Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 11/11/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) How Chemical Industry Trade Groups Are Reacting to Trump's Win
Nov 10, 2016 | Chem.Info
By Meagan Parrish
With the election locked up and Donald Trump on his way to the White House, many are rushing to analyze the potential impact on a host of issues including regulation and trade. -
TSCA Amendments Promise New Chemical Regulation in 2017
Nov 10, 2016 | Legal Intelligencer
By Todd D. Kantorczyk and Zachary J. Koslop
On June 22, President Obama signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which fundamentally changes certain aspects of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a statute... -
(ACC Mentioned) After the Vote: Plastic Bag Battle Over, More Fights on the Horizon
Nov 10, 2016 | Capital and Main
By Judith Lewis Mernit
When California legislators banned single-use plastic bags in the summer of 2014, the national plastics lobby, a coalition of out-of-state interests united under the banner of the American Progressive Bag Alliance, fought back at the ballot box. -
Shoppers Must Use Their Purchasing Power to Lead Green Products Revolution
Nov 10, 2016 | The Guardian
By Bruce Watson
Whenever the battle against toxic chemicals makes headlines, it’s usually linked to huge, sprawling disasters like Flint’s poisoned water or BPA-laden plastics – the kind of thing that involves large scale poisoning and disease and defies an easy solution. -
EPA's Chlorpyrifos Review Does Not Alter Revocation Plan
Nov 11, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA says its recently completed analysis of the potential human health risks of the pesticide chlorpyrifos, including exposures through drinking water, does not alter its plan to ban use of the substance on food, though the agency is seeking public input... -
Thorny Path Ahead as U.S. Companies Prepare for REACH 2018
Nov 11, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
U.S. chemical companies preparing for the May 31, 2018 REACH chemical registration deadline should prepare for more thorough dossier checks by the European Chemicals Agency than have previously been carried out, according to a Keller and Heckman attorney. -
Italian Textile Suppliers Join Force to Promote Sustainability
Nov 10, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
An association has been launched to help Italian textile suppliers meet Greenpeace Detox campaign goals. -
Industry Challenges UK and Irish Furniture Standards
Nov 11, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
A furniture trade body has lodged a complaint with the European Commission about British and Irish standards for assessing the ignitability of upholstery. -
Oil Lobby Lines Up Trump Administration Agenda
Nov 10, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The nation’s top oil and natural gas lobbying group says it expects President-elect Donald Trumpand a GOP-controlled Congress to be friendlier to the industry than President Obama’s administration. -
What to Watch in Oil When Trump Moves Into the White House
Nov 11, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Julian Lee
Some U.S. oil policies are likely to shift significantly when Donald Trump assumes the presidency next year. While details remain sketchy, he's highlighted a number of areas where he differs significantly from current policy. -
Final EPA Oil & Gas Sector Information Request Aims to Reduce Burdens
Nov 10, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA has issued its final information collection request (ICR) to gather data on emissions of the greenhouse gas (GHG) methane from existing oil and gas operations that could inform a future rule to cap those emissions... -
Parts of Pennsylvania Oil, Gas Rules Temporarily on Hold
Nov 11, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
A Pennsylvania judge issued a temporary injunction on portions of new Marcellus Shale drilling regulations pending the outcome of a lawsuit filed by an gas industry group (Marcellus Shale Coalition v. Pa. Dep't Envtl. Protection, Pa. Commw. Ct., No. 573 MD 2016, 11/8/16). -
Texas Project is Headache for Contractor Fluor
Nov 10, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
The first new U.S. ethylene project in the shale gas era, Chevron Phillips Chemical’s cracker in Baytown, Texas, has run into difficulties. Fluor Corp., a construction contractor for the project, is taking a $154 million charge due to complications... -
Dakota Pipeline to Be Operating by Spring, Company Says
Nov 11, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tim Loh
Energy Transfer Partners LP reiterated that its Dakota Access oil pipeline will be up and running by the spring of 2017 following Donald Trump's surprise victory in Tuesday's presidential election. -
Trump Ascendancy Triggers Potential Keystone XL Comeback
Nov 10, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Gordon Jaremko
TransCanada Corp. vowed Wednesday to try reviving the hotly contested Keystone XL oil export pipeline when U.S. President-elect Donald Trump moves into the White House. -
Local Colorado Oil/Gas Towns Give FERC an Earful on Jordan Cove LNG
Nov 10, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Echoing earlier pleas from Japanese buyers thirsty for U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG), local government representatives throughout northwest Colorado this month have written FERC, urging federal regulators to reactivate the Jordan Cove LNG export project... -
(ACC Mentioned) Facing CRA Threat, Advocates Press OMB to Strengthen Final RMP Rule
Nov 10, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Environmentalists are pressing departing Obama administration officials to strengthen EPA's upcoming final rule revising its facility safety regulation even as the measure faces a growing threat that the next Congress, backed by incoming President Donald Trump... -
NJ Transit Racing to Install Rail Safety System by End of 2018
Nov 11, 2016 | NJ.com
By Larry Higgs
NJ Transit is racing to install thousands of pieces of equipment along hundreds of miles of track — and in more than 400 trains — in a $275 million effort to have Positive Train Control running by federally mandated deadline of Dec. 2018. -
EPA Posts Attainment Recommendations for Ozone Standard
Nov 10, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA has posted almost all state and tribal attainment recommendations for the 2015 ozone standard online, offering a varied picture of the potential impact of the more stringent 70-parts-per-billion benchmark put in place last fall. -
Coming Soon to EPA: A Trump Transition Team
Nov 11, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency should expect to have a few visitors arriving soon: a small “landing team” that will start work on the transition of power from President Barack Obama to President-elect Donald Trump. -
Trump Likely to Try to Reverse Obama Environment Initiatives
Nov 11, 2016 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Jason Dearen
President-elect Donald Trump has not minced words about his approach to environment and energy policy: He loathes regulation and wants to increase the use of coal, offshore drilling and fracking. -
Donald Trump Could Put Climate Change on Course for ‘Danger Zone’
Nov 10, 2016 | New York Times
By Coral Davenport
For a look at how sharply policy in Washington will change under the administration of Donald J. Trump, look no further than the environment. -
Al Gore Offers to Work with Trump on Climate Change. Good Luck with That.
Nov 10, 2016 | Washington Post
By Brady Dennis
Former vice president and longtime environmental activist Al Gore campaigned hard against Donald Trump, saying his election “would take us toward a climate catastrophe.” -
Regional Actions Seen as Bright Spot at Marrakech Climate Talks
Nov 11, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Eric J. Lyman
Local and regional government initiatives emerged Nov. 10 as bright spots at the Marrakech Climate Change Conference, which has been dominated by worries about the future U.S. role in global efforts to curb carbon emissions after Donald Trump's...
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) How Chemical Industry Trade Groups Are Reacting to Trump's Win
Nov 10, 2016 | Chem.Info
By Meagan Parrish
With the election locked up and Donald Trump on his way to the White House, many are rushing to analyze the potential impact on a host of issues including regulation and trade.
This week, two of America’s top chemical industry associations — the American Chemistry Council and the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates — released statements on their reaction to the results. Based on Trump’s election-season statements regarding the many issues facing the chemicals sector, it’s a mixed bag of optimism and an eagerness to make sure new deals don't cripple the industry.
On the one hand, Trump has promised to be extremely supportive of the fossil fuel industry and will likely make it easier for oil and coal producers to do business. On the other hand, he’s been critical of our current trade deals, which have been a crucial component of success in the chemicals industry.
rump has also displayed distrust of the Environmental Protection Agency and regulations in general. While the rising cost of regulations has made it tougher for chemical manufacturers to compete, implementing the EPA’s rules — especially the recently passed TSCA reform — are critical to streamlining regulations and enhancing public trust in the industry. It’s unclear how supportive of TSCA reform Trump will be, but many believe that if the EPA is hampered in any way, it could threaten the success of the new regulations.
Here’s part of what the ACC and SOCMA had to say on the new administration,
The American Chemistry Council
The passage of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act earlier this year with overwhelming support reflects that Congress understands that an effective and reliable chemical regulatory system is essential to the success of American manufacturers. We look forward to working with the new administration as it carries forward the implementation of the LCSA so EPA proceeds in a way that will promote safety and innovation.
As one of our nation’s largest exporting industries, robust trade in raw materials and finished products helps fuel the growth of our sector here at home. The $175 billion in investment in new factories and expanded production capacity by chemical producers, thanks to domestic shale gas, has positioned the U.S. to substantially grow its role as a premier supplier of essential materials for markets around the world, but reaching that potential will require sound trade frameworks. We agree that trade should be fair, and also know firsthand that trade can unlock potential in our economy and create jobs here at home. We hope to work with Congress and the Trump administration to chart a path forward on trade that will help American businesses thrive and benefit American workers.
The Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates
Trade is critical to the continued success of our country's specialty chemical industry and continued American leadership around the world. The chemical manufacturing sector is one of America's top exporting industries. SOCMA would like to work with the Administration to ensure there is open and fair trade that levels the playing field, particularly for our small and medium-sized manufacturers who are competing globally, and address barriers that impede the ability of U.S. specialty chemical manufacturers from growing their businesses.
In 2016, Congress passed important and historic Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform legislation, and we look forward to working with the Administration and team at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to build on the good work that has been done to date. We especially would like to see that implementation is done in a thoughtful and productive way.
SOCMA will actively work with Congress and the Administration to continue to grow the specialty chemical industry and to create jobs and opportunities for the American public.
http://www.chem.info/news/2016/11/how-chemical-industry-trade-groups-are-reacting-trumps-win
-
TSCA Amendments Promise New Chemical Regulation in 2017
Nov 10, 2016 | Legal Intelligencer
By Todd D. Kantorczyk and Zachary J. Koslop
On June 22, President Obama signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which fundamentally changes certain aspects of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a statute that gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) broad authority to impose restrictions on the manufacture, processing, use, distribution, use or disposal of any chemical substance currently or proposed to be placed in commerce. These changes, which are designed to promote the more frequent, timely and systematic review and regulation of new and existing chemical substances, have the potential to result in a number of new regulatory requirements for a wide range of industries.
Existing Chemical Substances
TSCA has always given the EPA authority to promulgate regulations designed to address risks posed by chemical substances in commerce at the time TSCA was originally enacted in 1976. The EPA, however, has exercised this authority infrequently to date, in part because TSCA required that any TSCA regulation address these risks "using the least burdensome requirements."
The act addresses this logjam by removing the "least burdensome" requirement and substituting a two-step process whereby the EPA first identifies risks associated with a chemical substance through a risk evaluation and then manages these risks by promulgating risk management regulations. At the risk evaluation stage, the EPA is required to determine whether the chemical substance "presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment." In making this determination, the EPA is not allowed to consider cost or other nonrisk factors and must take into account susceptible subpopulations (e.g., children). If the EPA identifies an unreasonable risk, then the risk management rule promulgated by the EPA must address that risk through various measures, including prohibitions or restrictions on the manufacture, processing, use, distribution or disposal of the chemical substance, requirements for warning labels and instructions, enhanced record-keeping, or notifications to consumers with an offer of replacement.
In addition to providing a more workable framework to evaluate and manage risk, the act imposes rules that require the EPA to start the process for a minimum number of chemicals and push them through the evaluation and management process. At the outset, the act directs the EPA to identify and commence the risk evaluation process for ten chemical substances by mid-December 2016. Furthermore, the EPA is required to finalize a rule by June 2017 that allows EPA to divide the universe of existing chemicals into "high priority" substances that must undergo a risk evaluation to determine whether the substance may pose unreasonable risks, and "low priority" substances for which a risk evaluation is currently unwarranted. By December 2019, the EPA must be conducting at least 20 risk evaluations and must have designated at least 20 substances as low priority. Furthermore, the EPA must develop any necessary risk management rule within two years after a risk evaluation is completed, although that timeline can be extended up to four years under certain circumstances.
In addition to the EPA driven process outlined above, the act contemplates that manufacturers will supplement the process by providing an avenue for manufacturers to request that the EPA complete a risk assessment for a particular chemical, so long as the manufacturer commits to pay for 50 to 100 percent of the costs of the evaluation. In fact, the act requires that 25 to 50 percent of the EPA's ongoing risk assessments must be at a manufacturer's request. Moreover, the act directs the EPA to publish guidance for any interested person who wants to develop and submit their own risk evaluations, which the EPA must consider, regardless as to whether the risk evaluation was requested or not.New Chemicals
The act also provides notable changes in how the EPA will regulate new chemicals. In particular, the act now requires the EPA to make an affirmative finding on the safety of new chemicals before the chemical can enter the marketplace. The act gives the EPA financial incentive to make this determination within, in most instances, 90 days, as the EPA is required to refund applicable fees for an applicant's premarket notice if the EPA fails to make a determination.
The EPA's review of new chemicals must result in one of three findings: that the chemical presents an unreasonable risk of injury; that information is insufficient to permit a reasoned evaluation of the chemical; or that the chemical is not likely to present an unreasonable risk. If the EPA finds that the chemical presents an unreasonable risk of injury, the EPA must either promulgate regulations pertaining to the chemical or publish a statement explaining why no regulations will be promulgated. Notably, prong represents a significant change, as it now allows the EPA to regulate a new chemical based solely on the finding that there is insufficient information to permit an evaluation of the chemical.CBI, State Pre-emption and Data Reporting
In addition to providing a new framework for the more timely and systematic regulation of new and existing chemical substances, the act clarifies a number of related issues including the handling of confidential business information (CBI), the pre-emption of state chemical safety laws, and supplementing chemical inventory reporting programs.
To address CBI, the act now includes Section 14, which generally affirms that regulated entities can continue to assert that information submitted to the EPA under TSCA should be protected from public disclosure as CBI. The results of health and safety studies, however, do not qualify as CBI. Additionally, health professionals can obtain access to information that otherwise qualifies as CBI so long as it is needed for treatment purposes and the health professional agrees to maintain the information as confidential. Section 14 also provides that entities must be prepared to substantiate certain CBI claims going forward, or even re-substantiate CBI claims made before the Act went into effect.
The act also includes provisions preempting certain state laws and actions while exempting others. Generally, the act pre-empts state laws and actions which regulate the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce or use of a chemical for which EPA has already made a determination that the chemical does not present an unreasonable risk of injury or for which the EPA has already taken a final action relating to the chemical's risk. The act exempts state laws and actions on any chemical on which the EPA has not acted. Further, the TSCA amendments exempt any state action taken before April 22, that regulates a chemical, and any state action pursuant to a state law passed on or before Aug. 31, 2003. Additionally, states can still promulgate laws and regulations relating to air, water and waste.
Regarding TSCA data reporting, before passage of the act, the EPA had established a chemical data reporting rule that requires manufacturers every four years to provide the EPA with information on the production and use chemicals in commerce if production volumes exceed 25,000 pounds in a reporting year. The most recent reporting deadline was Oct. 31 of this year. While nothing in the act directly affects the current data reporting rule, the act directs the EPA to promulgate a final "inventory reset rule" that will require affected entities to confirm by Dec. 17, 2017, which chemicals currently on the TSCA chemical inventory remain active in commerce, even if they fulfilled their data reporting obligations this past October.December Rules
The EPA has announced an aggressive implementation timeline to meet the deadlines imposed by the act. In particular, the EPA is scheduled to issue four proposed rules in mid-December, including rules related to the prioritization process, the risk evaluation process, the inventory reset and the imposition of new TSCA fees, in addition to announcing the first ten chemicals for risk evaluation. As of this writing, however, the EPA has not submitted these rules to the Office of Management and Budget, so this holiday present may be a little late. Regardless, 2017 promises to be an eventful year with respect to chemical regulation. •
http://www.thelegalintelligencer.com/home/id=1202772114812/TSCA-Amendments-Promise-New-Chemical-Regulation-in-2017?mcode=1202615324341&curindex=1&slreturn=20161011054555
-
(ACC Mentioned) After the Vote: Plastic Bag Battle Over, More Fights on the Horizon
Nov 10, 2016 | Capital and Main
By Judith Lewis Mernit
When California legislators banned single-use plastic bags in the summer of 2014, the national plastics lobby, a coalition of out-of-state interests united under the banner of the American Progressive Bag Alliance, fought back at the ballot box. In addition to gathering signatures to call a referendum on the bag ban, Proposition 67, the plastics manufacturers managed to add Proposition 65, an initiative to redirect fees grocers collect for disposable carryout bags to a state wildlife fund.About This Series
But on Tuesday California said no to the plastics lobby’s wish list. Proposition 67 passed with 52 percent affirming the law banning the bags. Proposition 65 also failed, with 51 percent rejecting the redirection of bag fees. It was precisely the result environmental groups, grocers and unions had pushed for.
It was also a rebuke to the bag alliance which, to many people, had appeared to be sowing confusion with the dueling propositions. An October survey conducted by Capitol Weekly, for instance, showed that 68 percent of poll respondents supporting Prop. 65 believed they were voting against the interests of the plastics industry.
“It was intentionally confusing,” says Mark Gold, Associate Vice Chancellor for Environment and Sustainability at the University of California, Los Angeles. But in the end, Gold says, “voters saw through what the polluters had put on the ballot. It made me feel pretty good that California voters got it.”
The Proposition 65 and 67 results also offered evidence of Californians’ willingness to sort through ballot complexity in a way civic leaders sometimes fear they won’t. “A lot of people thought there would be voter fatigue about such a long ballot with so much on it,” Gold says. “They expected people to just vote no.” Instead, voters by large margins funded education, acted on behalf of the environment and allocated money for infrastructure—“all pretty positive developments for California.”
Still, the $6 million that the plastics companies invested in their ballot campaign, along with several more millions spent on lobbying the legislature during previous sessions, has not gone to waste. Both the bag alliance and the American Chemistry Council that preceded it demonstrated to other industries how to stall unfriendly legislation in progressive California. And, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, the industry made $15 million in profit while the bag ban was on hold.
“It’s always good to say you can’t buy an election in California if you’re a polluter from South Carolina,” Gold says. “But this battle has taken a decade, and there’s been an opportunity cost.” Were it not for the protracted fight over plastic bags, Gold says, lawmakers might have restricted other kinds of waste, such as foam packaging.
“If you’ve ever done a beach cleanup, you know that plastics bags are only one part of the problem,” says Gold, who headed up the environmental nonprofit Heal the Bay from 1998 to 2012. “The question now is whether [lawmakers] have the stomach to move on.”
http://capitalandmain.com/after-the-vote-plastic-bag-battle-over-more-fights-on-the-horizon-1110
-
Shoppers Must Use Their Purchasing Power to Lead Green Products Revolution
Nov 10, 2016 | The Guardian
By Bruce Watson
Whenever the battle against toxic chemicals makes headlines, it’s usually linked to huge, sprawling disasters like Flint’s poisoned water or BPA-laden plastics – the kind of thing that involves large scale poisoning and disease and defies an easy solution. And, on those rare occasions when a happy chemistry story breaks – like the ban on antibacterial ingredients like triclosan, or the reauthorization of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which will expand the government’s ability to regulate chemicals – the combination of confusing chemistry and bizarre political maneuvering makes the story almost incomprehensible for anybody who isn’t already an expert.
It’s easy to imagine the battle for greener chemistry as a titanic struggle between goliath industries and sprawling governments, with consumers watching from the sidelines as their lives and health hang in the balance. But this perspective – and most stories about toxic chemicals – ignore a key part of the equation: consumer demand. For all the much-discussed push of government policies and industry innovations, it’s the pull of consumers and the market that ultimately fuels the biggest changes.The oil detox: these companies are using yeast to wean us off fossil fuels
Read more
The experts at the Guardian’s Green Chemistry Conference in New York in November highlighted the need to help consumers recognize the pull that they exert. On the government side, they’re focusing on policies and infrastructure projects that address voter concerns; on the consumer side, they’re bringing safer, greener products to market, often in the face of resistance from entrenched industries. In both cases, they’re being tugged along by the increasingly vocal desires and demands of voters and consumers.The big government push
For all the complexity of lobbying and lawmaking, the US government has two main tools for spurring greener chemistry: restricting certain chemicals or practices, and taxing certain outputs, like carbon dioxide. But these two techniques have serious drawbacks: as the 15-year struggle to reauthorize TSCA demonstrates, laws and restrictions are slow and unwieldy. Worse yet, they are often decades behind the times. In the case of TSCA, the EPA can now regulate thousands of chemicals – which means that it’s facing a massive backlog of untested chemicals that are already on the market. At the current pace, some analysts calculate, it could take the agency hundreds of years to catch up.
When it comes to policy, taxes often aren’t much better. Speaking at the Guardian’s Green Chemistry conference earlier this month, Brent Constantz, CEO of carbon sequestration company BluePlanet, explained why the math behind a carbon tax, one of the most discussed sustainability approaches, doesn’t add up: “Scientists tell us that even with the Paris accords, we’re on track to emit 100bn tons of carbon dioxide per year. And the Chinese are telling us that they want us to pay them $100 per ton to not emit CO2. A hundred times a hundred billion is a very large number. There’s just not that much money in the world.”
But there’s a third approach that the government could take. “What governments do have, and they’re not using responsibly, is their purchasing muscle,” Constantz said.
BluePlanet produces limestone from carbon dioxide that it collects from a power plant in Monterey Bay, California. Constantz said the government’s role as a purchaser has made a major difference for his company. Every year, state governments use millions of tons of rock in their federally funded highway building projects. “In California, we get $11bn to buy rock and we import it from Canada and Mexico,” he said, noting that BluePlanet’s artificially-made limestone can take the place of these foreign imports.
Sequestered carbon dioxide isn’t the only environmental crisis that government road building can help ease: California also uses its highway contracts to deal with used tires, which are notoriously difficult to dispose of. “In California, we’ve got a state job saying that if you want to get a state job laying asphalt, you have to have recycled tire rubber in the asphalt, or you can’t even bid on the job,” Constantz said. “It’s been 100% effective: there’s no tires in California. We’re importing tires.”he big consumer pull
These government moves don’t happen in a vacuum: numerous policies, including the California Tire Recycling Act, which paved the way for tire rubber to be used in asphalt, and the state’s flame retardant legislation, which paved the way for less toxic furniture, were the result of committed activism that brought the issues home to voters and consumers.
But while average citizens play a part in passing legislation, they have a more immediate and vital impact on the products that come to market – and their survival rate once they get there. Larry Weiss, chief medical officer of skin products company AOBiome, discovered this in 2014, when his company was testing a new skincare product that uses bacteria to fight skin problems, including oiliness, dryness, blotchiness and sensitivity. One of the study’s subjects was a New York Times journalist, who reported on her experiences. “It became one of the most forwarded articles in the New York Times, and we soon had 20,000 requests for a product that didn’t exist,” he said.Advertisement
Weiss attributes the interest in his products to a growing consumer awareness. “What’s changing all of this is millennial women because they’re doing something that nobody ever did before: they read the labels,” he says. “Their kids have diseases that they didn’t have, and they’re very concerned.”
Consumer awareness doesn’t only create markets for new brands; it can also translate into influence over brands that they already use. Michael Kobori, vice president of sustainability for Levi Strauss, noted his company created its own restrictions on hazardous chemicals, which it then extended to its suppliers and manufacturers. In 2012, it pushed further, joining with other brands, including H&M and Nike, to change the industry. “We made a pledge that by 2020, we would have zero discharge of hazardous chemicals,” he said.
That promise has carried some downsides, which Levi’s has been very open about. For example, the company’s alternative waterproofer, which is much safer than the PFCs that it used to use, it doesn’t last as long. “Hopefully, having this is going to spur the industry to find something that does last longer,” Kobori said.
Ultimately, green chemical substitutions in the supply chain or FDA approval of newer, greener chemicals are processes that consumers don’t get to see. But with a growing number of companies working to make highly visible, consumer facing changes to their products, the pull of consumer demand is helping to drive the market – and innovators and company owners are taking note.
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/nov/10/toxic-chemicals-flint-triclosan-green-chemistry
-
EPA's Chlorpyrifos Review Does Not Alter Revocation Plan
Nov 11, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA says its recently completed analysis of the potential human health risks of the pesticide chlorpyrifos, including exposures through drinking water, does not alter its plan to ban use of the substance on food, though the agency is seeking public input on its revised scientific analysis in advance of a March 31 legal deadline for a final decision.
“The revised analyses indicate that expected residues of chlorpyrifos on food crops exceed the safety standard under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,” EPA says in a Nov. 10 statement. “In addition, the majority of estimated drinking water exposures from currently registered uses, including water exposures from non-food uses, continue to exceed safe levels even taking into account more refined drinking water exposures.”
In a notice released Nov. 10 and scheduled for publication in the Federal Register in the coming days, EPA says it will seek comment for 60 days on documents supporting its revised review of chlorpyrifos' risks.
The agency will accept public input on updates to its human health risk assessment that account for input from an April scientific advisory panel (SAP) review of the agency's review of the substance.
EPA is also seeking input on its assessment of possible exposures through drinking water conducted to support its Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) registration review of the substance.
Under pressure of a court-ordered deadline, EPA in October 2015 proposed revoking all tolerances for chlorpyrifos, essentially banning use of the substance on food, despite having not yet completed analysis needed to support that decision.
The agency's chlorpyrifos review was spurred by an environmentalists' 2007 petition to ban chlorpyrifos to prevent potential neurodevelopmental risks to children. In 2014, advocates filed a deadline suit with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, and a three-judge panel agreed with advocates' assertions that EPA's delay in answering the years-old petition has been “egregious.”
In an Aug. 12 order, the court granted EPA a three-month extension, until March 31, to issue a final response to the petition in order to allow the agency to complete its analysis, including weighing recommendations from the April SAP.
In the Nov. 10 pre-publication notice, EPA says that while the updated reviews do not support altering its proposed revocation, the agency has modified its analysis underlying the proposal to account for the SAP's advice.
The agency also says that while it planned to consider as part of the drinking water analysis whether additional mitigation might allow for some continued use, pesticide registrants have not offered new mitigation options that might allow some limited uses to continue.
http://insideepa.com/news-briefs/epas-chlorpyrifos-review-does-not-alter-revocation-plan
-
Thorny Path Ahead as U.S. Companies Prepare for REACH 2018
Nov 11, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
U.S. chemical companies preparing for the May 31, 2018 REACH chemical registration deadline should prepare for more thorough dossier checks by the European Chemicals Agency than have previously been carried out, according to a Keller and Heckman attorney.
“It will be more difficult to pass the completeness check then it was in 2010 and 2013,” said Herb Estreicher, who commutes between the Washington, D.C., and Brussels offices of the Keller and Heckman LLP. He spoke during a recent webinar held by the law firm.
Keller and Heckman's webinar, “What U.S. Companies Need to Know in Preparation for the 2018 REACH Registration Deadline,” offered detailed information about the process companies will need to use, pitfalls they may face and responsibilities they'll still have after the deadline passes.
Christopher Bell, a Houston-based attorney working for Greenberg Traurig, LLP, had a slightly different take on the upcoming registration deadline.
“The rules haven't changed for 2018,” Bell told Bloomberg BNA.
What has changed is that many more small companies with limited resources will be subject to those rules, he said.
Both attorneys discussed the EU's registration, evaluation, authorization and restriction of chemicals, or REACH, regulation (EC) No 1907/2006REACH requires that chemicals made in or imported into the European Economic Area in volumes ranging from one to 100 metric tons annually be registered with the European Chemicals Agency by May 31, 2018.
Higher volume chemicals already were registered under the 2010 and 2013 deadlines. The European Economic Area consists of the 28 EU member states along with Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.
Unregistered chemicals can't be made or sold in the European Economic Area unless their production or importation volume is less than one metric ton (2,204 pounds).
Rethinking the Business Model
Large chemical manufacturers will already have registered many of their chemicals, Bell said. Their specialty chemicals may need to be registered for REACH 2018, but the process will be familiar to them, he said.
The companies that will be dealing with REACH for the first time are the many small and medium-sized businesses that have to register their chemicals, Bell said.
Due to limited resources, “some will rethink how they do business in Europe,” Bell said.A U.S. chemical manufacturer that exports a low-volume chemical to Europe may conclude it's better for the importing company to register the substance, Bell said.
Evolving Registration Process
Estreicher said the registration process has evolved as the European Chemicals Agency has gained more experience with dossiers. But, the process will be tougher this time around, he said.
The agency basically used a check-the-box approach to determine if dossiers were completed during the first 2010 and 2013 registration deadlines, Estreicher said. In 2018, however, the agency is expected to closely analyze waiver requests, he said.
Companies submit waivers when they ask to be allowed not to submit certain mandated toxicity, physicochemistry or other data. Reasons for seeking waivers include that the characteristics of the chemical being registered—its lack of solubility for example—would make it impossible to do an acute aquatic toxicity test.
Substance Information Exchange Forums
Under REACH, manufacturers of the same chemical form substance information exchange forums, or SIEFs, to share information, agree upon the classification of the chemical and make other joint decisions. The forums are managed by a lead registrant.
The regulation envisioned that company officials would sit around a room and make decisions together, Estreicher said.
The reality is that companies don't sit down and work through issues; the lead registrant makes the decision, he said. The lead registrant will run its decisions past other forum members, but unless they reply by a certain date, their agreement is presumed, Estreicher said.
Some REACH 2018 forums will have a different characteristic than previous forums for larger volume chemicals did, Bell said.
For previous deadlines, a few large companies with a lot of resources gathered the information they needed from their supply chains, he said. “That takes a lot of horse power.”
Small companies will have a harder time identifying all the planned uses customers for the chemical the manufacturer makes, Bell said.
Tips Estreicher offered include:
• know the lead registrant's credentials or doublecheck whether the company has identified itself with the European Chemicals Agency
• doublecheck the “substance identity profile” the lead registrant sends forum members to be sure it covers the chemical you are registering
• be prepared to pay anywhere from a few thousand euros to tens of thousands of euros to access toxicity or other data needed for registration
“There's no cheap solution here,"Estreicher said.Post-2018 Obligations
Chemical manufacturers’ REACH obligations will continue beyond 2018, Estreicher and Bell said.
That means U.S.-based companies, which like all non-European companies must use entities called Only Representatives (ORs) to register their chemicals, will have to maintain their contractual obligation with that representative, Estreicher said.
“You've got to make sure your OR doesn't plan to pull coverage after 2018,” he said.
Ongoing REACH responsibilities include notifying the European Chemicals Agency to update registration dossiers if companies are bought out or merge or if a chemical's production volume changes.
Compliance is an ongoing obligation that should be built into day-to-day business practices, Bell said.
The essential obligation is the same whether a company does business in the U.S., Europe or Korea, he said. “You have to know what chemicals you make, export and import. Know where they end up, and know where your markets are.”
“None of this is as complicated as running a business,” Bell said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100227451&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100227451&jd=100227451
-
Italian Textile Suppliers Join Force to Promote Sustainability
Nov 10, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
An association has been launched to help Italian textile suppliers meet Greenpeace Detox campaign goals.
Consorzio Italiano Implementazione Detox (CID) aims to encourage sustainability and innovation in textile production. Its members include 27 companies that supply fashion brands including Burberry, Prada, Valentino, Armani, and Gucci.
CID plans to promote research and offer technical and operational support to help companies meet the Greenpeace commitment to phase out 11 chemicals of concern by 2020. It will also encourage technological innovation in textile production processes.
Earlier this year, 20 textile suppliers, from the Prato and Como textile districts, signed up for the Greenpeace Detox commitments. This was overseen by trade body Confindustria Toscana Nord (CTN).
CTN President Andrea Cavicchi, said the new body was formed to bring the venture to a national level. He added that "a quality textile production with no risk for the environment has to be a national aim."
And Greenpeace Italy senior campaigner, Chiara Campione, welcomed the new association as "a unique industry initiative."
She told Chemical Watch: "With the launch of the CID, the Prato textile district has made a big step forward to broadening the level of ambition of their Detox commitment."
At the launch event in Prato, a report by the laboratory BuzziLab and CID, scrutinising 228 dyestuffs' compliance with Greenpeace’s Detox manufacturing restricted substances list (MRSL) was presented. The chemicals analysed represent 90% of colourants used by the textile supply chains worldwide.
It summarised the level of contaminations of dyestuffs by chemical analysis of four of the 11 groups of hazardous chemical substances in Greenpeace's Detox MRSL:
· aromatic amines derived from azodyes;
· ethoxylated alkylphenols (APEOS);
· phthalates, and
· chlorophenols.
It found that in 70% of analysed colourants, the concentration of hazardous chemicals went beyond Detox limits. However only 0.8% would not be in compliance with the MRSL limits set by the Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals (ZDHC) group of global apparel brands.
Greenpeace Italy pollution campaign project manager, Giuseppe Ungherese, said the research identified "hidden sources of contamination in colorant substances" and enabled companies to choose products according to Detox standards.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50913/italian-textile-suppliers-join-force-to-promote-sustainability
-
Industry Challenges UK and Irish Furniture Standards
Nov 11, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
A furniture trade body has lodged a complaint with the European Commission about British and Irish standards for assessing the ignitability of upholstery.
The European Furniture Industries Confederation (Efic) says that the "open flame", or "match test", required by the British fire safety test method (BS 5852) and the Irish (IS 419:1988) means manufacturers must use flame retardants.
It argues that flame retardants pose health and environmental risks and have not been proven to reduce the number of fatalities from fires.
Also, as no other European country requires the test, Efic says it poses a barrier to trade in the single market.
The EU prohibits national standards being set for products, unless they are justified under grounds such as public safety or security. This is to ensure free movement of goods and services within the single market.
A Commission spokesperson said: "We have received the complaint in question and are currently in the process of analysing it."
Efic proposes harmonising the flammability requirements for furniture. It wants to see the application of the European "smoulder ignition test" (EN 1021-1) for all upholstered furniture. This does not demand the use of flame retardants.
In a statement, it said: "The abolition of the disproportional regulations in the UK and Ireland, and the introduction of an EU-level harmonised standard will increase fire safety standards in Europe, reduce the exposure to hazardous chemicals and open up the single market for fair competition, by removing barriers to trade."
The UK Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) is consulting on updating the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations. This ends on 11 November. The regulations list standards, including BS5852, which it says can be used to ensure companies meet the law's ignition resistance requirements.
A BEIS spokesperson said: "UK furniture safety standards are already acknowledged as being the highest in Europe, but we are developing new regulations to keep pace with changes to design, manufacture and consumer tastes."
The proposals include a change to the match test. This will require the testing of cover fabrics "over the same combustion-modified foam that appears in final products". Currently, the regulations require cover fabric to be tested over highly-flammable polyurethane foam. This is not found in furniture sold in the UK.
A BEIS impact assessment for the proposals says the changes would "reduce the amount of flame retardant chemicals needed to pass the match test; without compromising the safety of the final product."
Efic was one of three trade bodies to endorse a recent policy paper published by the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL), calling for action against the use of flame retardants in furniture. The European Federation of Building and Woodworkers and the European Bedding Industries' Association also signed.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50934/industry-challenges-uk-and-irish-furniture-standards
-
Oil Lobby Lines Up Trump Administration Agenda
Nov 10, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The nation’s top oil and natural gas lobbying group says it expects President-elect Donald Trumpand a GOP-controlled Congress to be friendlier to the industry than President Obama’s administration.
American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard said Thursday the incoming administration should reassess Obama-era rules for the oil industry, approve pipeline projects like Keystone XL and expand drilling rights in the United States.
That message isn’t a new one from API, which has long railed against what it considers excessive federal influence in its industry.
But with Trump in the White House and Republicans in control of both the House and Senate, the group says it has a chance to break through and institute what Gerard called “forward-thinking energy policies.”
“We need to look at the current regulatory approach holistically,” Gerard said of federal oil and gas regulations.
“I would suggest that the whole approach should be a priority. What is being done to really impede our ability to provide what the American voters want should be looked at and improved.”
He said Congress should work to approve oil infrastructure projects like the Dakota Access Pipeline and Keystone XL, which developers on Wednesday said they could pursue again once Trump enters the White House.
“This is one of those areas where we can come together as a nation, we can find common cause, we can bridge the gaps that we had,” he said.
“Within infrastructure, we need to take a close look at permitting. Dakota Pipeline is an example, the Keystone Pipeline is an example. We need to build this infrastructure to benefit the American consumers.”
Fossil fuel interests and companies have welcomed Trump’s Tuesday victory, and so have their investors: Coal stocks climbed on Wednesday following Trump’s repeated promise to help the fuel as president.
Greens, meanwhile, are girding for a contentious four years, promising to fight back against Trump’s administration.
http://www.thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/305460-oil-lobby-lines-up-trump-administration-agenda
-
What to Watch in Oil When Trump Moves Into the White House
Nov 11, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Julian Lee
Some U.S. oil policies are likely to shift significantly when Donald Trump assumes the presidency next year. While details remain sketchy, he's highlighted a number of areas where he differs significantly from current policy.
Relations with the Middle East and OPEC
Trump has been critical of both Saudi Arabia and Iran during the campaign. He said that he was not a “big fan” of the Saudi government in a 2015 appearance on NBC's “Meet the Press” and told The New York Times in March that he might stop buying oil from Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries unless they committed ground troops to combat Islamic State or reimbursed the U.S. for its efforts.
Trump also is opposed to the nuclear deal with Iran that unlocked the country's oil exports. He said in a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington in March that his “No. 1 priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran.” While tearing apart the accord is “technically possible,” it is “extremely unlikely” that the other world powers that negotiated with Iran alongside the U.S.—China, France, Russia, the U.K. and Germany—“would follow our lead,” U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said in April.
Speaking at the Williston Basin Petroleum Conference in Bismarck, N.D., in May, Trump also promised independence from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, although he didn't elaborate on how that would be achieved.
Keystone Boost
At a press conference prior to the North Dakota event, he said he would approve TransCanada Corp.’s proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline, in return for the people of the U.S. being given “a piece, a significant piece of the profits.“
Trump has also pledged to renegotiate or terminate the North American Free Trade Agreement, which limits the cases in which Canada can restrict energy exports to its southern neighbor. Ending that agreement could leave the U.S. more open to disruptions to supplies from Canada, although this seems unlikely given the country's lack of alternative export options.
Support for U.S. Oil
At the same North Dakota news conference , the president-elect said he would remove any restrictions on U.S. energy exports and that he would support hydraulic fracturing, although he didn't elaborate on either.
Trump's victory will support U.S. oil and gas production, with less regulation on exploration and a lifting of drilling restrictions in certain locations, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. analysts including Damien Courvalin and Jeffrey Currie said in a Nov. 9 report.
His support for the U.S. shale oil and gas industry has not been unequivocal, though. Trump had earlier caused concern among energy executives in Colorado when he said in July he supported letting local residents vote on fracking bans. In a statement after a meeting with oil executives in Denver last month, Trump's campaign said he supports “safe hydraulic fracturing” and “energy production on federal lands in appropriate areas.“
“America is sitting on a treasure trove of untapped energy—some $50 trillion dollars in shale energy, oil reserves and natural gas on federal lands, in addition to hundreds of years of coal energy reserves,” Trump said during a keynote speech at the Shale Insight conference in Pittsburgh, a summit of natural gas producers. “I am going to lift the restrictions on American energy and allow this wealth to pour into our communities.“
Wider Policies
Trump said he would open federal lands for oil and gas production, and free up offshore areas to energy development.
The biggest impact on crude markets may not come from Trump's oil policies at all given the importance of decisions that influence wider economic development, trade, and international relations.
He pledged during his victory speech Nov. 9 to double economic growth during his tenure. That would imply annual expansion of 3 percent, a level last exceeded in 2005.
Against that, he's questioned climate-change science and vowed to withdraw from the Paris agreement to limit global warming—measures that would potentially redefine the nature of global energy consumption if coal returns as a growth fuel for power generation.
Lastly, observers including UBS AG and Nordea are now considering whether the U.S. will become more protectionist. Before the vote, Trump said China was a “grand master” at currency manipulation and was stealing American jobs. He threatened punitive tariffs of up to 45 percent on the country's imports.
—With assistance from Brian Wingfield.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100227450&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100227450&jd=100227450
-
Final EPA Oil & Gas Sector Information Request Aims to Reduce Burdens
Nov 10, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA has issued its final information collection request (ICR) to gather data on emissions of the greenhouse gas (GHG) methane from existing oil and gas operations that could inform a future rule to cap those emissions, revising the ICR from the proposed version in order to reduce burdens -- such as extending the deadline for submitting data.
Additionally, the final ICR, which EPA quietly released to its website on Nov. 10, categorizes wells in a way the agency says will make it easier to get information on low-production wells and the types of equipment at those sites; shifts some requests for data from operators to specific facilities; specifies requirements for the gathering and boosting sector; and clarifies a number of key issues, such as the portion of wells covered by the survey.
EPA has also slightly raised its estimates of the cost of responding to the ICR for companies, from the $40 million total cost figure in the draft ICR, with $16 million for the operator survey, or about $700 per facility and $24 million for the more detailed facility survey, to $18 million for the operator’s survey, for a total cost of $42 million in the final ICR.
The agency Sept. 29 sent the final ICR to the White House Office of Management & Budget, triggering a 90-day public comment period under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), during which industry sought a host of revisions, including an extended time frame for operators to respond to the request.
The ICR is part of the Obama EPA's ongoing efforts to address air pollution concerns from the industry. EPA has finalized an update to its new source performance standards (NSPS) to set limits on methane emissions and new controls for volatile organic compounds, but opted against issuing a similar rule capping methane emissions from existing operations. The data collected by the ICR is expected to inform a potential existing source rule.
“The ICR is the first step in that process; the information that companies will be required to collect and report to EPA will provide the foundation necessary for developing comprehensive regulations to reduce emissions from existing
sources in the large and complex oil and gas industry,” says an EPA fact sheet.
EPA also will use the ICR to determine how it can work with states to reduce emissions from existing sources, and help the agency identify sources with high emissions and the factors that contribute to those emissions.
But it is unclear what will happen when President-elect Donald Trump takes office in January, given that observers have predicted he will take a hard stance against issuing any new energy-related regulations and is expected to attempt to rollback existing regulatory regimes. For example, one industry source says Trump is likely to try to undo “regulations that related to energy,” such as pipeline approvals and permitting, the power plant GHG rules known as the Clean Power Plan, and hydraulic fracturing as among his biggest regulatory priorities.
Methane Emissions
Environmentalists charge that because EPA issued the oil and gas NSPS June 3 under section 111(b) of Clean Air Act, the agency must now begin promulgating existing source performance standards under section 111(d), but the agency is relying on the ICR so far as an interim step for a section 111(d) existing source rule.
Industry and states are attacking that argument, including in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit litigation over the NSPS. They say the agency must first issue an endangerment finding for methane from the oil and gas source category before it can issue section 111(b) and section 111(d) actions.
In comments on the draft version of the ICR, North Dakota's Department of Health said it lacked practical utility under the PRA because EPA lacks statutory authority to issue standards under section 111(d), given the legal concerns the state previously raised over the lack of a separate endangerment finding for the section 111(b) rules.
The final ICR, however, appears to address some of the revisions sought by industry groups. For example, EPA extended the time frame for industry to respond to both surveys from 30 days for the operator survey to 60 days, and from 120 days for the facility survey to 180 days.
The final request also seeks to categorize wells based on their gas-to-oil ratio (GOR), which reflects the type of primary product a well produces. EPA says the ICR seeks information on low-production wells for each GOR category, and that the ratio will give EPA information about the types of equipment likely to be located at a site.
EPA's ICR also splits the sector's gathering and boosting segment into two segments -- compressor stations and pipeline facilities, which it says will help reduce confusion, makes revisions to the methods required for pressurized liquids sampling and clarifies who is responsible for reporting and the portions of wells covered at a specific facility.
'Good First Step'
Howard Feldman, the American Petroleum Institute's (API) senior director of regulatory and scientific affairs, said in a Nov. 10 statement that the ICR compliance period extension is a “good first step.”
But he added that the agency failed to resolve significant issues with its operator and facility contact information database, which could result in skewed data. “EPA should ensure accurate data that are representative of existing sources of methane emissions across all segments of our industry can be collected in this effort,” Feldman says.
API in its Oct. 31 comments on the ICR said that OMB should hold off approving the ICR until EPA could show that the contact information of the recipients listed in the request is accurate, saying that failure to do so could result in an ICR that is biased toward large operators and not representative of the industry.
API also says that industry should have the opportunity to comment on any future analysis EPA crafts based on the ICR data as the government determines whether or how to regulate existing operations in the oil and gas sector.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/final-epa-oil-gas-sector-information-request-aims-reduce-burdens
-
Parts of Pennsylvania Oil, Gas Rules Temporarily on Hold
Nov 11, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
A Pennsylvania judge issued a temporary injunction on portions of new Marcellus Shale drilling regulations pending the outcome of a lawsuit filed by an gas industry group (Marcellus Shale Coalition v. Pa. Dep't Envtl. Protection, Pa. Commw. Ct., No. 573 MD 2016, 11/8/16).
The Pittsburgh-based Marcellus Shale Coalition filed suit against the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and the state's Environmental Quality Board Oct. 13 in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania over seven specific provisions of the final Chapter 78a regulations, which took effect Oct. 8.
In an order Nov. 8, Judge Kevin Brobson temporarily stayed portions the state's Chapter 78a regulations that restrict drilling near school playgrounds, require developers to monitor and remediate inactive wells near drilling sites, impose new construction standards for impoundments, and set new requirements for site restoration.
The Marcellus Shale Coaltion is “pleased” with the court's decision to preliminarily stay “unlawful, burdensome, and costly portions” of the regulations from going into effect until the matter can be decided in court, David Spigelmyer, the group's president, said in a statement.
The commonwealth court temporarily stayed the application of limited portions of the new regulations, “but refused to enjoin the balance of the challenged requirements,” Neil Shader, press secretary for Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection, told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail Nov. 10.
The ruling results in “a narrow temporary stay” and the case will now move forward, with the department's answer to the petition due to the court next week, Shader said. The department “will continue to push for protections for drinking water and schoolchildren and ensure areas impacted by drilling activity are restored.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100227456&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100227456&jd=100227456
-
Texas Project is Headache for Contractor Fluor
Nov 10, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
The first new U.S. ethylene project in the shale gas era, Chevron Phillips Chemical’s cracker in Baytown, Texas, has run into difficulties. Fluor Corp., a construction contractor for the project, is taking a $154 million charge due to complications resulting from bad weather and lackluster productivity.
Chevron Phillips is spending $6 billion on the Baytown cracker and a pair of polyethylene plants in Old Ocean, Texas. Fluor is building the cracker in partnership with Japan’s JGC, while a joint venture between Technip and Zachry Industrial is erecting the polyethylene units.
On a recent conference call with analysts, Fluor CEO David T. Seaton blamed the weather. So far this year, he said, the site has received about 250 cm of rain. Another Fluor project, a Dow Chemical cracker 100 km away in Freeport, Texas, received normal rainfall of about half that much. The Baytown flooding led to an out-of-sequence work schedule and lower productivity, Seaton said.
In a separate conference call, Tim G. Taylor, president of Phillips 66, which owns half of Chevron Phillips, said additional labor was needed at the site at the same time that the industry was experiencing a shortage of skilled laborers such as pipe fitters.
Chevron expects the cracker will run between 5% and 10% over budget and be completed during the second half of next year. The company expects the polyethylene plants will be finished, on time and on budget, in mid-2017.
The contract for the ethylene project is at a fixed price, which leaves Fluor on the hook for cost overruns.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i45/Texas-project-headache-contractor-Fluor.html
-
Dakota Pipeline to Be Operating by Spring, Company Says
Nov 11, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tim Loh
Energy Transfer Partners LP reiterated that its Dakota Access oil pipeline will be up and running by the spring of 2017 following Donald Trump's surprise victory in Tuesday's presidential election.
Construction is nearly complete in North Dakota where the pipeline giant is waiting for an easement from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to drill a final portion of the project beneath Lake Oahe, company officials said on a third-quarter earnings call Nov. 10. Once it receives the easement, Energy Transfer can begin a three-to-four month drilling program that will precede the start of commercial operations in the first quarter.
“It's only going to get better,” Kelcy Warren, chief executive officer of Energy Transfer Partners, said regarding the future of Dakota Access and other projects following Trump's win. “We find ourselves in a good position.”
Energy Transfer Partners is at the center of a battle over new pipelines proposed across the U.S. with its $3.8 billion, 1,172-mile Dakota Access line. The project has become a rallying point for the anti-fossil fuel movement and has faced opposition from Native Americans who say it'll damage culturally significant sites.
Energy Transfer's under no legal obligation to stop construction and hasn't voluntarily agreed to do so, the officials said. It has completed 84 percent of the project and is pushing ahead with construction wherever it's permitted, including in Iowa.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100227448&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100227448&jd=100227448
-
Trump Ascendancy Triggers Potential Keystone XL Comeback
Nov 10, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Gordon Jaremko
TransCanada Corp. vowed Wednesday to try reviving the hotly contested Keystone XL oil export pipeline when U.S. President-elect Donald Trump moves into the White House.
A brief statement circulated by the company described it as still “fully committed to building Keystone XL” despite its rejection by outgoing President Barack Obama after marathon battles with environmentalists and landowners along the route (see Shale Daily, Nov. 9; Jan. 19, 2012).
The effort responds to election campaign statements by Trump that he would be prepared to reconsider the proposal for an express line from Alberta refineries along the Texas and Louisiana coast of the Gulf of Mexico.
But Trump made his support conditional on U.S. interests being conceded a profitable share in the US$7 billion project to add 521,000 b/d to Canadian oil exports (see Daily GPI, May 26). TransCanada announced no definite steps or schedule. “We are evaluating ways to engage the new administrations on the benefits, the jobs and the tax revenues this project brings,” the company said.
TransCanada has also filed an international lawsuit against Obama’s veto, seeking US$15 billion in compensation and damages by alleging that the rejection was a case of green politics overturning favorable results of the U.S. State Department’s project review.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/108398-trump-ascendancy-triggers-potential-keystone-xl-comeback
-
Local Colorado Oil/Gas Towns Give FERC an Earful on Jordan Cove LNG
Nov 10, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Echoing earlier pleas from Japanese buyers thirsty for U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG), local government representatives throughout northwest Colorado this month have written FERC, urging federal regulators to reactivate the Jordan Cove LNG export project proposed for the south-central coast of Oregon.
"Northwest Colorado is speaking out in hopes that the FERC [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission] will speak up about why Japan and their 130 million people don't count as customers," said David Ludlam, executive director of the West Slope chapter of the Colorado Oil/Gas Association (WSCOGA). "If a letter from Japan isn't enough to convince the FERC that JERA and ITOCHU are worthy customers for Jordan Cove LNG, then what proof would be good enough?"
Last month, JERA's president wrote to urge federal regulators to grant a rehearing on the project and allow the plans for the LNG facility and 232-mile connecting gas transmission pipeline, Pacific Connector, to move forward (see Daily GPI, Oct. 6).
Ludlam this week was seeking to call attention to efforts by the western Colorado producers and local communities in joining Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper asking what he described as a "fair questions" that deserve "prompt answers from FERC."
Letters were sent Monday from the cities of Grand Junction, Craig, Parachute and Rifle, along with six counties (Delta, Garfield, Mesa, Moffat, Rio Blanco and Routt) and business/economic associations, such as the Grand Junction Chamber, Grand Junction Economic Partnership, and the Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado. And seven other cities and chambers are waiting board approvals to do the same, Ludlam said.
The cities said their support for the LNG facility at Coos Bay, OR, and a connecting 232-mile transmission pipeline is "unwavering," and they urged FERC to now recognize that there are defined markets for West Slope gas supplies that could flow to the export terminal as demonstrated by the interest of JERA, a joint venture of TEPCO Fuel & Power Inc., a subsidiary of Tokyo Electric Power Co. Holdings Inc., and Chubu Electric Power Co. Inc.
A week after FERC rejected Jordan Cove for lack of apparent market interest in the project, sponsor Canadian-based Veresen Inc., signed a long-term capacity agreement with the Tokyo-based electric utility joint venture JERA Co. Inc. (see Daily GPI, March 22).
In a letter to FERC Chairman Norman Bay, the city of Parachute, CO, Board of Trustees reiterated "their interest and commitment to be a leading customer of the Jordan Cove project...and our continued support for both [the terminal and pipeline] projects." Parachute Mayor Roy McClung urged FERC "to grant the request for a rehearing" that Jordan Cove's Veresen backers have requested.
Moffat County's three commissioners said Jordan Cove's proposed LNG supplies would benefit Colorado by creating long-term demand for the county's natural gas production, and the project is a "critical element of Japan's energy mix" where the North American West Coast "has the potential to play an important role in global energy security."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/108406-local-colorado-oilgas-towns-give-ferc-an-earful-on-jordan-cove-lng
-
(ACC Mentioned) Facing CRA Threat, Advocates Press OMB to Strengthen Final RMP Rule
Nov 10, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Environmentalists are pressing departing Obama administration officials to strengthen EPA's upcoming final rule revising its facility safety regulation even as the measure faces a growing threat that the next Congress, backed by incoming President Donald Trump, will eliminate the rule under privileged processes guaranteed by the Congressional Review Act (CRA).
Environmental, labor and public interest groups Nov. 10 met with White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) officials reviewing the agency's Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility accident prevention rule, where they were expected to urge officials to expand the universe of facilities required to analyze whether safer chemicals or process alternatives exist and, in some cases, to force their adoption.
The meeting is one of several advocates are holding with OMB this month on the rule, including one Nov. 7 and another planned for Nov. 21.
But in interviews with Inside EPA, some industry sources are also raising the prospect that a final RMP rule could be a “prime candidate” for a CRA rollback, especially given business groups' continued concerns -- reiterated in their own recent meetings with OMB -- that some of the rule's new requirements are costly and unwieldy.
Under the law, Congress can approve -- and the president must sign -- disapproval resolutions on simple majority votes in the House and Senate to reverse discretionary rules promulgated within 60 legislative days of their actions. But the resolutions generally overturn the instant action and bar the executive branch from issuing similar measures, meaning they can have far-ranging consequences.
While lawmakers have frequently sought to use the law's privileged procedures to advance disapproval resolutions, they have only succeeded once, when President Bush in 2001 signed a measure reversing an Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) rule setting ergonomic safety standards.
But a second industry says the possibility of a CRA disapproval resolution is far from clear.
The source says that the RMP rule may not yet be on Trump's radar, and that the likelihood it is targeted during a Trump administration may depend on whether the final version is palatable for industry. If that is the case, advocates' push to strengthen the rule could backfire.
“It depends on what is in the final rule, and how in this political setting, it is received by industry,” the source says, of whether Republicans might target a final RMP rule with the CRA. “If there are parts of it that are still of great enough concern you could have folks looking at what the options are.”
Those could include the Trump administration taking administrative steps to soften or repeal portions of the rule.
Despite the threat of reversal, environmentalists say they urged OMB to advance a strong rule, arguing that rolling back a regulation that undermines worker safety may be an unattractive prospect for the new administration. “This is a security issue and Republicans think of themselves as heroes on security,” the source says, describing their pitch to the outgoing OMB officials. “It's all out of everyone's control. All they can do is do the best they can.”
A source who attended the meeting said advocates also argued that requiring facilities to use safer alternatives is the surest defense from cybersecurity threats to critical infrastructure. While cyber threats continually evolve, removing highly hazardous substances from facilities would dramatically reduce the consequences of any breach, they argued.
IST Requirements
EPA is seeking to issue by year end a final rule overhauling its RMP program to require that certain facilities analyze whether inherently safer technologies (IST), usually alternative chemicals or processes, would improve safety and to conduct independent audits among other requirements.
Currently, the RMP program established under section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act requires companies to craft a plan to submit to the agency that outlines how they will reduce risks from releases.
In recent meetings, environmentalists, labor and public interest groups are urging OMB to strengthen the rule, at a minimum, by expanding the requirement for IST analysis to additional facilities. Advocates are also reiterating their long-standing calls for EPA to use Clean Air Act authority to require that facilities use IST where feasible.
Industry groups also have recently met with OMB about the RMP rule, sources say, and reiterated arguments from their comments on the proposed rule last spring that new requirements for certain facilities to conduct independent audits after accidents or near misses are unwieldy and unclear.
EPA's RMP overhaul is part of a broad federal effort led by EPA, OSHA and the Department of Homeland Security to implement President Obama's Executive Order 13650 on improving the safety and security of the nation's industrial facilities.
Obama issued the order Aug. 1, 2013, in the wake of an explosion at a fertilizer plant in West, TX, that killed 15 people, including first responders.
EPA's Feb. 25 proposed revisions to RMP mandate that certain facilities consider safer chemicals or processes in hazard assessments; require third party audits after a reportable release to reduce risk of future accidents; and aim to improve coordination between facilities and local emergency planners.
Advocates and industry filed competing comments on the proposed rule this spring. Environmentalists and labor groups pressed EPA to go further to prevent accidents through greater requirements for IST. Industry said new requirements for hazard analysis and third-party audits could open the door for government to second-guess facilities' processes, and raise implementation and cost concerns.
Groups ranging from the American Chemistry Council to the American Water Works Association have also urged OMB to block an EPA Information Collection Request (ICR) supporting the rule, arguing the agency has failed to adequately justify the ICR and underestimates its burden on facilities.
OMB Meetings
In their recent meetings with OMB, advocacy groups, including Greenpeace, Earthjustice, the BlueGreen Alliance, and the Union of Concerned Scientists call EPA's failure in the proposed rule to require that facilities use IST “a major disappointment.” They urge OMB, to at least, dramatically expand the number of facilities required to assess whether safer alternatives would improve safety.
EPA's proposal requires that certain facilities, including chemical and petroleum manufacturing facilities, conduct a safer technology and alternatives analysis (STAA). In meetings, advocates are urging OMB to expand the STAA requirement, arguing that federal estimates show expanding the requirement to cover five times as many facilities would only double the cost, according to a fact sheet provided to federal officials.
“Our argument to OMB is from a cost effectiveness” standpoint, a source familiar with the meetings says. “For an extra $35 million [annually] you will be encompassing a much larger sphere of potentially dangerous facilities.”
Advocates are asking OMB to expand the STAA requirement from covering 1,544 facilities to more than 10,000 facilities. Citing EPA estimates, they say the expansion would increase the annual cost from roughly $35 million to $70 million.
Advocates also are continuing their calls for EPA to require facilities to implement IST where feasible. While advocates in July 2012 petitioned EPA to broadly require RMP facilities to implement IST, they are now reiterating a narrower request first raised in an October 2015 letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy after advocates suspected their calls for a broader requirement would not succeed.
The groups are asking for an EPA pilot project that would require IST at certain high-risk facilities, suggesting sectors such as drinking and wastewater treatment, since some facilities in those sectors have already switched to safer chemicals.
According to the fact sheet, advocates are also urging OMB to include in the RMP rule requirements for companies to submit STAA documents to EPA for release to the public, and to ensure that workers and communities near facilities have access to data on safer alternatives generated through STAAs.
Advocates noted that an IST requirement was first floated during the Republican administration of George W. Bush when Christie Todd Whitman was head of EPA. That proposal, considered in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, was later scuttled at OMB, the source says.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/facing-cra-threat-advocates-press-omb-strengthen-final-rmp-rule
-
NJ Transit Racing to Install Rail Safety System by End of 2018
Nov 11, 2016 | NJ.com
By Larry Higgs
NJ Transit is racing to install thousands of pieces of equipment along hundreds of miles of track — and in more than 400 trains — in a $275 million effort to have Positive Train Control running by federally mandated deadline of Dec. 2018.
Officials provided some details on Wednesday that were demanded by Transportation Commissioner Richard Hammer last month. PTC got added attention after a fatal Sept. 29 crash of a commuter train in Hoboken Terminal.
The update presented a picture of the daunting task ahead of the agency. PTC uses computers and radios to communicate between trains and signals to determine if the engineer is obeying speed limits and signals. If the engineer fails to obey them, PTC slows or stop the train.
One detail was missing, a step-by-step timetable of how NJ Transit will meet the Dec. 2018 deadline, transit advocates said.
"I was disappointed. It's impossible to tell from looking at this presentation where they are on the schedule," said Joe Clift, a transit advocate and former Long Island Rail Road planning director. "The question is, if you have a deadline, what is the critical path (to get there)?"
The presentation gave a March 2017 date for the expected arrival of two PTC simulators for employee training and accelerated installation of PTC equipment in rail vehicles to start.
The project was held up by a technical problem with radios for PTC, which required the manufacturer to issue a recall after testing, said Charles Dickerson, NJ Transit chief of construction and project management.
That caused a "critical" delay in implementing the PTC speed control system and required new radios, he said in the presentation.
Towers and radios have been installed on a six-mile section of test track on the Morris & Essex Lines and 90 percent of the track side equipment has been installed, he said. Testing will begin in April.
Overall installation of equipment that transmits information from signals is 50 percent complete on seven rail lines and 90 percent complete on four other of NJ Transit's 11 rail lines.
Of 10 types of rail cars and locomotives in NJ Transit's fleet, designs are complete for on-board PTC equipment for four, and two are being tested, Dickerson said.
"We're working hand in hand with the FRA to get it done," said Steven Santoro, NJ Transit executive director.
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/11/nj_transit_racing_to_install_rail_safety_system_by_end_of_2018.html
-
EPA Posts Attainment Recommendations for Ozone Standard
Nov 10, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA has posted almost all state and tribal attainment recommendations for the 2015 ozone standard online, offering a varied picture of the potential impact of the more stringent 70-parts-per-billion benchmark put in place last fall.
California, for example, is proposing to designate all or parts of more than 35 counties in nonattainment with the 2015 standard, according to the recommendations sent early last month to EPA. That represents a slight increase over the 34 California counties currently listed in nonattainment with the previous 75 ppb ozone standard set in 2008.
Similarly, EPA lists all or parts of nine Colorado counties as failing to meet the 2008 benchmark; the state's recommendations for nonattainment with the 2015 standard appear to cover a largely identical area. But Michigan, which is fully in compliance with the 2008 benchmark, is proposing to list 10 counties — the bulk of them in the Detroit metro area — as in nonattainment with the 2015 threshold.
The collected recommendations, which EPA posted late yesterday, cover all states' proposed designations except that of Maryland, which the website says is "coming soon." EPA officials, who released proposed implementation regulations for the 2015 standard last week, tentatively plan to make the final attainment designations next fall (E&ENews PM, Nov. 2).
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/11/10/stories/1060045594
-
Coming Soon to EPA: A Trump Transition Team
Nov 11, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency should expect to have a few visitors arriving soon: a small “landing team” that will start work on the transition of power from President Barack Obama to President-elect Donald Trump.
During the campaign, Trump repeatedly pledged to do away with “needless and job-killing” regulations as part of his economic plan, specifically highlighting major Obama-era environmental rules like the Clean Power Plan and the Clean Water Rule. He also pledged to conduct a “targeted review” to identify regulations that inhibit job growth.
The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment on when the EPA transition team would arrive and what its role would be.
However, David Eagles, director of the Partnership for Public Service's Center for Presidential Transition, told Bloomberg BNA in an interview conducted prior to Election Day that an agency-specific transition team should be dispatched to the EPA “a few days after the election” to begin its work. The Center for Presidential Transition offered assistance to both the Trump and Clinton campaigns in advance of the election to help them prepare for an orderly transition process.
Transition Being Closely Watched
While Trump was critical of the Obama administration's Climate Action Plan and pledged to lift restrictions on domestic energy production on the campaign trail, he generally offered few specifics on his plans for the EPA beyond that. Trump tapped Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, to lead the EPA transition.
Political observers will be watching the Trump transition closely to gain more insight on his administration's plans once in office, according to Chris Vieson, a partner at Public Strategies Washington Inc. and former Director of Floor Operations for former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.).
Vieson told Bloomberg BNA Nov. 9 that Trump's policies are still a “wild card” and no one knows quite what to expect.
Focus on What's Ahead
In past transitions, agency-specific teams have been deployed to review government operations and make recommendations for how to best implement the president-elect's policy goals once he took office.
Eagles said the EPA should expect to see a landing team of 12 to 15 people, similar to the number dispatched by Obama in 2008.
In 2008, the goals of that EPA transition team were to review major actions taken under President George W. Bush, examine the agency's budget and learn about all of the rulemaking, guidance and other actions in the regulatory pipeline, according to one source who worked on the Obama transition. The source, interviewed before the election, told Bloomberg BNA that while each transition is “a little bit different,” one of the main goals of Obama's agency transition teams was to be prepared for the things that would have to be dealt with soon after the inauguration.
“We wanted to know exactly what was coming down the pike,” the source told Bloomberg BNA.
During the last transition, each member of the EPA landing team was responsible for reviewing a different aspect of the agency, and each developed a memo describing what they had learned and offered their ideas, according to the Obama transition official. The transition team was able to conduct interviews with outgoing and career staff at the agency and obtain agency documents to help facilitate the review.
Administration Prepared to Brief Trump Teams
The Obama administration is prepared to brief the Trump transition team with “detailed, agency-specific briefings,” according to a fact sheet issued Nov. 10 by the White House.
“Those briefings include organizational charts, budget materials, briefings on key agency priorities and areas of responsibility, and other materials describing the essential functions of that agency,” the White House said. “In addition to the initial briefings, designated employees across the administration will work closely with their agency review teams in order to facilitate open communication between the outgoing and incoming administrations.”
Trump's EPA transition team will likely receive “massive briefing books” on each of the agency's programs, including air pollution, water, waste and pesticides, according to Jim Aidala, a senior government affairs consultant with Bergeson & Campbell P.C. in Washington D.C. Aidala, who worked at the EPA from 1993 through 2001, including a stint as assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, told Bloomberg BNA in an interview conducted before the election that those briefing books will need to include updates on pending litigation and decisions that need to be made early in the administration.
Aidala highlighted a number of pending decisions that need to be made under the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (Pub. L. No. 114-182) that was signed into law in 2016. For the new chemicals law, the incoming EPA team will need to be briefed on necessary implementation activities, including prioritization of chemicals for review and new hiring to expand the agency's chemicals program, Aidala said.
Career Staff Cooperation Expected
Aidala, in a follow-up interview conducted Nov. 9, said that there may be some “initial skepticism” between some at the EPA and the Trump transition team. During the primaries, Trump said he'd like to eliminate the agency, but later backed off on that promise and said he planned to refocus the EPA on its “core mission” of focusing on clean air and safe drinking water.
However, Aidala noted many of the mid-level and senior career staff at the EPA have been at the agency long enough that they've seen administrations of both political parties come and go.
“Career staff across the government are professionals,” he said. “There is a general duty to tell the leadership what is important and what is not.”
Eight years ago, the Obama transition teams generally found the outgoing administration to be “quite helpful” and “very professional,” according to the Obama transition source.
“Generally they were very forthcoming and they made it clear to people within the agency that they were expected to cooperate,” the source said. “I think the career staff over at the EPA welcomed the opportunity to talk to the transition team....I didn't see the political management of the agency interfering with that.”
—With assistance from Rachel Leven
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100227446&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100227446&jd=100227446
-
Trump Likely to Try to Reverse Obama Environment Initiatives
Nov 11, 2016 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Jason Dearen
President-elect Donald Trump has not minced words about his approach to environment and energy policy: He loathes regulation and wants to increase the use of coal, offshore drilling and fracking.
Trump has said he believes climate change is a hoax and that he would “cancel” U.S. involvement in the landmark Paris Agreement on global warming.
While he’s been vague about precise policies, Trump’s election likely means trouble for some of President Barack Obama’s signature environmental initiatives, environmentalists and policy analysts say.
They say it’s probable that Trump’s administration will seek to weaken or kill the Clean Power Plan, a cornerstone Obama policy meant to reduce carbon pollution from the nation’s power plants as part of an effort to combat climate change.
The Clean Power Plan is being challenged in federal court, and if it survives, Trump could move to scuttle it. But not without a fight.
“We don’t consider the CPP dead. We have many tools to help preserve it,” said David Goldston, director of government affairs for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “He can’t just snap his fingers and wish away regulations. There’d be a backlash, which would make Congress think twice.”
Any move to back out of the Clean Power Plan or the Paris Agreement could be extremely unpopular moves, environmentalists argue. Polls have shown a majority of voters in at least two states believe global warming is a serious problem.
An exit poll conducted for The Associated Press and television networks found that about half of Trump voters in Florida, a state he carried, agreed that climate change was a serious problem. In Maine, just over half of Trump supporters also agreed, while about four in 10 disagreed.
Trump also has vowed to tap into America’s coal reserves in an effort to put the shrinking energy sector back to work. In a speech in the Bakken shale fields of North Dakota, he also said he would increase hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in the nation’s shale and natural gas reserves to further remove any dependence on foreign energy sources.
Industry advocates are buoyed by the possibilities presented by Trump’s win.
“We look forward to working with the new administration” on issues such as opening more public land and offshore areas to oil and gas drilling, building more energy infrastructure and reducing environmental regulations, American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard said Thursday. He would not say whether he supported a U.S. withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement.
Likewise, the coal industry believes Trump “understands the urgent need to rein in the Washington bureaucracy and sweeping, excessive regulations” to protect coal jobs in an industry where sharply falling demand for coal has led to permanent plant closures, the American Coal Council said.
“The coal sector has been devastated by lower demand and job loss in recent years due to the mounting impact of regulations pointed squarely at our industry,” American Coal Council CEO Betsy Monseu said.
Some question whether it would make economic sense for the U.S. to attempt to increase the use of coal, a fuel being phased out of the energy picture due to its pollution and falling prices of renewables such as solar and wind.
“Coal is not coming back,” said Michael Brune, Sierra Club executive director. “Ask investors on Wall Street, or regulators at the state and local level who are choosing solar and wind because of basic economics.”
As for offshore drilling, Trump could target the Atlantic and Arctic: two areas the Obama administration had made off-limits for oil leases in the immediate future. While the Obama administration has moved to restrict drilling in waters off the Eastern Seaboard and Alaska, Trump has been vague on whether he would support reopening these areas to drilling, saying he backs it when it “can be done responsibly.”
Environmentalists said Wednesday they hope Trump concludes opening the Atlantic and Arctic to offshore drilling is a bad business decision.
“In the Atlantic, we hope he will recognize the strong opposition from the business community, which has mounted a concerted campaign to protect its fishing and tourism industries against the interest of the oil industry,” said Jacqueline Savitz of Oceana, a group opposed to offshore drilling. “In the Arctic, it’s impossible to respond to an oil spill, with extreme cold, floating ice, darkness much of the year and no response facilities.”
Concerns over the incoming administration’s environmental approach were not confined to policy.
Some climate scientists expressed concern that the Trump administration could reduce government’s efforts to study climate change. For example, some Republicans have long wanted to stop NASA’s role in studying earth science and climate change — a key contribution to scientific understanding of the issue that helps drive policy decisions.
Waleed Abdalati, a former NASA chief scientist, said in an email that the agency’s contributions are extremely important to the nation’s success.
“Part of this investment includes trying to better understand how and why our environment is changing and the implications for the American people, as well as people all over the world,” Abdalati wrote. “No one can argue that there is tremendous value in knowing what tomorrow will bring.”
Associated Press writers Seth Borenstein in Oklahoma City and Tammy Webber in Chicago contributed to this report.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/trump-likely-to-try-to-reverse-obama-environment-initiatives/2016/11/11/e30be266-a7f1-11e6-ba46-53db57f0e351_story.html
-
Donald Trump Could Put Climate Change on Course for ‘Danger Zone’
Nov 10, 2016 | New York Times
By Coral Davenport
For a look at how sharply policy in Washington will change under the administration of Donald J. Trump, look no further than the environment.
Mr. Trump has called human-caused climate change a “hoax.” He has vowed to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency “in almost every form.”
And in an early salvo against one of President Obama’s signature issues, Mr. Trump has named Myron Ebell of the business-backed Competitive Enterprise Institute to head his E.P.A. transition team. Mr. Ebell has asserted that whatever warming caused by greenhouse gas pollution is modest and could be beneficial. A 2007 Vanity Fair profile of Mr. Ebell called him an “oil industry mouthpiece.”
Global warming may indeed be the sharpest example of how policy in Washington will change under a Trump administration. President Obama has said his efforts to establish the United States as the global leader in climate policy are his proudest legacy. Continue reading the main story Related Coverage For Donald Trump, the Transition After the Triumph NOV. 9, 2016 Transcript: Donald Trump’s Victory Speech NOV. 9, 2016 Recent Comments David 30 minutes ago
Sad to say when things go really bad in about 30 years or possibly a bit sooner those who had the power to take steps to ameliorate the... Jim Dickinson 30 minutes ago
Looking on the bright side, this takes the suspense out of whether catastrophic climate change will occur or not.As much as people deride... Frans Verhagen 30 minutes ago
Resistance and boldness are needed in these climate-constrained times where the Trump Administration has almost unlimited power to take the... See All Comments Write a comment
But if Mr. Trump makes good on his campaign promises, experts in climate change policy warn, that legacy would unravel quickly. The world, then, may have no way to avoid the most devastating consequences of global warming, including rising sea levels, extreme droughts and food shortages, and more powerful floods and storms.
Mr. Trump has already vowed to “cancel” last year’s Paris climate agreement, which commits more than 190 countries to reduce their emissions of planet-warming carbon dioxide pollution, and to dismantle the Clean Power Plan, Mr. Obama’s domestic climate change regulations.
“If Trump steps back from that, it makes it much less likely that the world will ever meet that target, and essentially ensures we will head into the danger zone,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University and a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which produces global reports on the state of climate science.
Mr. Trump cannot legally block other countries from fulfilling their Paris agreement commitments, nor can he quickly or unilaterally erase Mr. Obama’s climate rules.
But he can, as president, choose not to carry out the Paris plan in the United States. And he could so substantially slow or weaken the enforcement of Mr. Obama’s rules that they would have little impact on reducing emissions in the United States, at least during Mr. Trump’s term.
That could doom the Paris agreement’s goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions enough to stave off an atmospheric warming of at least 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, the point at which, many scientists say, the planet will be locked into an irreversible future of extreme and dangerous warming.
Without the full participation of the United States, the world’s second-largest greenhouse gas polluter, after China, that goal is probably unattainable, even if every other country follows through on its pledges.
And, the experts say, without the participation of the United States, other governments are less likely to carry out their pledged emissions cuts.
“That target is already extremely difficult to achieve, but it could be done with very hard, very diligent work by every single country,” Mr. Oppenheimer said.
The election of Mr. Trump is likely to cast a pall over Marrakesh, Morocco, where global negotiators have gathered for a 12-day conference to hash out the next steps for the Paris accord: how to verify commitments are being met, and how to pay for enforcement by poor countries that cannot afford the technology or energy disruptions.
Traveling in New Zealand, Secretary of State John Kerry was asked if he still planned to attend the conference, given the results of the election.
“I’m absolutely going to Marrakesh, perhaps even more important,” he said. “And I look forward to being there very, very much.”
Pessimism appears to be warranted. Mr. Oppenheimer and other climate policy experts said all major emitters needed to take action in the near term to stave off the 3.6-degree increase.
Scientific reports released over the last two years have concluded that the measurable warming of the planet because of human activities has already begun. This year is on track to be the hottest on record, blasting past the previous records set in 2015 and 2014.
An analysis by Climate Interactive, a scientific think tank that provides data used by many governments, concluded that the policies by the United States would account for about 20 percent of the expected greenhouse gas reductions under the Paris plan from 2016 to 2030. But absent the expected policy actions in the United States under the Trump administration, scientists at Climate Interactive said, the math of emissions reductions will be much more difficult to maintain.
“Pessimists will find abundant support for despair this morning,” John Sterman, a professor of system dynamics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote in a Climate Interactive analysis on Wednesday morning.
“With Mr. Trump in the Oval Office and Republican majorities in both houses,” Mr. Sterman wrote, “there is little hope that the Clean Power Plan will survive in the Supreme Court or for federal action to meet the U.S. commitment under the Paris accord. Worse, other key emitter nations — especially India — now have little reason to follow through on their Paris pledges: If the U.S. won’t, why should developing nations cut their emissions?”
The Clean Power Plan is the ambitious centerpiece of Mr. Obama’s climate change legacy and the key to his commitment under the Paris accord. At its heart is a set of Environmental Protection Agency regulations intended to curb planet-warming pollution from coal-fired power plants. If enacted, the rules could transform the American electricity sector, close hundreds of coal-fired plants and usher in the construction of vast new wind and solar farms. The plan is projected to cut United States power plant emissions 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.
But the program is currently under litigation by 28 states and more than 100 companies, and it is expected to go before the Supreme Court as early as next year.
Mr. Trump and other Republicans have attacked the Clean Power Plan as a “war on coal.” As president, Mr. Trump would not have the legal authority to unilaterally undo the regulations, which were put forth by the E.P.A. under a provision of the 1970 Clean Air Act.
However, Mr. Trump could target the rules by appointing an industry-friendly justice to the Supreme Court and then refusing to defend the plan when it goes before the court.
He could also direct the E.P.A. to reissue the plan to be extremely friendly to industry. Such a move would also be subject to lawsuits by environmental advocates, which would further drag out the process. And in concert with congressional Republicans, he could decimate the E.P.A.’s budget, crippling its rule-making capacity.
“They may still have to have a regulation, but they don’t have to do it the way the Obama administration did it,” said Jeff Holmstead, a former E.P.A. official in the George W. Bush administration. “And in the meantime, those suits often go on for years and years.”
Even if Mr. Trump ultimately fails to gut Mr. Obama’s climate change rules, he could ensure that their enforcement is delayed through his term, as lawsuits wind their way through the courts.
Mr. Trump would face difficulties in his plans to eliminate the E.P.A., although it is likely he could substantively reduce its size. He would need approval from Congress to completely erase the agency, said Jody Freeman, a professor of environmental law at Harvard University and a former counselor to Mr. Obama.
Ms. Freeman noted that several major environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, specifically call for rules to be enacted and overseen by the E.P.A. Changing those decades-old rules would also require action from Congress, and Senate Democrats would certainly block such efforts — unless Senate Republican leaders opt to scuttle what is left of filibuster rules already weakened by Democrats.
In China, the world’s largest greenhouse gas polluter, climate change officials said they intended to continue with plans to cut carbon emissions regardless of Mr. Trump’s plans. The Chinese president, Xi Jinping, has vowed under the Paris agreement that Chinese emissions will drop after 2030, and that China will put in place a national system next year to force companies to pay a fee for their carbon pollution.
“China’s attitude toward low-carbon development, as President Xi Jinping has said when he met with Secretary of State Kerry earlier, is that tackling climate change is not something anybody asks us to do,” Chai Qimin, a Chinese negotiator, said in an emailed response from the Marrakesh talks. “It’s what we want to do.”
But in India, the world’s third-largest greenhouse gas polluter, the election of Mr. Trump has raised doubts about a willingness to move forward. Under the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton, then secretary of state, pledged that rich countries would mobilize $100 billion annually by 2020 to help poor countries make the transition to cleaner forms of energy. Indian officials have made clear that their steps to cut emissions will depend on financial aid from rich countries, but Mr. Trump has also vowed to cut all “global warming payments.”
“I think most certainly it will affect the momentum in negotiations because it throws up a lot of questions,” said Arunabha Ghosh, chief executive of the Council on Energy, Environment and Water, a New Delhi policy group.
“The chances of public funds coming from climate finance are much more dismal now,” he said. “Right now I don’t feel very optimistic.”
Correction: November 10, 2016
Because of an editing error, a previous version of this story misspelled in one instance the surname of the man leading Donald J. Trump’s transition team for the Environmental Protection Agency. He is Myron Ebell, not Ebel.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/us/politics/donald-trump-climate-change.html?_r=0
-
Al Gore Offers to Work with Trump on Climate Change. Good Luck with That.
Nov 10, 2016 | Washington Post
By Brady Dennis
Former vice president and longtime environmental activist Al Gore campaigned hard against Donald Trump, saying his election “would take us toward a climate catastrophe.”
But now that Trump will soon be occupying the Oval Office, Gore is extending an olive branch, saying in an online posting this week that he will do everything he can to work with the incoming administration to ensure that the United States remains a leader in combating the harmful effects of global warming.
“President-elect Trump said he wanted to be a president for all Americans,” Gore wrote on the website of the Climate Reality Project, the advocacy group he founded with a mission of helping accelerate the shift from dirty fossil fuels to renewable energy. “In that spirit, I hope that he will work with the overwhelming majority of us who believe that the climate crisis is the greatest threat we face as a nation.”
Gore is not naive, of course. His note was like others this week, wishing the new president well and offering to work alongside a Trump administration in the months ahead. But he must realize that Trump isn’t likely to call soon for advice on climate policy.
For starters, Trump is a climate skeptic, who has called the notion of global warming a hoax.
In addition, the “energy independence” section of Trump’s transition website includes ideas that no doubt make Gore and the environmental-advocacy community cringe.
“Rather than continuing the current path to undermine and block America’s fossil fuel producers, the Trump Administration will encourage the production of these resources by opening onshore and offshore leasing on federal lands and waters,” the site states. “We will streamline the permitting process for all energy projects, including the billions of dollars in projects held up by President Obama, and rescind the job-destroying executive actions under his Administration. We will end the war on coal, and rescind the coal mining lease moratorium, the excessive Interior Department stream rule, and conduct a top-down review of all anti-coal regulations issued by the Obama Administration.”
Trump also has vowed to scrap President Obama’s Climate Action Plan, which outlines actions to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and increase energy efficiency around the country. He has promised to “cancel” U.S. participation in the landmark Paris climate agreement, a move scientists and activists say could undermine international efforts to slow global warming. And he wants to gut the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, the key regulatory attempt to slash carbon emissions domestically and speed up the move toward cleaner sources of energy.
The transition site does say that Trump is “firmly committed to conserving our wonderful natural resources and beautiful natural habitats.” But there are no specifics on what that might mean, other than “America’s environmental agenda will be guided by true specialists in conservation, not those with radical political agendas.”
Last month, in a Miami rally with Hillary Clinton, Gore implored voters to consider the candidates’ vastly different approaches to climate change, which he called a top national and global priority.
“The world is on the cusp of either building on the progress and solving the climate crisis, or stepping back, washing our hands of America’s traditional role as the leader of the world and letting the big polluters call the shots,” Gore said then. “The choice is that clear. It’s that stark. The consequences for not just our children and grandchildren and future generations, but for all of us, are really quite significant. . . . We must have a president who gets it, who cares about it, who’s internalized it, who’s passionate about it.”
Gore alluded to his razor-thin loss in Florida 16 years earlier and warned those concerned about climate change not to be complacent.
“Elections have consequences,” he said. “Please take it from me: Every single vote counts.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/10/al-gore-offers-to-work-with-trump-on-climate-change-good-luck-with-that/
-
Regional Actions Seen as Bright Spot at Marrakech Climate Talks
Nov 11, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Eric J. Lyman
Local and regional government initiatives emerged Nov. 10 as bright spots at the Marrakech Climate Change Conference, which has been dominated by worries about the future U.S. role in global efforts to curb carbon emissions after Donald Trump's presidential election victory.
“Climate action in and by cities, towns and regions will be instrumental in ensuring that we stay on a 2C pathway, aiming for 1.5C,” said Gino Van Begin, secretary-general of the group Local Governments for Sustainability.
The temperature reference is related to the goal in last year's Paris Agreement of limiting global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above historic averages. The world's first worldwide climate pact also included a vow to “pursue efforts” for a more ambitious 1.5-degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) limit.
Nov. 10 was “Cities and Human Settlements” day at the talks, casting a light on a variety of initiatives, including an announcement from the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy promising to develop a platform to self monitor climate commitments at the municipal level, and the conclusion of a special dialogue on developing long-term revenue streams for “Financing for Urban Resilience” initiatives.
All told, the initiatives involved more than 1,500 towns, cities and regional governments.
New Projections
On the sidelines of the talks, Climate Action Tracker Nov. 10 released new data showing that even if all countries fulfilled their Paris Agreement pledges, global warming would still rise 2.8 degrees Celsius (5.1 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels.
“Current pledges to reduce emissions are far too small to keep warming within the 2-degree limit,” said Teresa Anderson, a policy officer for development agency ActionAid International. “But we haven't seen progress so far in determining how we are going to reduce emissions beyond their current levels.”
The Nov. 8 election in the U.S. of Trump, who has been a vocal skeptic of climate change, continued to reverberate in Marrakech.
Trump Talk
Much of the speculation since Trump's victory has been about how he might direct the U.S. to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, a process that according to its rules would take four years—a three-year wait before applying to withdraw, and then one year before the withdrawal takes effect.
But another scenario was being discussed: Under Trump, the U.S. could withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change altogether, a step that would take only one year and would carry with it a de facto withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.
The main consequences of that move, according to a United Nations legal expert, would be that the U.S. would lose its seat at the negotiating table at future climate change talks.
“Of course, everyone prefers the U.S. remain involved,” the source said, asking not to be further identified. “But if they left, it would not be a surprise if future treaties included, possibly, rules that would make it more complicated or costly to trade with nations outside the framework.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100227458&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100227458&jd=100227458
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested