Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 7/26/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Activity Barometer Gains For 4th Consecutive Month, ACC Says
Jul 26, 2016 | Chemical Engineering
By Scott Jenkins
he Chemical Activity Barometer (CAB), a leading economic indicator created by the American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com), expanded 0.4 percent in July following a revised 0.7 percent increase in June, 0.8 percent increase in May and 0.6 percent increase in April. -
EPA Issues First Chemical Assessments Under TSCA Reform
Jul 27, 2016 | Chem.Info
By Andy Szal
A environmental advocacy group was critical of the Environmental Protection Agency's first formal decisions under the nation's new chemical oversight laws. -
EPA Announces Public Meetings for Input on New Chemical Law
Jul 27, 2016 | Lexology
By Jason C. Moore, Robert F. Wilkinson and Amy L. Wachs
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced it will hold two public meetings on August 9 and 10, 2016, to gather input on the processes EPA will use to prioritize and evaluate chemicals under the recently overhauled Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
(ACC Mentioned) Study: Plastics Reduce Environmental Impact
Jul 26, 2016 | Plastics News
By Gayle S. Putrich
There isn’t a single person in the plastics industry who hasn’t been regularly bombarded with concerns from all sides about the environmental costs of plastic production and use. -
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics Reduce Environmental Costs By Nearly Four Times Compared To Alternatives: Report
Jul 26, 2016 | Canadian Plastics
Despite a widespread perception to the contrary, the environmental cost of using plastics in consumer goods and packaging is nearly four times less than if plastics were replaced with alternative materials, a new study reports. -
Perrone: Prop 65 Warning Labels Are Just Lawsuit Magnets
Jul 25, 2016 | The Mercury News
By Joseph Perrone
Lawyers can get quite creative when it comes to legal schemes shaking bucks out of businesses. But two new lawsuit notices filed in June might take the cake for audacity. The lawyers are now claiming that businesses across California are failing to warn consumers about the public health hazard of--drum roll, please--water bottles and receipt paper. -
Greenpeace Slams Cosmetic Industry Microbeads Commitments
Jul 27, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The cosmetics industry must strengthen its commitments to phasing out the use of plastic microbeads, a Greenpeace study of 30 multinational personal care products companies concludes. -
Agencies Fund Work Probing Chemicals, Children's Health
Jul 27, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Five universities will receive a total of $28 million to study the effects of chemicals and other pollutants on children's health, according to the EPA and a National Institutes of Health announcement July 26. -
Dow Chemical Must Defend Asbestos Suit in State Court
Jul 27, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
Dow Chemical will have to defend a take-home asbestos lawsuit in state court after the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri declined to dismiss a Missouri company from the case (Hartfield v. 3M Co., 2016 BL 235736, E.D. Mo., No. 16-CV-763, 7/22/16). -
Democrats Used to Like Natural-Gas Energy. Not Anymore
Jul 26, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Karen Alderman Harbert
The 2016 presidential campaign has been nothing if not dramatic, and so it comes as no surprise that the mundane task of developing official party platforms has garnered extensive attention and controversy, particularly on the Democratic side. -
PHMSA Proposes Rule to Amend Gas Cylinder Requirements
Jul 27, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Certain requirements related to the manufacture, use and re-qualification of some compressed gas cylinders would be amended under a proposed rule issued July 26 by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (81 Fed. Reg. 48,977). -
Podesta Leaves Door Open For Carbon Tax
Jul 26, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
The chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign on Tuesday declined to rule out supporting a tax on carbon emissions if she wins the White House, but he stressed that she does not plan to hold out for lawmakers to send her such a bill before pursuing sharper emissions cuts. -
EPA's Air Policy 'Consistency' Rule Rejects Industry Claims Of Confusion
Jul 26, 2016 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
EPA has finalized a rule to amend its “regional consistency” policy on uniform application of Clean Air Act requirements that mirrors a proposed version of the rule providing a “narrow” exception to the policy for adverse court rulings, rejecting claims from various industry groups that the change will create major regulatory confusion.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Activity Barometer Gains For 4th Consecutive Month, ACC Says
Jul 26, 2016 | Chemical Engineering
By Scott Jenkins
The Chemical Activity Barometer (CAB), a leading economic indicator created by the American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com), expanded 0.4 percent in July following a revised 0.7 percent increase in June, 0.8 percent increase in May and 0.6 percent increase in April. All data are measured on a three-month moving average (3MMA). Accounting for adjustments, the CAB remains up 2.6 percent over this time last year, an improvement over prior months. On an unadjusted basis the CAB jumped 0.6 percent in July, following a 0.2 percent gain in June.
“The CAB is signaling higher U.S. business activity into 2017 and that recent unpleasantness in the goods economy may be approaching its end,” stated ACC’s Chief Economist Kevin Swift.
In July, all four categories for the CAB improved for the fourth month in a row. Production-related indicators were positive, with trends in construction-related resins, pigments and related performance chemistry being mixed, and plastic resins used in packaging and other consumer and institutional applications largely showed improvement. Equity prices surged in July, joined by product prices gaining. Inventories and other downstream indicators were positive.
The Chemical Activity Barometer has four primary components, each consisting of a variety of indicators: 1) production; 2) equity prices; 3) product prices; and 4) inventories and other indicators.
The Chemical Activity Barometer is a leading economic indicator derived from a composite index of chemical industry activity. The chemical industry has been found to consistently lead the U.S. economy’s business cycle given its early position in the supply chain, and this barometer can be used to determine turning points and likely trends in the wider economy. Month-to-month movements can be volatile so a three-month moving average of the barometer is provided. This provides a more consistent and illustrative picture of national economic trends.
http://www.chemengonline.com/chemical-activity-barometer-gains-for-4th-consecutive-month-acc-says/?printmode=1
-
EPA Issues First Chemical Assessments Under TSCA Reform
Jul 27, 2016 | Chem.Info
By Andy Szal
A environmental advocacy group was critical of the Environmental Protection Agency's first formal decisions under the nation's new chemical oversight laws.
Richard Denison, a senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, last week reviewed risk determinations for four chemicals published by the EPA — the first issued after President Obama signedthe Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act into law.
The chemicals — which Denison speculated were picked because they were relatively "easy" cases — weredeemed unlikely "to present an unreasonable risk" to human health or the environment.
Denison noted that the findings represented a key component of the new law, which, in part, requires the EPA to make affirmative safety decisions for new chemicals. He also wrote that the EPA's decisions, and its justifications for them, were made public, which occurred rarely under the Lautenberg Act's predecessor, the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act.
"This, in my view, constitutes an unprecedented level of transparency for a program that has often felt like a 'black box' in the past," Denison wrote.
But Denison also wrote that substantial amounts of information — including the names of the substances, their uses and the applicant companies — remained confidential.
He added that environmental exposure data was generally predicted with estimation models, rather than measured, and suggested that projected chemical impacts on vulnerable subpopulations were "incomplete and insufficient."
"In dealing with less 'easy' cases, EPA needs to do more to ensure and communicate that its review is based on information sufficient to make the affirmative finding the new law requires," Denison wrote.
Despite the EDF's concerns, the Lautenberg Act was generally supported by both industry and environmental groups as an alternative to the outdated TSCA.
Some analysts, however, questioned whether the EPA was equipped to handle its substantial new responsibilities under the law. One expert suggested that analyzing an initial list of "high-priority" chemicals alone could take decades.
The EPA's initial "roadmap" for implementing the law acknowledged its new requirements and "comparatively short timelines," but vowed to take "these responsibilities and deadlines seriously."
http://www.chem.info/news/2016/07/epa-issues-first-chemical-assessments-under-tsca-reform
-
EPA Announces Public Meetings for Input on New Chemical Law
Jul 27, 2016 | Lexology
By Jason C. Moore, Robert F. Wilkinson and Amy L. Wachs
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced it will hold two public meetings on August 9 and 10, 2016, to gather input on the processes EPA will use to prioritize and evaluate chemicals under the recently overhauled Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The meetings are an opportunity for industry to provide comments that EPA must consider when developing its proposed rules.
Provisions of the Chemical Safety Act
The revised TSCA, which President Obama signed into law on June 22, 2016, establishes a new regulatory framework for assessing and regulating chemicals. (Read our previous client alert about the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.) Among other provisions, the new law requires EPA to establish a risk-based prioritization screening process for existing chemicals within one year of enactment. Under that process, chemicals will be designated as high or low priority. Chemicals designated as high priority must undergo risk assessments to determine if they present “an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment,” the new safety standard under the revised TSCA.
The public meeting on August 9, 2016, will seek input on EPA’s eventual proposed rule for conducting risk evaluations to determine whether chemicals meet the new safety standard. The meeting on August 10, 2016, will seek input on EPA’s eventual proposed rule to establish a risk-based process for chemical prioritization.
The public meetings will be held from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. each day at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, Horizon Ballroom, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. EPA requests that anyone planning to participate, either in person or remotely, register in advance. The registration site also provides an option for participants to indicate if they wish to make comments at the meetings.
On June 29, 2016, EPA announced its first-year implementation plan outlining how it will meet deadlines imposed by the new law. Under that plan, EPA intends to publish proposed rules for prioritizing chemicals as high or low risk and for evaluating the risks of high-priority chemicals by mid-June 2017.
EPA has also established a new webpage that includes a summary of the new law, frequently asked questions and the implementation plan
What This Means to You
Given EPA’s new mandates and authority under the revised TSCA, industry should expect EPA to review more chemicals more thoroughly and to regulate more chemicals that do not meet the new safety standard. While the new law provides some guidelines for how EPA must prioritize and conduct risk assessments on chemicals, there is much uncertainty about what those processes will ultimately look like. Given the potential impact, industry should scrutinize the details of the chemical prioritization and risk assessment processes when proposed by EPA. The public meetings give industry an opportunity to provide comments that EPA must consider when developing the proposed rules.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Study: Plastics Reduce Environmental Impact
Jul 26, 2016 | Plastics News
By Gayle S. Putrich
There isn’t a single person in the plastics industry who hasn’t been regularly bombarded with concerns from all sides about the environmental costs of plastic production and use.
But a new study takes some of the sting out, finding the environmental cost of using plastics in consumer goods and packaging is nearly four times less than replacing plastics with alternative materials.
Trucost's latest study, “Plastics and Sustainability: A Valuation of Environmental Benefits, Costs and Opportunities for Continuous Improvement,” builds on a 2014 study the research company did for the United Nations Environment Program, using the same methodology and “natural capital accounting” metrics.
Trucost estimates that swapping plastic for alternatives such as glass, tin or aluminum would increase environmental costs from $139 billion to $533 billion — that’s taking into account ocean damage, end-of-life management, transportation, production and material and energy recovery costs and impact.
In most cases, the study says, the per-kilogram cost of alternative materials is less than the cost of a kilo of plastic. “However, on average over four times more alternative material is needed [by weight] to perform the same function,” according to the report. For example, a plastic drink bottle made of 30 grams of plastic would require 141 grams of glass or aluminum.
The scale of the environmental cost difference came as a bit of a surprise to the American Chemistry Council, which commissioned the new report.
“That is it almost four times higher was a surprise,” said Steve Russell, vice president of plastics for ACC. “It was also a surprise how complicated it is to do this work. But it wasn’t a surprise that plastics would turn out to be such an efficient material.”
Russell said the study was admittedly “risky,” but it provides a new lens into the industry’s ongoing sustainability discussion.
“Even though the plastics industry is probably a little bit uncomfortable with a dollar value being assigned to the environmental consequences of production, the more we can make better decisions to improve our business, the better,” he said. “As more and more companies … start looking at the consequences of their decisions, they need good information on which to base those decisions.”
In addition, the report recommends steps to help further reduce plastics' overall environmental costs by as much as $41 billion industry-wide, including suggestions such as:
• A potential $7.6 billion in overall cost savings from increasing the use of wind, solar and hydro-electric power sources in plastics production.
• A possible $7.3 billion in environmental costs savings from a 30 percent reduction in materials used in the food, soft drink and ice packaging sectors alone.
• A potential $10.6 billion savings if the industry committed to a 20 percent improvement in fuel efficiency for the fleets of vehicles used to transport plastic and plastic products.
While consumers are accustomed to only looking at their piece of the puzzle — the end of a piece of plastic’s life, usually as they hold it in their hand — manufacturers and policy makers must see things more broadly, and the study puts more data into perspective for them than ever before, say Trucost and ACC.
“Plastics makers are used to hearing about the downsides of our products. And this study is disruptive of conventional wisdom that says plastics are bad for the environment or that we should use other materials,” Russell said. “But all of the pieces weighed together need to be considered if we want to make the best decision for the planet and the environment. That’s why this study is important…. Not just the end-of-life piece, the full lifecycle.”
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20160726/NEWS/160729849/study-plastics-reduce-environmental-impact
-
Jul 26, 2016 | Canadian Plastics
Despite a widespread perception to the contrary, the environmental cost of using plastics in consumer goods and packaging is nearly four times less than if plastics were replaced with alternative materials, a new study reports.
The study, by market research firm Trucost and commissioned by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), is based on natural capital accounting methods, which measure and value environmental impacts – such as consumption of water and emissions to air, land and water – which are not typically factored into traditional financial accounting.
Called “Plastics and Sustainability: A Valuation of Environmental Benefits, Costs, and Opportunities for Continuous Improvement,” the report builds on earlier research by comparing the environmental costs of using plastics to alternative materials and identifying opportunities to help lower the environmental costs of using plastics in consumer goods and packaging.
The study reports that replacing plastics in consumer products and packaging with a mix of alternative materials that provide the same function would increase environmental costs from US$139 billion to US$533 billion annually. Why? Because strong, lightweight plastics allow packagers and others to do more with less material, which provides environmental benefits throughout the lifecycle of plastic products and packaging.
The study concluded that even when the environmental costs of alternative materials are lower per ton of production, the aggregate total is still greater due to the much larger quantities of material needed to fulfill the same purposes as plastics. “On average over four times more alternative material is needed [by weight] to perform the same function [as plastic],” the report said. For example, the report continued, a plastic drink bottle made of 30 grams of plastic would require 141 grams of glass or aluminum.
In addition, the report recommends steps to help further reduce plastics’ overall environmental costs, such as by increasing the use of lower-carbon electricity in plastics production, adopting lower-emission transport modes, developing even more efficient plastic packaging, and increasing recycling and energy conversion of post-use plastics to help curb ocean litter and conserve resources.
The report also suggests steps that can help further reduce plastics’ overall environmental costs by as much as US$41 billion industry-wide, including a potential US$7.6 billion in overall cost savings from increasing the use of wind, solar and hydro-electric power sources in plastics production; a possible US$7.3 billion in environmental costs savings from a 30 per cent reduction in materials used in the food, soft drink and ice packaging sectors alone; and a potential US$10.6 billion savings if the industry committed to a 20 per cent improvement in fuel efficiency for the fleets of vehicles used to transport plastic and plastic products.
“We now have a fuller picture of the environmental benefits of using plastics,” said ACC vice president of plastics Steve Russell. “From lighter, more fuel-efficient cars to smart packaging that helps our favorite foods last longer, our industry is committed to ongoing innovations that will advance sustainability across major market sectors and the globe.”
For more on the study, click on this link. The full report is available here.
http://www.canplastics.com/environment/plastics-reduce-environmental-costs-nearly-four-times-compared-alternatives-report/1003438485/
-
Perrone: Prop 65 Warning Labels Are Just Lawsuit Magnets
Jul 25, 2016 | The Mercury News
By Joseph Perrone
Lawyers can get quite creative when it comes to legal schemes shaking bucks out of businesses. But two new lawsuit notices filed in June might take the cake for audacity. The lawyers are now claiming that businesses across California are failing to warn consumers about the public health hazard of--drum roll, please--water bottles and receipt paper.
Welcome to the latest chapter in California's Proposition 65 madness.
Last month, lawyers gave notice to the California Attorney General that they intended to file suit over water bottles and receipt paper containing Bisphenol A (BPA). It's not the first suit, and it won't be the last, since BPA is widely used--in electronics, plastics and can linings of food and beverage products.
Businesses should brace themselves, because California's labeling law, Proposition 65, allows anyone to sue a business if it doesn't post a warning label. And with a light burden of proof on plaintiffs, low risk and high rewards, bounty-hunting lawyers have a cottage industry in shaking down businesses with lawsuit threats. In 2015 alone, these so-called "bounty hunters" collected more than $26 million in settlement payments from businesses--68 percent of which ($18 million) went to lawyers.
Now, the floodgates are open, and either consumers get drowned in warning labels, or businesses get drowned in lawsuits. So how did we get here?
While Prop 65 was sold to voters in 1986 as a "safe drinking water" law--and everyone supports safe water--it was crafted in such a way that rigs the deck for lawyers while failing to provide meaningful information for consumers.
A fundamental principle of toxicology is that the dose makes the poison. People can die from consuming too much water or baking soda. The mere presence of a chemical does not mean there is harm to people.
For example, take acrylamide, which is found in foods like potato chips and french fries and in coffee. It is blacklisted under Prop 65. Yet, one would have to eat 182 pounds of french fries every day to consume cancer-causing levels of acrylamide. If you eat that many fries, you've got more immediate problems than an increased risk of cancer.
Yet, because Prop 65 requires businesses to warn consumers about mere exposure to a chemical--not a legitimate risk--we've seen warning labels pop up ubiquitously on products as businesses try to avoid getting sued.
This farce doesn't just hurt small businesses. One out-of-state manufacturer of safety equipment for the elderly lost tens of thousands of dollars for not having warning labels. Once again, there was no legitimate public-health issue--unless California's nursing home set decides to start eating the handles on safety appliances--and the lawyers walked away with an easy payday.
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has proposed changes to Prop 65, such as making warning labels scarier and requiring the naming of specific chemicals on a label. These are distractions. Without accurately communicating risk--or the lack thereof--or reforming the "bounty hunter" provisions, these changes won't help average Californians.
California needs to reform Prop 65, or consumers and businesses will continue to lose while a handful of lawyers continue to make out like bandits. That's a warning you can take to the bank.
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_30168291/perrone-prop-65-warning-labels-are-just-lawsuit
-
Greenpeace Slams Cosmetic Industry Microbeads Commitments
Jul 27, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The cosmetics industry must strengthen its commitments to phasing out the use of plastic microbeads, a Greenpeace study of 30 multinational personal care products companies concludes.
The NGO says its report is the first public study of major personal care products companies' commitments to voluntarily phase out the use of the small plastic particles. Used as exfoliants in a variety of products, microbeads have been found to accumulate in waterways, and are only regulated in certain products and specific parts of the world.
"There's no single bad player; the industry as a whole is failing to regulate the use of microplastics [in] everyday products," says Taehyun Park, oceans campaigner at Greenpeace East Asia.
"The only sure and efficient way to successfully make sure that microplastics [are removed] from consumer products is to ban them."Best practices
Ms Park told Chemical Watch that Greenpeace did the study in order to compare microbead commitments against an equal standard – a set of best practices that it has called on companies to adopt. These include:removing microbeads from both rinse-off and leave-on products;committing to using non-hazardous alternatives, without exemptions for biodegradable plastics or recycled plastic alternatives;having no lower size limit for the plastic particles being removed;applying the ban to all company products – both current and future – across all global markets; andcompleting the phase-out within a reasonable and agreed time period, ideally within two years of announcement.
Transparency is a key concern, says the NGO, because it brings accountability and allows consumers to make informed decisions.
Germany’s Beiersdorf performed the best against the NGO's best practices metric, with US-based Colgate-Palmolive and L Brands coming second and third.
American brands Estée Lauder, Amway, Revlon and Edgewell Personal Care Products occupied the bottom ranking spots. Industry response
But Beth Lange, chief scientist at the US Personal Care Products Council (PCPC), says the report "may cause more confusion than clarity and doesn't reflect the genuine efforts of the industry to respond to this issue.”"
The industry, she says, responded "early and aggressively" to concerns over microbeads – in supporting both voluntary and regulatory phase-out. This, despite the fact that scientific research "has repeatedly shown microbeads from cosmetics to be one of the smallest sources of plastic litter in oceans (0.1-1.5%)".
The trade group supported the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015. This bans microbeads from rinse-off products nationwide from July 2017.
The federal ban focuses on "any intentionally added, 5mm or less, water insoluble, solid plastic particle used to exfoliate or cleanse in rinse-off personal care products". This Ms Lange says is the definition the global cosmetics industry has agreed as the standard.
A spokesperson from Revlon – ranked second to last on the list – says it does not use plastic microbeads, as defined by the US regulation, "in any of its cosmetic or personal care products, anywhere around the world".
Edgewell Personal Care, which occupied the lowest spot on the list for its failure to complete the NGO's survey, told Chemical Watch it did not respond because it "does not incorporate the use of microbeads in any of our wide range of personal care products".
Dr Lange says the PCPC will continue working to find "pragmatic solutions" to plastic litter in oceans. But "real solutions" will address the leading sources of marine litter, including larger plastic debris and improved trash management by less developed countries.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48785/greenpeace-slams-cosmetic-industry-microbeads-commitments
-
Agencies Fund Work Probing Chemicals, Children's Health
Jul 27, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Five universities will receive a total of $28 million to study the effects of chemicals and other pollutants on children's health, according to the EPA and a National Institutes of Health announcement July 26.
The EPA and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences awarded grants to researchers at Columbia University, Emory University, Johns Hopkins University, Northeastern University and the University of California, Berkeley. The projects funded include research on the health impacts of air pollutants on early childhood development, including instances of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
In a statement issued July 26, Dr. James H. Johnson, the director of EPA's National Center for Environmental Research, said the funding will aid “cutting-edge research and greater awareness in understanding how a range of environmental factors can affect our nation's children.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=94650611&vname=dennotallissues&fn=94650611&jd=94650611
-
Dow Chemical Must Defend Asbestos Suit in State Court
Jul 27, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
Dow Chemical will have to defend a take-home asbestos lawsuit in state court after the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri declined to dismiss a Missouri company from the case (Hartfield v. 3M Co., 2016 BL 235736, E.D. Mo., No. 16-CV-763, 7/22/16).
Dow failed to show that the Missouri company—J.P. Bushnell Packing and Gasket Co.—was fraudulently joined to a lawsuit brought by the son of a pipefitter exposed to asbestos dust brought home on his father's work clothes.
There is no federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship because J.P. Bushnell is a citizen of the forum state, the court said.
Dow argued that no facts support James Hartfield's claim against J.P. Bushnell.
Dow cited Hartfield's testimony that he never heard of the company and didn't know what products it produced or whether he or his father ever worked with or around its products.
“Defendant's assertion that plaintiff has not yet identified the necessary evidence does not demonstrate that the facts with respect to J.P. Bushnell are ‘clearly false' or that there is no factual basis for plaintiff's claims against it,” the court said.
The court remanded the case to the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis.
Judge Carol E. Jackson issued the ruling.
Flint and Associates LLC and Dean Omar & Branham, LLP represent James Hartfield.
Husch Blackwell, LLP represents Dow Chemical Co., as successor-in-interest-to Rohm & Haas.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=94650584&vname=dennotallissues&fn=94650584&jd=94650584
-
Democrats Used to Like Natural-Gas Energy. Not Anymore
Jul 26, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Karen Alderman Harbert
The 2016 presidential campaign has been nothing if not dramatic, and so it comes as no surprise that the mundane task of developing official party platforms has garnered extensive attention and controversy, particularly on the Democratic side.
Energy policy took center stage as supporters of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clintonargued for weeks over the extent—but not the direction—of new regulatory restrictions to limit U.S. energy production.
These divisions trace to early spring, when Sen. Sanders worked to distinguish himself as the candidate most committed to stringent climate regulations and new federal rules to halt fracking. The tactic rallied environmental activists, and Mrs. Clinton responded with a leftward drift that inched ever-so-close to the Sanders position.
“I’m going to pledge to stop fossil fuels,” Mrs. Clinton promised a voter in New Hampshire before the February primary. A month later she boasted at a debate that, after imposing new regulations, “I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place.”
The one-upmanship then moved to platform-drafting as the camps continued to squabble until reaching a conclusion in Orlando, Fla., on July 9. Supported by both campaigns and enthusiastically cheered by environmentalists, the final language stops short of calling for a nationwide fracking ban but incorporates a raft of anti-energy provisions, such as promising new Environmental Protection Agency rules on fracking, instituting a Keystone XL-like “climate test” for future federal permitting, and generally discouraging the use of natural gas.
While reports suggested the compromise resulted in a middle-ground position, this couldn’t be further from the truth. The real story of the 2016 platform language is not the squabbling between the Clinton and Sanders camps, but rather that both sides joined to reject the previous positions adopted by candidate Barack Obama and his supporters.
Consider this 2012 platform language from a section titled “All-of-the-Above Energy Policy”:
• “We can move towards a sustainable, energy-independent future if we harness all of America’s great natural resources. That means an all-of-the-above approach to developing America’s many energy resources, including wind, solar, biofuels, geothermal, hydropower, nuclear, oil, clean coal, and natural gas.”
• “[A] new era of cheap, abundant natural gas is helping to bring jobs and industry back to the United States.”
• “We will continue to advocate for use of this clean fossil fuel [natural gas].”
• “And we are expediting the approval process to build out critical oil and gas lines essential to transporting our energy for consumers.”
Each of these positions is reasonable and consistent with pro-growth policies. I would be the first to say that the Obama administration did not live up to those words, and in practice hasn’t executed the policies of that reasonable platform.
Yet it is notable that this year each plank was exiled from the platform with nary a word of discussion. Blanket praise for the importance of natural gas as a job creator was replaced by blanket promises to restrict its production and use. This is a dramatic and troubling about-face. The shale revolution has lowered energy prices and fueled a renaissance in American manufacturing while improving our security by lowering dependence on foreign oil.
Party platforms are symbolic documents typically forgotten before their ink dries. And we certainly hope that any future Democratic administration wouldn’t pursue an end to fracking and capitulate to the “keep it in the ground” campaign’s unrealistic worldview.
But Mrs. Clinton owes the public an explanation for the party’s rejection of these beneficial changes. Does she oppose energy independence or disagree with the need for energy infrastructure? Does she disagree that natural gas is bringing jobs and industry back to the U.S.? Or was this simply a case of “Bernie made me do it?” Either way, turning back the clock on the energy revolution is bad policy that would kneecap the tepid American economy.
The positions in the platform were officially adopted in Philadelphia this week. The scene is rich with irony as the party formally agrees to shun the very fuels and technologies that are driving economic growth in Philadelphia and the entire state of Pennsylvania.
It’s time to hold politicians and their interest-group allies accountable for irresponsible rhetoric and policies, especially the anti-energy sentiment that has consumed much of the 2016 Democratic campaign.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-used-to-like-natural-gas-energy-not-anymore-1469574395
-
PHMSA Proposes Rule to Amend Gas Cylinder Requirements
Jul 27, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Certain requirements related to the manufacture, use and re-qualification of some compressed gas cylinders would be amended under a proposed rule issued July 26 by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (81 Fed. Reg. 48,977).
Specifically, the rule (RIN 2137–AE80) would incorporate by reference, or update the references to, several Compressed Gas Association publications, amend the filling requirements for compressed and liquefied gases, expand the use of salvage cylinders, and revise and clarify the manufacture and re-qualification requirements for Department of Transportation-specification cylinders.
The agency said it issued the rule in response to petitions for rulemaking submitted by stakeholders and in response to agency review of the compressed gas cylinders regulations.
Comments on the proposed rule are due Sept. 26. The rule is available athttps://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-07-26/pdf/2016-16689.pdf.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=94650604&vname=dennotallissues&fn=94650604&jd=94650604
-
Podesta Leaves Door Open For Carbon Tax
Jul 26, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
The chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign on Tuesday declined to rule out supporting a tax on carbon emissions if she wins the White House, but he stressed that she does not plan to hold out for lawmakers to send her such a bill before pursuing sharper emissions cuts.
“Right now we’ve not proposed a carbon tax,” John Podesta told reporters here, after speaking at an event hosted by green groups. “We believe we can get the job done. But if Congress wants to come forward with one, we’ll take a look at it.”
Clinton’s climate plan would set the stage for 80-percent reduction in U.S. emissions from 2005 levels by 2050, by building on EPA rules and promoting more renewable energy deployment, Podesta said, and he noted the Democratic platform endorses examining how to price carbon emissions.
“We do that under existing authority,” he said. “We worked out some language in the platform that recognizes the consequences of climate change ought to be borne by polluters themselves.”
Podesta’s remarks promise to further stoke an already simmering debate within the oil and gas industry as well as the environmental movement over whether to engage in serious talks over pricing carbon emissions — as called for in this year’s Democratic platform.
Senate Democrats’ leader-in-waiting, Chuck Schumer of New York, told POLITICO last month that he sees an opening for a bipartisan deal to impose a carbon tax next year. That would require a sweeping tax reform deal that brings both parties’ leaders to the table, should Democrats take back the Senate in November and install Schumer as leader.
Responding to climate activists’ inflamed by Bernie Sanders’ calls for a fracking ban, Podesta reiterated Clinton’s promise to strictly regulate the practice and support communities that wanted to bar it within their borders.
“We have an extremely aggressive climate change program that we’re going to take forward,” Podesta said, slamming Donald Trump as a “climate denier” by comparison to Clinton. “In contrast, what you have is a candidate going well beyond what Obama has done already.”
https://www.politicopro.com/tax/story/2016/07/podesta-leaves-door-open-for-carbon-tax-125233#ixzz4FbEMyVrd -
EPA's Air Policy 'Consistency' Rule Rejects Industry Claims Of Confusion
Jul 26, 2016 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
EPA has finalized a rule to amend its “regional consistency” policy on uniform application of Clean Air Act requirements that mirrors a proposed version of the rule providing a “narrow” exception to the policy for adverse court rulings, rejecting claims from various industry groups that the change will create major regulatory confusion.
The agency quietly posted its final rule online July 21, ahead of eventual publication in the Federal Register. While the final rule does not differ from the proposed version, the rulemaking includes an extensive response to comments where EPA seeks to counter commenters' claims that limiting the impact of district or circuit court decisions that strike down agency policies will foster uncertainty or violate the Clean Air Act.
“[T]he approach advocated by these commenters would grant every court unlimited nationwide jurisdiction. Rather than being merely persuasive, a decision in one circuit thus would become binding precedent in other circuits; such a result is inconsistent with the court system established by Congress and years of case law,” the rule says.
As finalized, the rule makes explicit that EPA will not always give nationwide effect to adverse rulings by federal courts on locally or regionally applicable regulations -- such as the agency's regional offices' approvals of state implementation plans for complying with air standards, or Clean Air Act permitting decisions.
Instead, regional offices that face adverse court rulings on a national policy will be allowed to continue applying the policy outside the court's jurisdiction, without needing to seek special permission from EPA headquarters. The only courts whose rulings have automatic national effect under the new rule are the District of Columbia Circuit, which the air law says must hear challenges to rules and standards that apply nationally, and the Supreme Court.
“These revisions introduce a narrow procedural exception under which an EPA regional office no longer needs to seek headquarters concurrence to diverge from national policy in geographic areas covered by such an adverse court decision,” EPA says in a fact sheet on the final rule. “This exception will apply where Federal court decisions concerning the [Clean Air Act (CAA)] have regional or local applicability.”
However, the final rule could face a legal challenge given that various industry groups in comments on the proposed version of the rule last year outlined a potential legal challenge to the plan, warning it violates an air law provision that mandates national uniformity for air permitting and other mandates
Consistency Policy
EPA in August proposed to update the consistency policy in response to a 2014 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruling, National Environmental Development Association's Clean Air Project (NEDA/CAP) v. EPA, that vacated an agency memo seeking to narrow the reach of an adverse 6th Circuit air permitting ruling so it would affect only the states in that circuit.
The 6th Circuit scrapped the agency's “functional interrelatedness” test for determining “adjacency” -- a central factor for when regulators aggregate emissions sources for the purposes of triggering more stringent Title V and other permit requirements under the air law. The court said that adjacency must be determined based solely on physical proximity, which is less likely to trigger aggregation.
EPA then attempted to narrow the scope of that ruling by issuing a memo saying it only applied in the states covered by the 6th Circuit, and that the stricter aggregation test could still be used in other circuits.
However, the D.C. Circuit said the memo conflicted with the existing regional consistency policy, because it would have exposed facilities in different states to different permit requirements.
“EPA's final rule attempts to address the concerns raised by the D.C. Circuit by allowing what it calls a narrow exception to the regional consistency policy for adverse court rulings, for which it has undertaken notice and comment as required by the Administrative Procedure Act. These changes give the EPA the flexibility to implement CAA programs on a national scale while also minimizing delay in implementing court rulings concerning certain EPA actions under the CAA,” EPA says in the fact sheet.
But industry groups in comments on the proposed version of the rule said the change would represent a “fundamental” shift in how EPA responds to adverse court rulings, and could have a "significant effect" on businesses, especially those with facilities in more than one court jurisdiction.
EPA's Response
The agency argues in its response to comments on the final rule that allowing regions to continue following a national policy despite an adverse decision upholds the Clean Air Act's section 301(a)(2) mandate to “assure fairness and uniformity” in agency actions, despite industry's claims to the contrary.
“On its face, CAA [section] 301(a)(2) does not impose a standalone requirement to attain uniformity. While CAA [section] 301(a)(2)(C) directs the EPA to create mechanisms for identifying and standardizing various criteria, there is nothing to suggest that such standardization requires exact duplication by all EPA Regions in all circumstances, including Regional office responses to court decisions,” the rule says.
For instance, it says, the new rule provides a framework for regions to accommodate decisions by multiple circuit courts that take opposing views of a single policy. “[I]t is at times impossible to maintain complete consistency in the face of adverse court decisions. By revising the regulations, the EPA accommodates the possibility that a split in the circuits could preclude the EPA from complying with both court decisions at once,” it says.
The agency argues that if section 301 were meant to make any circuit court ruling apply nationwide, it would say so clearly -- since that regime is counter to the normal structure of the courts, where circuit rulings are only binding within each court's jurisdiction.“Congress left the door open to intercircuit conflicts by granting jurisdiction over locally or regionally applicable final actions to the regionally-based courts of appeal. These revisions maintain the balance that Congress struck in CAA section 307(b)(1). There is nothing in the language or intent of CAA [section] 301(a)(2) that trumps the clear statutory directive . . . establishing which courts have jurisdiction over which final agency actions,” the rule says.
EPA further claims that the D.C. Circuit in NEDA/CAP “explicitly did not address whether the CAA allows the EPA to adopt different standards in different circuits,” and argues that the decision not to weigh in on the subject supports its discretion to amend the consistency rule.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epas-air-policy-consistency-rule-rejects-industry-claims-confusion
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested