attempt to ban asbestos — a known carcinogen — underscored how toothless the law was, and the agency’s track record since hasn’t been much better.
“This is not a response to EPA unilaterally overreaching and doing things,” said Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), who is informally advising Trump on energy issues. ”This has been much more of a collaborative process to get to this, collaborative to the point where it’s been pretty well compromised from all sides.”
Also aiding the effort was its narrower scope compared to more wide-ranging issues such as climate change. The chemical industry is dominated by a relatively small number of companies who sell their products to consumers and businesses across the country and would prefer a single federal standard to a patchwork of state laws.
Some of the same states that had been pursuing aggressive chemical rules, such as California and New York, are also leading the charge to aggressively limit greenhouse gas emissions. But the companies most affected by those rules, namely electric utilities, are far more balkanized, operating within single states or regions — meaning the industry does not have the same motivation to coalesce on a course for national action.
The TSCA push also did not suffer from an aggressive campaign to question the science linking chemical exposure to cancer or other health problems, unlike the longstanding effort by Republicans like Inhofe and Trump to declare climate change a hoax.
Without a politically charged atmosphere, Republicans and Democrats were able to reach an acceptable give-and-take. Under the compromise reform bill, EPA would receive expanded abilities to regulate and a revived mandate to go after a specific dangerous substances, including asbestos and arsenic. In return, states’ authority to more deeply regulate chemicals was limited with the aim of preventing future patchwork problems from cropping up.
“I’ve always described TSCA reform as being like a purple unicorn, that rarest of mythical beasts that needs care and protection from all of us to have a chance to survive,” said Rich Gold, the veteran head of the public policy group at Holland & Knight. “The fact that this bill is going to the president is as close to a miracle as I’ll see in my career.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/chemical-reform-took-advantage-of-perfect-storm-224031
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Congress Passes TSCA Reform Bill
Jun 8, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US Congress has passed a bill to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
A Senate voice vote late Tuesday passed the compromise bill, agreed in late May and passed by the House in a landslide victory. Congress's approval of the Frank R Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (HR 2576) comes after months of negotiations to reconcile measures passed by each chamber last year.
The bill now needs only to be signed by the president to become law, a step which seems assured after the White House’s endorsement.
Despite criticism from some NGOs, which say the bill is a concession to the chemicals industry, the measure has bipartisan support and backing from a wide array of industry and advocacy groups.
A statement by Senator Tom Udall (D–New Mexico), a co-author of the Senate’s bill, says the existing TSCA "was broken from the start", and rendered "virtually useless" by a 1991 court ruling that blocked EPA's ban of asbestos.
According to Mr Udall, "passage of this bill in the Senate means that for the first time in 40 years, the United States of America will have a chemical safety programme that works."
"The Lautenberg Act is long overdue, as it is the first major environmental reform to be enacted in over a quarter century," said Senator Jim Inhofe (R–Oklahoma), chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
Senator David Vitter (R–Louisiana) added, "After four decades of living under a stagnant chemical safety law, I am so very glad to have passed a law that strengthens our country's international competitiveness, provides desperately needed regulatory certainty for industry, and mandates that the federal government use better science and provide more transparency."
American Chemistry Council president and CEO, Cal Dooley called the bill's passage "truly historic". The trade group looks forward to the president enacting the measure in the coming days.
'After four decades of living under a stagnant chemical safety law, I am so very glad to have passed a law that strengthens our country's international competitiveness, provides desperately needed regulatory certainty for industry, and mandates that the federal government use better science and provide more transparency' Senator David Vitter
Momentum for the bill's passage was stalled before last week's Memorial Day recess, when Senator Rand Paul (R–Kentucky) objected to bringing the measure to the floor because insufficient time had been given to read the legislation.
But a spokesperson for Mr Paul said Tuesday that "having been given the opportunity to review this legislation", the Senator was prepared to allow a vote to occur.Reforms to come
With just the president's signature separating the bill from law, attention turns to how the reform will change existing TSCA.
As outlined in analyses by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and by the House Committee of jurisdiction, the new law will:establish a health-based safety standard;require the EPA to assess the risk of existing chemicals under "judicially enforceable deadlines", without consideration of cost. This process will include identification of substances on the market, designation of low and high priorities, risk evaluation of high-priority substances, and restrictions for those that present an unreasonable risk;strike the existing statute's mandate that the EPA implement "least burdensome" regulatory requirements;mandate that the EPA make "an affirmative safety finding" before allowing a new substance on the market, under a 90-day review period (which may be extended to 180 days);increases the EPA's authority to order testing, with a requirement to "reduce and replace animal testing where scientifically reliable alternatives exist";trigger an EPA review of all past confidential business information (CBI) claims, and require re-substantiation of approved claims after ten years;limit state authority to restrict substances that are undergoing EPA review, have been found by the agency not to pose unreasonable risk, or are subject to federal risk management, unless they seek out a waiver. States' authority to require reporting and monitoring are preserved, and chemical restrictions enacted prior to 22 April 2016 are 'grandfathered' in;call for identification and protection of most vulnerable populations;require science-based decisions, founded on weight of evidence (WoE); andcollect fees on new and existing chemicals that go directly to the EPA.
Lawmakers have said that they will be closely overseeing the EPA's implementation of the law.
Chemical Watch is hosting the first of a series of free webinars entitled The New TSCA - What you need to know on 13 June. Speakers include: Lynn L. Bergeson, Bergeson & Campbell, Charles Auer, Charles Auer & Associates, Richard A. Denison, Environmental Defense Fund and James V. Aidala, Bergeson & Campbell.
Save the date too for our 2016 Regulatory Summit USA on 27–28 October at the Renaissance Arlington Capital View Hotel in Washington DC.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47675/us-congress-passes-tsca-reform-bill
-
(ACC Mentioned) With Chemical Safety Law, Congress Hands EPA Herculean Task
Jun 8, 2016 | Bloomberg Politics
By Catherine Traywick and Jack Kaskey
Hormone-disrupting chemicals used to make your shower curtain or water bottle could face stiffer rules under a measure passed by Congress this week. But it will be years before regulators determine if phthalates and thousands of other chemicals are risky and should face restrictions or bans.
The biggest overhaul of chemical safety laws in four decades should make it easier for the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate toxic substances, but implementing the proposed law will be a herculean task for an agency with scarce resources, former officials and lawyers say. By the time EPA finishes work on the chemicals it has prioritized, the children of today’s children will have been exposed to them -- probably for years.
"It’s a very ambitious undertaking -- it’s going to be hard," said James Aidala, the former head of EPA’s chemical safety office and a consultant at Bergeson & Campbell. "It is going to take a long time, even if the administration gives the program a slug of money on day one."
The EPA has succeeded in regulating only five chemicals since 1976, when Congress passed the Toxic Substances Control Act. Part of the problem is that the current law granted EPA only 90 days to decide whether a new chemical poses an "unreasonable risk" before it can enter the market. Agency officials say they rarely get the toxicity data they need to make that call in time.
The new congressional re-write of the law, which is supported by both President Barack Obama and companies such as DuPont Co. and Dow Chemical Co., would remove those procedural hurdles, require EPA to focus on high-priority chemicals and give the agency new tools to collect data from companies. It also eliminates a requirement to weigh safety rules against the cost of compliance, something that has stymied regulation since 1991 when a federal court overturned EPA’s ban on asbestos.Public Confidence
In a rare moment of bipartisan comity, the measure sailed through the Senate last night, after earlier passing the House, 403-12. It now heads to Obama for his signature.
Still, it will be decades before EPA can finish evaluations on the first 90 chemicals it has already identified as high priority. The slow pace may continue to undermine the public’s confidence in chemical safety, something the industry was hoping the law would reverse after enduring years of retailer bans, consumer boycotts and state regulations.
"There is a relatively small number of chemicals that actually should be prioritized," said Cal Dooley, president of the American Chemistry Council. "But will it take a fairly significant period of time? Yeah, it is going to take some time."
An analysis by the Environmental Working Group, which has criticized the TSCA re-write as too weak, estimates that EPA needs 28 years to complete risk evaluations on the 90 chemicals in its work plan, 30 years to finalize related regulations on those chemicals, and 35 years to implement the resulting rules.
"The question will be whether the resources are available," said Scott Faber, vice president of government affairs at Environmental Working Group. "A lot of this is dependent on the agency getting appropriations, and history shows that funding for EPA will be contested."
An EPA spokeswoman, Cathy Milbourn, declined to comment about implementation of the measure before it became law.Funding Concern
EPA funding under the current Republican Congress has flat-lined, and last year’s budget deal kept the agency’s staffing at the lowest level since 1989. Under the proposed law, EPA would be able to raise funds for chemical testing by levying fees on chemical manufacturers, but would still rely largely on federal money to run the program.
According to Celanese Corp. CEO Mark Rohr, who is chairman of the American Chemistry Council, the industry is already lobbying Congress to make sure the EPA gets the federal funding it needs to carry out its new mandates.
The 90 chemicals EPA is considering for initial review include common substances such bisphenol-A, used in plastic can linings, certain flame retardants, and styrene, used to make foam cups and insulation. Also on the list are arsenic and asbestos. Safety evaluations of the first 10 must begin within six months of the law’s passage, and at least 20 must be underway within three-and-a-half years. Regulation of the chemicals would only follow those reviews.
The first rules restricting compounds the EPA determines are a public hazard should begin to kick by 2022, said Judah Prero, a lawyer at Sidley Austin LLP. “Yes, it is going to be a little while,” he said. “But the likelihood is that the more EPA does, the better they will get at it.”
Initial evaluations are likely to focus on substances on which EPA has already started work, such as asbestos and the plasticizers known as phthalates, he said. Companies can accelerate the pace of reviews under a provision that allows them to pay for expedited reviews of new chemicals they want to produce and sell.
The initial reviews are just the beginning of EPA’s task. The agency lists about 85,000 chemicals that have been in commerce, and the list could grow under a provision in the new law that requires companies to notify EPA about what chemicals they are producing and using. Some could fall under the EPA’s microscope as reporting requirements reveal previously unknown hazards.
The outcome of the this year’s election may also play a pivotal rule in how the next chemical safety law is implemented -- and how broadly or narrowly it’s applied.
"It’s the next administration that will have the greatest role in what TSCA will be," said Daniel Rosenberg, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. Depending on who is in the White House, "you could see EPA either exonerating chemicals by designating them ‘low priority’ or adopting mild restrictions that aren’t sufficient to protect public health."
"What EPA chooses to do with this authority is an open question," he said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-08/with-chemical-safety-law-congress-hands-epa-herculean-task
-
Sweeping Overhaul of Nation’s Chemical-Safety Laws Clears Final Legislative Hurdle
Jun 7, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin
The Senate passed legislation Tuesday evening that will overhaul the way the federal government regulates every chemical sold on the market in the United States. The bipartisan accord represents the most sweeping environmental measure to pass Congress in a quarter-century.
The bill, which drew support from the chemical industry, trial lawyers and many public health and environmental groups, updates a 40-year-old law long criticized as ineffective.
In reauthorizing the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act on a voice vote, lawmakers are providing chemical manufacturers with greater certainty while giving the Environmental Protection Agency the ability to obtain more information about a chemical before approving its use. And because the laws involved regulate thousands of chemicals used in products including furniture, sippy cups and detergents, the measure will affect Americans’ everyday lives in ways large and small.
In an interview before the vote, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said many Americans were largely unaware of the risks posed by toxic chemicals, whether they are flame retardants in rugs and drapes or materials in clothing.
“When people learn their little baby is crawling on the floor with their nose an inch from the rug, and they are inhaling toxic-laden dust right from birth, they’re shocked,” he said. “We finally found a way to bring people together to change that.”
Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who co-authored the bill with Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), said the measure could spur economic innovation because more functional oversight would encourage chemical manufacturers to bring new products to market.
“I’m so very glad to have passed a law that strengthens our country’s international competitiveness, provides desperately needed regulatory certainty for industry and mandates that the federal government use better science and provide more transparency,” he said in a statement.
[Congress is overhauling an outdated law that affects nearly every product you own]
Currently, the EPA must prove that a chemical poses a potential risk before it can demand data or require testing, and that substance can automatically enter the marketplace after 90 days. As a result, the agency has required testing for 200 out of thousands of chemicals that have entered the market, and it has issued regulations to control only five of them.
More than 8,000 chemicals are produced in the United States at an annual rate of more than 25,000 pounds each, according to the agency
The overhaul will allow the EPA to order companies to test their new products. The measure will also create a more uniform regulatory system for chemical manufacturers, although states will still have the right to seek a federal waiver to impose their rules on a given chemical. It will also severely limit the testing of chemicals on animals.
“We lack information on many chemicals and how they affect a diverse human population, because we rely too heavily on slow, unreliable, and expensive animal tests,” Kristie Sullivan, a toxicity expert at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, said in a statement. The legislation “will ensure strong protection of human health and the environment by modernizing toxicity test methods, allowing the Environmental Protection Agency to collect better information more quickly.”
Manufacturers have lobbied for updated legislation because several states have begun to impose their own curbs on toxic chemicals out of concern that the federal government was not doing enough.
“The regulations on these chemicals will be clearer and more straightforward, meaning time and resources that would have been spent trying to navigate outdated, confusing rules can now be spent on driving innovation and creating jobs,” said Jay Timmons, president of the National Association of Manufacturers.
Some environmental groups have criticized the bill as too weak. U.S. Public Interest Research Group Toxics Campaign Director Carli Jensen said it “preempts state action to regulate a chemical while the EPA is merely assessing its safety – a years-long process that will leave us all at risk.”
[Bipartisan chemical bill runs into a Senate roadblock: Rand Paul ]
The measure, which President Obama is poised to sign into law, grew out of an effort that the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) launched with Vitter and Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) in 2012. The bill passed the House by an overwhelming margin late last month, but Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) put a hold on it that delayed its passage.
“This is a historic day and a fitting way to honor Frank Lautenberg’s years of work for a healthier and safer environment for our children and grandchildren,” Vitter said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/sweeping-overhaul-of-nations-chemical-safety-laws-clears-final-legislative-hurdle/2016/06/07/85df0654-2cc2-11e6-9de3-6e6e7a14000c_story.html
-
Now That TSCA Reform Is Here—What's Next?
Jun 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark N. Duvall, Ryan J. Carra, Sarah A. Kettenmann, Timothy J. Serie, Beveridge & Diamond PC
Waiting for TSCA reform has been like waiting for Godot—it never comes. Except that it has (almost) come—finally. The House of Representatives passed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act on May 24, and the Senate passed it on June 7. President Obama is certain to sign the bill once it reaches his desk. Now attention turns to what comes next. The Environmental Protection Agency has many new obligations, some with time deadlines coming this year. Given the expected pace of implementation activity, manufacturers and processors should begin to assess their obligations and opportunities. This article reviews what to expect over the next two years.
1. EPA Implementation Obligations
In light of Congressional concerns that EPA would spend years getting ready to start implementing a reformed TSCA, the legislation establishes a series of deadlines. (The following assumes that President Barack Obama signs the bill in June 2016.)
a. By September 2016
The earliest deadline is 90 days after enactment, by which time EPA must publish in the Federal Register a list of mercury compounds that are prohibited from export.
b. By December 2016
Within six months of enactment, EPA must ensure that it is conducting risk evaluations on ten chemicals identified in the 2014 update to its TSCA Work Plan list of chemicals. 1 It has already completed draft risk assessments (probably to be renamed “risk evaluations,” the term used in the legislation) on 1-bromopropane, medium-chain chlorinated paraffins, and long-chain chlorinated paraffins. EPA may count these toward its quota of ten. EPA also has begun a risk assessment on octamethyltetracyclosiloxane (D4). That leaves six more chemicals.
1 The list is available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-01/documents/tsca_work_plan_chemicals_2014_update-final.pdf.
Fortunately for EPA, under the TSCA Work Plan, it already has completed problem formulations for four clusters of flame retardants, covering a total of ten chemicals. It is ready to begin risk evaluations on them, if it has not done so already. It has also completed a “problem formulation” step for 1,4-dioxane. EPA should thus have no problem meeting its December quota of ten ongoing risk evaluations. Those problem formulations will probably serve as the scope of the risk evaluations to be conducted—and are becoming more routine after several National Academy of Sciences' reports urged the agency to consider the scope of risk reviews more deliberately through problem formulation.
EPA also has six months from enactment to decide whether to revise its standards for what qualifies as a small business, but first it must consult with the Small Business Administration and provide public notice and opportunity for comment. 2 Those standards have not been revised since 1988. If EPA does decide to revise those standards, it must do so through rulemaking, but there is no statutory deadline for such a rulemaking.
2 The current standards appear in 40 C.F.R. §700.43.
c. By April 2017
By April 1, 2017, EPA must publish in the Federal Register an inventory of mercury supply, use and trade in the United States.
d. By June 2017
Within one year of enactment, EPA must establish a risk-based screening process and criteria for designating chemicals as high- or low-priority substances. It must also establish the process by which it will conduct risk evaluations for high-priority substances. The TSCA Work Plan is likely to serve as the initial basis for these processes, 3 although EPA will need to adapt the TSCA Work Plan Chemicals Methods Document 4 to include the prioritization criteria and the process details included in the legislation.
3 For an analysis of how the TSCA Work Plan has served as a pilot project for implementation of TSCA reform, see Mark N. Duvall, Implementing TSCA Legislation: Insights From EPA's TSCA Work Plan, Bloomberg BNA Chemical Regulation Reporter (2015); 187 DEN B-1, 9/28/15.
4 Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-03/documents/work_plan_methods_document_web_final.pdf.
By the same date, EPA must develop guidance to help manufacturers conduct and submit draft risk evaluations for the Agency's consideration. Again, the TSCA Work Plan is likely to be EPA's starting point.
EPA must also promulgate a final rule within the first year after enactment setting the procedures for the Inventory reset process. This is likely to be challenging for EPA, since it is probably starting from scratch. To some extent the original Inventory reporting period, with its Candidate list, may serve as a model. Once EPA adopts a final rule, it must then administer the Inventory Reset rule.
Also within one year of enactment, EPA must establish a Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals. Its membership will consist of “representatives of such science, government, labor, public health, public interest, animal protection, industry, and other groups as the Administrator determines to be advisable, including representatives that have specific scientific expertise.” In contrast, EPA's Chemical Safety Advisory Committee, established in 2015, consists of regular or special government employees “who have demonstrated high levels of competence, knowledge, and expertise in scientific/technical fields relevant to chemical risk assessment and pollution prevention.” Thus, EPA must establish a new advisory committee, similar to what it did when the pesticide-focused Food Quality Protection Act passed in 1996.
e. By June 2018
Within two years of enactment, EPA must develop any policies, procedures, and guidance that it determines are necessary to carry out the legislation. This will not involve rulemaking. EPA is likely to consider its current policies, procedures, and guidance as sufficient except to the extent that the legislation mandates changes. For example, in 2007 it issued guidance on risk assessments for metals and metal compounds. The legislation directs EPA to use that guidance or a successor document.
Also within the first two years after enactment, EPA must develop a strategic plan to promote the development and implementation of alternative test methods to reduce, refine or replace vertebrate animal testing and provide information of equivalent or better quality and relevance.
f. Other Early Obligations
EPA must consult with parties potentially subject to fee payments intended to cover a portion of the cost of implementing TSCA reform. It has no statutory deadline for doing so, but it cannot set fees and start collecting them until it has completed this obligation. The legislation calls for EPA to set fees rather than having Congress set fees, as is the case with user fees for pesticides, drugs, and medical devices under other statutes. However, the statutory fees for those products generally ratify what the agency and affected parties have agreed. Thus, the process should be generally similar with EPA's TSCA fees. The legislation retains the portion of current section 26(b)(1), which requires EPA to set fees “by rule,” meaning that EPA must go through notice-and-comment rulemaking in addition to consulting and meeting with affected parties.
In addition to preparing to implement TSCA reform, EPA must also set priorities, conduct risk evaluations, and, if appropriate, establish restrictions by rulemaking. Each of those steps has statutory deadlines. Under the TSCA Work Plan, EPA has completed risk assessments for the solvents n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), methylene chloride, and trichloroethylene (TCE). It plans to issue proposed risk management rules for those chemicals in September and October 2016. Since these risk assessments were completed before enactment of TSCA reform, EPA may not regard them as subject to the new deadlines of one year from completion of the risk evaluation for publication of a proposed rule and two years for completion of a final rule, subject to a maximum of a two-year extension. If it does, EPA will have to get cracking on those rulemakings. It is already behind the statutory schedule, since EPA completed the risk assessments for methylene chloride and TCE in 2014 and the risk assessment for NMP in March 2015.
Under amended section 5, EPA must begin making affirmative findings based on its review of pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) and significant new use notices (SNUNs). EPA must decide whether the new chemical or significant new use presents an unreasonable risk; may present an unreasonable risk; will be produced in substantial quantities and is anticipated to enter the environment in substantial quantities or there may be significant or substantial human exposure; or is not likely to present an unreasonable risk. This requirement may apply to PMNs and SNUNs for which the review period did not expire prior to enactment and will apply to those submitted after enactment.
The new language on articles in Section 5 may apply to current proposed significant new use rules (SNURs) and will apply to post-enactment SNURs for which EPA proposes to waive the standard exemption for the SNUR chemical in articles. That language requires EPA to make an affirmative finding in the SNUR that the reasonable potential for exposure to the SNUR chemical through the article justifies notification. EPA currently has proposed SNURs which would waive the articles exemption for polybrominated diphenyl ethers (applicable to PBDEs in all articles); long-chain perfluroalkyl carboxylates (applicable to their presence in all articles); perfluoroalkyl sulfonates (applicable to those compounds in carpets); and 2,4-toluene diisocyanate, 2,6-tolune diisocyanate, and unspecified toluene diisocyanate isomers (applicable to the chemical in all articles).
2. Opportunities and Challenges for Industry
As EPA proceeds with rulemaking or providing other opportunities for comment, industry members should take advantage of those opportunities and provide their perspectives on TSCA implementation. The decisions that EPA makes following those opportunities for comment are likely to affect how EPA implements TSCA in the decades to come. The rulemaking on fees will have a direct financial impact on affected manufacturers and processors, so they should participate in the rulemaking process.
The Inventory Reset rule, due by June 2017, will trigger the need for prompt industry action. Manufacturers must, and processors may, report to EPA within six months of promulgation of the final rule (i.e., potentially by December 2017) all chemicals that they have manufactured (or processed) within the preceding 10 years prior to enactment. In doing so, they must also notify EPA if they continue to claim as confidential the chemical identities of any chemicals that they manufactured (or processed) during that period that appear on the Confidential Inventory. Later, they will have to substantiate those confidentiality claims to EPA. Failure to notify and substantiate may result in those chemical identities being added to the Public Inventory. Companies may want to get started early to prepare to meet these requirements.
Persons who submit PMNs and SNUNs should be aware of EPA's obligation to make an affirmative finding about risk and the potential for increased EPA scrutiny resulting from that obligation. They may want to consider developing additional information that will allow EPA to find that their chemical or significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk.
A manufacturer will be able to request that EPA designate a chemical that it manufactures as a high-priority substance. Between a quarter and a half of all high-priority substances must be requested by manufacturers (assuming a sufficient supply for appropriate requests), so there is a good chance that EPA will grant appropriate requests. Manufacturers or their trade associations may want to consider making such requests. Processors, who are not authorized to make requests, may approach their suppliers and ask them to submit requests. Keep in mind, however, that EPA will charge requestors the full cost of evaluating requested chemicals that are not TSCA Work Plan chemicals and 50 percent of that cost for chemicals that are TSCA Work Plan chemicals.
Companies should review the TSCA Work Plan chemicals list for chemicals of importance to them, and plan accordingly. They should particularly consider the TSCA Work Plan chemicals for which EPA must promulgate risk management rules within three years without a requirement to conduct a risk evaluation. The following may be those chemicals:
• Butanamide, 2,2’-[(3,3’-dichloro[1,1’-biphenyl]-4,4’-diyl)biz(azo)bis[N-(4-chloro-2, 5- dimethoxyphenyl)-3-oxo- (Pigment Yellow 83), CAS No. 5567-15-7.
• Decabromodiphenyl ethers (DecaBDE), CAS No. 1163-19-5.
• Ethanone, 1-(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-octahydro- 2,3,5,5-tetramethyl-2-naphthalenyl)-, CAS No. 54464-59-4.
• Ethanone, 1-(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-octahydro- 2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-2-naphthalenyl)-, CAS No. 55464-57-2.
• Hexachlorobutadiene, CAS No. 87-68-3.
• 4-tert-Octylphenol (4-(1,1,3,3- Tetramethylbutyl-phenol), CAS No. 140-66-9.
• Pentachlorothio-phenol, CAS No. 133-49-3.
• Phenol, isopropylated, phosphate (3:1) (iPTPP), CAS No. 68937-41-7.
• 2,4,6-Tris (-tert-butyl) phenol, CAS No. 732-26-3.
Finally, as EPA prioritizes, conducts a risk evaluation for, and possibly regulates an individual chemical, affected companies or their trade associations should consider participating at each stage in the process to have a voice in the ultimate outcome.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=91090857&vname=dennotallissues&fn=91090857&jd=91090857
-
Senate Sends Chemical Overhaul to Obama
Jun 8, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Senate on Tuesday approved a bipartisan overhaul of the country’s standards for chemical safety, sending the bill to President Obama for his signature.
The passage of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act came by voice vote, two weeks after the House passed the bill and a decade after lawmakers first started working on the measure.
The legislation gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sweeping new power over tens of thousands of chemicals, with new ability to order testing and regulate the substances.
It also significantly clamps down on states’ authorities in an effort to stop a nationwide patchwork of chemical laws that industry says is difficult to deal with.
It overhauls the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976, which lawmakers and advocates across the political spectrum have criticized as leaving the EPA toothless in recent years. It’s the first major environmental bill to pass Congress since 1990.
“This is long overdue. All stakeholders across the political spectrum agreed for decades that this aspect of the law needed to be updated,” said Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), a lead sponsor of the bill.
“We needed to fully protect public health and safety, which we all want to do,” he said. “We also needed to ensure that American companies, which are world leaders today in science, research, and innovation, remain so and do not get put behind by a regulatory system which is overly burdensome and unworkable.”
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), the lead Democratic sponsor of the bill, said the old law was woefully inadequate.
“Most Americans believe that when they buy a product at the hardware store or the grocery store, that product has been tested and determined to be safe,” he said. “But that isn't the case. Americans are exposed to hundreds of chemicals from household items.”
Udall became the main Democratic sponsor in 2013, after the death of then-Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who had made a toxic chemicals bill his top priority for years.
The most intense negotiations over the bill took place over recent months, when lawmakers reconciled different bills passed by the House and the Senate.
One of the most important provisions of the bill mandates that the EPA decide whether to regulate a chemical based solely on its impact on human health and the environment.
The current law requires certain considerations of the cost of compliance, which has contributed to the EPA’s record of having regulated only five chemicals under the 1976 law. Asbestos is an example of a chemical that hasn’t been regulated, thanks to a 1991 court case.
The agency also gets new fees from the industry to pay for the reviews and must decide whether any chemicals currently on the market should be reviewed, among other provisions.
But the bill also overrides states’ authority to regulate chemicals, something that some states objected to, after they had taken the lead over the last four decades in controlling chemicals.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) blasted the legislation shortly before the vote, complaining that it gives the federal government, and the EPA specifically, too much power over the economy.
“Federalization of regulation separates the people who benefit from a successful chemical industry from the unelected bureaucrats who will write the regulations,” Paul, a former presidential contender for this year’s election, said on the Senate floor.
“Once you sever the ties, once there is no incentive, once nobody cares about the jobs anymore, the tendency is to regulate and to overregulate.”
Paul also took aim at the EPA, which he blamed for destroying major economic sectors like the coal industry, abusing the power Congress granted it.
“More than a hundred times, this bill leaves the discretionary authority to the EPA to make decisions on creating new rules,” he said. "It’s a mistake."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), a Democratic presidential candidate, has also criticized the bill, saying it goes too far in blocking states’ power.
“While this legislation allows Vermont to continue enforcing existing state regulations to keep adults and children safe from toxic chemicals such as [perfluorooctanoic acid], it makes it more difficult for states to set new, stricter standards,” he said in a statement. “That makes no sense.”
The House passed the bill by a vote of 403 to 12.
The White House supports the bill, nearly guaranteeing Obama’s signature.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/282588-senate-sends-chemical-safety-overhaul-bill-to-obama
-
Historic TSCA Reform Bill Heads to White House
Jun 8, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Arianna Skibell
After years of false starts and acrimonious debate, senators yesterday by voice vote approved a long-awaited and heavily negotiated bipartisan deal to update the nation's chemical safety law for the first time in 40 years, sending the measure to President Obama's desk to be signed into law.
Senators from both parties called the vote historic and spoke of the tortured path the reform legislation had taken.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said passage of the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act" will ensure sensible environmental laws that protect the health and safety of all Americans.
"I am proud of the work Republicans are doing to get Congress working again for the American people," he said in a statement.
The bill to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, H.R. 2576, cleared the House last month, and many senators thought the bill would quickly fly through their chamber.
Advertisement
That expectation was thwarted when Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) objected, saying he had not had time to read the bill (Greenwire, May 26).
Though Paul this week lifted his hold (E&E Daily, June 7), he took the opportunity to skewer the measure on the Senate floor before the vote.
He said the measure is the latest in a "devastating explosion" of federal regulations written or supported by a president "mad with regulatory zeal."
"No one disputes that this bill increases the power of the EPA," he said. "This is an important point. No one disputes that this bill increases the power of the EPA. No one disputes that this bill transfers power from states to the federal government.
"If you don't think that's a problem, come to Kentucky and meet the 16,000 people in my state who have lost their job because of the overregulatory nature of the EPA," he added.
Paul has also said he has some reservations about parts of the bill setting criminal violations for individuals who use banned chemicals and establishing a stronger federal regulatory structure that would usurp states' ability to choose less regulation.
Senators debated the measure for 45 minutes before the vote, during which time Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said she would have preferred if the bill did not pre-empt the states' ability to regulate but that a compromise was necessary for such a complex issue.
"The journey to this moment is the most complicated journey I've ever had to take," she said. "And I've been here a long time."
She also stressed that states have time to continue implementing stricter regulations before EPA passes its own plan. She urged states listening to take advantage of certain loopholes in the bill and pass stricter regulations.
While stakeholders are waiting to see how EPA implements the law, many expressed gratitude that the measure passed.
"Generations of American children have grown up without any real legal protection from toxic chemicals," Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement. "After so much hard work, we are just a signature away from a law that will finally start to give Americans the health protections they deserve."
National Association of Manufacturers President and CEO Jay Timmons said the bill makes it easier for manufacturers to ensure the safety of their products and deliver quality goods to their customers.
"The regulations on these chemicals will be clearer and more straightforward, meaning time and resources that would have been spent trying to navigate outdated, confusing rules can now be spent on driving innovation and creating jobs," he said in a statement.
Other stakeholders were less enthusiastic. Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook said the law doesn't go far enough and ultimately fails to protect public health.
"What we need is a law that aggressively protects people, especially children, on an urgent basis from the thousands of toxic chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, nervous system disorders and other problems," he said in a statement. "This law simply will not accomplish that commonsense goal."
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), a chief sponsor to the bill, said the passage was a "bittersweet" moment since Frank Lautenberg, for whom the bill is named and who championed an update to the law during his Senate career, is not alive to see the fruit of his labor.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) called the process "historic" and "unprecedented."
The bill now heads to the White House for Obama's signature.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/06/08/stories/1060038463
-
Congress Passes Strong TSCA Reform, First Major Environmental Legislation in Over Two Decades
Jun 7, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Today, the truly remarkable happened: The U.S. Senate passed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act with strong bipartisan support and sent it to the President, who is expected to sign it into law. The bill came to the Senate floor tonight by unanimous consent and passed on a voice vote. Senate passage follows the House’s passage of the same bill by a margin of 403-12 on May 24.
What a long, strange trip it’s been. There were many false starts and blind alleys along the way, and more twists and turns than the Steel Dragon 2000. It took years of work by many Members and their incredibly dedicated staff to reach this accomplishment.
From the outset, it seemed that this effort would succeed only by finding a bipartisan path forward, and then working to both move and improve the bill. For EDF, that strategy seemed essential to building both the support and the momentum needed to get a bill of this magnitude to the President’s desk and signed into law. The late Sen. Frank Lautenberg, the bill’s namesake, started us down this path: He had the political courage to reach across the aisle and the foresight to envision getting to this moment.
It continued with the willingness of his odd bedfellow, Sen. David Vitter, to co-sponsor with Sen. Lautenberg the first bipartisan bill – and then agree to make changes to improve the legislation and address key concerns. After Lautenberg’s death, Sen. Tom Udall’s willingness to step up was vital, as was Sen. Jim Inhofe’s willingness to make the bill a priority when he became chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and to co-lead further negotiations that led to more improvements and increased support.
Many other members engaged in both improving and moving this legislation over the last few years. In the Senate, Tom Carper, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Cory Booker, Ed Markey, Dick Durbin and Barbara Boxer each provided critical help at key points along the way. The House process was much quicker but equally bipartisan. Representatives Fred Upton, Frank Pallone, John Shimkus, and Paul Tonko worked to get a bill through the House, and Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Diana DeGette and Gene Green joined them to help get a final deal through the bicameral negotiations.
The Environmental Protection Agency and the Obama Administration lent a big helping hand at several key points. Their 2009 Essential Principles for TSCA Reformset important benchmarks for reform. Former Administrator Lisa Jackson, in a memo issued her first day on the job, made clear that TSCA failed to provide the agency with the tools needed to do its job and that reform was a key priority. That commitment was renewed by Gina McCarthy, and Assistant Administrator Jim Jones and many other EPA staff provided critical technical assistance all along the way. Just before House passage, the White House issued a strong Statement of Administration Policycalling the bill “landmark reform” that “is a clear improvement over the current TSCA and represents a historic advancement for both chemical safety and environmental law.”
I’ve already blogged about how this bill, though it gives no one everything they want, stands to markedly improve the status quo under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). I’ve also provided more detailed analyses here.
Of course, in many ways the real work now begins: Implementing the new law will take the same level of hard work and dedication it’s taken to get us to this point – and that will be a real challenge in an area fraught with contention and conflict.
But one step at a time. And today’s step was a huge one.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2016/06/07/congress-passes-strong-tsca-reform-first-major-environmental-legislation-in-over-two-decades/
-
(ACC Mentioned) BASF Backs Off of $1.4 Billion Freeport Plant
Jun 7, 2016 | Fuel Fix
By Jordan Blum
The German company BASF confirmed it will postpone building a massive chemical plant at its existing Freeport complex as the Gulf Coast petrochemical boom continues to slow down.
After first announcing tentative plans for the project more than two years ago, profit margins have declined and the world’s largest chemical company is opting to put off the expansion for now, as first reported by Reuters.
The more than $1 billion project would have produced 475,000 metric tons of propylene a year. Propylene is one of the most common chemical building blocks of plastics.
“Considering the current volatility of raw material prices and the prevailing economic environment, BASF has postponed its final investment decision regarding the construction of a methane-to-propylene complex at its Freeport, Texas, site,” BASF spokesman David Johnson said in a prepared statement.
He added that BASF continues to review raw materials prices and market conditions to determine the right time to commence such a major investment.
Methane is the primary component of natural gas, which has fueled the surge of petrochemical construction along the Gulf Coast. The shale boom is producing the cheap and ample natural gas that serves as the feedstock of the chemical plants.
But that construction rush began when oil was priced at about $100 a barrel, which was twice the current price. Most chemical plants outside the U.S. use a form of crude oil as their feedstock. As the price of oil fell, so too did the competitive edge for building chemical plants in Texas and Louisiana. The U.S. advantage may still exist, but the extra profit margins aren’t as wide as they once were.
The American Chemistry Council still counts almost 265 petrochemical projects planned across the country through 2023 that will cost more than $160 billion to build. Texas would be to more than 100 of the projects, worth $50 billion.
BASF is still building its ammonia plant in Freeport with Norway-based Yara International that is slated to open in 2017.
Founded in 1958, BASF’s Freeport campus is the company’s oldest manufacturing site outside of Europe.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/06/07/basf-backs-off-of-1-4-billion-freeport-plant/
-
(ACC Mentioned) BASF to Delay $1.4 Billion Plant Expansion
Jun 7, 2016 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
German company BASF said Tuesday that it will postpone building a massive chemical plant at its Freeport complex as the Gulf Coast petrochemical boom continues to slow.
Since the $1.4 billion project was announced more than two years ago, profit margins in the industry have declined in the face of increased global competition and a glut of petrochemicals on the market. As a result, BASF, the world's largest chemical company, is opting to delay the expansion until market conditions improve, BASF spokesman David Johnson said.
The plant would have produced 475,000 metric tons of propylene a year. Propylene is one of the most common chemical building blocks of plastics.
BASF and other chemical companies benefited from the so-called shale revolution that produced cheap and plentiful supplies of natural gas, which is the feedstock for propylene and other petrochemicals. Rock bottom natural gas prices meant healthy profit margins, fueling the construction and expansion of plants along the Gulf Coast.
But that construction rush began when oil was priced at about $100 a barrel, twice the current price. Most chemical plants outside the U.S. use a form of crude oil as their feedstock. As the price of oil fell, so too did the competitive edge for the chemical plants in Texas and Louisiana, forcing the companies to accept lower profit margins to hold on to their markets.
In addition, prices for petrochemicals, particularly propylene, have plunged because of a global oversupply, further squeezing profit margins. New production in China and elsewhere has contributed to the glut, said chemicals analyst Hassan Ahmed of New York-based Alembic Global Advisors.
"The propylene prices have been decimated," Ahmed said.
Concerns about a petrochemical glut and further price declines have led other companies to put planned projects on hold indefinitely.
For instance, Houston-based Ascend Performance Materials said in May it would further delay the construction of its $1.2 billion propane dehydrogenation, or PDH, plant at its Chocolate Bayou campus in Alvin.
In Louisiana, Houston-based G2X Energy recently delayed its planned $1.6 billion Big Lake Fuels methanol plant in Lake Charles, said Marc Alvarado, associate director of methanol research for IHS. Another key Texas project, Paris-based Total's planned $2 billion ethylene plant in Port Arthur, is still awaiting the go-ahead. A final investment decision is expected in the second half of the year.
The American Chemistry Council still counts almost 265 petrochemical projects planned across the country through 2023. They are estimated to cost a combined $160 billion to build. Texas would be to more than 100 of the projects, worth $50 billion.
BASF is still building its ammonia plant in Freeport with Norway-based Yara International. That plant is slated to open in 2017.
Founded in 1958, BASF's Freeport campus is the company's oldest manufacturing site outside Europe.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/BASF-to-delay-1-4-billion-plant-expansion-7969421.php
-
(ACC Mentioned) New Marcellus Shale Cracker Plant in Pennsylvania Will Create Thousands of Jobs
Jun 7, 2016 | Energy in Depth
By Nicole Jacobs
Plans have been underway for years for Shell to build an ethane cracker plant in the region due to the abundance of shale gas in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio. Back in March 2012 the company announced that the facility would be located in Beaver County, Pennsylvania, after months of each state vying for the opportunity, and just this week, those plans were finalized. From KDKA:
“This announcement signals Shell’s re-entry into the North American polyethylene market. The plant will be one of the largest of its kind in North America – the largest single “from the ground up” industrial investment in the Pittsburgh region in a generation – and the first major U.S. project of its type to be built outside the Gulf Coast region in 20 years,” Allegheny Conference on Community Development CEO Dennis Yablonsky said.
According to Shell, construction of the estimated $2 billion facility is set to begin in the next 18 months, and will create roughly 6,000 construction jobs and 600 permanent jobs when it goes online in the next decade.
Allegheny County Executive Rich Fitzgerald explained to the Associated Press:
“The project is monumental; the building of this plant will be equivalent to the construction of 25 stadiums. This announcement accelerates our growth to a next level and will provide even more opportunities for our young people. This multi-billion investment will bring economic growth to our region now and for generations to come, and we thank Shell for their decision to invest here.” (emphasis added)
In a statement Tuesday, Governor Wolf called the project “game-changing” and explained that it will “create thousands of jobs in Pennsylvania.” He went on to say,
“…we have prioritized the Shell plant to show the world that Pennsylvania is a leader in energy manufacturing and downstream production.
The success of this project is part of a much-needed, longer term plan to translate our abundant resources to make Pennsylvania a leader in downstream production. The commitment of the Shell cracker plant in Western Pennsylvania is an important step toward this goal.”
Jack Manning, president of the Beaver County Chamber of Commerce, told the Beaver County Times,
“It truly is a once-in-a-lifetime investment, a multibillion-dollar project like this and all the potential ancillary business that could come with it,” Manning said. “This really is a generational sea change for Beaver County.”
The project has already provided an economic boost for the area, even before this official announcement. At a panel presentation in April, Pat Nardelli, a partner at Castlebrook Development, explained some of the impact it has already had on the community:
“The one thing about Shell is whether they make the decision or not, they’ve spent a half billion to date if not more, and it’s going up every day,” Nardelli said. “The most important residual factor is we are going to have one heck of a building pad sitting down there totally prepared for whomever. … They are making this commitment, they’ve built the bridge, are going ahead with the parking garage, so something is going to be done. We are training people now, and we are going to be ready for Shell when they make that announcement.”
But bringing a cracker facility to the area will have bigger impacts than just those directly related to shale development or the local community. The cracker plant will take ethane from the Marcellus and “crack” or break it apart to create ethylene, and eventually various types of polyethylene that are then used to make the plastics we use every day. As Yablonsky explained to KDKA,
“Today’s announcement is also a victory for U.S. manufacturing. Here in Pittsburgh and the surrounding area, we are ready to go to work combining 21st century innovation with proven strength in manufacturing and industrial operations.”
It’s just one more way that shale development is fueling a resurgence in U.S. manufacturing, as can be seen in the following video.
When one considers that similar projects are being considered in Ohio and West Virginia, the implications for the manufacturing industry in not only Appalachia, but across the country, are huge. In fact, in April the American Chemistry Council (ACC) explained,
“U.S. chemical manufacturers rely on natural gas for heat and power, and it contains ethane, an NGL that serves as our main feedstock…Dramatic supply growth has had an equally dramatic impact on U.S. natural gas prices. It’s a stunning reversal of fortune from just a few years ago, when the chemical industry was losing market share – and jobs – to competitors abroad.” (emphasis added)
Projects such as this cracker facility will only continue to improve the potential for U.S. industries to return to U.S. soil. In response to the Shell announcement, ACC said,
“Today’s exciting news is another sign that a renaissance in American chemistry is underway,” said Cal Dooley, ACC President and CEO. “Thanks to our nation’s abundant supplies of shale gas, the U.S. has become the world’s destination for new chemical industry investment. Our competitive edge will mean new jobs and exports and a stronger manufacturing sector for years to come.” (emphasis added)
For those that have worked to make the proposed project a reality, Shell has already demonstrated its commitment to safety and the environment throughout the planning process. From KDKA:
“Throughout the planning process, Shell has demonstrated its commitment to safety, environment and community, and we know that its commitment will continue through the construction process and when the plant is in daily operation,” Yablonsky said.
All in all this is an exciting day for the Commonwealth, and especially Beaver County, as the Marcellus Shale continues to provide new opportunities for residents.
http://energyindepth.org/marcellus/new-marcellus-shale-cracker-plant-in-pennsylvania-will-create-thousands-of-jobs/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Shell's Ethane Cracker Seen Having Far-Reaching Impact Throughout Appalachian Basin
Jun 7, 2016 | NGI Shale Daily
By Jamison Cocklin
Shell Chemical Appalachia LLC's decision to build a multi-billion dollar ethane cracker in Western Pennsylvania marks the first time in more than 20 years that such a facility has been built in the United States outside of the Gulf Coast.
The company's announcement on Tuesday was hailed by those throughout Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia as a watershed moment in the evolution of the Marcellus and Utica shale plays. Shell's historic decision, sources said, lays the groundwork for the future of supply and demand, opens the door for similar facilities to be built and clears a path for the creation of what could be thousands of ancillary jobs in the region.
"Shell's decision to move forward with its Western Pennsylvania ethylene cracker marks a major turning point for the region," Consol Energy Inc. said. "Since unconventional shale gas began to flow from the Appalachian Basin over a decade ago, the buildout of large-scale, end-use opportunities have been critical in realizing the generational benefits of the vast resource that lies beneath our feet. Today, those benefits and the opportunity to build and sustain a new middle class in our region are becoming reality."
Consol has signed an agreement to supply Shell's cracker with ethane. The facility would be built on a 400-acre site adjacent to the Ohio River in Potter and Center townships in Beaver County, about 30 miles northwest of Pittsburgh. With a capacity to produce 1.6 million metric tons/year (mmty) of polyethylene and 1.5 mmty of ethylene, which are key building blocks for plastics, the facility is expected to employ 6,000 during construction and another 600 permanent employees once it's operational sometime in the early 2020s.
The company has already spent millions of dollars on site preparation and administrative work (seeShale Daily, March 4).
There would also be three on-site natural gas-fired turbines to generate electricity and steam (see Shale Daily, Aug. 5, 2014). Shell's final investment decision (FID) is good news for Appalachian exploration and production companies that haven't had a lot of it lately, said BTU Analytics LLC Partner Kathryn Miller.
"The pieces of the puzzle are falling into place. You'll see increasing demand from Gulf Coast crackers that will come online next year and now Shell's cracker in the Northeast is an additional source of demand," Miller said. "The outlook is getting better for ethane pricing. It's not going to completely change the economics for drilling for wet gas in Southwest Appalachia, but it should improve breakeven economics and rates of return by an amount that's not completely insignificant."
As the commodities downturn has dragged on, a majority of the Appalachian Basin's leading producers have retreated almost exclusively to their dry natural gas acreage, where low breakeven prices and prolific wells have outperformed wetter assets and helped to defend against the downturn (see Shale Daily,April 7). Ethane has sold for pennies on the dollar in recent years. Mont Belvieu, TX, spot prices on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange have consistently settled at less than 20 cents/gallon since 2014.
Ethane is a major part of the gas stream in Appalachia, accounting for more than 50% of production in some of the wells there.
"Producers haven't been getting much for it," Miller added. "They've actually been figuring out how to dispose of it in some cases. This [cracker] could help move rates of return up by 10% where producers, for instance, might break even at a price closer to $2.20 rather than $2.50."
The facility would join a growing list of midstream options for Appalachian liquids production, as well. The 1,230-mile Appalachia-to-Texas Express ethane pipeline entered service in 2014 (see Shale Daily, Dec. 5, 2013). Sunoco Logistics Partners LP is also delivering ethane and propane from Western Pennsylvania to the Marcus Hook Industrial Complex near Philadelphia for export overseas. Sunoco plans to bring its Mariner East 2 pipeline into service in 2017 to carry more natural gas liquids (NGL) from Ohio and Pennsylvania to Marcus Hook, and it is gauging interest in a third pipeline (see Shale Daily, Feb. 26).
Among other projects, Mountaineer NGL Storage LLC said last month that it received requests for more than three times its initial planned capacity in Ohio during a nonbinding open season (see Daily GPI, May 25).
A bump in ethane prices, Miller said, could occur as early as 2017. In the Appalachian Basin, Ohio Oil and Gas Association Executive Vice President Shawn Bennett said Shell's facility "creates a market for ethane right here in Ohio." Having a local end-user would cut transportation costs and make the product more marketable, he said.
"By the time they pay for [ethane] transport, producers have been getting very little netbacks," said Danielle Sandusky, principle at Level 2 Energy, an energy market analysis website that also offers hedging and risk management services. "The economics haven't justified spending the money to pursue wet gas and it's one of the reasons you've seen this push into dry gas where these guys are getting massive estimated ultimate recoveries instead of pursuing wet gas."
Shell's facility is one of five that have been proposed for the Appalachian Basin (see Shale Daily, Sept. 3, 2015; May 21, 2014; Nov. 14, 2014; Jan 19, 2012). In 2012, Aither Chemicals LLC said it would construct a $750 million cracker that would utilize Marcellus ethane, but never identified a site and has mentioned little about the proposal since. Appalachian Resins Inc. in 2013 said it would construct a small-scale 15,000 b/d facility in Monroe County, OH, but later said it would put those plans on hold after Thailand's PTT Global Chemical (PTTGC) pcl said it would spend $100 million on preliminary design work for a multi-billion dollar facility in Belmont County, OH.
Like PTT's proposal, Odebrecht SA, through its petrochemical affiliate Braskem SA, announced plans in 2014 for a facility in Wood County, WV, that would be comparable to Shell's cracker. Odebrecht said last year that it would postpone its plans for the West Virginia facility pending further project analysis amid the commodities downturn (see Shale Daily, April 23, 2015).
"In my opinion, I think it bolsters Ohio's position in acquiring a cracker," Bennett said. "What you have is Shell has done the due diligence, assessed the resource viability in the region. The ethane is here and logistically it works out. They're moving forward, and that opens the door to other projects."
Executive Director of the West Virginia Oil and Natural Gas Association Corky DeMarco agreed with Bennett even though he had hoped his state would land the region's first cracker.
"I certainly would have wanted the first cracker in West Virginia, given that people were talking about this back in 2009," he said. "But I think this shows people that there is the supply here and having the commitment up here, I think, will increase the likelihood of other commitments. I've always thought once the first one is committed, then a bunch of folks will say we better get there before someone else does."
Braskem spokesperson Stacy Torpey said the company had no comment about Shell's FID but added that plans for its cracker in West Virginia remain unchanged. PTTGC spokesperson Dan Williamson expressed a similar sentiment and said Shell's announcement has no bearing on the company's plans.
"Shell's decision to move forward with its project in Pennsylvania will have no impact on our process," Williamson said. "There are rich feedstock resources in this region of the United States, which are closer to our project compared to projects on the Gulf Coast and other regions of the country. Our front-end engineering and design process continues to move forward, and we look forward to making a final investment decision early in 2017."
When Shell's cracker is completed, both DeMarco and Bennett said thousands of other downstream jobs should be created in the supply chain and in regional manufacturing. Allegheny County Executive Rich Fitzgerald said the project is "monumental," likening it to the construction of 25 large stadiums. Allegheny Conference on Community Development CEO Dennis Yablonsky said the cracker is the largest single 'from the ground up' industrial investment in the Pittsburgh region in a generation."
Shell floated the idea of constructing an ethane cracker in Pennsylvania in 2011 and signed a site option agreement for a former zinc smelting plant in 2012 in Beaver County (see Daily GPI, March 16, 2012; June 7, 2011). Shortly after the company made its announcement, the Pennsylvania Economy League released a study that said the cracker could create annual economic output of $4.8 billion.
The American Chemistry Council said Tuesday that 262 chemical industry projects valued at $161 billion are completed, under construction or planned for the United States. The new factories and capacity expansions could create $105 billion in annual chemical industry output and 738,000 permanent jobs throughout the country by 2023.
What's more, several of the world's largest polymer companies are located in Northeast Ohio, including Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., Parker Hannifin Corp. and PolyOne Corp. The Pittsburgh region is also home to more than 100 plastics-related companies that employ more than 5,000 people, according to the Pittsburgh Regional Alliance, an economic development organization.
"I think they believe they have the supply and that they can get it at an advantaged price," Miller said, when asked what factored into Shell's announcement after five years of decision-making. "When making this evaluation, I'm sure they were considering the supply side and there is a fair bit of demand in the Northeast market."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106677-shells-ethane-cracker-seen-having-far-reaching-impact-throughout-appalachian-basin
-
(ACC Mentioned) Shell Sees Cost Benefit with East US Cracker, PE Units
Jun 8, 2016 | ICIS
By Joseph Chang
Shell sees a major cost advantage with its Pennsylvania cracker and polyethylene (PE) units – not just globally but also within the US, the head of its chemical business said on Tuesday.
“Marcellus shale gas is the lowest cost gas in North America. Fundamentally it’s a great feedstock position to build upon. The alternative for gas producers is to ship it to the US Gulf Coast or elsewhere,” said Graham van’t Hoff, executive vice president at Shell Chemicals.
“We see cash costs substantially below US Gulf Coast producers,” he added.
Van’t Hoff spoke at a Shell press conference at the American Chemistry Council (ACC) Annual Meeting in Colorado Springs.
Shell earlier announced a final investment decision to build a 1.5m tonne/yearethane cracker, along with three PE units totalling 1.6m tonnes/year of capacity in Monaca, Pennsylvania. Construction is scheduled to start in 18 months, with start-up targeted in the early 2020s.
There will be two units using Univation gas-phase technology – one for linear low density PE (LLDPE) and one for high density PE (HDPE) – and one HDPE unit using INEOS slurry technology, said van’t Hoff.
In addition, the complex can make co-monomer grades of PE using alphaolefins, he said. Shell is building a fourth alpha olefins plant at its site in Geismar, Louisiana, expanding production capacity by an additional 425,000 tonnes/year.
The other major competitive advantage is proximity to customers. More than 70% of North American PE customers are within a 700-mile (1,100 km) radius of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, near where the cracker and PE facilities will be built.
“There is a value proposition to customers located close by that want short lead times,” said van’t Hoff. In addition to rail, truck deliveries will be available to nearby customers.
While production initially will be consumed locally as well as exported, ultimately he sees “the vast majority” of the PE being consumed in the US.
“Logically those closer to ports will be more advantaged for exports versus inland plants,” said van’t Hoff.
The reason for starting construction 18 months from now is the overall affordability of the project within the Shell group, which is in the process of absorbing its $50bn acquisition of oil and gas producer BG Group, he noted.
In addition, the timing works out well in terms of skilled craft labour availability and avoiding the onslaught of US PE capacity additions in 2017-2018.
“We are happy with the timing as we will start construction just as the three large integrated PE projects by Chevron Phillips, Dow and ExxonMobil will be rolling off. It’s nice to be gearing up without competing for so much skilled craft labour,” said van’t Hoff.
“Also there’s quite a bit of new PE supply coming on in the next 2-3 years. The market should be tightening up again by the early 2020s,” he added.
Starting in 18 months also will give Shell sufficient time to “de-risk” the project, said the executive.
“We will substantially de-risk the execution phase with the completion of early works and getting all the skilled labour in place,” said van’t Hoff.
At peak construction phase, Shell expects over 6,000 workers on site. Post construction, the site will employ around 600 workers, he noted.
Infrastructure investments at or near the site will include a rail yard, as well as ethane pipelines to gather the raw material from existing gas fractionation facilities.
On why it took so long to make a final investment decision, with the project initially being announced in 2011, van’t Hoff said thoroughly de-risking such a major project in the northeast US with issues around infrastructure and feedstock availability takes much longer than on the US Gulf Coast.
“You don’t go ahead without full confidence in the answers. And those answers don’t come as quickly as they would on the Gulf Coast,” he said.
With construction starting in late 2017, and typical timing of 3-4 years for a project of this magnitude, start-up could come in 2021 or 2022.
However, the timing of start-up will not be schedule-led, but with a priority on getting the project right in terms of cost structure and safety, the executive said.
Shell would not disclose the cost of the project.
The ACC Annual Meeting runs through Wednesday.
http://www.icis.com/resources/news/2016/06/08/10005951/shell-sees-cost-benefit-with-east-us-cracker-pe-units/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Shell to Tap Pennsylvania Shale Gas for New Plastics Plant
Jun 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jack Kaskey
Royal Dutch Shell Plc committed to opening the first ethylene plant in the next decade, planning a chemical complex in western Pennsylvania that will use gas from nearby shale deposits to make plastics beginning in the early 2020s.
The construction will include an ethane cracker to produce the ethylene, the most widely used petrochemical, which will be converted into 1.6 million metric tons a year of polyethylene, a plastic resin used in food packaging and auto parts. The factories will be built by about 6,000 construction workers along the Ohio River in Potter Township, about 30 miles (48 kilometers) northwest of Pittsburgh. Construction will begin in about 18 months, the company said in a statement June 7. Shell, based in The Hague, didn't provide a cost estimate.
Shell's project follows the first wave of North American plants being built along the Gulf of Mexico coast by companies such as Dow Chemical Co. and Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. The factories all use shale gas to gain a cost advantage over producers in Europe and Asia that rely on oil- and coal-based feedstocks.
“That's going to be a huge development for the chemical industry in the Midwest region that will also precipitate other investments,” Cal Dooley, president of the American Chemistry Council , told reporters at the industry group's annual meeting in Colorado Springs, Colo.
The plant will be located within 700 miles of 70 percent of North American polyethylene customers, shortening supply chains compared with plants on the Gulf Coast, Shell said. The plant will employ about 600 people when completed.
Foreign companies account for more than half of the $161 billion of chemical investments announced since 2010, according to the ACC.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=91090863&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=495996000&searchid=27753660&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0
-
(ACC Mentioned) Shell FIDs Pennsylvania Ethane Cracker, Fueled by Marcellus, Utica Natural Gas
Jun 7, 2016 | NGI's Shale Daily
By Carolyn Davis
A unit of Royal Dutch Shell plc has pulled the trigger to build an ethane cracker northwest of Pittsburgh, designed to rely on natural gas supply from the Marcellus and Utica shales to produce 1.6 million metric tons/year (mmty) of polyethylene.
The final investment decision (FID), announced Tuesday by Houston-based Shell Chemical Appalachia LLC, gives the go-ahead for an ethylene cracker with a polyethylene derivatives unit to begin construction in about 18 months. Commercial production is scheduled for the early 2020s.
Shell began eyeing a cracker for the Northeast region five years ago, eventually settling on Pennsylvania (see Shale Daily,March 16, 2012;Dec. 5, 2011;Sept. 7, 2011). Give and take began with state officials, land was secured and then stakeholders waited for the FID, which was delayed several times (see Shale Daily,March 4).
"Shell Chemicals has recently announced final investment decisions to expand alpha olefins production at our Geismar site in Louisiana and, with our partner CNOOC in China, to add a world-scale ethylene cracker with derivative units to our existing complex there," said Shell Executive Vice President Graham van't Hoff, who oversees the global chemicals business. "This third announcement demonstrates the growth of Shell in chemicals and strengthens our competitive advantage."
Shell plans to begin construction this year on an expansion at its Geismar campus, which would make it the largest alpha olefins (AO) producer in the world (see Daily GPI,Nov. 30, 2015). Shell currently has three AO units on the 800-acre Geismar site, and the fourth unit being built would produce around 425,000 mmty of AO, lifting facility capacity to more than 1.3 mmty.
The Pennsylvania facility is being built on the banks of the Ohio River in Potter Township in Beaver County, about 30 miles from Pittsburgh.
"As a result of its close proximity to gas feedstock, the complex, and its customers, will benefit from shorter and more dependable supply chains, compared to supply from the Gulf Coast," Shell said. "The location is also ideal because more than 70% of North American polyethylene customers are within a 700-mile radius of Pittsburgh."
The project is expected to bring growth and jobs to the region, with up to 6,000 construction workers involved in building the facility and an expected 600 permanent employees when completed.
Gov. Tom Wolf, whose Democratic administration has sparred frequently with the oil and gas industry, acknowledged that initial work on the Shell facility began four years ago under the administration of former Republican Gov. Tom Corbett.
"Since first taking office, I have worked in close collaboration with my Secretary of Community and Economic Development Dennis Davin, the Pittsburgh Regional Alliance, local officials in Western Pennsylvania and Royal Dutch Shell to make the proposed plant a reality," Wolf said. "The commonwealth engaged the company with the goal of creating jobs, spurring economic development, and taking the next steps to connect the energy industry with long-term, sustainable economic growth."
Wolf said his administration "is committed to creating jobs in the energy industry through responsible, well-regulated extraction and long-term, creative industrial growth. We have worked to develop strategies for safe and responsible pipeline development that brings resources to markets and facilities, and we have prioritized the Shell plant to show the world that Pennsylvania is a leader in energy manufacturing and downstream production."
The project's success "is part of a much-needed, longer-term plan to translate our abundant resources to make Pennsylvania a leader in downstream production. The commitment of the Shell cracker plant in Western Pennsylvania is an important step toward this goal," the governor said.
"Shell's decision to move forward with this world-class facility, which will put thousands to work across our region through utilizing clean-burning domestic natural gas for decades to come, is welcomed news, especially given the challenging market conditions," said Marcellus Shale Coalition President David Spigelmyer. "This investment also reflects the fact that domestic manufacturing's potential is near limitless thanks to our abundant and stable energy supplies from natural gas."
Allegheny County Executive Rich Fitzgerald said the agreement by Shell was achieved through a collaborative effort by the "building trades and the United Steelworkers, the bipartisan support from the Pennsylvania house and senate, and the efforts of the Allegheny Conference and the Marcellus Shale Coalition... The project is monumental; the building of this plant will be equivalent to the construction of 25 stadiums. This announcement accelerates our growth to a next level and will provide even more opportunities for our young people."
Allegheny Conference on Community Development CEO Dennis Yablonsky said the announcement signaled "Shell's re-entry into the North American polyethylene market. The plant will be one of the largest of its kind in North America -- the largest single 'from the ground up' industrial investment in the Pittsburgh region in a generation -- and the first major U.S. project of its type to be built outside the Gulf Coast region in 20 years."
The decision to move forward also is "a victory for U.S. manufacturing," he said. "We believe that a capital investment of this magnitude indicates to other companies in the energy, petrochemical and plastics industries that southwestern Pennsylvania should be on their shortlist of locations for new facilities and expansions. That's especially the case considering that polyethylene demand is forecasted to grow worldwide, with some analysts projecting it will rise 4% a year to 99.6 million metric tons in 2018."
The cracker announcement is "another sign that a renaissance in American chemistry is under way," American Chemistry Council (ACC) CEO Cal Dooley said. "Thanks to our nation's abundant supplies of shale gas, the U.S. has become the world's destination for new chemical industry investment. Our competitive edge will mean new jobs and exports and a stronger manufacturing sector for years to come."
According to the ACC, as of this month 262 chemical industry projects valued at $161 billion are completed, under construction or planned for the United States, which could create $105 billion in annual output and 738,000 permanent U.S. jobs by 2023.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106670-shell-fids-pennsylvania-ethane-cracker-fueled-by-marcellus-utica-natural-gas
-
Rocky Path Seen for Energy Bill Conference
Jun 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The path ahead for the House and Senate to reconcile their versions of broad energy legislation appears to be rocky, with some analysts questioning whether a formal conference between the two chambers will occur.
The House's decision to add to its version of the bill a slew of energy policy measures opposed by the Obama administration and congressional Democrats makes it unlikely that enough Senate Democrats would support sending the Senate version to a conference committee to work out differences, a Democratic leadership aide told Bloomberg BNA.
“It doesn't make anyone want to hurry to talk about things that can't get done,” Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, told Bloomberg BNA in an interview. “I don't know that they are very serious about getting something when they send over things that the president clearly said he would veto.”
In the balance hangs what could be the first broad energy bill passed by Congress is nearly a decade.
Both the House and the Senate versions include measures to expedite the federal approval process for liquefied natural gas exports, streamline the approval process for electric transmission lines, increase cybersecurity protections for the electricity grid and expedite licensing for hydropower projects.
Key Differences
But the bills also contain key differences that would need to be negotiated. Many of them, such as language opposed by the Obama administration to streamline the permitting process for mines and a provision that would require expedited consideration of natural gas and pipeline siting applications by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, were recently added to the bill as part of an 806-page amendment approved May 25 by the House (102 DEN A-7, 5/26/16).
“I would have real issues going to conference with that un-credible of an opener,” Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, told reporters.
Election year politics almost certainly were in play in the House's decision to load up the bill with an amendment composed of bills that the White House already threatened to veto, analysts such as Paul Bledsoe, a former Clinton administration climate adviser, told Bloomberg BNA.
Election Year Politics
“I think the fundamental question is does the House want to get a bill, and if they do, what kind of compromises are they willing to make? How far are they willing to go toward the Senate language? In an election year, that's not going to be easy,” said Bledsoe, who is president of Bledsoe & Associates, an independent energy consultancy.
“I would say the rhetoric of Trump contrasted with the rhetoric of Clinton has made that probably harder,” he added. “When the Republican standard bearer throws down gauntlets on a whole variety of energy and climate issues, it could be harder for House Republicans to compromise.”
Chris Miller, who spent eight years as senior policy adviser on energy and environment climate issues for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), said a “distinct possibility” exists the Senate won't choose to go to conference.
“What's the incentive for Democrats to go to conference, particularly if they are going to take the Senate majority,” said Miller, who now works at AJW, a consulting firm. “President Clinton will want to have some sort of energy policy initiative fairly early on.”
Some Still See Bill Possible
Still, not everyone believes Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairwoman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and chief architect of the Senate bill, will allow the legislation to go into the waste basket after months of work.
A conference will work out differences to reach a bill that can be signed into law, because no one wants to end up with one that the president would veto, a former committee staffer told Bloomberg BNA.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=91090874&vname=dennotallissues&fn=91090874&jd=91090874
-
Dems Ready to Fight Over Energy Bill
Jun 8, 2016 | Politico (Morning Energy)
By Eric Wolff
DEMS DIGGING TRENCH FOR ENERGY BILL CONFERENCE FIGHT: Senate Democrats will keep poring over an energy bill conference proposal the House sent over before recess, but they are digging in. “There’s just so much there that’s already been SAP’d by the president ... Why would you send that over if you were serious about getting a bill?” Sen. Maria Cantwell, the energy committee’s top Democrat, told ME Monday night, referring to the veto threats in the statements of administration policy (SAPs) the White House has issued on the lower chamber’s package. “We’ve got to see how serious the House is. Because if they think they’re going to get that, that’s not happening,” Cantwell added. The House package includes its energy bill (H.R. 8), which passed mostly along party-lines and attracted a veto threat, along with bills related to wildfire protection and DOE science research that also drew White House opposition over fears they would weaken environmental protections or clean energy programs.
Story Continued Below
The future is the past but in the future: Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, who agreed to withdraw an offshore drilling amendment in order to clear a path for S. 2012 in the Senate, said he was trying not to worry about the latest impasse. “Scripture says have no anxiety about tomorrow, for tomorrow will take care of itself. Let the day’s own troubles be sufficient for the day,” he told ME.
A former House member, Cassidy said Senate Democrats were risking repeating mistakes of his former colleagues. “We used to be criticized in the House when [Democratic Leader Harry] Reid controlled the Senate, folks would say well we shouldn’t go to conference because we don’t know what will come out. And it was always kind of, like, existential — Well, because you don’t know the future, you’re not going to commit to the present? If you want to get something done, you have to take a risk on the future.”
CHEAP OIL SAVES TAX DOLLARS: The Senate will today continue it's debate on the National Defense Authorization Act. Democrats have filed amendments calling for increased fuel efficiency and a fund for alternative fuels. As ME's Defense colleagues reported, the bill under consideration is $15 billion lighter than it was when first proposed, with cheaper oil contributing $1.6 billion of the reduction.
RELEASE THE TSCA! With what ME imagines was a satisfying turning of the final page and perhaps a long email to his book club, Sen. Rand Paul has completed reading the Toxic Substances Control Act and is now ready to release his hold on the bill, Pro's Alex Guillén reports. Most observers expected the bill to zip through the Senate before the Memorial Day break, but Paul wanted to read the bill and make sure he really understood it before letting it come to a vote. Now his spokesman assures ME Paul has completed his reading, and the bill may hit the Senate floor this very week. Given that it passed the House overwhelmingly and has the president's support, the first update to TSCA in 40 years seems likely to happen.
WELCOME TO TUESDAY! I'm your host Eric Wolff, and I'm here to tell you, America has been made great again. From its underground labs where in order to enter scientists must pass an IQ test and fail a sanity test, Burger King has brought forth The Whopperito. All the contents of a Whopper wrapped inside a burrito shell, it seems to be the fast food America deserves. But wait! As I gazed into the Whopperito abyss (and as the abyss gazed into me), I received wisdom: The contents of a Whopper inside a burrito shell is just ... a burrito. If you can tell the difference between a Whopperito and a regular burrito, send it to me along with you energy tips, quips, and comments toewolff@politico.com, or follow us on Twitter @ericwolff, @Morning_Energy, and @POLITICOPro.
Á LA MODI: Prime Minister Narendra Modi is set to meet with President Obama today and climate change will be at the top of the agenda. A source closely tracking the issue said U.S. officials have been in discussions with Indian officials to gauge when the country will ratify the Paris climate deal, but it remains unclear whether Modi will pledge to quickly join the agreement during tomorrow’s White House visit. “I don’t have anything to say about potential deliverables yet,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters on Monday, adding later that he didn’t know whether Obama will press Modi to ratify the deal by the end of the year.
'Ratification', in Gujarati, is Bahali: As one of the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitters and an influential developing country, India played a crucial role in brokering last year’s Paris climate deal. The country is facing increasing pressure to ratify the agreement quickly because it could be the linchpin that ensures it enters into force before Obama leaves office. The deal will enter into force 30 days after 55 countries representing 55 percent of the world’s emission ratify it. Already, nearly three dozen countries accounting for nearly half of global emissions have pledged to ratify the deal this year.
Hope for HFC help: Environmental groups are also hoping the Obama-Modi meeting will yield progress on renewable energy financing and a commitment to secure by October an amendment to the Montreal Protocol that would phase down hydrofluorocarbons.
PEER PRESSURING THE WAY TO CLIMATE COMPLIANCE: When energy ministers gather to talk about implementing clean energy and climate goals, no one wants to be the one with a bad plan, Deputy Energy Secretary Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall told Pro's Darius Dixon in a Q&A. "Countries want to be respected by their peers around the table," she said. "You don’t want to come up short and be the one who comes up with a lame set of goals. So, it creates peer pressure. That’s fundamentally what it’s about." Sherwood-Randall also said Congressional refusal to fund climate goals doesn't lead other countries to worry about U.S. leadership. "We go through elections cycles every four years, and countries, I think, ultimately believe the U.S. will do the right thing" she said. "What’s been evident ... is how much bipartisan support there is for this innovation agenda."
Emergency response: She also said the department is working out how to handle its role as the emergency manager for the grid, including powers assigned to it by Congress. It's trying to figure out how to organize itself for a role it wasn't designed for, and it has been trying to see what an emergency would look like in real life, rather than in theory. "We have developed a very elaborate set of exercises to work on emergency response coordination — how would we work together in the case of a major attack on the grid? ... This comes out of my national security background. In the past, the exercises were a little more academic, more like seminars," she said. "I’ve asked that we exercise operationally, the way we do in the national security space."
THE PADDLE
WRDA waiting in the wings: Champions of a new Water Resources Development Act are angling to get new measures through both houses of Congress before lawmakers skip town for summer recess, but they have only six weeks to get that done. Assuming both houses pass measures before they skip town in mid-July, staff negotiators will have the summer to iron out differences and come up with a bipartisan infrastructure measure that could be ripe for a vote in the short September session before both houses take their pre-election adjournments. The House plans to follow its summer break with sessions running from Sept. 6-30, and the Senate will be in work mode from Sept. 6-Oct. 7.
—But the hurdles keep coming: Neither bill has secured floor time, and hurdles are adding up. Not only do the House and Senate bills differ greatly — with the Senate bill including a major overhaul of the country’s municipal water programs and an aid package for Flint, Mich., and other communities — but on Monday Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva, the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, raised major questions about one of the nearly 30 new projects to be authorized under the legislation.
— Coral concerns: In a letter to leaders at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Grijalva drew attention to the environmental impact of a dredging project at Port Everglades, in South Florida, after a similar project at the Port of Miami was found to have done serious damage to nearby endangered coral colonies. Grijalva urged the agency to rescind its biological opinion for the project, which has been in the works for two decades and is a major priority for Florida lawmakers.
D.C. Water Map: No lead-pipe woes at future Obama home: A new interactive map produced by D.C. Water and released Monday provides a house-by-house inventory of the utility’s service area that identifies residences connected to water mains by lead pipes. The Obamas have nothing to fear — their future Kalorama home does not have lead transmission pipes.
In light of the lead-contamination water crisis in Flint, Mich., the EPA has pushed local water utilities local water utilities to make accessible to the public information on residences served by lead water pipes. “Tests show that overall our lead levels are historically low,” DC Water CEO and General Manager George Hawkins said in a statement. “However, every property is unique, and we want our customers to have easy access to all of the available information about their service lines, so they can make informed decisions to minimize their exposure to lead in water.” Hawkins added that DC water would pay for replacement of lead service lines in public spaces if property owners replace segments on their property.
UTILITY TRADE GROUP REP. YVETTE CLARKE CALLS FOR SOLAR OVERSIGHT: New York Democratic Rep. Yvette Clarke sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission asking the agency to shine a brighter light on rooftop solar — something the FTC is already considering. But as Pro's Esther Whieldon writes, Clarke's letter appears to have been written by the Edison Electric Institute, a trade association of investor-owned utilities, based on metadata associated with the file. Utilities have had a fraught relationship with rooftop solar, which threatens the traditional business model. The letter asks for greater oversight from the FTC. "We believe the FTC should commit resources towards establishing a regulatory framework that will ensure consumers are afforded minimum standards of protections and full contract disclosures," it says.
ALL SIDES AGREE — NO RFS ARGUMENTS BEFORE 2017: All of the parties involved in the court battles over EPA's 2014-2016 Renewable Fuel Standard rule agree that oral arguments aren't going to happen this year — but exactly when briefing should wrap up is in dispute. In a filing last night, EPA said that it has sided with most of the oil industry challengers to push for a briefing schedule that would wrap up on Feb. 23. The long lead time is required because of the complexity of the case and coordination issues, they wrote. A coalition of small refiners plans to seek a stay of compliance deadlines (annual compliance reports for 2016 are due on March 31), which EPA opposes. The biofuels challengers, meanwhile, suggested a briefing schedule that would wrap up on Dec. 13, meaning oral arguments would have to happen in early 2017. The delays mean that EPA’s 2017 rule, which relies on the same waiver justification that ethanol interests are fighting here, will be finalized well before the court could rule.
BRIDGE, THIS IS NRC. ENERGIZE (INDIAN POINT): With its degraded bolts replaced with younger models, Indian Point nuclear plant is safe to restart, the NRC told reporters yesterday. As POLITICO New York's Scott Waldmanwrites, Gov. Andrew Cuomo and some environmental activists had hoped the problems with the plant would be enough to get it shut down, especially given its proximity to New York City. "Overall, Indian Point operates safely and continues to operates safely," said David Lew, deputy administrator for NRC region 1.
READING GLASSES: U.S. MOVES UP TO FOURTH IN ENERGY SECURITY: The United States is now the fourth most energy secure in the world, behind Norway, Mexico, and New Zealand, according to the annual report from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, out today. "In this era of an increasingly extreme ‘keep it in the ground’ movement, it is important to recognize that the shale revolution has made America almost 25 percent more secure than it was in 1980, reducing our risks across a variety of metrics,” Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy, said in a statement.
MAIL CALL: Dem Senators to Interior: Keep it in the ground, for realz: Eleven Senate Democrats, led by Sens. Jeff Merkley and Sheldon Whitehouse, are calling on the Interior Department to offer no new offshore leases in its 2017-2022 leasing plan. The plan already leaves out Atlantic leasing, and Interior is considering dropping arctic leases. But the 11 Democrats told the agency in a letter that they want to see no new leases, period. “Because offering new outer-continental-shelf oil and gas leases will lock in decades of additional greenhouse gas emissions and inherently contradicts our climate goals, we also urge the administration to consider using statutory authority to permanently protect our citizen-owned waters from future leasing,” the senators wrote.
http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-energy/2016/06/dems-ready-to-fight-over-energy-bill-214688
-
Conference Fate Rests with Senate Democrats
Jun 8, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
Whether or not the Senate launches the first conference committee on energy legislation in a decade is in the hands of Senate Democrats, who continue to express concerns with the House's revised version.
Energy and Natural Resources Committee Democrats say legislation the House passed before recess is laden with veto-bait and doesn't bode well for efforts to reconcile the competing measures.
Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) said he would have "real issues" with going to conference with the House on its current bill.
"I just think that what the House has done is not credible," he told E&E Daily. "It's like a primary election document, and so adults need to sit down at the table and work toward something that we can actually produce. And it's very hard to get there from what they've initially put on the table."
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), also on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, expressed a similarly dim view of the House bill.
Advertisement
"I think we need to know what the parameters are going to be," she said in an interview. "I'm working with Maria Cantwell and will support her judgment on that, but I certainly don't support the House bill at all."
Cantwell, the committee's ranking member who co-wrote the Senate's S. 2012 with Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), has criticized the House for throwing multiple bills that have drawn White House veto threats into the legislative mix (E&E Daily, May 25).
Democratic aides signaled the caucus appeared to be leaning toward rejecting a vote to go to conference, which would require 60 senators, absent some sort of compromise on how to handle the House provisions.
GOP aides say Democrats want "objectionable provisions taken off the table" before going to conference -- a demand they say the Senate cannot impose on the lower chamber. Such issues should be worked out in conference, Republicans said.
A vote to go to conference would likely have to wait until the Senate finishes the defense authorization bill, so the two parties appear to have more time to discuss how a conference would unfold.
The Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Illinois' Dick Durbin, signaled the caucus had not had extensive discussions about the issue when asked by E&E Daily yesterday whether Democrats would vote against going to conference on the energy bills.
"I don't know the answer to that," Durbin said. "I don't know what's in it."
Murkowski, who would lead the conference, envisions running the bicameral committee in the same bipartisan manner she used to assemble her panel's energy package.
An aide said she planned to "sequence" issues for the conference, starting with areas that are more likely to foster agreement.
Issues that appear unresolvable may simply be left out of the conference. Republicans note they are keenly aware that President Obama's veto pen awaits anything the White House opposes.
At least one Senate Democrat, former Energy Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), told E&E Daily he was open to going to conference.
"I'm going to have to talk to [Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)] about it, but I think if you want to get a bill you bring the two bodies together," he said. "Obviously there's differences between the two bills -- big differences. I want to talk to my colleagues about it."
Wyden said, "I think there's an opportunity to find common ground on a variety of measures that I think would be in the public interest and clearly there are some items that strike me as a bridge too far -- in fact a bridge far too far."
Wyden added that he plans to speak with fellow Democrats on "how they might want to proceed" but noted that "one body alone can't enact a law."
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/06/08/stories/1060038458
-
Measures Attacking Obama Green Agenda Advancing to House Floor
Jun 8, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
The House Rules Committee took triple-barreled aim at the Obama administration's environment and energy agenda last night, clearing the way for floor votes this week on a bill to delay U.S. EPA's new ground-level ozone standard, as well as two resolutions offering symbolic opposition to potential climate change policies.
Administration regulations are "killing our jobs," Rules Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) said shortly before the panel voted 7-4 along party lines to advance all three measures.
H.R. 4775, which would roll back full implementation of the 70 parts per billion ozone benchmark until the middle of the next decade, is set for a floor vote this afternoon, followed later in the week by the two resolutions. H.Con.Res. 89 describes a carbon tax as "detrimental" to the U.S. economy.H.Con.Res. 112 opposes Obama's proposed $10-per-barrel oil tax.
The ozone measure had already raised hackles with EPA; the White House followed up yesterday bywarning of a veto should the bill win final congressional passage. Besides objecting to the proposed eight-year delay in implementing the new ozone standard, the administration also opposes a provision that would stretch out the cycle for reviewing -- and potentially tightening -- the standards for ozone and five other "criteria" air pollutants from once every five years to once every decade.
The bill "would undermine the vitally important environmental and health protections of the [Clean Air Act]," the White House said in the statement of administration policy, released just as the committee meeting was getting under way. Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) carried on the attack soon after, telling the panel that the measure would "gut" the act.
It would "allow the polluters to override the scientists," Castor said.
But the bill, introduced in March by Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas), has 43 co-sponsors, including several Democrats and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.).
Sessions and other Republicans pointed to last week's unexpectedly dismal jobs report as a reason to hold off on proceeding with the new standard, which critics say could make it harder for new industrial plants to get environmental permits.
"We know that the economy's still sputtering; we don't want to create additional obstacles to economic growth," Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said in support of the legislation. Whitfield also noted that EPA regulators only last year issued final instructions for implementation of the previous 75 ppb standard dating back to 2008.
Ground-level ozone is formed by the reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in sunlight. Besides helping to trigger asthma attacks, it can irritate lung passageways and worsen emphysema symptoms. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy set the 70 ppb standard last October, citing the agency's statutory responsibility to protect public health in response to growing scientific research on ozone's effects.
Although predictably ignoring Castor's suggestion yesterday to scrap the bill, Rules Committee Republicans gave the go-ahead to floor votes on four Democratic amendments, including one by Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) to allow the aggregation of emissions from oil and gas wells, and another by Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) that would effectively scuttle any part of the measure that EPA deems potentially dangerous to human health or the environment.
H.R. 4775 is among a series of GOP legislative forays to delay or blunt new air pollution rules. In March, the House approved H.R. 4557, introduced by Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio), to freeze compliance with emissions regulations on brick kilns until all lawsuits surrounding the new standards are resolved, and H.R. 3797, sponsored by Rep. Keith Rothfus (R-Pa.), to exempt power plants fueled by coal refuse from some parts of EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. The administration has leveled veto threats against both; neither has thus far shown any sign of advancing in the Senate.
The same fate awaits H.R. 4775, Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) predicted. While almost assured of winning House approval today, it's "not going anywhere," Hastings said.
That probable outcome didn't stop business and environmental lobbies from mounting last-ditch drives for and against the measure.
H.R. 4775 would strike a balance "between environmental stewardship and economic and employment growth," the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said in a letter to lawmakers made public late yesterday, with a boldface notation that today's floor vote could be included in the influential business group's annual scorecard. Earlier in the day, the National Association of Manufacturers sounded a similar note.
On the other side, dozens of environmental and public health groups sought to rally opposition. H.R. 4775 would systematically weaken the Clean Air Act "without a single improvement ... and delay life-saving health standards already years overdue," organizations ranging from Clean Air Watch to the Faith Alliance for Climate Solutions wrote in a joint letter.
Similar passions surround the two resolutions, even though they will have no practical impact. Obama proposed the $10-per-barrel oil tax in his 2017 budget request to pay for a "21st Century Clean Transportation System" that would both cut greenhouse gas emissions and bolster public works.
While Republicans instantly pronounced the proposal dead, the two resolutions will send a clear signal that "we oppose misguided policies that would drive up energy prices," Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.), the sponsor of the oil tax resolution, said at the hearing. Although the White House has not proposed a carbon levy, Obama has said that such a tax is a better way of addressing climate change than regulations (E&E Daily, June 6).
Democrats took the occasion yesterday to again decry Republican inaction on climate change, along with many GOP lawmakers' refusal to acknowledge that it exists.
"It was said here you're sending signals," Rep. Sander Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, told the Rules panel. "How about doing real work?"
While many right-leaning groups have endorsed the anti-carbon tax measure, sponsored by Scalise, five libertarian and conservative organizations yesterday urged representatives to vote against the resolution when it comes to the floor as soon as Thursday.
In a letter to members of the House, the five groups said they are concerned that the resolution presents a "limited perspective on carbon taxes." A carbon tax, they said, is economists' preferred way of lowering carbon dioxide emissions and could lower the cost of climate policy nationwide.
"The least burdensome, most straightforward and most market-friendly means of addressing climate change is to price the risks imposed by greenhouse gas emissions via a tax," the organizations wrote.
The GOP resolution, they said, fails to take into account that a carbon tax could replace existing climate regulations, such as EPA's Clean Power Plan, as well as be included in comprehensive tax reform. Conservatives and free-market advocates should "embrace" a market policy in lieu of regulations "regardless of how they view climate risks," the letter says.
Representatives from the Niskanen Center, R Street Institute, former South Carolina Republican Rep. Bob Inglis's group RepublicEn, the Evangelical Environmental Network and the American Enterprise Institute signed the letter.
Environmental groups also yesterday urged House members to oppose the resolution. The resolution is "the latest example of climate action denial being advanced by extreme members of the House of Representatives," groups wrote to lawmakers.
Reporter Amanda Reilly contributed.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/06/08/stories/1060038453
-
EPA Objects to Suspended Briefing in Power Plant Lawsuits
Jun 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The briefing schedule for lawsuits challenging carbon dioxide limits for new power plants can be amended to incorporate expected challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency's denial of petitions to reconsider the rule administratively without suspending the existing briefing format, the agency and environmental groups argued (North Dakota v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1381,opposition filed 6/6/16).
Rather than waiting to consolidate anticipated lawsuits challenging the EPA's denial of petitions to reconsider the carbon dioxide new source performance standards for new and modified power plants, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit should simply amend its briefing schedule now to allow those cases to be added to the ongoing litigation over the performance standards themselves, the EPA and its supporters told the court in a June 6 response. Acting now would prevent the case from being unduly delayed, they argued.
“The court can consolidate the 111(b) rule case with the anticipated reconsideration denial challenges, while also preventing or at least minimizing delay of the current schedule, by entering a modified briefing schedule now,” the EPA and its supporters said.
The EPA issued its new source performance standards for new and modified power plants (RIN:2060-AQ91) under Section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act in 2015 along with separate standards for existing power plants under Section 111(d), which is known as the Clean Power Plan. The performance standards are being challenged by several states as well as utilities and industry groups.
The EPA has already denied administrative reconsideration petitions from Wisconsin, the Energy & Environmental Legal Institute and Utility Air Regulatory Group, which are all parties to the lawsuits challenging the carbon dioxide standards. Additional lawsuits are expected challenging the EPA's denial of those petitions.
Petitioners challenging the performance standards asked the D.C. Circuit in May to suspend the current briefing schedule until after those lawsuits have been filed and consolidated with challenges to the rule itself (102 DEN A-5, 5/26/16).
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=91090866&vname=dennotallissues&fn=91090866&jd=91090866
-
Controversial Methane Drilling Push May Become Law
Jun 8, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Colby Bermel
As lawmakers push to launch a conference committee on the first significant energy reform bill in nearly a decade, a controversial provision may end up becoming law.
Within the Senate's 798-page S. 2012, which members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hailed as a bipartisan compromise, is a measure critics see as particularly partisan.
The legislation would authorize federally funded drilling for methane hydrates in Alaska. The issue has long been a priority for Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R), the state's senior senator.
Methane is the main component in natural gas, and "hydrate" refers to a substance being trapped in an ice-like structure. The bill calls for long-term drilling projects, both on land and in the ocean.
The Obama administration supports expansion into methane hydrates, with the Energy Department calling it a "vast, untapped potential energy resource." But environmental advocates worry about potential seafloor destabilization and climate change.
A DOE spokeswoman did not provide comment on the S. 2012 provision but said the administration was "interested in furthering fundamental research and development of methane hydrates to provide more detailed resource characterization and understand climate effects."
The George W. Bush administration created a Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee in response to legislation in 2000 and a provision in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Murkowski bill would essentially continue federal efforts. Panel members include industry executives, advocates and researchers.
Richard Charter, a senior fellow for the Ocean Foundation, described himself as a "token seat" for environmental interests on the panel. Charter said he gets outvoted "on almost everything by everyone else."
Advertisement
Charter, who does not speak for the committee as a whole, described the S. 2012 provision as "pork" for Murkowski and "a government subsidy of the oil and gas industry."
BP Exploration Inc. operates the Prudhoe Bay oil field in Alaska, the sole site designated by S. 2012 for methane hydrates drilling.
When asked how the legislation would affect BP's methane hydrate efforts at Prudhoe Bay, a company spokeswoman pointed to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources.
The federal advisory panel was scheduled to have one of its quarterly meetings at DOE headquarters in Washington, D.C., this week. But organizers cancelled it because of a separate gathering in Alaska.'Huge potential benefit'
Officials with DOE, the U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska DNR and the Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corp. (JOGMEC) are meeting in Anchorage to "review of North Slope technical data," said Department of Natural Resources spokeswoman Elizabeth Bluemink. Prudhoe is within Alaska's energy-rich North Slope.Methane hydrates well
Graphic courtesy of DOE.
"These data review meetings and sessions are occurring throughout this week in Anchorage to improve the understanding of potential test sites," Bluemink said.
About the S. 2012 methane hydrate provisions, she said Alaska DNR "supports the provisions of Senator Murkowski's legislation."
Sarah Erkmann, external affairs manager at the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, expressed strong support for the provision, saying, "If the methane hydrates research lays a foundation for future commercial access, the resource potential is absolutely staggering and with huge potential benefit to both state and federal governments."
A 2013 memorandum of understanding between the state DNR and DOE's Office of Fossil Energy supports continued funding for methane hydrates research and the Arctic test program.
The state, with an eye on supporting the research mission, has withheld selling lands to energy firms. DNR's ultimate goal is to pick the most prospective site for long-term production testing on the North Slope.
JOGMEC, the energy firm run by the Japanese government, conducted the first successful offshore extraction of methane hydrates in 2013 off the country's coast.
Japan, an array of islands without many natural resources, is a major energy importer. The country has made securing power a major component of its foreign policy. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in 2011 only intensified its search for energy sources.Types of methane hydrate deposits
Graphic courtesy of DOE.
"Maybe they smell money coming," Charter said of federal, state and Japanese leaders meeting in Alaska. "The only trigger I can think of is, 'Oh, Senator Murkowski's getting us a shopping cart full of money and authorization, so we'd better get ready.'"
Charter accused companies of wanting the government to increase its support for methane hydrates as a way of mitigating their own risk, particularly after the Gulf spill.
"The industry figured, 'Let's let the federal government to pay for the exploration and development of this stuff. If turns out to have commercial potential, then we'll jump in,'" he said.
"This is a sleeper issue. This is enough carbon to fry the planet if we do it wrong," Charter said of the methane that could escape into the environment and accelerate climate change.Conference outlook
A Murkowski aide who spoke on background about the issue doesn't see any problems with the methane hydrates provision and pointed to strong Democratic support for S. 2012.
The aide, however, declined to predict how the conference talks could turn out on methane hydrates. Murkowski has spoken about letting the process play out (see related story).
What's unclear at this point is how Democrats on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, led by ranking member Maria Cantwell of Washington, plan to handle the provisions.
Democrats are traditionally uneasy about, if not downright opposed to, unproven and potentially dangerous energy sources like methane hydrates.
Yet Cantwell ended up agreeing to the provision being part of S. 2012. Aides for the minority did not comment for this story in time for publication.
Cantwell has been public about not agreeing to everything in the legislation. She and Murkowski have touted the language as a true compromise.
Charter sees several issues with the conference process. The methane hydrates provision is literally and metaphorically a "poison pill," he argued, wondering about its purpose beyond serving Murkowski's interests.
"This is not a benign substance in the global warming equation. It's highly inducive of climate change," he said. "If you're a chairman, and you have a moving legislative vehicle, and you have something you've never found a home for, of course you put it in there at 3 a.m."
Conservatives have also expressed concern about the methane hydrates provision. Heritage Action for America cited the "repeated failure of the federal government in commercialization efforts."
American Gas Association spokesman Jake Rubin wants to see the legislative process continue. "We are urging folks to go to conference on this bill because we want to see a bill come out of both sides of the Hill," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/06/08/stories/1060038454
-
Methane Emissions - Latest Non-Problem for Natural Gas
Jun 7, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Dr. J. Winston Porter
Methane emissions have been identified by anti-fracking activists as an argument of last resort to stop everything from more production of natural gas to the construction of gas pipelines in New England. Now that argument, like others before it about the safety of fracking, needs to be retired.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency just rolled out regulations to cut methane emissions from new oil and natural gas wells. While activists greatly exaggerated the methane problem to begin with, these new rules should put any lingering concerns to bed.
Emissions of methane, the major component of natural gas, have already been falling. Since 2005, methane emissions from fracked oil and natural gas wells have fallen 79 percent, even as production has surged. Also, in the past 30 years natural gas pipeline leaks have been reduced by 94 percent.
Economic and energy security benefits aside, our abundant supply of natural gas is doing more to help reduce U.S. carbon emissions than any other energy source, including renewables. In fact, despite billions of dollars in taxpayer support and renewable energy mandates, wind and solar power still generate less than seven percent of America’s electricity.
The shale gas revolution, made possible by the innovative combination of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling, has systematically reshaped our electricity generating mix. With access to a vast and affordable supply of natural gas, utilities are making a rapid shift away from coal. Greater use of natural gas in place of coal to generate electricity has almost singlehandedly cut U.S. carbon emissions to their lowest level in 20 years.
Here's why the shift from coal to gas matters so much: when used to generate electricity in place of coal, natural gas produces just half the carbon emissions and a small fraction of the particulate emissions that lead to smog. And making the switch from coal to gas isn't a very heavy lift. Utilities are able to convert existing coal plants to burn natural gas, or they are closing older coal plants and ramping up the use of once under-utilized natural gas plants.
This shift to gas has been dramatic. In 2005, coal plants generated 50 percent of the nation's electricity while natural gas generated just 18 percent. A decade later, utilities are using natural gas to generate about 33 percent of our electricity and coal just 30 percent. This year, for the first time, natural gas is going to generate the largest share of the nations’s electric power.
Greater reliance on natural gas has been great news for everyone except for the coal industry and the most fringe environmental activists. These activists have made a mountain out of a mole hill when it comes to methane emissions. Methane is a greenhouse gas, but emissions of it from natural gas production have never negated the benefit of using natural gas in place of coal.
In fact, despite a surge in U.S. natural gas production, methane emissions are steadily falling. There was a strong argument to be made that government action on methane emissions was totally unnecessary, but regulations are now here and the issue should be settled.
The shale revolution has been a game-changer in helping the country reduce our carbon footprint. It has allowed us to cut emissions and do so without raising energy costs. It's past time those concerned about tackling climate change stop fighting the shale gas revolution and embrace it.
Porter is an energy and environmental consultant, based in Savannah GA. Earlier, he was an EPA assistant administrator in Washington DC.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/282518-methane-emissions-latest-non-problem-for-natural-gas
-
Jun 8, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
House Republicans this week will vote to condemn taxes on carbon dioxide emissions, slamming the door on an idea that some members of their party have flirted with in the past.
The nonbinding resolution, sponsored by Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), lists numerous problems with a carbon tax, declaring, “It is the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to American families and businesses, and is not in the best interest of the United States.”
The election-year proposal responds to years of pressure from Democrats and economists across the political spectrum who have endorsed the idea.
A carbon tax also has the backing of some conservatives, who argue it would be a simple way to reduce greenhouse gases without new regulations or more government.
Numerous think tanks, including the R Street Institute, the American Action Forum and the Niskanen Center, have been pressuring GOP lawmakers to endorse a carbon tax. The American Enterprise Institute held closed-door meetings in 2012 to get additional groups on board with little success.
But with the GOP broadly skeptical of climate change science and new taxes, Republican lawmakers have avoided endorsing a carbon tax, and the House’s resolution is meant to make clear where they stand.
“There are a few people out there who are trying to make the case that there’s growing support among conservatives or Republicans for a carbon tax,” said Tom Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, a fossil-fuel-backed advocacy group and an arm of the Institute for Energy Research.
“I think that the vote will answer that question. I don’t think there is,” he said. “There aren’t many issues around here that unite the Republicans more than energy issues.”
Scalise said a carbon tax would be regressive, hitting the poor the hardest. He told colleagues recently that the vote is also timed to respond to President Obama’s budget proposal this year for a $10.25 per barrel tax on crude oil to pay for transportation — something Republicans have blasted as a carbon tax in disguise.
“This resolution spells out the harmful impacts that a carbon tax would have on American families by making the energy we all rely on every day more expensive,” Scalise said in a letter to colleagues. “A carbon tax would intentionally increase the price of gasoline, natural gas, home heating oil, and electricity — driving up energy costs for families, reducing our nation’s GDP, and destroying American jobs.”
Scalise sponsored an amendment to a 2013 regulations bill that was similar and went on to require congressional approval for any carbon tax. The amendment and bill passed but did not get taken up in the Senate.
Obama has not proposed a carbon tax. He campaigned in 2008 on a promise to push for cap-and-trade, which would institute a price on carbon but limit the amount and let polluters trade emissions credits.
That didn’t pass Congress. Instead, Obama has pursued a regulatory agenda to combat climate change, including emissions limits for cars, trucks, power plants and the oil industry.
Gilbert Metcalf, who was then a high-ranking Treasury Department official, said in 2012 that Obama would entertain the idea of a carbon tax, but only if it had bipartisan support.
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is calling for a carbon tax, but party front-runner Hillary Clinton has not. Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trumphas explicitly ruled it out.
Barry Rabe, a public policy professor at the University of Michigan, said it had long been obvious the Republicans weren’t itching to institute a carbon tax but added that the new resolution “further underscores how difficult it is to build a consensus on this issue.”
He said the measure also could be a strategy for a particularly rough election year, even if the chances of the GOP losing the House majority appear slim.
“This could be read as a Republican effort going into the election to circle the wagons and maybe say, not only, ‘We don’t do a carbon tax,’ but, ‘We don’t do anything related to climate change,’ ” Rabe said.
For supporters of a carbon tax, the expected outcome of the resolution vote is disappointing.
Catrina Rorke, director of the energy program at R Street Institute — which supports a tax that would return revenues to taxpayers — said if Republicans want to eventually repeal the Clean Power Plan and get any Democratic support, they will need an alternative.
“It’s my job to suggest that it doesn’t matter if you believe in climate change, it matters if you don’t like what the status quo is. And the status quo is the Clean Power Plan, which is very unfavorable,” she said. The rule seeks a cut in the power sector’s carbon emissions by about a third and has almost no Republican support.
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), a freshman who campaigned largely on a carbon tax platform in the 2014 election, said the resolution looks like a way to clamp down on what the GOP sees as growing support for putting a price on carbon emissions.
“Republicans tend to hate regulations, especially the president’s new power plants rules,” he said. “And yet, putting a carbon tax in place could, in many ways, be a more efficient way to accomplish these goals, and with more flexibility.”
Rorke hasn’t lost all hope. She cites a pair of new House working groups on climate — one Republican, one bipartisan — as evidence that the GOP is coming around on the issue.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/282574-gop-to-rule-out-carbon-tax
-
Perspective: PTC Technology Increases Efficiency
Jun 8, 2016 | Progressive Rail Roading
Positive train control (PTC) is primarily a safety technology, but many of its components have the potential to be used to increase operational efficiency.
A crucial part of PTC is having a communications network in place. The locomotive and back office are nearly always in communication. Allowing non-PTC components to use this communications network would help streamline various aspects of railroad operations.The PTC communications network could incorporate on-board sensors with existing trackside sensors, such as hotbox or dragging equipment detectors. This incorporation could help increase productivity by sending notifications directly to dispatchers, network control and the train crew. This would allow sensors to report errors more quickly, adding to PTC’s original intent of safety.
The PTC on-board system continuously communicates locomotive location to the back office and dispatcher. Up-to-date location information could increase efficiency of many railroad operations.
A benefit to freight, commuter operations
One of these is block authority. The current standard is fixed block authority, with blocks that start and end at signals. This system is in place to ensure adequate spacing between trains, but the fixed block sizes can create unnecessarily long headways and wasted space.
Taking advantage of the fact that locomotives are already transmitting their location to the back office, a moving block authority can be put in place. Moving block authority would assist with railroad traffic, commuter or freight. A more flexible system, moving block authority allows trains to travel closer together while still maintaining proper separation and ensuring safety. This maximizes use of track and increases overall traffic velocity.
The higher productivity enabled by moving block authority would benefit both commuter and freight operations. To use moving block authority, some updates would need to be made to the PTC system, including rulebook and dispatch system updates.
Improving traffic flow planning
Another potential use for continuously updated train locations is improved dispatcher workflow. The ability to know exact train locations could help dispatchers plan traffic flow more effectively, Whether that involves estimating time to control points or simply being aware of unexpected slowdowns or stops, dispatchers would be able to avoid unnecessary waiting periods.
Outside of the communications network and locomotives' communication of their location, PTC requires an up-to-date track database which, in turn, requires regular track audits. When a video system like LiDAR or Herzog Technologies Inc.'s SpeedTrax is used, the railroad gets access to high quality, regularly updated video. This video could be used for much more than keeping the track database up to date.
Videos for training, pre-planning
High quality, up-to-date track video could be used for training purposes. Instead of simply talking a newly hired engineer through the track they will be driving, railroads could pull up the video and show the new hire exactly what to expect. With the video being up to date, railroads can count on wayside signals, highway crossings, and the like to be mostly accurate.
This video could also be used in construction pre-planning. By accessing up-to-date video during the pre-planning process, contractors or railroad employees could gain a relatively accurate perception of the space in question. Construction must take into account the space around the track because landmarks such as a river or a new building going up near the track can impact physical construction as well as clearances and scheduling. Seeing these prior to visiting the site can improve the efficiency of the pre-planning process, preventing future delays or other problems.http://www.progressiverailroading.com/ptc/article/Perspective-PTC-Technology-Increases-Efficiency--48487
As track video or other track imagery becomes more widely available, new uses will likely be discovered. The same can be said for PTC in general. As implementation and maintenance processes are perfected, more time will be dedicated to multiplying the benefits of these complex systems. -
When Oil Transport Goes Off the Rails
Jun 7, 2016 | The New Yorkeer
By Michelle Nijhuis
Last Friday, shortly after noon, I looked up from my computer to see a plume of brown smoke outside my window. I live in the Columbia Gorge, on the border of Washington and Oregon, and here smoke usually means wildfire. But this smoke was different: darker, heavier, and closer than any I’d seen. In the next half hour, it emerged—from Twitter, phone calls, and e-mails from my daughter’s elementary school—that a Union Pacific train carrying crude oil had derailed near the small town of Mosier, Oregon, almost directly across the Columbia River from where I live. Sixteen railcars were off the tracks, and four were on fire; much of the town was evacuating. Twenty-three miles of the interstate were shut down, and alternate routes were soon choked with traffic. The smoke thickened into an opaque black funnel. The air smelled like a tire shop.
The interstate remained closed until late Friday night, and the flames weren’t fully extinguished until two o’clock in the morning. At noon on Saturday, under an unseasonably hot sun, about a hundred people gathered in the nearby resort town of Hood River to protest the continued shipping of oil by rail through the gorge. Emily Reed, Mosier’s town-council president, told the crowd that her eight-year-old son and his classmates had been evacuated from the local school, which lies only a few hundred feet from the train tracks. Her husband, a first responder, had been on the scene all night, and her family was now staying with relatives. The derailment happened on an unusually calm afternoon; the gorge is famous for its wind, and even a normal breeze could have blown the fire into town. “We are very, very, very lucky,” Reed said.
The gorge, a deep basalt chasm carved out of the Cascade Range by Ice Age floods, is a major thoroughfare between the interior West and the Pacific Coast, and it is traversed daily by trucks, barges, and trains. But little oil travelled through the gorge until 2012, when trains started transporting crude oil from the booming Bakken formation, in North Dakota, to a terminal near the coast. Since then, as much as sixty million gallons per week has moved down the rails on both sides of the river, sometimes on trains more than a mile long. A proposed new terminal in Vancouver, Washington, could double oil traffic on the tracks. Meanwhile, investigations by the Oregonian have found that the state’s rail-safety inspectors are overburdened, emergency responders are underprepared, and most tank cars fail to meet the latest safety standards. (Comparing rail safety with pipeline safety is a complex business, but a 2013 analysis by the International Energy Agency found that, in short, neither form of oil transport is especially safe: rail incidents are more frequent, but pipeline incidents spill more oil over all.)
Gorge residents have worried about a derailment for years, and recent disasters elsewhere on the continent have done nothing to reassure them. In 2013, an oil-train derailment in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, killed forty-seven people and caused more than a billion dollars’ worth of damage. In the spring of 2015, there were four oil-train accidents in North America in the course of a month; one of them, in Illinois, started a fire that burned for four days. Last December, Congress lifted a long-standing ban on crude-oil exports, intensifying interest in moving oil toward the coasts. Along the Columbia, the concern is not just for personal safety but also for the environment—the river is home to the largest salmon fishery in the Lower Forty-eight—and for the area’s tourism and fruit-growing industries.
On Monday afternoon, seventy-two hours after the derailment, the town of Mosier was still clogged with industrial traffic, and its population was fifty per cent larger than usual: some two hundred workers from Union Pacific and a constellation of state and federal agencies were at work on various aspects of the cleanup, including assessing the size of a small spill of oil into the river. They had finished removing ten thousand gallons of oil from the town’s wastewater-treatment system, and were in the process of pumping oil from the twelve unburned rail cars, which lay in a crooked line next to the tracks. White tents scattered across the school grounds were filled with emergency workers, not students; the school year, which was scheduled to end this week, had come to an abrupt and premature close. Most residents have now returned to their homes, but life won’t be back to normal for weeks.
Union Pacific has said that the derailment was most likely caused by a track failure, but an investigation is ongoing. Oregon’s governor, Kate Brown, and other state officials have called for a moratorium on oil-train traffic through the gorge until “the causes of this derailment have been both identified and fixed,” and, at an emergency meeting on Sunday, Mosier town officials called for a moratorium on all train traffic until the derailed cars have been emptied of oil and the investigation is completed. Union Pacific agreed to halt its “unit trains”—trains carrying only crude oil—but did not extend the suspension to other freight trains, even those carrying oil in combination with other commodities. On Sunday evening, as Mosier residents emerged from their meeting, trains once again started rolling through town.
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/when-oil-transport-goes-off-the-rails
-
(ACC Mentioned) House to Vote on Rep. Olson's Ozone Standards Bill
Jun 8, 2016 | Bloomberg BNA
By Patrick Ambrosio
Later today, the House of Representatives is set to consider H.R. 4775, the Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2016.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas), goes beyond the most recent update to the national ozone standards, with various provisions that would change the way the Environmental Protection Agency reviews standards for particulate matter, lead and other air pollutants.
Here’s what you need to know:
What Would It Do?
In 2015, the EPA decided to set the national ozone standards at a level of 70 parts per billion, a regulation the agency estimated to provide up to $5.9 billion in public health benefits related to reduced exposure to air pollution. One of the first steps under new standards is to designate areas that do not meet the 70 ppb standards, a process the EPA expects to complete for the 70 ppb standards by 2017.
H.R. 4775 would push back the designations process by eight years, a move that Olson has described as necessary to give states more time to meet the previous 75 ppb ozone standards, set in 2008, before moving on to an even more aggressive air quality goal.
H.R. 4775 also would make several changes to the EPA’s process for reviewing national standards for ozone, particulate matter, lead, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide. Currently the Clean Air Act requires the agency to review, and revise if necessary, those standards every five years. If H.R. 4775 is enacted, the mandatory review cycle would be extended to 10 years.
Olson’s bill also would prohibit the EPA from proposing revised ozone standards earlier than October 2025 and would allow for the EPA to consider technological feasibility in its decision-making process for revising national standards.
While opponents of the legislation have described H.R. 4775 as a far-reaching attack on one of the fundamental parts of the Clean Air Act, Olson has said his bill would make necessary changes to the law that would not undermine the EPA’s ability to protect people from air pollution.
“State after state is telling us what we already know: The Clean Air Act is hugely important, but it’s also imperfect,” Olson said May 17 during a House Energy and Commerce Committee markup of his bill.
The Supporters:
H.R. 4775 is supported by hundreds of industry associations, including the American Chemistry Council, the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The National Association of Manufacturers issued a June 7 “key vote” letter urging members of the House to support the bill, which the association said would restore “flexibility and reasonableness” to the national ambient air quality standards process.
The Opposition:
The White House announced yesterday that President Obama’s advisers would recommend that he veto H.R. 4775 if the measure is passed by both the House and the Senate. The administration said it “strongly opposes” the bill because it would “undermine the vitally important” protections offered by the Clean Air Act.
“H.R. 4775 would jeopardize progress toward cleaner air and significantly delay health benefits worth billions of dollars for millions of Americans, including those most vulnerable--children, older adults, and people with asthma,” the White House said.
Olson’s bill also is opposed by many public health and environmental groups, including the American Lung Association, American Thoracic Society and Clean Air Watch. Representatives of those organizations have dubbed the legislation the “Smoggy Skies Act” and have frequently criticized House Republicans on Twitter for backing the bill.
What’s Next:
The House is set to vote on the bill later today.
http://www.bna.com/house-vote-rep-b57982073760/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Ozone Delay Bill Threatened With Veto Prior to Vote
Jun 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
President Barack Obama's advisers would recommend that he veto legislation (H.R. 4775) that would delay implementation of the 2015 ozone standards and make various changes to the Environmental Protection Agency's process for reviewing and revising national ambient air quality standards, the administration announced June 7.
The White House issued a statement of administration policy in advance of an expected June 8 House floor vote on the Ozone Standards Implementation Act, which was introduced by Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas).
H.R. 4775 would give states an additional eight years to make recommendations on areas that don't meet the EPA's 2015 ozone standards of 70 parts per billion, which is one of the first steps in implementing a national air quality standard. Under the bill, that deadline would be revised from October 2016 to October 2024. The legislation also would allow the EPA to conduct future reviews of all the air quality standards every 10 years instead of every five years as currently required by the Clean Air Act, authorize the agency to consider technological feasibility in its decisionmaking on where to set national standards and allow industry to obtain permits for new and modified facilities based on the less stringent 2008 ozone standards of 75 ppb until the designations process is complete in 2025.
The White House strongly opposes the bill, which the administration said would unnecessarily delay future reviews and make other “detrimental” changes to core protections offered under the Clean Air Act.
“H.R. 4775 would jeopardize progress toward cleaner air and significantly delay health benefits worth billions of dollars for millions of Americans, including those most vulnerable—children, older adults and people with asthma,” the administration said.
Olson has touted H.R. 4775 as a proposal that would make necessary revisions to the Clean Air Act and give states, the EPA and the regulated community additional time to meet air quality goals before those goals are changed as a result of the periodic five-year review process. The EPA rarely meets those five year deadlines, which typically results in citizen lawsuits being filed by environmental organizations and a negotiated settlement that includes a new deadline for the review to be completed (93 DEN B-1, 5/14/15).
“State after state is telling us what we already know: The Clean Air Act is hugely important, but it's also imperfect,” Olson said during a May markup of the bill, which was approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee over the objections of Democrats.
Manufacturers Tout Importance of Vote
H.R. 4775 is supported by a number of industry trade associations, including the American Chemistry Council and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM).
Aric Newhouse, NAM's senior vice president for policy and government relations, sent a June 7 “key vote” letter to members of the House calling on them to support passage of Olson's bill.
“H.R. 4775 would ensure continued air quality improvements across the country, while better aligning the EPA's regulatory requirements with the realities of the economy, technology and existing policies,” Newhouse said. “The NAM's Key Vote Advisory Committee has indicated that votes on H.R. 4775, including procedural motions, may be considered for designation as key manufacturing votes in the 114th Congress.”
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also issued a key vote letter in support of Olson's bill.
While H.R. 4775 has received widespread industry support, the proposal has been criticized by environmental and public health organizations that support stronger air pollution standards. A coalition of 118 of those groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, sent a June 7letter to the House that urged strong opposition when the bill comes up for a floor vote.
“The innocuous-sounding name is misleading: this legislation would actually systematically weaken the Clean Air Act without a single improvement, undermine Americans’ 46-year right to healthy air based on medical science and delay life-saving health standards already years overdue,” the letter said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=91090884&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=495989500&searchid=27753660&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0
-
EPA Seeks Dismissal of North Carolina Ozone Petition Lawsuit
Jun 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ben Remaly
The Environmental Protection Agency says North Carolina has no standing to file a lawsuit compelling the agency to respond to a petition brought by Northeastern states seeking additional pollution controls from nine Southern and Midwestern states (Van der Vaart v. McCarthy, E.D. N.C., No. 5:16-cv-cv-138, motion filed 6/3/16).
“[The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality] failed to make even the barest showing that is has standing to bring this action,” the EPA said in its motion to dismiss filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The EPA argued in its June 3 motion that the complaint fails to show any injury to the state by the fact that the agency has yet to act on the petition filed by the Northeastern states.
North Carolina's lawsuit asked the court to compel the EPA to respond to a December 2013 petition filed by several Northeastern states that argue pollution transported from nine Southern and Midwestern states, including North Carolina, interferes with their ability to meet federal air quality standards for ozone (62 DEN A-13, 3/31/16).
North Carolina disputed the claim that its emissions are degrading air quality in the downwind Northeastern states and in its lawsuit filed March 30 said the EPA failed to “undertake their mandatory, non-discretionary duty to either approve or disapprove” the December 2013 petition within the 18 months required by the Clean Air Act.
The 2013 petition aims to add nine Southern and Midwestern states to the Ozone Transport Region. This would ultimately require they submit state plans within nine months to administer new source review permitting and reasonably available control technology requirements for emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, which contribute to ozone formation.
The December 2013 petition was filed by Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont of the Northeast Ozone Transport Region. Their petition asked that Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia be added to the Ozone Transport Region.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=91090868&vname=dennotallissues&fn=91090868&jd=91090868
-
White House: Obama Would Veto GOP Bill Blocking Ozone Rule
Jun 7, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
White House officials warned Tuesday that the Obama administration opposes a House GOP bill to delay implementation of a new federal standard on surface-level ozone, or smog.
The House is due to vote Wednesday on a bill from Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) to block the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new ozone rules.
Supporters of the bill, including major business groups like the National Association of Manufacturing and the Chamber of Commerce, support the bill, saying the ozone standards are too strict and will hurt businesses.
But, in a statement on Tuesday, the White House touted the importance of cutting ozone pollution for public health, saying the ozone standards are “science-based” and highlighted the growth of the economy even as ozone levels decrease.
The bill “would delay implementation of the 2015 ozone health standard that will otherwise improve air quality for millions of Americans,” the statement said. “This would result in people living in areas with unhealthy ozone levels for at least an additional 10 years.”
The statement said Obama’s advisers would recommend he veto the bill if it hits his desk, as he has with other GOP efforts this year to overturn EPA rules.
The EPA in October announced a new ozone standard of 70 parts per billion, a tighter level than the 75 parts per billion limit that was then on the books.
Industry groups had encouraged the Obama administration not to tighten the standard, and many groups and states have sued over the new one since its release.
Republicans, too, pushed back against the new rule, and they will vote to weaken it for the first time this week.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/282573-white-house-obama-would-veto-gop-bill-blocking-ozone-rule
-
Inspector General Probes Clean Air Act Investigators
Jun 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency's Inspector General will probe whether Clean Air Act investigators are receiving proper training as part of a new investigation announced June 7.
The investigation will review policies and procedures related to Clean Air Act inspector training and credentialing and will include interviews with staff from the EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Office of Administration and Resources Management and regional offices.
The investigation comes after a 2013 Inspector General's report that concluded that one-third of the EPA's risk management inspectors had received their credentials without the documentation proving they met the minimum training requirements (59 DEN A-3, 3/27/13).
As the first step of the investigation, the Inspector General is asking the EPA for a comprehensive list of all current Clean Air Act inspectors in both the regions and at headquarters as well as information on training and credentialing and access to relevant agency databases.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=91090877&vname=dennotallissues&fn=91090877&jd=91090877
-
States Warn Dismissing 11th Circuit CWA Rule Suit Would Set Bad Precedent
Jun 7, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Several states are urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to reject EPA's bid to dismiss a suit over the agency's Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule in deference to a related 6th Circuit suit, arguing it would set a bad precedent as the 6th Circuit's decision to hear its case is based on a ruling that the 11th Circuit has said is wrong.
A coalition of 11 Southern states is asking the 11th Circuit in State of Georgia, et al. v. Regina McCarthy, et al. to reverse a lower court decision that said authority to hear challenges to the rule lies with the appeals courts. The states want an order from the 11th Circuit overturning the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia's Brunswick Division's decision, which would send their suit over the rule back to the lower court to proceed.
In a June 7 reply brief, attorneys on behalf of the coalition -- led by Georgia -- argue that the jurisdictional issue underlying the appeal of the district court's earlier decision is ripe for the 11th Circuit to consider and unaffected by the 6th Circuit decision.
They characterize the 6th Circuit panel's 2-1 ruling giving that court power to hear a CWA rule case as “fractured,” saying “two out of three judges on the panel believe that jurisdiction for these challenges actually rests with the district courts; or that the Sixth Circuit's holding was based on a case that this Court has already rejected.”
The Justice Department (DOJ) on behalf of EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers -- which jointly crafted the CWA jurisdiction rule -- counters that the 6th Circuit is the sole proper venue for the appellate litigation.
The CWA is unclear on whether district or appellate courts should hear challenges to certain types of rules issued under the law. The 6th Circuit earlier this year issued a 2-1 ruling in Murray Energy, et al., v. EPA, et al., which is consolidated litigation over the rule, that said the court had authority to hear the challenges.
Judge David McKeague, writing the lead opinion, said that although the water law is unclear on where suits over the rule should start, the 6th Circuit has jurisdiction under a “functional” reading of CWA sections 509(b)(1)(e) and 509(b)(1)(f). He relied in part on the 6th Circuit's ruling from 2009 in National Cotton Council of America v. EPA, which said the appeals courts have direct power to review regulations governing the issuance of permits under the water law's section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting program.
Judge Richard Allen Griffin only supported the decision to take the case because it is in line with precedent established by National Cotton, but added that he believes the 2009 case was wrongly decided.
Dissenting Senior Judge Damon J. Keith said National Cotton should not apply, and the industry groups critical of the rule have cited his and Griffin's statements in calling for en banc review of the decision.
Competing Briefs
In the 11th Circuit case, DOJ filed a May 31 brief arguing that the suit should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in deference to the 6th Circuit's ruling.
DOJ said that the court should dismiss the suit, rather than staying the litigation or holding it in abeyance, because it would address what DOJ said was an attempt by the 11th Circuit states to pursue “dual-track” litigation against the rule that is prohibited by the Administrative Procedure Act's limits on duplicative litigation.
Georgia and the 10 other states counter in their June 7 reply brief that the 11th Circuit would be wrong to dismiss and defer to the 6th Circuit, as the 11th Circuit has rejected the reasoning behind National Cotton that McKeague relied on.
“As an initial matter, even if this Court is concerned about the potential for duplicative litigation, dismissal would be the wrong outcome; dismissal would enshrine a binding precedent for the Eleventh Circuit based on a divided precedent from the Sixth Circuit that was, in turn, made in reliance on a decision already rejected by this Court,” the brief says.
The states are seeking to refute DOJ's claim that the 6th Circuit ruling is controlling nationwide, arguing that the jurisdictional question of whether district or appellate courts have authority to review the rule is answered by Friends of the Everglades v. EPA, a 2012 11th Circuit ruling in which the court already rejected the “logic and holding” ofNational Cotton.
After rejecting requests to reconsider the decision, the 6th Circuit recently set a May 30 deadline for proposed merits briefing schedules in the case.
EPA and the various states and groups suing over the rule then submitted a joint briefing schedule on May 27 that would set the deadline for their opening briefs at 75 days after the date of the court's eventual order setting a briefing schedule in the suit.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/states-warn-dismissing-11th-circuit-cwa-rule-suit-would-set-bad-precedent
-
The Overreach of the Administration on Climate
Jun 7, 2016 | The Hill - Opinion
By Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas)
Last year the Environmental Protection Agency finalized its highly controversial Waters of the United States regulation. This set in motion the largest government power grab in our nation’s history. The rule changes the way water is defined in order to maximize the federal government’s ability to control Americans’ private property. Unfortunately, this overburdensome regulation is not an outlier for this administration. As the Obama administration continues to promote its radical climate change agenda, Americans should expect further encroachment by the federal government on their everyday lives.
Recently, a federal judge ruled that because of potential impacts from climate change, wolverines should be placed on the endangered species list. The judge argued that the wolverine, which makes its winter home using snow, is dependent on temperatures being sufficiently cold for snow to occur and is thus threatened by potential climate change impacts. If a single federal judge is able to declare what is appropriate for the government to regulate based only on theoretical possibilities, where does it stop?
Decisions like these are being made based on projection models that are nothing more than speculation. In fact, the science routinely contradicts these farfetched claims. In the case of the wolverine, some studies projected less snowfall, while others were unable to predict the same result. The mere fact that these discrepancies exist in climate science is reason enough not to push forward with actions that impact Americans’ rights. To millions of Americans, this makes sense, but unfortunately, federal officials are often out of step with the American people.
Time and again this administration has opted to use fear as its primary agent of action. Dire predictions of a warming planet with catastrophic consequences are published in government reports and funneled to the media. The result is a slanted viewpoint that emphasizes negative impacts based on speculation. Science that does not fit environmentalists’ narrative and evidence of historical trends that disprove the administration’s models are excluded.
This practice is not the scientific method, which should be used to inform our policy decisions. Instead, the administration ignores valid data and has even vilified scientists that do not toe the party line. For instance, the administration continues to perpetuate the myth that 97 percent of scientists agree that climate change is real and man-made. Time and again, the study that produced this number has been debunked. Still, this hasn’t stopped the administration, including the president, from using error-driven data to fit its narrative.
The administration also ignores historical climate and weather trends. In a recent report about health impacts from climate change, the administration once again inaccurately claimed that climate change causes an increase in extreme weather events. However, the data does not support this conclusion.
There have been little to no trends in increased extreme weather events for decades. Whether it is increased frequency, intensity or normalized damage, the data do not support the administration’s statements. However, this hasn’t stopped the administration from using falsehoods of increased extreme weather as the justification for its costly regulations. Even the very liberal Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found “low confidence” that extreme weather events would increase in the future.
The president should not continue to polarize the climate change issue by using flimsy scientific justifications to promote his extreme agenda. Perhaps a presidential visit to cities where Americans have been economically injured by this administration’s job-killing green agenda would allow the president to better understand the consequences of his burdensome regulations. The least he could do is stop by before he increases his plans to regulate the American people’s own backyards.
Smith represents the 21st District of Texas in the House of Representatives and is the chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee.
http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/282545-the-overreach-of-the-administration-on-climate
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested