Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 10/05/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) Bound By Business
Oct 5, 2016 | Zawya
By Martin Morris
Frequently analysed in the media and often a focal point for discussion, the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States has historically been a strong, though not necessarily straightforward one. -
(ACC Mentioned) Green Biologics Selects Caldic As Its EU Distribution Partner
Oct 4, 2016 | Ethanol Producer Magazine
Green Biologics Inc., the U.S. subsidiary of Green Biologics Ltd., a U.K. industrial biotechnology and renewable chemicals company, recently announced a distribution agreement with Caldic B.V., a global distributor headquartered in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. -
Stopgap Funding Presumes EPA Can Pay Back $3M in Fiscal 2017
Oct 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The need to draft and finalize an industry fee rule may complicate congressional appropriations that provided the Environmental Protection Agency $3 million to kick start its implementation of the amended chemicals law as it presumes the agency will be able to repay that money before Oct. 1, 2017. -
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Chemical Industry Doubts EU Endocrine Database
Oct 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The European Commission announced Oct. 3 an online database that compiles results from scientific studies exploring whether chemicals mimic, block or alter hormonal activity, but the U.S. chemical trade association is downplaying its relevance for global regulation. -
Harmful Product-Chemical Combinations Focus of California Briefing
Oct 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A webinar scheduled by California regulators aims to launch a discussion on harmful chemicals used in nail salon products, commercial detergents, carpets and upholstered furniture, and in fire retardants. -
Ruling Opens Door To Wider PCB Building Cleanups, Countering EPA Policy
Oct 4, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
A recent federal district court ruling in California makes clear that citizens can pursue building-wide cleanups of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) if sampling a portion of a building's caulk shows PCB levels above legal limits, a finding that counters EPA's more limited cleanup policy, environmentalists say. -
Asbestos Claims Against Transit Agency Preempted: High Court
Oct 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
The U.S. Supreme Court Oct. 3 let stand a ruling that federal law preempts take-home asbestos claims relating to an urban rapid transit line (Estate of Brust v. Del. River Port Auth., 2016 BL 327491, U.S., No. 15-1529, 10/3/16). -
Rac And Seac Back Chrome Decorative Plating Authorisation
Oct 5, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
Echa’s Risk Assessment (Rac) and Socio-Economic Analysis (Seac) Committees have agreed a final Opinion, supporting the authorisation of the carcinogen chromium trioxide in decorative chrome plating. -
Echa Management Board Voices Concerns On Nano Website
Oct 5, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Geraint Roberts
Echa's management board has warned the agency that unless the European Commission speedily introduces REACH dossier requirements that explicitly address the nanoform of substances, the nano webpages Echa has been asked to create will contain little new information. -
Trump Huddles In Private With Oil And Gas Execs
Oct 4, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Jennifer Yachnin
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump met with oil and gas executives in Denver today, asserting Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton would "double" regulations governing the fossil fuel industry and saying a Clinton White House would put the oil and gas industry "out of business." -
Energy Leaders Warn Trump on Fracking Rules, Votes He Backs
Oct 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Jacobs and Jennifer A. Dlouhy
Energy executives in Denver Oct. 4 warned Donald Trump, who has said he supports letting local residents vote on fracking bans, that state regulations are thwarting oil and gas development. -
Trump Courts Colorado Oil Executives
Oct 5, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
Donald Trump huddled Tuesday with oil and gas executives in Colorado, expanding his outreach to an industry that has seen its influence grow in the Republican nominee's campaign after some early missteps. -
Pennsylvania Court Again Curbs Fracking Law
Oct 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
The tone of a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision on the state's 2012 gas drilling law shows that three newly elected judges may be skeptical about hydraulic fracturing in the state, attorneys told Bloomberg BNA (Robinson Twp. v. Commonwealth, 2016 BL 320172, Pa., No. 104 MAP 2014, 9/28/16). -
Pipeline Safety Rule Aims for Improved Response to Ruptures
Oct 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
An interim final rule implementing new emergency authorities at the Pipeline Safety and Hazardous Materials Administration clears the way for a more effective response to pipeline ruptures, regulators said this week. -
Obama Admin Boosts Regulator's Emergency Power
Oct 4, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration unveiled an interim final rule today that would allow it to impose emergency restrictions on oil and gas pipeline operators to address dangerous practices or equipment flaws. -
Pipeline Agency Issues Rule Expanding Emergency Powers
Oct 4, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Federal pipeline regulators issued a rule Tuesday to expand their agency’s power to regulate pipelines that pose an imminent threat to public safety or the environment -
Dakota Access Combatants Hope For Clues From Key Court Hearing
Oct 5, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
Both sides in the battle over the Dakota Access pipeline hope a critical court hearing Wednesday clarifies whether the stalled $3.7 billion project can get back on track, but its ultimate fate may be decided by the next president. -
Obama Gives Sober Assessment of Climate Change But Defends Natural Gas
Oct 4, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Despite sober assessments on climate change and the prospects for a carbon tax, President Obama on Monday defended natural gas and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) as necessary tools in the transition away from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. -
Valero Challenges Benicia’s Rejection Of Crude Oil Train Project
Oct 4, 2016 | The Sacramento Bee
By Tony Bizjak
In a letter this week, a Valero oil company attorney contends the city of Benicia acted illegally when it rejected Valero’s plan to ship two 50-car oil trains a day through Northern California to the company’s Benicia refinery. -
A Carbon Tax? Don't Expect One Anytime Soon, Obama Says
Oct 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
A carbon tax on fossil fuels might be the single best approach to curbing global climate change—just don't expect the U.S. or a broad swath of nations to impose one anytime soon, President Barack Obama said. -
Home Appliance Sector Faults EPA Rationale For HFC Phaseout In SNAP Rule
Oct 5, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
Home appliance manufacturers are sharply criticizing EPA's recently released rule limiting hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) after the agency rejected industry requests to extend the time companies have to transition away from the high global warming potential (GWP) refrigerants. -
Power Plant, Industrial Emissions Continue To Fall, EPA Reports
Oct 4, 2016 | Fuelfix
By James Osborne
Emissions of greenhouse gases from the country’s power plants and other industrial facilities continue to fall,the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reported Tuesday. -
EU Vote Could Put Paris Climate Pact Into Force Next Month
Oct 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Parliament Oct. 4 voted overwhelmingly to let the European Union deposit its instrument of ratification of the Paris Agreement with the United Nations, enabling the climate change pact to enter into force as early as next month. -
Mexico Prepared to Meet TPP Environmental, Labor Standards
Oct 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Emily Pickrell
The relatively high labor and environmental standards in the 12-nation Pacific Rim pact are a logical next step in international norms for trade agreements and Mexico is ready to meet them, according to the country's former top negotiator.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Bound By Business
Oct 5, 2016 | Zawya
By Martin Morris
While the United States and United Kingdom might not share cultural values with Saudi Arabia, their trade links have ensured a solid and prosperous relationship. Martin Morris examines how business has, and will, maintain strong alliances
Frequently analysed in the media and often a focal point for discussion, the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States has historically been a strong, though not necessarily straightforward one.
But periodic bumps aside – especially when economic and political interests have diverged – Riyadh and Washington have long cooperated closely in numerous ways, perhaps most overtly in the military sphere. Most recently this has been in the fields of intelligence gathering and counterterrorism, chiefly in response to the growing impact of global terrorism.
While the kingdom has maintained its status as a major trading partner with Washington, the dynamics of that relationship have changed in recent years – in part reflecting the recent slump in oil prices.
Exports to the US, principally hydrocarbons, fell to $22bn in 2015 from a high of $54.8bn in 2008, while US exports to Saudi Arabia more than doubled from $9bn in 2009 to $19.7bn in 2015.
Despite Saudi Arabia’s precipitous decline in exports to the US, it’s a price Riyadh has seemingly been prepared to pay as it continues to lead OPEC in flooding the market with oil to undermine the US shale industry.
Yet while Riyadh’s pockets are deep, they are not limitless. Especially as reserve assets held in foreign securities fell by a record $108bn in 2015, according to the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency. Indeed, attempting to take out a substantial portion of the US shale industry may prove counterproductive in the long term given growing budgetary pressures at home. The kingdom’s deficit hit a record $98bn in 2015, according to the Council of Economic and Development Affairs.
Moreover, Riyadh also runs the risk of incurring domestic political disquiet as it seeks to plug its funding gap. It has sanctioned huge rises in the price of gasoline, electricity and water, as well as a pledge to introduce value added tax from 2018, together with tariffs on sugary drinks and tobacco.
Meanwhile, US hedge funds have significant war chests of their own with $50bn reportedly waiting to snap up any distressed US shale assets – including infrastructure – as and when they become available. These assets can be mothballed and then sold on at a profit when oil prices make significant improvements.
In this war of attrition, the numbers tell their own story. Data released by oil services giant Baker Hughes in September showed the number of rigs actively operated by US drillers rising (to 414) for the 10th week out of the previous 11 – the longest such stretch of additions since 2011. It also sharply contrasted with the first half of 2016, which had seen a net decline of 206 rigs and the recent low of 316 reported in May 2016.
Adding to Riyadh’s woes, the latest data from the International Energy Agency now expects the global crude oil market to be oversupplied at least throughout the first half of 2017 – a significant revision on its previous forecast of global surpluses disappearing in the second half of this year. Across the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, inventories have risen to a record 3.11bn barrels, the IEA added.
Unsurprisingly, the changing political dynamics of the Middle East, including the pursuit by Riyadh of a more aggressive foreign policy has underscored the need to bolster military expenditure. This move is typified by intervention in Yemen and the need to head off potential terrorist threats at home.
Military security considerations have trumped political tensions on the energy front. Since assuming office in January 2009, President Barack Obama has offered the Kingdom more than $115bn in weapons, other military equipment and training for the Saudi security forces, according to a recent report authored by William Hartung of the US-based Centre for International Policy.
Intervention in Yemen has boosted arms trade between the nations, including a tank deal worth an estimated $1.15bn, $500m in ammunition to the Saudi Land Forces and a pledge of $1.29bn worth of bombs and air-to-ground missiles to the Royal Saudi Air Force, according
to Hartung.Despite the Obama administration adopting a more cautious military posture than its predecessors when it comes to direct involvement in the Middle East, it has sanctioned more arm sales to the Saudis than any other US administration in the history of the country’s relations.
Yemen-centred deals aside, the administration has since September 2014 alone notified Congress of proposed military sales to Saudi Arabia totalling a potential $21bn.
Not all offers will necessarily come to fruition, with misgivings from Congress underscoring this point.
The British government, meanwhile, sanctioned £3.3bn ($4.46bn) in arms exports to Saudi Arabia during the first year of the Yemen intervention (April 2015 – March 2016). This included exports
of £2.2bn ($2.97bn) worth of equipment comprising drones, helicopters, and
other aircraft.Like the US, the UK has a strong historic relationship with Saudi Arabia – the kingdom being London’s largest trading partner in the Middle East.
London exported around GBP7bn ($9.44bn) of goods and services in 2014, of which goods accounted for GBP4.17bn ($5.63bn). More than 6,000 UK firms now actively export goods to Saudi Arabia – the top exports in 2014 being transport related equipment, power generating machinery and equipment, medicinal and pharmaceutical products, general industrial machinery and consumables.
The UK is also the kingdom’s second largest cumulative investor with approximately 200 joint ventures, estimated to be worth around $15.4bn.
Underpinning the long term narrative running through both US and UK relations with Saudi is Riyadh’s desire to reduce its economic dependency on fossil fuels.
Key to this is Saudi Vision 2030 and its derivative the National Transformation Program, which seeks among other things to ensure 40 per cent of public spending is financed by the private sector, increase non-oil revenue from $43.59bn to $141.3bn, create 450,000 jobs and launch 29 digital initiatives in ‘vital sectors’.
To spur this transition, which may also include a stake sale of up to 5 per cent in state-owned Saudi Aramco, US development expertise and financing is likely to be at the front of the queue.
Company officials have already said the kingdom has discovered a total of 805.6bn barrels of oil, of which – exempting that already extracted – includes 260bn proven and a further 403bn of reserves it could probably extract.
Factor in a potential 100bn barrels in additional reserves as technology improves and clearly any Saudi Aramco stake sale will likely prove a much needed cash cow for Riyadh.
Yet irrespective of how efficient the US proves to be in exploiting the economic opportunities laid out in Vision 2030, deepening ties can already be seen. One example is the $20bn Sadara joint venture between Dow Chemical Company and Saudi Aramco.
Five years on from its establishment, the complex recently confirmed the start-up of a mixed feed cracker – the only one of its type in the Middle East and set to be one of 26 manufacturing units that will form part of the Sadara chemical facility.
Eventually, Sadara will produce 3 million metric tons of petrochemicals annually.
Crucially, investment isn’t one way. Exxon Mobil Corp. announced in July that is is considering a major new petrochemical complex on the US Gulf Coast in a joint venture with Saudi Basic Industries Corp. While no costings have been detailed yet, it underscores ongoing US-Saudi co-operation in the private enterprise sphere.
Yet even where cooperation falters – as in the case of Royal Dutch Shell and Saudi Aramco’s Motiva Enterprises joint venture – it can lead to further economic opportunities.
The break-up of Motiva Enterprises, when officially concluded, will see Saudi Aramco take control of Motiva's largest US refinery in Port Arthur, Texas, and retain 26 distribution terminals.
The plant, which can process 600,000 barrels of oil a day offers strategic value for the Saudis, given they would then be able to bring more of their crude into the US for sale in the North American market.
Against this backdrop, April 2016 data from the American Chemistry Council showed US chemical industry investment linked to natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from shale hitting a total of $16bm. It added that 40 per cent of the investment for the 264 projects, new facilities, expansions and factory re-starts is completed or underway, while 55 percent is still in the planning phase. Despite Saudi misgivings posed by the threat from US shale, longer term investments make strategic sense for Riyadh.
Smaller scale, though no less important, the May 2016 Memorandum of Understanding signed by GE and Saudi Arabian Industrial Investments Company (SAIIC) will see co-investment in strategic sectors aimed at helping develop and localise industrial value chains in the kingdom to serve the domestic market and beyond.
Joint investments of $1bn – aimed at complementing the kingdom’s Saudi Vision 2030 and designed to build industrial know-how – will be rolled out by 2017, in addition to an aggregate potential investment of $2bn to drive projects in water, energy, aviation and other sectors.
GE and SAIIC will also co-develop wide-ranging digital industrial applications and solutions that aim to foster home grown digital innovation. The software solutions will cover data visualisation, big data management, and data analytics, among others.
While UK-Saudi relations are predicated on a ‘more or less equal’ basis – invariably running as they do in parallel with Washington’s dealings with Riyadh – the occasionally rocky nature of the latter is more symptomatic of the standard strong state-weaker state relationship. The weaker state, in this case Saudi Arabia, is continually revising its level of engagement with its much stronger partner.
Riyadh has long complained about Washington not doing more to unseat Bashar al-Assad in Syria and has reacted nervously to growing US engagement with regional rival Iran and a more stable Shia-controlled Iraq. Sunni Saudi Arabia sees the possibility of further sectarianism across the region running counter to its strategic interests.
Economic self-interest will invariably trump all, however, and while Riyadh may question whether Washington is taking on board all of the kingdom’s regional concerns, the likely outcome of ‘business as usual’ in the economic sphere will ensure ties remain strong.
A measure of the two-way relationship between Washington and Riyadh could be seen in March 2016 when four decades of secrecy was swept away after the US Treasury Department – following a Freedom of Information Act request from Bloomberg – revealed the Saudi Government had accumulated $116.8bn of US Treasuries.
Though substantially less than the $1.3 trillion and $1.1 trillion held by China and Japan respectively, it confirmed the level of investment engagement between Riyadh and Washington is substantial.
It may also be an understated figure, given the governments and central banks invariably invest in debt through
custodial accounts.What’s clear, given the kingdom’s central bank listed $587bn of foreign reserves at the time, is that a sizeable chunk of this is likely to be in US Treasuries. Hence the apparent gap in numbers may be significantly less.
While US-Saudi relations will never be based on shared cultural or historical values, so long as the kingdom’s conservative theocracy remains in place, they will endure – and most likely strengthen – on the back of each other’s business interests.
http://www.zawya.com/mena/en/story/Saudi_Arabias_business_partners-ZAWYA20161004111050/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Green Biologics Selects Caldic As Its EU Distribution Partner
Oct 4, 2016 | Ethanol Producer Magazine
Green Biologics Inc., the U.S. subsidiary of Green Biologics Ltd., a U.K. industrial biotechnology and renewable chemicals company, recently announced a distribution agreement with Caldic B.V., a global distributor headquartered in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Caldic will distribute Green Biologics’ biobased, high-purity chemicals, including n-butanol, acetone and other associated product to customers in Europe, Africa and the Middle East for a variety of key markets, including CASE (coatings, adhesives, sealants and elastomers), HI&I (household, industrial & institutional cleaners), PCI (personal care intermediates), food ingredients and energy chemicals.
“Caldic is an outstanding partner for Green Biologics,” said Timothy G. Staub, global vice president of business development for Green Biologics. “Its customer focus and value-added services, such as logistics capabilities, bulk storage facilities, and deep knowledge of high-value markets and customers, along with a critical presence both in key markets and geographies, makes Caldic critical to our EU launch.”
Green Biologics is in the process of starting up its first commercial production facility for renewable n-butanol and acetone in Little Falls, Minnesota, and aims to begin commercial shipments to customers by late 2016. The company is a member of the American Chemistry Council and is building its new green solvents facility to meet Responsible Care standards. In addition, Green Biologics is pursuing REACH certification on its products, and has received USDA BioPreferred status, 100 percent biobased, for its n-butanol and acetone.
“Our goal is to selectively move our renewable n-butanol and acetone into high value markets, and Caldic is well qualified and positioned to help us reach key European customers who are interested in sustainability, performance and value,” added Staub.
”Sustainability is an important metric for the industrial, health and personal care markets,” said Floris van Eijndhoven, director of industrial and health and personal care at Caldic BV. “We believe that renewable ingredients are essential for the future success of our customers in these evolving sectors and are pleased to welcome Green Biologics into the Caldic network of suppliers.”
http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/13768/green-biologics-selects-caldic-as-its-eu-distribution-partner
-
Stopgap Funding Presumes EPA Can Pay Back $3M in Fiscal 2017
Oct 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The need to draft and finalize an industry fee rule may complicate congressional appropriations that provided the Environmental Protection Agency $3 million to kick start its implementation of the amended chemicals law as it presumes the agency will be able to repay that money before Oct. 1, 2017.
The continuing resolution (H.R. 5325), which will keep the federal government running through Dec. 9 and which President Barack Obama signed into law on Sept. 29 (Pub. L. No. 114-223), provided the agency $3 million in fiscal year 2017. That money will be “offset,” meaning paid back to the U.S. Treasury, through industry fees the agency will receive during fiscal year 2017, which will end Sept. 30, 2017, the resolution says.
It's possible the EPA could receive $3 million in fees within one year, Charlie Auer, senior regulatory consultant at Bergeson & Campbell P.C., said Oct. 4 during a webinar that law firm held.
The EPA, however, isn't expected to issue its fee rule before June 2017, and that rule would presumably go into effect some time later, he said. That means the agency won't have much time to collect the $3 million, said Auer, who worked with EPA's chemicals office for more than 30 years before retiring in 2009.
The continuing resolution gave the agency's chemicals office additional funds this year to help it hire staff and contractors to implement the myriad new responsibilities it assumed when Congress amended the Toxic Substances Control Act through passage of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. No. 114-182).
Fees Authorized Under Lautenberg Act
Among many other changes, the Lautenberg Act expanded the agency's authority to collect industry fees to support risk evaluations and other new responsibilities. Under the amended TSCA, the agency can recoup expenses it will incur:
• reviewing new chemicals before they enter commerce;
• assessing the risks of chemicals that are or have been in commerce;
• reviewing claims industry makes that information it submits should be kept confidential to protect trade secrets; and
• protecting information that qualifies for such protection.
Dan Newton, senior manager for government relations at the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates, works on behalf of chemical manufacturers that make small, custom batches of chemicals and therefore frequently submit premanufacture notices, or PMNs, that are required under TSCA for all new chemicals.The society's members have long paid fees of either $100 or $2,500, depending on whether they were small or large businesses, to have their premanufacture notices reviewed by the EPA.
Chemical manufacturers will continue to pay those fees for new chemicals until the agency sets new—presumably higher—ones under a regulation it has said it will propose by the end of this year.
The Lautenberg Act does not require the EPA to issue a final fee rule by any set deadline, but the agency has said it will issue a final rule by June 2017.
If the new chemical fees EPA has collected since the Lautenberg Act went into effect June 22 are combined with the new fees the agency will begin to collect after it issues a final fee rule that won't likely total $3 million, Newton said.
If, however, the EPA is able to begin collecting fees to evaluate the risks of existing chemicals then it's possible that the agency would collect $3 million by Oct. 1, Newton and Auer said.
More Details on EPA's Fee Rule
To keep on its self-imposed rulemaking schedule, the EPA has told chemical manufacturers it intends to submit a proposed fee rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget by mid-October, Sheryl Dolan, a senior regulatory consultant at Bergeson & Campbell, said during the Oct. 4 webinar.
The agency estimates its annual costs to implement the Lautenberg Act's requirements will be about $110 million, Dolan said, attributing that figure to information the agency shared with companies during a September meeting on fees.
In addition to fees for reviewing premanufacture notices and conducting risk evaluations, she said, the agency said it may assess fees for activities including:
• reviewing microbial commercial activity notices, which involve the use of new genetically engineered microorganisms that are used to produce commercial chemicals;
• reviewing exemptions the agency offers that allow companies not to file premanufacture notices;
• managing notices of commencement, through which chemical manufacturers tell the agency they have begun to manufacture a new chemical; and
• preparing orders directing chemical manufacturers to provide toxicity, exposure or other data and analyzing information it receives.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=98253013&vname=dennotallissues&fn=98253013&jd=98253013
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Chemical Industry Doubts EU Endocrine Database
Oct 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The European Commission announced Oct. 3 an online database that compiles results from scientific studies exploring whether chemicals mimic, block or alter hormonal activity, but the U.S. chemical trade association is downplaying its relevance for global regulation.
The Endocrine Active Substances Information System, developed by the commission's Joint Research Center, is part of the Community Strategy for Endocrine Disruptors, which aims to review chemicals that could affect human health or the environment by altering biological processes governed by hormones.
The database contains information on 513 pesticides and chemicals collected from more than 9,000 in vitro, laboratory animal and some human studies, the research center said in its announcement.
The commission's database also is designed to provide information for regulatory agencies around the world, the center said.
‘Right Approach.’
But the database is not something regulators around the world should rely on, American Chemistry Council spokeswoman Kathryn St. John told Bloomberg BNA Oct. 4.
There is no evidence that the quality of the studies in the database were evaluated systematically nor is there information to explain why some studies and not others were selected, she said, based on the council's initial review of the European database.
Data generated through and conclusions reached under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program provide a risk-based assessment of the science and a weight-of-evidence analysis, St. John said.
That is the right approach and a more reliable source of information for global regulators, she said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=98253002&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=498789500&searchid=28548255&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0
-
Harmful Product-Chemical Combinations Focus of California Briefing
Oct 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A webinar scheduled by California regulators aims to launch a discussion on harmful chemicals used in nail salon products, commercial detergents, carpets and upholstered furniture, and in fire retardants.
Regulators scheduled the Nov. 15 briefing on the state's Safer Consumer Products Program.
The product-chemical combinations could be included in the next round of proposed priority products under the green chemistry program. If identified as priority products, manufacturers could reformulate them to make them safer.
Specifically, the Department of Toxic Substances Control wants input on the surface water impacts and continued uses of nonylphenol ethoxylates and triclosan found in industrial cleaning products and paints; perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), fire and water retardants that are being discovered in drinking water at industrial sites, military fire training areas and wastewater treatment plants.
Toxics control officials also plan to provide an update on its rule to designate children's foam-padded sleeping mats containing chlorinated flame retardants as the first priority product under the program.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=98253012&vname=dennotallissues&fn=98253012&jd=98253012
-
Ruling Opens Door To Wider PCB Building Cleanups, Countering EPA Policy
Oct 4, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
A recent federal district court ruling in California makes clear that citizens can pursue building-wide cleanups of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) if sampling a portion of a building's caulk shows PCB levels above legal limits, a finding that counters EPA's more limited cleanup policy, environmentalists say.
"The idea that there is only a violation in the particular places that have been tested above legal limits was clearly rejected" by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, an attorney with the plaintiffs says.
The ruling means that where EPA is not enforcing the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), “citizens can go into court and get an injunction requiring removal of materials containing PCBs, and that they can do so based on sampling of some caulk that then can be assumed to be the same caulk throughout a building or buildings built at the same time," the source adds.
In America Unites for Kids, et al. v. Sandra Lyon, et al., environmental groups sued the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District under TSCA's citizen suit provision and asked the court to require further removal of PCB materials from schools there.
The school district -- which oversees an elementary school and a combined middle and high school -- had sampled various rooms in the schools and found exceedances of legal limits in samples of caulk, which led to the removal of only the sampled caulk. Under TSCA, PCB exceedances in materials above 50 parts per million (ppm) trigger legal requirements to immediately remove the substance. In the samples taken in the Santa Monica-Malibu school district, all samples measured more than 50 ppm, with most over 100,000 ppm, District Court Judge Percy Anderson says in a Sept. 1 decision in the case.
In his findings of fact and conclusions of law, Anderson found that while the defendants had removed and replaced caulk tested, "there is no evidence that all of the caulk in the buildings at the Malibu Campus constructed prior to 1979 has been tested or removed."
'Common Sense'
“[B]ased on common sense . . . it is highly likely that the same products were used to construct each of the buildings on the Malibu Campus,” and therefore “it is more likely than not that caulk containing PCBs in excess of 50 ppm remain in 'use' at the Malibu Campus in areas that have not been tested or repaired," the ruling says.
Therefore, Anderson says, "the Court rejects Defendants' argument that the TSCA claim brought by America Unites is moot.”
The decision contradicts EPA policy as the agency had applied it to the Malibu schools, the plaintiffs' attorney says. EPA had said in informal communications with the school district that no more testing was required and only the sampled caulk that had been found to exceed legal limits needed to be removed, the source says.
EPA had issued a letter last November to the school district determining that the removal work of sampled caulk, the sampling and best management practices (BMPs) applied at the schools were consistent with the agency's national guidelines for protecting public health from PCBs in schools, the decision says. EPA reiterated at the time that no additional testing of potential PCB source materials was needed until planned renovation or demolition of buildings.
The decision comes not long after EPA in a 2015 guidance addressing PCBs in older schools shifted its approach from previous guidance and emphasized risk reduction and BMPs to avoid exposures rather than testing caulk in buildings. The 2015 guidance followed disagreements within the agency over how much testing and cleanup the agency should recommend or require in the guidance.
While samples that show PCB levels in excess of 50 ppm trigger a federal requirement for immediate removal,there is no federal requirement for testing materials for PCBs.
Caulk Removal
The court in a Sept. 1 judgment and permanent injunction went on to impose an injunction on both the defendants and plaintiffs, effectively requiring removal of all caulk in areas constructed prior to 1979 by the end of 2019, but also barring the plaintiffs from taking samples of caulk or other building materials within the schools unless authorized by a court. If the defendants do not remove the caulk by the prescribed date, they are barred from using the classrooms constructed prior to 1979 that have not been renovated.
The ruling fits with plans by the school district to replace some of the pre-1979 buildings and replace windows and doors and associated caulk of the remaining pre-1979 buildings by 2020. Further, the court in the decision says that America Unites had failed to offer a contrary plan on the costs or time required to remove the remaining PCB-laden caulk or information on how these activities may affect classes.
In light of the failure of the plaintiff to provide evidence "concerning an appropriate construction schedule, the Districts' continued use of BMPs while potential PCB-containing materials continue to be 'used' at the Malibu Campus, and the Court's strong desire to preserve the public's funds, the Court will not require the District to perform costly caulk-removal operations on windows and doors that are already slated for replacement," the court says.
The court also denied organizational standing to plaintiff Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) -- an environmental group that advocates for public employees. The court found that the declaration of a teacher at the Malibu Middle and High School who identified herself as a "supporter" of PEER, but not a member, was not enough to "establish the necessary facts to support[] PEER's associational standing to pursue the claims it has asserted in this action.”
PEER and America Unites, however, gave notice Sept. 23 that they are appealing part of the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, including the court's dismissal of PEER for lack of standing and the injunction against the plaintiffs from sampling or testing caulk.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/ruling-opens-door-wider-pcb-building-cleanups-countering-epa-policy
-
Asbestos Claims Against Transit Agency Preempted: High Court
Oct 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
The U.S. Supreme Court Oct. 3 let stand a ruling that federal law preempts take-home asbestos claims relating to an urban rapid transit line (Estate of Brust v. Del. River Port Auth., 2016 BL 327491, U.S., No. 15-1529, 10/3/16).
The high court declined to consider a New Jersey appeals court finding that the Locomotive Inspection Act bars state-law claims arising from locomotive equipment—even if the entity operating the equipment isn't subject to federal railroad regulations.
The Port Authority Transit Corporation is an urban rapid transit operation, not a railroad, and therefore not subject to federal railroad safety regulations or to federal law generally.
Sandra Brust alleged that asbestos brought home on her father's work clothes caused her mesothelioma.
In Nov. 2015, a New Jersey appeals court found the claims preempted.
“In our view, state-law claims for defective design of the ‘locomotive equipment,’ and for failure to warn about its risks, fall within the field preempted by the LIA as defined in Napier,” the appeals court said, citingNapier v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 272 U.S. 605 (1926).
“Because plaintiffs’ negligence and products liability claims are directed at ‘the subject of locomotive equipment,’ they are therefore preempted under the sweeping field preemption adopted in Napier,” the court said.
Levy Konigsberg, L.L.P., and Szaferman, Lakind, Blumstein & Blader, PC represented the estate of Sandra Brust.
Archer & Greiner P.C. represented PATCO.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=98252984&vname=dennotallissues&fn=98252984&jd=98252984
-
Rac And Seac Back Chrome Decorative Plating Authorisation
Oct 5, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
Echa’s Risk Assessment (Rac) and Socio-Economic Analysis (Seac) Committees have agreed a final Opinion, supporting the authorisation of the carcinogen chromium trioxide in decorative chrome plating.
The authorisation would allow use of the substance in household and cosmetic products – such as chromed caps on perfume bottles - although most of the products are used in the automotive sector.
The committees concluded that there is a lack of available alternatives on the market. And it agreed with the applicants that “overall benefits of continued use outweigh the risk to human health”.
The Opinion says: "It is important to recognise that the final chromium coating does not contain chromium trioxide or any other chromium VI substances."
The applicants are:Lanxess Deutschland;Atotech Deutschland;Aviall Services;Bondex Trading;Cromital;Elementis Chromium; andEnthone.
The companies argued that a non-authorisation would have significant supply chain impacts for affected end-user sectors, such as automotive and sanitary industries. They also estimated profit losses for job platers of €373m per year, and a social cost of job losses of €1.5bn.
The assessment considered risks for workers and potential environmental emissions.
According to Echa, consumers are not exposed to the toxic compound chromium VI in the end products, falling under this authorisation. The layer applied to the products is metallic chrome, which is safe, the agency told Chemical Watch.
But NGO, the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), says the committees are placing business interests before public health.
"If granted, the authorisation would, according to the companies, allow this carcinogen to be used in 1,559 facilities around Europe, leading to the exposure of nearly 62,000 workers and over 15 million inhabitants," said the NGO. "Echa has concluded that this authorisation would lead to 12 avoidable deaths a year and a lung cancer risk for eight out of every 1,000 workers exposed to the chemical. A similar risk would exist for one of every 100,000 citizens exposed to chromium trioxide.
“The fact that Echa’s committees have concluded that ‘fashionable’ cosmetics offer greater benefit for society than protecting people from cancer and that there is no other alternative to chromium trioxide is almost laughable in its absurdity,” said senior chemicals policy officer Tatiana Santos.
In the EU, chromium trioxide has a mandatory classification as carcinogen category 1A and mutagen category 1B.
Echa says the committees’ Opinion is given for the use of a substance, not for articles. In this case, it covered thousands of articles and the Seac cannot give “meaningful opinions” for each.
The committees recommend the relatively short review period of four years. Echa says this takes into account that for some of the articles suitable alternatives may already be available. The review report invites the applicants to prepare a more detailed assessment of the uses applied for, the agency said.
The Opinion is now with the European Commission, which will decide, together with the member states, whether to grant the authorisation.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50061/rac-and-seac-back-chrome-decorative-plating-authorisation
-
Echa Management Board Voices Concerns On Nano Website
Oct 5, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Geraint Roberts
Echa's management board has warned the agency that unless the European Commission speedily introduces REACH dossier requirements that explicitly address the nanoform of substances, the nano webpages Echa has been asked to create will contain little new information.
The webpages – named the “nano observatory” – will aim to collate existing information on which nanomaterials are on the market. It was the Commission's preference to an EU register, based on new information submitted by companies.
The observatory is one of three actions on nanomaterials the European Commission has promised to take. The others are to revise the information requirements for registrations – as set out in the REACH Regulation annexes – so that they take explicit account of nanomaterials, and also the Commission's regulatory definition of what is a “nanomaterial”.
Echa and its management board see the three as an integrated package, with the annex changes and revised definition together helping to ensure the registration database will be populated with much better information.
Echa and the Commission co-hosted a meeting in April to discuss ideas for the observatory. And the Commission has submitted a “delegation agreement” to Echa's executive director, Geert Dancet, setting out the resources the agency will receive for the project. These, says Echa, will be less than €1m per year for five years and the equivalent of three full-time extra staff.
But progress on the other actions remains slow, with proposals still being examined by the Commission's Regulatory Scrutiny Board. Some member states are asking the Commission for an explanation of why it has “repeatedly delayed its work”.The whole package
Echa executive director, Geert Dancet, told Chemical Watch that, during its meeting last week, management board members were concerned about what would happen if the observatory went ahead but there was continued delay in implementing the other two measures.
“The board was worried, and said the package should move ahead together so that Echa is not exposed to the criticism that ultimately little information is available in the database if the annexes are not reviewed,” said Mr Dancet.
“This is a message that I am passing back to the Commission – that I need the rest to move ahead as well as soon as possible. I understand that there are more steps to be done on the two others, but I'm assuming that they will be done in the shortest possible time.”
According to Mr Dancet and some board members, the meeting also heard concerns that the resources offered by the Commission – and on which Echa has no room to negotiate – may not be enough to ensure that the information published in the observatory is of sufficient quality.
“With that kind of resources,” said Mr Dancet, “you cannot make miracles happen.”
There were doubts that Echa would be able to deliver a product that can satisfy expectations, given that the legal obligations to registrants hasn’t been clarified yet, said board member Henrik Søren Larsen of the Danish EPA. “I and others expressed dissatisfaction with the progress on nanomaterials and that the observatory probably wouldn’t be the right instrument to tackle the challenge with nanos – but what the board was asked to do was advise the director on whether to accept the request or not. In that situation, the board believed it was a better option to accept the request from the Commission than not.”
“An incomplete observatory with inconsistent information could be a reputational risk for Echa and might disappoint people,” said another board member.
Chemical Watch understands that the Commission representatives at the meeting said the observatory could also take information from EU member state databases. However, the point was made that much of this information is confidential.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50073/echa-management-board-voices-concerns-on-nano-website
-
Trump Huddles In Private With Oil And Gas Execs
Oct 4, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Jennifer Yachnin
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump met with oil and gas executives in Denver today, asserting Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton would "double" regulations governing the fossil fuel industry and saying a Clinton White House would put the oil and gas industry "out of business."
According to a source knowledgeable of the meeting, Trump discussed issues critical to the oil and gas industry in the Colorado, including crude oil and liquefied natural gas exports, as well as national and international security.
Media reports on the opening minutes of the roundtable — before the press was ushered out for a private discussion — say Trump was also asked a question about local control of hydraulic fracturing, but the Republican nominee did not seem familiar with the issue.
Echoing remarks he made at a pair of Colorado rallies yesterday, Trump opened the meeting by telling 14 oil and gas executives that Clinton would be harmful to the fossil fuel industry (Greenwire, Oct. 4).
"If Hillary gets in, it will double your regulations," Trump said at the offices of K.P. Kauffman Co. Inc., an oil and gas drilling operator, according to The Denver Post. "She will put you all out of business. I mean, she has said she would put you out of business, and certainly she's going to put the miners out of business."
During the meeting, Trump acknowledged that regulations are necessary for environmental and safety reasons, but said oversight had "gotten out of control."
"The overreach of the government right now is astounding," HRM Resources LLC President Roger Hutson told Trump, according to the Post.
Gilbert-Stewart Operating LLC Managing Partner Scott Stewart also told Trump that local control — whether localities should be allowed to regulate or ban hydraulic fracturing within their boundaries — is a subject of concern in the state. Opponents of fracking have unsuccessfully pursued ballot initiatives to curb the practice in the last two election cycles.
According to a source knowledgeable with the meeting, but who spoke on background, hydraulic fracturing didn't come up in the private portion of the session, in part because those issues have already been resolved.
Trump indicated in an earlier interview that while he supports fracking, he believes communities should be allowed to enact voter-passed bans on the process (ClimateWire, Aug. 1).
But Continental Resources Inc. CEO Harold Hamm, who has served as Trump's adviser on energy policy, sought to roll that statement back a few weeks later.
"That kind of sounds Republican, local control," Hamm said in August. "Let me tell you, Donald Trump is pro-business, he is pro-energy, and he is not going to shut down fracking or drilling or anything else" (E&ENews PM, Aug. 23).
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/10/04/stories/1060043830
-
Energy Leaders Warn Trump on Fracking Rules, Votes He Backs
Oct 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Jacobs and Jennifer A. Dlouhy
Energy executives in Denver Oct. 4 warned Donald Trump, who has said he supports letting local residents vote on fracking bans, that state regulations are thwarting oil and gas development.
The Republican presidential nominee's meeting could be designed to assuage industry concerns provoked when he told a Denver television station in July that “if a municipality or state wants to ban fracking, I could understand that,” adding that “voters should have a say” in the issue.
During the roughly eight-minute portion of the Oct. 4 meeting open to journalists, more than a dozen executives didn't push Trump to provide further details about his view of local drilling regulations, but some described state restrictions as one reason they're beginning to look outside Colorado.
“My partner and I pretty much left Colorado for that reason,” Scott Stewart, a managing partner of Gilbert-Stewart Operating, said. There's a “little better environment” in Kansas, but “a few more steps and they'll be in the same place.”
He said the state-by-state energy regulations are “a mixed kind of a can of worms.”
Regulations, Taxes
Colorado has been a major battleground in the fight over fracking as environmentalists and local residents push for limits on the drilling process that has unlocked vast stores of oil and gas across the U.S. but is suspected of endangering water supplies. Colorado activists have sought more distance between drilling and residential communities, in part to keep noise at bay. Environmentalists also have pushed for bans to reduce the risk that fracking fluids can spill or gas can leak out of poorly designed wells and contaminate local water supplies.
Activists tried but failed to get enough signatures to put two measures restricting fracturing on the ballot in Colorado this year, the latest defeat in a years-long crusade to reduce drilling in the oil- and gas-rich state. Colorado's high court struck down two local fracking regulations in May, including a moratorium in Fort Collins and a ban in Longmont.
“The energy business is being decimated,” Trump said at the roundtable meeting at the Denver offices of K.P. Kauffman Company Inc., an independent oil and gas firm.
“So before we start, let me guess, you're having tremendous problem with regulations,” Trump said. “And high taxes are a big problem?”
‘Closing Up.’
Several executives agreed, but some remained silent.
Trump said he meets with many people in the energy industry “and they're closing up” or getting rid of thousands of employees.
“They can't compete with regulation and they can't compete with foreign,” Trump said.
John Harpole, chief executive officer of Mercator Energy, a Littleton, Colo.-based gas broker, stressed that the U.S. “shale revolution” has unlocked domestic energy resources and lowered the price of natural gas, delivering a multi-billion-dollar annual savings in household electricity bills. Low-income households benefit most because energy is a big share of their family budget, Harpole said, arguing that fracking is an effective anti-poverty program.
“I can't comprehend how this issue didn't come up in the first debate,” Harpole said, referring to Trump's Sept. 26 showdown with Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
Trump answered, “I talk about it.”
Colorado's nine electoral votes appear increasingly out of reach for Trump, according to recent poll data. Clinton leads him there by 11 percentage points, said a Monmouth University poll released Oct. 3.
Clinton is sending her running mate, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, to the state on Oct. 10 to host a concert with musician Dave Matthews and urge residents to register to vote.
Clinton and Trump meet for their next debate Oct. 9 in St. Louis.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=98252993&vname=dennotallissues&fn=98252993&jd=98252993
-
Trump Courts Colorado Oil Executives
Oct 5, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
Donald Trump huddled Tuesday with oil and gas executives in Colorado, expanding his outreach to an industry that has seen its influence grow in the Republican nominee's campaign after some early missteps.
Trump told the industry he would reduce regulations, in contrast to the approach of President Barack Obama and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Safety and environmental rules are necessary, Trump told the executives, according to a pool report, but there are also "regulations that are totally unnecessary and put people out of work." He apparently did not get into specifics in the 10 minutes reporters were allowed to stay in the room.
The Trump campaign said 15 executives were invited to the meeting, but a pool reporter said he counted only 14 people in the room. One executive stressed the importance of "the shale revolution," and all generally agreed with Trump's conclusion that "regulations are probably your biggest problem."Story Continued Below
Trump's meeting in Denver comes as two polls this week showed Clinton with an 11-point lead in Colorado. Trump brought up polls of the state and told the oil executives "we're doing really well," according to the pool report.
The New York developer raised eyebrows in the state this summer when he appeared to endorse proposed ballot measures that would have effectively let cities and towns ban fracking. "I think if the voters are voting for it, that's up to them," he told a local TV station in July. In the end, activists failed to collect enough signatures to get the anti-fracking measures on the November ballot, and Trump associates walked back his comment.
Continental Resources CEO Harold Hamm, the oil executive said to be on Trump's Energy Secretary short list, later told the Wall Street Journal that Trump "did not understand" the issue of local fracking bans when he answered the question but "he does now."
At Tuesday's meeting, Trump also told the oil and gas executives that while safety and environmental regulations are called for, regulations have generally "gotten out of control" and solely benefit "people in government," according to the pool report.
"The energy business is being decimated," Trump said.
The Republican nominee sought to cement his once-shaky support among oil and gas producers last month with a speech at a gas industry conference in Pittsburgh, where he vowed that the industry is "going to like Donald Trump." The two-year slide in oil prices has forced cutbacks and belt-tightening across the board in the industry, which has consistently challenged Obama over regulations it argues would deepen the pain of the downturn.
Slated participants in the meeting included three top executives at HRM Resources, whose president and CEO backed the 2014 reelection bid of Colorado's pro-fracking Democratic governor, John Hickenlooper. Colorado Petroleum Council Executive Director Tracee Bentley, a former aide to Hickenlooper, was also scheduled to attend, according to the pool report.
The other anticipated attendees were Kent Gilbert of Fifth Creek Energy; Mercator Energy CEO John Harpole; PDC CEO Bart Brookman; Scott Stewart of Gilbert-Stewart Operating; Chip Rimer of Noble Energy; Enduring Resources CEO Barth Whitham; Synergy Resources CEO Lynn Peterson; Bayswater CEO Steve Struna; Eaton Metal CEO Tim Travis; Inflexion Energy CEO Mark Sextron; and NexGen Resources CEO Charlie McNeil.
None of the executives have donated to Trump's campaign, according to a search of campaign finance records.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2016/10/trump-courts-colorado-oil-execs-132549
-
Pennsylvania Court Again Curbs Fracking Law
Oct 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
The tone of a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision on the state's 2012 gas drilling law shows that three newly elected judges may be skeptical about hydraulic fracturing in the state, attorneys told Bloomberg BNA (Robinson Twp. v. Commonwealth, 2016 BL 320172, Pa., No. 104 MAP 2014, 9/28/16).
While the decision will not change that much in practice, future rulings may show no special treatment for drillers and may affect the state's business climate for investors, the attorneys said.
The Sept. 28 decision in Robinson Twp. v Commonwealth struck down four provisions of the state's 2012 Oil and Gas Act (Act 13) as unconstitutional.
“These four provisions weren't really enforced,” Michael Vennum, a member of the finance, energy and real estate group at Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP in Pittsburgh, told Bloomberg BNA by phone Oct. 4. “Is it really a doomsday for the industry? No. But it does tell the industry that maybe the three new justices on the Supreme Court are not industry friendly.”
Newly elected Democratic justices Christine Donohue, Kevin M. Dougherty and David N. Wecht agreed with the majority opinion, written by Democratic Justice Debra McCloskey Todd.
We “discern no manifest peculiarity of the oil and gas industry which warrants granting it the special treatment” laid out in portions of Act 13, the decision said.
Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor and Justice Max Baer filed separate opinions in which they both concurred and dissented.
Four Provisions Struck
The latest decision wraps up four outstanding issues in a long-running challenge to Act 13, an overhaul of the state's oil and gas laws that was enacted after the discovery of Marcellus Shale led to a boom in natural gas development.
The Delaware Riverkeeper Network, an environmental group, and seven Bucks County municipalities almost immediately challenged the law, which initially required all of Pennsylvania's 2,600 municipalities to amend their zoning codes to allow all types of oil and gas development activities in all zoning districts.
In a July 2012 decision, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court held that the state's attempt to establish a uniform statewide zoning scheme was unconstitutional. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in December 2013 upheld much of that decision, finding that forcing every municipality in the state to allow all drilling operations in all zoning districts violated the state constitution's Environmental Rights Amendment.
The Sept. 28 Supreme Court decision revisits and settles four issues that were remanded back to the Commonwealth Court:
• Eminent Domain: The court said companies did not have the authority to take property through eminent domain for underground gas storage.
• Public Utility Commission review: The court found the commission does not have authority to review local land use ordinances for compliance with Act 13.
• Medical Gag Rule: The court tossed provisions in Act 13 that would have prevented doctors from disclosing information about hydraulic fracturing fluids when treating patients.
• Private Wells versus Public Wells: The court invalidated provisions requiring the state to notify only public well owners, but not private well owners, of toxic spills that could affect drinking water. The court gave the state legislature 180 days to change the law so it would equally protect all well owners.
10,000 Angels
The particular issues decided “don't amount to much in practice” and the decision itself “is really dancing 10,000 angels on the head of a pin,” according to Michael L. Krancer, who served as Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection under the previous Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett (R) and now works as senior counsel and chair of the energy industry team at Blank Rome LLP in Philadelphia.
In fact, striking the well water and physician provisions out of the Act could be viewed as a rollback, not a strengthening, of environmental protections, he said. “Those are two protections that were in there before that aren't in there now.”
The real takeaway is that the opinion is “full of rhetoric” that could be interpreted as partisan, anti-business and anti-industry, Krancer told Bloomberg BNA in a phone call Oct. 3. Investors will read that kind of rhetoric from the court “and conclude that Pennsylvania is a not-so-friendly place to do business.”
Warning to Lawmakers
The Supreme Court's 2013 decision, along with the most recent follow-up, is more than a state-versus-municipality debate, according to Jordan Yeager, a partner at Curtin & Heefner LLP, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the Act 13 challenge.
Act 13 “went too far in inserting an industrial activity in non-industrial zoning districts without enough regard to the local environment or the rights of the property owner,” Yeager told Bloomberg BNA by phone Oct. 4.
In a statement following the decision, Yeager called it a “vindication for the people's constitutional rights” and said the court “has made a clear declaration that the Pennsylvania legislature cannot enact special laws that benefit the fossil fuel industry and injure the rest of us.”
The court's recent decision is a warning to the legislature that it cannot enact special laws that benefit one industry over another, Yeager told Bloomberg BNA. “This should serve as a warning to them.”
Act 13 Invalidated
The most recent Robinson decision, coupled with prior decisions in the case, “means that much of Act 13 has now been invalidated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court,” Philadephia-based real estate attorney Daniel B. Markind, a specialist in oil and gas development and leasing, and a partner at Weir and Partners LLP, told clients in an e-mail Sept. 28. “Pennsylvania producers who are ramping up gas production now will be facing a much different playing field than many anticipated.”
The decision comes just as the long-awaited Article 78a drilling rules are about to go into effect on Oct. 8, Markind said.
The Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry group representing the natural gas industry, said it was “disappointed” with the court's ruling. In a statement, the coalition's president, David Spigelmyer, said the ruling “will make investing and growing jobs in the Commonwealth more —not less—difficult without realizing any environmental or public safety benefits.”
Only Industrial?
The objective of plaintiffs in the Robinson case and others like it “is to obtain an appellate decision that permits municipal governments to either ban unconventional drilling or relegate it to industrial zones,” Vorys’ Vennum told Bloomberg BNA.
Vennum said he is anxious to see how the court will rule on similar, pending challenges. Those rulings could determine whether municipalities have the right to restrict aspects of natural drilling operations, such as noise or hours of operation, keep it limited to industrial zones, or ban it outright.
“Relegating unconventional gas drilling solely to industrial zones will certainly quell the growth of shale drilling in Pennsylvania, which is already suffering from low market prices, and achieve the purpose of these environmental groups who oppose fossil fuel development,” he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=98253010&vname=dennotallissues&fn=98253010&jd=98253010
-
Pipeline Safety Rule Aims for Improved Response to Ruptures
Oct 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
An interim final rule implementing new emergency authorities at the Pipeline Safety and Hazardous Materials Administration clears the way for a more effective response to pipeline ruptures, regulators said this week.
PHMSA issued the interim final rule Oct. 3 under a federal pipeline safety bill President Barack Obama signed into law in June. The bill also reauthorized PHMSA through 2019 and required the agency to finish issuing safety directives from a 2011 law that was not fully implemented.
The rule sets up a process for PHMSA to issue emergency orders to pipeline operators to address unsafe conditions or imminent hazards. It also provides a framework mandated under the law to address these hazards within a subset or larger group of pipeline owners, instead of just at a single facility.
Under the pipeline safety law, called the Protecting our Infrastructure of Pipelines Enhancing Safety Act(Pub. L. No. 114-183), or the PIPES Act, PHMSA is required to issue temporary regulations in the form of an interim final rule. Once the interim rule is published in the Federal Register, PHMSA will have 270 days to issue a final rule.
The agency said it intends to use the new authority for imminent hazards such as the discovery of serious manufacturing flaws in pipeline or when a pipeline incident reveals unsafe industry practices that cannot wait for repair. The authority will let PHMSA impose these orders “without prior notice or an opportunity for a hearing.”
“Pipeline incidents can have devastating impacts on local communities and the environment,” Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said in a statement Oct. 3. “The new regulations carry out DOT's enhanced authority to compel industry to take immediate action to address problems that put people, property, or the environment at risk. We hope we never have to use it, but it is an important safety tool that will result in greater protection for the American public.”
Industry Worked on Law
Catherine Landry, the vice president for public affairs at the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, told Bloomberg BNA in an email Oct. 4 the group was reviewing the proposal.
“INGAA has previously commented that strong due process considerations should be put in place with respect to the emergency order authority,” Landry said.
The interim final rule is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register later this month, the agency said, and once that occurs PHMSA will accept public comments for 60 days.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=98253001&vname=dennotallissues&fn=98253001&jd=98253001
-
Obama Admin Boosts Regulator's Emergency Power
Oct 4, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration unveiled an interim final rule today that would allow it to impose emergency restrictions on oil and gas pipeline operators to address dangerous practices or equipment flaws.
Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said in a statement the rule is critical to boosting the Department of Transportation agency's ability to protect the public.
"Pipeline incidents can have devastating impacts on local communities and the environment," Foxx said. "The new regulations carry out DOT's enhanced authority to compel industry to take immediate action to address problems that put people, property, or the environment at risk."
PHMSA has been heavily criticized for its loose approach to pipeline safety. Congress pushed through legislation earlier this year that's intended to give the agency more teeth in addressing explosions, pipeline leaks and unsafe industry practices (E&E Daily, June 14).
The new rule, PHMSA said, adopts a provision of the Protecting our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 2016, or PIPES Act, which allows the agency to impose emergency restrictions, prohibitions and safety measures on owners and operators of gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facilities to tackle safety concerns affecting multiple owners or operators.
As an example, the agency said it would use its new authority when a serious manufacturing flaw has been discovered in pipe, equipment or other materials, or when an accident reveals a specific industry practice that is unsafe and needs immediate correction.
The interim final rule will be effective after its publication in the Federal Register, and comments must be received within 60 days.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/10/04/stories/1060043827
-
Pipeline Agency Issues Rule Expanding Emergency Powers
Oct 4, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Federal pipeline regulators issued a rule Tuesday to expand their agency’s power to regulate pipelines that pose an imminent threat to public safety or the environment.
If finalized, the rule would give the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) the power to issue emergency restrictions and safety measures on gas or liquid pipeline operators if their pipelines present dangers to the public.
For example, the agency could step in if there is a manufacturing problem discovered in a pipe or other equipment, PHMSA said in a statement Tuesday.
"Pipeline incidents can have devastating impacts on local communities and the environment," Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said in a statement.
"The new regulations carry out DOT's enhanced authority to compel industry to take immediate action to address problems that put people, property or the environment at risk. We hope we never have to use it, but it is an important safety tool that will result in greater protection for the American public."
The new rule — which officials will publish in the Federal Register soon — is part of the new powers given to PHMSA in a pipeline safety bill lawmakers passed earlier this year.
The legislation — which Congress approved unanimously, and President Obama signed in June, gives PHMSA the power to quickly issue new emergency orders for pipeline operators or the entire industry is there is a widespread problem.
The law also reauthorized PHMSA and directed it to complete work ona set of mandates passed in a 2011 pipeline safety law.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/299175-pipeline-agency-issues-rule-expanding-emergency-powers
-
Dakota Access Combatants Hope For Clues From Key Court Hearing
Oct 5, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
Both sides in the battle over the Dakota Access pipeline hope a critical court hearing Wednesday clarifies whether the stalled $3.7 billion project can get back on track, but its ultimate fate may be decided by the next president.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which issued an emergency work stoppage last month, will hear arguments from the Obama administration, the pipeline company, and the Standing Rock Sioux tribe over whether that injunction should remain in place while a lawsuit against the project makes its way through a lower court. The three-judge appellate panel did not consider pipeline opponents' underlying case before issuing its Sept. 16 order halting construction near a disputed river crossing, scheduling the Wednesday hearing to determine whether they have enough chance of winning to keep construction on hold. A decision is not expected to be issued from the bench.
Story Continued Below
No matter how or when the court rules, however, construction along the disputed section of the pipeline route may not resume immediately. The Obama administration effectively halted work Sept. 9, moments after a lower court decided not to step in, declaring that the Army Corps of Engineers had to reexamine an easement it had issued in July authorizing the line to cross the Missouri River near the tribe’s reservation.
The administration has indicated it would determine how to proceed as soon as this month, but it remains to be seen how quickly the Corps would ultimately decide on the easement. If it determines that a full-scale environmental review is needed, as pipeline opponents have urged and the Interior Department recommended in March, Dakota Access likely would remain in limbo well past Inauguration Day.
The oil industry, as well as environmentalists, will be listening closely for the Corps to divulge more clues on its timing at Wednesday's hearing. Local Dakota Access backers in business and labor, operating as the Midwest Alliance for Infrastructure Now coalition, are also keeping the pressure on the Corps for a quick resolution of the pipeline’s disputed water crossing.
"The question is whether this is a decision based on the rules as currently established, or whether it’s political,” MAIN spokesman Craig Stevens, a vice president at the DCI Group, said in an interview.
The Sioux are determined to keep their fight going regardless of whether the three-judge panel — which includes two George W. Bush appointees and voted 2-1 on its preliminary work stoppage — allows construction to resume near the disputed area, where the pipeline would cross the Missouri at Lake Oahe.
Tribal chairman David Archambault vowed in a statement ahead of the hearing that his tribe “will not back down from this fight” against “this destructive pipeline.”
The Obama administration has scheduled meetings with tribal representatives in six states about possible changes to its tribal consultations on infrastructure permits that are set to run through the end of November. That process is designed to run separately from the decision-making on a possible new environmental review of the Dakota Access water crossing, but Archambault said in an interview last week that the Sioux would push “for this particular pipeline to be included in anything forthcoming.”
Neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton has weighed in on the pipeline during their general election battle, although Trump has courted the oil industry and Clinton has faced climate activists' calls to oppose Dakota Access.
As the legal clash nears, Dakota Access supporters are seizing on local tension over camps along the Missouri River in North Dakota, where protesters have gathered to oppose the 1,172-mile pipeline. Local law enforcement says at least 95 people have been arrested in connection with the protests, 81 of whom came from outside of the state, and one North Dakota county sheriff has urged federal officials to pay greater heed to violent “rioters.”
The state’s lone House member sought to draw “clear lines of distinction” between a camp of Sioux protesters who received a special use permit from the Army Corps last month to camp south of the river, and separate camps of Native American and environmental activist protesters north of the river.
“Most of the unlawful activity” is coming from the north side of the river, Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) told POLITICO. “If both camps are treated the same, then who’s liable for the side where they don’t have a permit?”
Demonstrators have strongly denied reports of violence and maintained that their protests are peaceful. The Sioux’s website states that the north-side camps are “not officially affiliated” with their protest area, known as Camp of the Sacred Stones, “but we all share the common goal of protecting the water from the threat of the Dakota Access pipeline.”
The Department of Justice has directed resources from its Community Relations Service, Community Oriented Policing Services, and Office of Tribal Justice to assist in the area, spokesman Wyn Hornbuckle said by email.
“The department is aware of these concerns and continues to take the public safety situation in North Dakota seriously,” Hornbuckle said. “Our efforts have been focused on finding ways to defuse tensions, support peaceful protests, and maintain public safety.”
A spokeswoman for Energy Transfer Partners, the majority backer of Dakota Access, did not return a request for comment by press time. The pipeline is about 60 percent complete, according to a Sept. 13 memo from the company’s CEO.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2016/10/dakota-access-combatants-hope-for-clues-from-key-court-hearing-132560
-
Obama Gives Sober Assessment of Climate Change But Defends Natural Gas
Oct 4, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Despite sober assessments on climate change and the prospects for a carbon tax, President Obama on Monday defended natural gas and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) as necessary tools in the transition away from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
"This is a pretty sympathetic crowd, but some folks will push back on this," Obama told attendees of the first-ever South by South Lawn (SXSL) Festival at the White House. "We've significantly reduced the amount of power that we're generating from coal, and it's going to continue to go down...One of the reasons [for that decline] is not because of our regulations -- it's been because natural gas got really cheap as a consequence of fracking.
"There are a lot of environmentalists who absolutely object to fracking because their attitude is sometimes it's done really sloppy and releases methane...leaks into people's water supplies and aquifers, and when done improperly can really harm a lot of people. Their attitude is 'we've got to leave that stuff in the ground if we're going to solve climate change.'
"I get all that. On the other hand, the fact that we're transitioning from coal to natural gas means less GHG...Until we invent the perfect energy source...we've got to live in the real world. I say all that not because I don't recognize the urgency of the problem, [but] because we're going to have to straddle between the world as it is and the world as we want it to be and build that bridge."
Obama made his comments during an SXSL panel discussion with actor Leonardo DiCaprio and Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist and associate professor of political science at Texas Tech University.
"We must empower leaders who not only believe in climate change, but are willing to do something about it," DiCaprio said in his opening remarks, just before introducing Obama. "The scientific consensus is in, and the argument is now over. If you do not believe in climate change, you do not believe in facts or in science or empirical truths and therefore, in my humble opinion, should not be allowed to hold public office."
Obama said climate change was happening faster than scientists had predicted five, and even 10, years earlier. At one point he called climate change "perversely designed to be really hard to solve politically."
"What we're seeing [are] changes in climate patterns that are on the more pessimistic end of what was possible," Obama said. "We're really in a race against time. Part of what I'm hoping everybody here comes away [with] is hope that we can actually do something about it, but also a sense of urgency. This is not going to be something that we can just kind of mosey along about and put up with climate denial or obstructionist politics."
DiCaprio railed against "corporate greed from the oil and gas industries," but he conceded that some companies "are starting to realize that addressing the climate change issue can actually spur economic activity." He then asked Obama how the government could encourage more companies to make business decisions that would be beneficial to the environment.
"Companies respond to incentives," the president said. "The question then becomes can we harness the power and the creativity of the marketplace to come up with innovation and solutions?
"The economics of energy are extremely complicated, but let me just simplify it as much as possible: Dirty fuel is cheap because we've been doing it a long time. We know how to burn coal to produce electricity. We know how to burn oil and we know how to burn gas. And if it weren't for pollution, the natural inclination of everybody would be to say 'let's go with the cheap stuff.' ... If we're going to be able to solve this problem, we're going to have to come up with new sources of energy that are clean and cheap. That's going to involve research [and] investment...it takes time to ramp up these new energy sources, and we're in a battle against time."
Obama then mentioned his Clean Power Plan (CPP), which he called "the centerpiece of our climate change strategy." The plan is currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (see Daily GPI, May 18).
"The best way we can spur that kind of innovation is to either create regulations that say 'figure it out, and if you don't figure it out then you're going to pay a penalty,' or to create something like a carbon tax which gives an economic incentive for businesses to do this," Obama said. "Now, I'll be honest with you -- [with] the current environment in Congress, and certainly internationally, the likelihood of an immediate carbon tax is a ways away.
"[Under the CPP], what we're saying to states is, 'you can figure out the energy mix, but you've got to figure out how to reduce your carbon emissions, and you need to work with your utilities [and] your companies and come up with innovative solutions. We're not going to dictate exactly how you do it, but if you don't start reducing them you're going to have problems and we'll come up with a plan for you.'"
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/107980-obama-gives-sober-assessment-of-climate-change-but-defends-natural-gas
-
Valero Challenges Benicia’s Rejection Of Crude Oil Train Project
Oct 4, 2016 | The Sacramento Bee
By Tony Bizjak
In a letter this week, a Valero oil company attorney contends the city of Benicia acted illegally when it rejected Valero’s plan to ship two 50-car oil trains a day through Northern California to the company’s Benicia refinery.
The City Council voted unanimously last month to deny Valero Refining Co. a permit to build an oil transfer station at its bayside refinery. The company has been attempting since 2012 to get city approval for the project, which would allow Valero to receive train shipments of North American oil on tracks that run through downtown Sacramento, as well as Roseville, Davis, West Sacramento, Dixon and other cities en route to the refinery. The oil company currently gets oil via marine shipment and pipeline.
In a Monday letter to the city, attorney John J. Flynn III of the Nossaman LLP law firm in Irvine accused Benicia of rejecting the project proposal without providing adequate legal reasons. He also said that the city’s illegal action technically means the city has given Valero approval to build the project.
“There are no legal grounds on which to deny Valero’s permit application,” Flynn wrote. “The vague statements made at the (Sept. 20 council) hearing did not adequately link the conclusions stated therein with evidence in the record, and therefore under the Permit Streamlining Act the permit was approved by operation of law.”
He concluded by accusing the city of trying to come up with reasons, after the fact, for its denial, calling that “a desperate bid to deny Valero’s permit application, despite the lack of any legal or factual bases for such a denial.”
The Benicia City Council is expected to review and vote Tuesday night on city staff findings to support its September rejection of the Valero proposal. The city concludes, in those findings, that the project “would be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of persons residing and working in the adjacent neighborhood, and detrimental to properties and improvements in the vicinity.”
The findings also site potential harmful environmental impacts from the project.
Crude oil train projects have become controversial in North America in recent years. Fracking technology has opened vast new oil fields in North Dakota and elsewhere, leading to dramatic increases of shipments via train. The increase has led to repeated train derailments and explosions. The worst of those accidents killed 47 people in a Canadian town three years ago. Federal transportation officials have attempted to increase oil train safety via stricter regulations, but officials in cities along rail lines, including Sacramento, say federal officials have not done enough.
Federal interstate commerce law appears to prohibit Benicia from making its decision based on any concerns about what dangers the oil trains may pose to cities and habitat along rail lines.
Benicia officials have steered clear of saying their decision is based on rail transport concerns, but several Benicia council members and planning commissioners have acknowledged concerns expressed by Sacramento and other rail cities.
In the city’s findings, officials note, as a point of information, that “current regulations are inadequate to protect residents of Benicia, and people who live and work along the rail corridor from the oil fields to the refinery, from the risk of release, fire and/or explosion caused by derailment of a tank car carrying highly volatile Bakken crude oil or other similar crude oil.”
The state attorney general earlier weighed in, arguing that Benicia has the legal right to reject the Valero project. Representatives of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, which sent Benicia several letters of concern about the project, cheered Benicia’s decision to deny the Valero request.
The council vote on the findings represents the final city step on the project proposal. Several City Council members, however, have said they fully expect Valero to challenge the city rejection in court.
“They are continuing the drumbeat that this is not over,” Mayor Elizabeth Patterson said of the Valero letter.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article105920952.html
-
A Carbon Tax? Don't Expect One Anytime Soon, Obama Says
Oct 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
A carbon tax on fossil fuels might be the single best approach to curbing global climate change—just don't expect the U.S. or a broad swath of nations to impose one anytime soon, President Barack Obama said.
“Now, I'll be honest with you. In the current environment in Congress, and certainly internationally, the likelihood of an immediate carbon tax is a ways away,” Obama said at a White House climate forum Oct. 3.
However, Obama did highlight what he said will likely be “tidbits of good news” in the weeks ahead from separate international negotiations to curb aviation sector carbon dioxide emissions as well as hydrofluorocarbons—extremely potent greenhouse gases commonly used in refrigeration.
alks toward finalizing a cap on aviation emissions began this week under the UN's International Civil Aviation Organization in Montreal; talks toward a global phasedown of HFCs are to be held Oct. 8-14 in Kigali, Rwanda under the auspices of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
Though the outlook for a carbon tax in the U.S. is dim, that same day Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that country would set a national price on carbon dioxide emissions by 2018.
‘A Sense of Urgency’ Needed
Obama also took aim at what he said is a continuing obstacle to building on his climate agenda: “obstructionist” members of Congress whom he sees as stubbornly resisting the degree to which human activities are changing the climate. Progress requires “a sense of urgency” and not “something that we can just kind of mosey along about” in the face of “climate denial or obstructionist politics,” the president said at the climate panel discussion, which concluded a daylong South by South Lawn festival hosted at the White House.
The president also touted international progress on climate change under the 2015 Paris Agreement, which he noted is now on track to enter into force “in the next few weeks”—less than a year after nearly 200 nations reached the deal at a UN summit in December.
The South by South Lawn event was the first to be held at the White House, focusing on technology and civic engagement and inspired by the annual South by Southwest festival in Austin, Texas. Obama shared the stage with Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University, on a panel moderated by actor and climate activist Leonardo DiCaprio.
International Work ‘Incomplete.’
The Paris climate pact is expected to enter into force in the weeks ahead because of moves by India, which ratified the deal Oct. 2, and the European Union, which last week moved to fast-track its ratification to ensure the deal becomes international law before the next UN climate summit opens in Morocco Nov. 7.
But Obama conceded at the Oct. 3 forum that more action is needed.
“We get an incomplete,” the president said after he was asked by DiCaprio to grade the global response thus far to the challenge of addressing climate change. “But the good news is we can still pass the course if we make some good decisions now,” Obama said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=98252994&vname=dennotallissues&fn=98252994&jd=98252994
-
Home Appliance Sector Faults EPA Rationale For HFC Phaseout In SNAP Rule
Oct 5, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
Home appliance manufacturers are sharply criticizing EPA's recently released rule limiting hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) after the agency rejected industry requests to extend the time companies have to transition away from the high global warming potential (GWP) refrigerants.
While industry representatives are still combing through the rule and weighing their legal options, their criticism could prompt litigation that could threaten a key portion of the rule -- governing coolants that are used in household refrigerators and freezers -- which is also expected to play a crucial role in upcoming talks to set a global phasedown of the chemicals.
“It's frustrating,” Kevin Messner, senior vice president of policy and government relations for the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), told Inside EPA. “In reading through the [EPA] rule, it seems like they piece-mealed out differing points to patch together a rationale” for the speedier phaseout timeline.
But, he added, “the different parts don't fit together exactly how they put them together.”
The criticism from industry comes after EPA on Sept. 27 finalized a rulemaking under its Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program removing a second round of high-GWP HFC refrigerants from a list of acceptable substances. The agency finalized the first such rulemaking in July 2015.
EPA's recently released final SNAP rule differs little from the version it proposed March 29. Thus, it codifies the agency's proposed phaseout date for HFCs in household refrigerators and freezers that is three years speedier than the deadline requested by AHAM.
In comments to the proposal, AHAM had asked EPA to choose a Jan. 1, 2024, phaseout deadline for household refrigerators and freezers, which would be consistent with an industry-set target, but EPA chose a date three years sooner, Jan. 1, 2021.
The final rule also rejected requests from the commercial refrigeration sector to delay by one year the phaseout of several HFCs from use in commercial chillers.
That requested date was the result of a first-time deal between the commercial refrigeration industry and environmentalists. In a February letter to EPA, the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) recommended a phaseout deadline of Jan. 1, 2025. EPA's proposal, and now its final rule, selected a deadline of one year earlier, Jan. 1, 2024.
Despite calling out EPA for its rejection of their requested 2025 deadline, however, the commercial sector remains committed to reducing the high-GWP refrigerants, offering slightly more subdued criticism of the rule than the household manufacturers.
“We are disappointed, but as an industry, we are engaged in bringing forth proposals” that reduce high-GWP HFCs and are “committed to” improving energy efficiency and minimizing the environmental impacts of refrigeration products, said Steve Yurek, president of AHRI.
“Just because we are disappointed doesn't mean we aren't going to continue to support things that are energy and environmentally friendly,” Yurek told Inside EPA
Safety Concerns
Namely, AHRI member companies broadly support ongoing talks to set a global phasedown of HFCs as an amendment to the Montreal Protocol. Countries are slated to reach a deal on that in the coming weeks, during the final stretch of negotiations Oct. 8-14 in Kigali, Rwanda.
But the criticism from household manufacturers of the recent SNAP rule could cast a cloud over the regulation, which is expected to play a critical role in the upcoming global talks to bring hesitant developing countries closer to the ambition the United States and other developed nations are seeking in the deal.
While Messner said the group is still “weighing the rule” and has not yet made a decision about potential legal action, AHAM had not previously ruled it out.
“We're not currently planning to sue the agency,” AHAM's Rob McArver told Inside EPA back in June, though noting the group's concerns that the SNAP rulemaking delisting HFCs “is not really something [EPA has] the authority to do.”
He added: “If the impact to our industry is too severe, we're keeping open the possibility that we might have to challenge the rule” on its legal basis.
The crux of the sector's concern has to do with allowing a sufficient time for product redesign and for updates to building and safety standards needed to permit the use of low-GWP alternative refrigerants -- many of which are mildly flammable.
But, as both AHAM's Messner and AHRI's Yurek note, the standards updating process is headed by third-party independent committees -- through the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) and the UL standards committee.
While appliance manufacturers participate in the process, they cannot guarantee the standards are updated by a certain date, the industry representatives say.
The standard setting process through ASHRAE and the UL committees “isn't something where they can have a political mandate and set a date to it,” Messner said, noting that the committees -- which consist of not just industry representatives, but also safety experts like building inspectors, fire marshals and insurance companies -- go through the process in a “thoughtful way” to ensure the standard is right.
“Safety is too important to set an arbitrary political timeline. It's done when it's done,” Messner said. “Unfortunately, that is not a good enough answer . . . if there is a political timeline at stake.”
Both AHAM and AHRI, in comments on the proposed rule, noted their recommended phaseout deadlines of 2024 and 2025, respectively, struck the right balance of ambition and assurance that the building and safety standard updates could be in place.
The fear for manufacturers is that, with the speedier phaseout, if the standards are not updated in time, they will be forbidden by the EPA rule to use HFCs but will also not be able to use the low-GWP alternatives, thus severely limiting the available product market.
“What boggles the mind on this EPA SNAP final rule is that they have banned the use of a chemical or a refrigerant under the assumption that manufacturers will go to the flammable refrigerant alternative” but “without any recognition” that manufacturers will not be able to do so if the appropriate standard updates are not in place, Messner said.
He noted that neither EPA nor manufacturers can truly control when the standards are updated. Messner compared the situation to a hypothetical scenario in which EPA banned gasoline-powered cars in 2021 and required that everyone drive an electric vehicle, though without ensuring there would be enough charging stations constructed before the ban took effect.
EPA is “under the assumption that a third party will act,” but they “may or may not act in time,” he said, adding that is a “bad way to regulate.”
AHRI's Yurek echoed Messner, noting that the primary concern of the standard setting committees is safety and thus they are not focusing as much on the environmental or energy perspective. For this reason, it is not necessarily a given that the committees will update the standards as manufacturers request to allow for the use of the low-GWP refrigerants.
'Kind of Disingenuous'
Nonetheless, EPA in its final rule acknowledges industry's concern about standard updates, but contends that its chosen phaseout deadlines -- 2021 for household refrigerators and freezers and 2024 for commercial chillers -- will provide sufficient time.
“Although EPA recognizes that in general standards and model codes need to be developed to allow for the use of [mildly flammable] refrigerants, and that States and localities need to adopt those model codes or similar requirements, it is not reasonable to condition the entire market by such actions,” the agency wrote in the final rule.
Environmentalists praised EPA's final rule, noting that it shows “EPA has heard the concerns” regarding the standard updates, as well as the importance of maintaining and improving product energy efficiency and allowing for product redesigns.
“It is common when we come to the table for manufacturers to be looking for a bit more time for redesign processes,” NRDC's Alex Hillbrand told Inside EPA though noting that EPA appropriately “took all” of industry's concerns “into consideration.”
Hillbrand noted EPA's 2024 phaseout date for chillers is “very close to what we recommended” in the joint letter with AHRI, and praised the agency for sticking with the 2021 date for household refrigerators and freezers. The latter date “is ambitious but in our opinion does provide enough time for necessary standard changes,” he said.
EPA in its final rule also frequently cited an AHRI-led effort -- along with ASHRAE and the Department of Energy --- in its justification for both the 2024 deadline for chillers and the 2021 deadline for household refrigeration products. That nearly $6 million effort is aimed to help speed the necessary updates of standards and codes.
But AHRI's Yurek believes the agency's use of the voluntary research effort to justify a speedier phaseout was “kind of disingenuous.” The industry is “trying to accelerate the research, but we don't have any say over the time frame or procedures for those standard committees,” he added.
Yurek says the AHRI-led research effort will help speed the standard updates, though it is still not a guarantee they will be in place by 2024. Without the research effort, Yurek notes, the standards definitely would not make the 2021 updating cycle, and it likely would have been tough to make the 2024 cycle, as well.
For the household refrigeration sector, however, Messner says EPA's acknowledgment of the AHRI research effort in its justification is just another piece of the “patchwork to create the quilt they wanted.” Messner notes that the AHRI research does not cover the issues related to standard updates for household refrigerators and freezers.
“They seem to state that there is testing going on with ASHRAE and Oakridge National Lab as a justification that this is moving forward, but that testing has nothing to do with household refrigerators,” Messner said, adding that the agency is “just putting together bits and pieces” to rationalize their speedier phaseout date.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/home-appliance-sector-faults-epa-rationale-hfc-phaseout-snap-rule
-
Power Plant, Industrial Emissions Continue To Fall, EPA Reports
Oct 4, 2016 | Fuelfix
By James Osborne
Emissions of greenhouse gases from the country’s power plants and other industrial facilities continue to fall,the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reported Tuesday.
Within the power industry, the largest source of U.S. greenhouse gases, emissions last year were down 6 percent from 2014 and 11 percent since 2011.
Likewise, emissions from oil and gas facilities declined 2 percent from 2014 – though were up 4 percent from 2011, following increased oil and gas production through the shale drilling boom. Emissions from other industrial and waste facilities fell 2 percent from 2014.
“The trend is moving in the right direction,” Janet McCabe, acting assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, said in a statement.
The report surveyed more than 8,000 large, industrial facilities across the country – capturing power plants, landfills and refineries but not smaller facilities like oil pump jacks.
The EPA survey counted more than 3 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent – about half of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Other large sources not counted in the survey include cars and agriculture.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/10/04/power-plant-industrial-emissions-continue-to-fall-epa-reports/
-
EU Vote Could Put Paris Climate Pact Into Force Next Month
Oct 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Parliament Oct. 4 voted overwhelmingly to let the European Union deposit its instrument of ratification of the Paris Agreement with the United Nations, enabling the climate change pact to enter into force as early as next month.
The EU ratification documents, which are expected to be deposited Oct. 7 at UN headquarters in New York, would initially cover only the greenhouse gas emissions of member countries that have so far completed national-level ratification, rather than the bloc's emissions as a whole.
But seven EU countries representing 4.57 percent of global emissions have individually ratified the Paris Agreement, and that is enough to take the world's first international pact to fight climate change over its threshold of acceptance: ratification by at least 55 countries covering at least 55 percent of global emissions.
If the EU ratification is deposited at UN headquarters Oct. 7, the Paris Agreement would kick in Nov. 7 after a 30-day period and enable the UN to start implementing the deal to ensure that global warming stays “well below” a 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) increase above pre-industrial temperature levels, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said.
And Nov. 7 marks the start of 22nd session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 22) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, in Marrakech, Morocco—the successor to last December's historic COP 21 Paris summit.
‘Tremendous Momentum.’
Without the EU, 62 countries representing 51.89 percent of emissions had already ratified the agreement as of Oct. 4, the UN said.
Of the 28 EU members, Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Malta, Portugal and Slovakia had completed their national ratifications. Those countries account for 4.57 percent of global carbon emissions; the EU as a bloc is responsible for about 12 percent of global emissions.
The European Parliament, sitting in Strasbourg, France, Oct. 4, approved the ratification with 610 votes in favor, 38 against and 31 abstentions. EU member country environment ministers had approved the ratification Sept. 30.
Speaking shortly before the European Parliament vote, Ban said the EU move to ratify the Paris Agreement was part of the “tremendous momentum” that would see the deal enter into force less than a year after it was crafted by nearly 200 nations meeting in the French capital.
Major emitters China, India and the U.S. already have ratified or otherwise formally accepted the Paris Agreement.
To complete the EU-level ratification process, the Council of the European Union, which represents EU country governments, as a formality must rubber-stamp the European Parliament's approval, before dispatching the EU ratification notification to New York.
Climate Finance
Although the emissions of the EU as a whole will not yet be counted for the purposes of ratification, the EU-level sign-off will mean that the bloc can act as a party to the Paris Agreement at COP 22 in Marrakech.
France's Environment Minister Ségolène Royal, also speaking in Strasbourg, said parties to the Paris Agreement should work in particular on climate finance and must “move from pledge to action” in terms of finding $100 billion a year starting in 2020, which wealthy countries have promised to help poorer nations meet climate targets.
Miguel Arias Canete, the European Commission's climate action and energy commissioner, said: “We have the political will to support climate finance to developing countries,” and nations should understand the “green economy is not an economy of unemployment, it is an economy of growth and jobs.”
EU Work Ahead
The EU also must complete its internal procedures for distributing emissions reductions among member countries and among economic sectors. Overall, the EU pledged as part of the Paris Agreement to reduce its emissions by 40 percent by 2030 compared to 1990.
The main EU policies that must be completed for the post-2020 period are reforming the bloc's emissions trading system, sharing among countries of emissions reductions from non-ETS sectors, and measuring renewables and energy efficiency.
Canete said the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, will publish by December proposals on renewables, energy efficiency and streamlining of energy markets. The commission triggered talks on the ETS and non-ETS sectors by publishing proposals in July 2015 and July 2016, respectively.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=98252991&vname=dennotallissues&fn=98252991&jd=98252991
-
Mexico Prepared to Meet TPP Environmental, Labor Standards
Oct 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Emily Pickrell
The relatively high labor and environmental standards in the 12-nation Pacific Rim pact are a logical next step in international norms for trade agreements and Mexico is ready to meet them, according to the country's former top negotiator.
“One of the issues that they asked us when we discussed joining is whether Mexico would be able to meet the standards for both labor and environment,” Francisco de Rosenzweig, who left the Economy Minister in August and is currently a partner at White & Case, said in an interview with Bloomberg BNA.
“The standards in the TPP are the ones that any other agreement should have in this century. We think it is a very balanced agreement that recognizes the need to have modern provisions, but at the same time it considers the different nature of these countries.”
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has chapters devoted to environmental and labor standards that must be reached by the 12 member countries in order to receive the trade benefits of the agreement. These standards include agreeing to honor several environmental treaties, such as the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships and labor standards established by the International Labor Organization, such as the right to organize.
The kinds of environmental and labor standards included in the TPP aren't new, Rosenzweig said, noting that they mirror those in other recent bilateral trade agreements that the U.S. has made with Korea, Panama and Colombia, for example.
“They have established a minimum level of provisions that any free trade agreement that is negotiated should include,” he said.
Mandatory Provisions
Mexico's business climate, Rosenzweig said, has become more trade-friendly under the administration of Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto because of legal overhauls that have taken place in 13 different sectors, including the tax structure, the energy sector and labor laws. Many new laws were designed to attract international investment to areas such as telecommunications and electricity, in order to fund much-needed new infrastructure that would in turn increase economic growth.
And, unlike the North American Free Trade Agreement, where labor and environmental issues were included in a side letter, making them unenforceable, the TPP's inclusion of both issues in the main text means that countries will be required to honor their commitments.
“If you read carefully the provisions that we negotiated in the TPP, it is a clear mechanism that in the case of any kind of difference, there are specific provisions and procedures to be followed,” Rosenzweig said. “In the side letters, the provisions were too general. In the TPP, they now establish clear procedures. They have provisions, and those provisions are mandatory for all TPP members.”
Labor Laws on Books
He also noted that unlike Brunei, Vietnam and Malaysia—all of which signed action plans to improve their labor standards—Mexico already has the requisite labor laws on its books to meet the requirements of the labor chapter of the TPP. The trade pact requires protection of the freedom of association, right to collective bargaining, elimination of forced labor, abolition of child labor and elimination of employment discrimination.
“The TPP is not changing or modifying the domestic labor laws that we have in place,” Rosenzweig said. “The labor framework has evolved since 1994. As always, in any field you can have opportunities to strengthen the relationship, but in the case of Mexico it is proven that it is true that we made significant process over the last decade.”
The potential re-opening of the TPP negotiations under a Clinton or Trump presidency would likely face resistance by Mexico, Rosenzweig said, in response to questions about recent calls from the U.S. to try to secure longer times for certain pharmaceutical patents.
“As always, each party would love to have more, but at the end this was the package the countries were able to agree on,” Rosenzweig said. “If you open up an agreement that is already closed and it is also already signed and submitted, I believe that it will be a major challenge to drive the discussion only to the Hatch proposal or to any specific issue that one party would like to renegotiate.”
Rosenzweig was referring to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who wants 12 years of intellectual property protection for biologic medicines, just as U.S. law currently provides. The intellectual property rights chapter of the TPP provides countries with two options on biologics: eight years of market exclusivity or five years of data exclusivity and “comparable measures” that don't have a time element and could include marketing restrictions.
Building Support
The Mexican Senate is currently reviewing the TPP and its impact on various sectors within the Mexican economy, and Rosenzweig said that a ratification vote is expected by the end of 2016.
“The Mexican Senate is gathering information, and so far there are several senators that have been supporting the TPP,” Rosenzweig said. “What I know is that in Mexico, we have a clear awareness about the positive effects of free trade.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=98253014&vname=dennotallissues&fn=98253014&jd=98253014
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested