Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 12/01/2016
-
(ACC Mentioend) International Chemical Industry Condemns The Use Of Chlorine As A Weapon
Dec 1, 2016 | Homeland Preparedness News
The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC), along with 40 international and national scientific societies from Africa, Europe, the Middle East and North America, recently condemned the use of chlorine as a weapon. -
(ACC Mentioned) Global Chemical Production Soft At Start Of 4th Quarter, ACC Says
Nov 30, 2016 | ChemEngOnline
By Scott Jenkins
The American Chemistry Council’s (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com) Global Chemical Production Regional Index (Global CPRI) shows that the fourth quarter started on a soft note, with the index for October showing no gain or loss on a three-month moving average (3MMA) basis -
(ACC Mentioned) Transition: Senators Urge Trump To Fully Implement Revised TSCA
Nov 30, 2016 | Inside EPA
A bipartisan group of senators is urging President-elect Donald Trump to fully implement the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) enacted by President Obama earlier this year, echoing calls from industry and others who fear that Trump's criticism of EPA could stymie new rules to implement the reformed law. -
Bipartisan Senators Press Trump Team On TSCA Implementation
Dec 1, 2016 | E&E Daily News
By Manuel Quiñones
A bipartisan group of senators is urging the Trump transition team to work with U.S. EPA on plans to implement the recent overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act. -
Groans Heard About Pace EPA's New Chemical Reviews
Dec 1, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency's new chemicals program has been turned on its head and is jeopardizing innovation, according to diverse industry voices. -
Trump Views on Chemicals Law Not Yet Known: Policy Watchers
Dec 1, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump has yet to weigh in on how it will implement the amended Toxic Substances Control Act, attorneys and other chemical policy watchers told Bloomberg BNA. -
Here we Go: The First 10 Chemicals The EPA Will Target Under Lautenberg
Nov 30, 2016 | Chem.Info
By Meagan Parrish
The Environmental Protection Agency has released a list of the first 10 chemicals the agency will evaluate under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety For The 21st Century Act. -
CPSC Asked To Avoid Controversial Regulations During US Presidential Transition
Dec 1, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
Two lawmakers have called on the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to avoid complex, partisan or otherwise controversial regulatory actions during the presidential transition period. -
Scientists Push Policy Considerations Under Trump Administration
Dec 1, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
More than 2,300 scientists, including 22 Nobel Prize recipients, have released an open letter urging the incoming Trump administration and the 115th Congress to use sound science to inform federal policies. -
'I Believe We Are Going To Get A Deal' — Murkowski
Dec 1, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Geof Koss and Tiffany Stecker
After meeting with Energy and Natural Resources Committee ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) for more than an hour yesterday, Senate Energy Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) told reporters that she's still confident that the conference process will yield a final energy bill that can be signed into law this year. -
Energy Bill Deal Still Elusive As Negotiators Pledge To Keep Talking
Dec 1, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Nick Juliano
Lawmakers still haven't reached a deal to advance an energy bill before Congress adjourns next week, but key negotiators emerged from an hour-long meeting Wednesday saying they would keep at it. -
Energy Bill Conference Lags; LNG Exports Excluded
Nov 30, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jeremiah Shelor
Language to speed up approval of liquefied natural gas (LNG) export projects could get left behind as lawmakers in the Senate and House conference try to rescue an energy reform bill before time runs out, a congressional staffer said Tuesday in Washington, DC. -
Pipeline Fight Creates Partisan Divide In Senate
Dec 1, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Hannah Northey
A standoff over the $3.78 billion Dakota Access oil pipeline triggered a partisan spat hundreds of miles away in the Senate yesterday, with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle looking to the White House for answers. -
‘Pipeline Purgatory’ the Goal as U.S. Activists Take Fight Local
Dec 1, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Meenal Vamburkar and Jennifer A. Dlouhy
For fossil-fuel foes fighting a new generation of U.S. pipelines, Donald Trump's election as president may be somewhat beside the point. -
Finding That Wells Not Contaminated by Fracking Gets Hearing
Dec 1, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
A groundwater investigation that said hydraulic fracturing was unlikely to be the cause of contamination near Pavillion, Wyo., will be the subject of a public hearing held by state officials on Dec. 8. -
Cheap, Clean And Easily Accessible? An Energy Resource Any U.S. President Could Love
Nov 30, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By James L. Sweeney,
Energy efficiency, though not the most exciting topic in these political times, has been and will continue to be fundamental to three things President-elect Donald Trump has promised to improve – economic growth, trade deficits, and national security – and one thing about which he promised to keep an open mind – climate change. -
Walden Favored To Be Next Energy And Commerce Chairman
Dec 1, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By George Cahlink
Oregon Republican Greg Walden is the front-runner to win the backing of House GOP colleagues to head the Energy and Commerce Committee in the next Congress. -
House Passes RESPONSE Act to Enhance Hazmat Training for Emergency Responders
Nov 30, 2016 | American Journal of Transportation
Washington, DC - The House of Representatives today approved the RESPONSE Act of 2016 (S. 546), a bill to enhance emergency responder training for incidents involving hazardous materials rail transportation. -
Majority Of States Comply With SSM 'SIP Call' But Handful Might Buck EPA
Nov 30, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
A majority of states subject to an EPA rule forcing them them to scrap language in their Clean Air Act compliance plans that exempts some facility emissions from federal air pollution limits are complying with the regulation, sources say, though a handful of states appear to be trying to buck EPA by crafting alternative air law waivers. -
Obama Admin Leaving HFC Deal To Trump White House
Dec 1, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Hannah Hess
It will be up to President-elect Donald Trump's administration to determine what to do with international efforts to curtail use of highly warming chemicals used in air conditioning and refrigeration.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioend) International Chemical Industry Condemns The Use Of Chlorine As A Weapon
Dec 1, 2016 | Homeland Preparedness News
The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC), along with 40 international and national scientific societies from Africa, Europe, the Middle East and North America, recently condemned the use of chlorine as a weapon.
The scientific societies, in letters to Ahmet Üzümcü, director of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), expressed concerns regarding recent reports about the use of chemicals, particularly chlorine, as weapons in Syria and other locations.
“We are writing to you on behalf of the U.S. chemistry enterprise to express concerns about recent reports from Aleppo about the use of chlorine compounds as chemical weapons,” the American Chemical Society and American Chemistry Council wrote in a joint letter.
“Our organizations deplore the use of chlorine in this manner. The indiscriminate attacks, possibly carried out by a member state of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), is of concern to chemical scientists and engineers around the globe and we stand ready to support your mission of implementing the CWC,” the letter said.
Üzümcü said, “This show of support reveals that the global norm against the use of chemical weapons remains firm.”
According to the Chemical Weapons Convention the use, stockpiling, distribution, development or storage of any chemical weapons is forbidden by any of the 192 state party signatories. To date, approximately 94 percent of all chemical weapons stockpiles declared by possessor states have been destroyed under OPCW verification.
The IUPAC is a world authority on chemical nomenclature and terminology and is a leader in the provision of objective scientific expertise for the resolution of issues that affect every aspect of chemistry. The organization’s membership comprises more than 50 national member countries, 31 associated organizations and 58 company associates.
https://homelandprepnews.com/biological-threats/bioterrorism/20344-international-chemical-industry-condemns-use-chlorine-weapon/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Global Chemical Production Soft At Start Of 4th Quarter, ACC Says
Nov 30, 2016 | ChemEngOnline
By Scott Jenkins
The American Chemistry Council’s (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com) Global Chemical Production Regional Index (Global CPRI) shows that the fourth quarter started on a soft note, with the index for October showing no gain or loss on a three-month moving average (3MMA) basis. This follows a slight decline in September and six months of relatively stable activity after fairly good gains last year. During October, chemical production increased in North America, Europe and Africa & the Middle East, but fell in the Asia-Pacific region The Global CPRI was up 0.8 percent year-over-year (Y/Y) on a 3MMA basis and stood at 108.0 percent of its average 2012 levels in September.
During October, capacity utilization in the global business of chemistry declined 0.1 percentage points to 78.4 percent. This is off from 80.5 percent last October and is below the long-term (1987-2015) average of 89.1 percent.
Results were mixed on a product basis during October, with gains in consumer products, inorganic chemicals, plastic resins, coatings, and other specialties. Considering year-over-year comparisons, growth was strongest in pharmaceuticals followed by plastic resins, coatings, and other specialty chemicals.
ACC’s Global CPRI measures the production volume of the business of chemistry for 33 key nations, sub-regions, and regions, all aggregated to the world total. The index is comparable to the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) production indices and features a similar base year where 2012=100. This index is developed from government industrial production indices for chemicals from over 65 nations accounting for about 98 percent of the total global business of chemistry. This data are the only timely source of market trends for the global chemical industry and are comparable to the US CPRI data, a timely source of U.S. regional chemical production.
http://www.chemengonline.com/global-chemical-production-soft-at-start-of-4th-quarter-acc-says/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Transition: Senators Urge Trump To Fully Implement Revised TSCA
Nov 30, 2016 | Inside EPA
A bipartisan group of senators is urging President-elect Donald Trump to fully implement the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) enacted by President Obama earlier this year, echoing calls from industry and others who fear that Trump's criticism of EPA could stymie new rules to implement the reformed law.
In a Nov. 30 letter to Vice President-elect Mike Pence – who chairs the transition team -- the senators noted the broad support for the legislation and urged the next president to continue EPA's early steps issuing rules to implement it.
They say they supported the TSCA overhaul “in order to help protect children and communities from dangerous chemicals” and “we are now looking to EPA to vigorously implement the new law.”
Full implementation “includes moving expeditiously to identify and address chemicals with the greatest potential impact on public health, especially those affecting vulnerable populations expressly required to be protected in the Act, including pregnant women, children, workers, and other at-risk communities,” they say.
“Successful implementation of this law will also help ensure there is certainty and restore confidence in the marketplace for manufacturers, consumer product producers, and the public,” the letter says.
The letter is signed by exiting Senate Environment & Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK), as well as fellow GOP Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (WV) and Mike Crapo (ID), and Democratic Sens. Tom Udall (NM) – a lead author of the Senate's version of TSCA reform – as well as Cory Booker (NJ), incoming EPW ranking member Tom Carper (DE), Edward Markey (MA), Jeff Merkley (OR) and Sheldon Whitehouse (RI).
The letter echoes calls from the chemical industry, which has also urged the incoming administration to craft rules to implement the law. “We look forward to working with the new administration as it carries forward the implementation of the [law] so EPA proceeds in a way that will promote safety and innovation,” the American Chemistry Council said in a Nov. 9 statement.
The senators say it is vital that Pence and the Presidential Transition Team Executive Committee work with agency officials to ensure the ongoing implementation of the updated law. They note that EPA has recently proposed a list of 10 chemicals for risk review as required by the law, and will continue that effort in 2017.
“We want to work with you next year to see this bipartisan law succeed. In order for that to happen, we urge that you begin working with the Agency to communicate on critical steps that are underway and to get a full appreciation of the new law’s deadlines. We urge that you view appointments, funding and staffing to this office with utmost importance. It is essential to maintain momentum during the Presidential transition and in the early months of the new Administration to ensure that this new law is successful,” the letter says.
Observers have said that the broad bipartisan backing for the revised TSCA mean the Trump EPA is likely to continue with its implementation despite the president-elect's criticism of EPA.
EPA officials and environmentalists have also noted that even if a Trump EPA tries to halt or delay implementation of the law, it includes a host of deadlines for issuing rulemakings on existing and future chemicals, and that supporters of the law could file suit to force the agency to comply with those deadlines.
http://insideepa.com/daily-feed/transition-senators-urge-trump-fully-implement-revised-tsca
-
Bipartisan Senators Press Trump Team On TSCA Implementation
Dec 1, 2016 | E&E Daily News
By Manuel Quiñones
A bipartisan group of senators is urging the Trump transition team to work with U.S. EPA on plans to implement the recent overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
The lawmakers — led by Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) — said they were concerned about continuity between administrations.
"We want to work with you next year to see this bipartisan law succeed," they wrote. "In order for that to happen, we urge that you begin working with the Agency to communicate on critical steps that are underway and to get a full appreciation of the new law's deadlines."
Just this week, EPA named the first 10 chemicals to be evaluated under the reformed TSCA (E&ENews PM, Nov. 29). It included the cancer-causing mineral asbestos.
"We urge that you view appointments, funding and staffing to this office with utmost importance," the senators wrote. "It is essential to maintain momentum during the Presidential transition and in the early months of the new Administration to ensure that this new law is successful."
Also on the letter were Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/12/01/stories/1060046465
-
Groans Heard About Pace EPA's New Chemical Reviews
Dec 1, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency's new chemicals program has been turned on its head and is jeopardizing innovation, according to diverse industry voices.
“In the few short months since enactment of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, the new chemicals program has ground to a virtual standstill,” the American Alliance for Innovation, a coalition of more than 200 trade associations, told EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy in a Nov. 29 letter.
Capitol Hill staff that negotiated the Lautenberg Act, which amended the 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act, shared more qualified comments with Bloomberg BNA.
The EPA's new chemicals program has slowed down because the agency is trying to understand how to apply the law's requirements, said Ben Dunham, who joined Holland & Knight LLP in May after serving for nearly five years as a senior adviser to the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), after whom the chemicals law is named.
The agency wants to be rock solid on the law and the science it uses to make decisions, Dunham told Bloomberg BNA. Having an early legal challenge that overturned an agency decision would undermine the agency's ability to increase its oversight of chemicals as the statute intended, he said.
Dimitri Karakitsos, who joined Holland & Knight in October after serving as the Republican primary staff author of the Lautenberg Act, said Democrats and Republicans reached a careful balance on new chemicals during legislative negotiations.
Give EPA the Benefit of Doubt
While many people felt the EPA's new chemicals program was working well, Democrats sought a more transparent, rigorous process, Karakitsos said.
The law clearly states the EPA is to make decisions within 90 days and that its procedures must not hurt innovation, he said.
“I've been giving EPA the benefit of the doubt. I believe the agency understands and is working towards a law that works,” Karakitsos said.
Mandates in the Lautenberg Act include requiring the EPA—prior to allowing a new chemical to enter commerce—to make a finding on whether it would pose an unreasonable risk to the environment or human health, including vulnerable populations. Under the original law, if the EPA took no action on a new chemical within 90 days, it could enter the market without restriction on its production or use.
The Lautenberg Act made extensive changes to the new chemicals section, Richard Denison, lead senior scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, told Bloomberg BNA Nov. 30.
If the EPA lacks sufficient information on a new chemical, it must issue an order prohibiting or limiting the chemical in order to mitigate any unreasonable risk, he said.
As it makes decisions, the EPA must consider and mitigate unreasonable risks of a new chemical under its “conditions of use,” a term that includes “reasonably foreseen” production, processing, distribution, use and disposal, as well as those intended by the company providing the new chemical notice to the EPA, he said.
Whenever the EPA imposes conditions on the manufacturer of a new chemical, it must consider whether to issue a significant new use rule, or SNUR, that would apply those conditions to other companies making the same chemical, Denison said.
The Lautenberg Act requires the EPA to either initiate the SNUR rulemaking or publish a statement explaining why it is not doing so. Under the old law taking such action was entirely discretionary, he said.
From day one, the EPA had to grapple with changes the amendments made to the new chemicals program, Denison said.
“It's hard on the agency, and it's hard on companies that are used to one system now having to deal with another,” he said.
More Change Than Needed?
The EPA appears to be making changes to the new chemicals program beyond what the law mandated, Charles Auer, former director of the EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, told Bloomberg BNA Nov. 21.
He described the Lautenberg Act's revisions to the program as modest.
Yet decisions made since the law went into effect in June suggest the EPA is making substantial changes to that program, said Auer, a senior regulatory and policy adviser for Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.
The EPA reviews about 1,000 new chemical notices annually, according to information the agency posted in August.
Historically, 10 to 13 percent of the new chemicals the EPA would review annually were managed through TSCA Section 5(e) orders, significant new use regulations or both, said Auer, who worked in the EPA's chemicals office for 32 years. Another approximately 7 percent got withdrawn, Auer said.
Based on questions and discussions chemical manufacturers have had with the agency since the Lautenberg Act took effect, however, it appears the agency may regulate about 50 percent of the new chemicals presented for review, he said.
Some increased regulation of new chemicals was expected to result from the Lautenberg Act, but “considerably less” than that, Auer said.
Impact on Innovation, Confidence?
Traditionally, EPA's new chemicals program sought to encourage innovation by approving new compounds that made small incremental changes to chemical structure over those they'd replace, Auer said.
The new chemical might be made with less energy, be less toxic or have some other benefit, he said.
Requiring too much testing of a new chemical prior to its manufacture or requiring the new molecule to meet what appears to be a “no risk” standard could harm innovation, said Lynn Bergeson, managing partner of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.
In its Nov. 29 letter, the American Alliance for Innovation called for immediate improvements to the new chemicals program.
Very few decisions have been announced since the Lautenberg Act became law, the alliance wrote.
But companies have heard the agency is considering a “vast” number of Section 5(e) orders, which would mean “a more onerous and extensive regulatory burden for new chemistries,” it said. Section 5(e) orders set production, use or other limits on a new chemical.
Congress intended to support innovation in U.S. chemical manufacturing, processing and use, and the EPA should do that, it said.
No Deadlines Missed
Denison said “to the best of our understanding, EPA has not missed any deadlines.”
Instead, as per the process used under the original TSCA, chemical manufacturers can agree to suspend the 90-day review period the law gives the agency to make decisions on chemicals, he said. That allows the agency and companies to negotiate on what information the agency would seek or restrictions it could set.
“Final decisions cannot be made until such orders are completed and signed by both parties,” Denison said.
Congress and industry groups also wanted the Lautenberg Act to boost consumer confidence in the safety of chemicals.
While there are early, temporary pains caused by change, a different perspective would be that increasing the public's confidence in EPA's oversight by providing the agency data it needs for its analyses will serve companies and public health in the long run, he said.
“Our view is that true innovation includes innovation for safety,” Denison said.
A Dec. 14 meeting the EPA has scheduled to discuss its interpretation of the new chemicals section of the amended law changes should be helpful to all parties, he said.
The agency will accept written comments through Jan. 14, according to a Federal Register notice to be published Dec. 1.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=101172487&vname=dennotallissues&fn=101172487&jd=101172487
-
Trump Views on Chemicals Law Not Yet Known: Policy Watchers
Dec 1, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump has yet to weigh in on how it will implement the amended Toxic Substances Control Act, attorneys and other chemical policy watchers told Bloomberg BNA.
A bipartisan group of nine senators urged the Trump transition team Nov. 30 for “continuity and continued momentum” in implementing the amended law. The letter is signed by Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and others involved in crafting what they call “badly needed reforms” to the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act.
Revisions to the nation's chemical law enacted by a bipartisan group of lawmakers earlier this year were big news in the environmental policy arena but have not been addressed during this presidential transition period, they said.
“It's very hard to know what the thinking is other than on big issues,” such as energy and water, Jim Aidala, a senior government affairs consultant with the Washington, D.C., office of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. said.
“I think the new administration would want to shape [the chemicals] policy rather than kill it before it goes forward,” Dimitri Karakitsos, who, as counsel to the Republican-majority Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, played a central role in negotiating the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. No. 114-182). It amended the core provisions of TSCA for the first time in 40 years.
The Environmental Protection Agency's decisions on new chemicals may signal how the incoming Trump administration will interpret the Lautenberg Act, said Ben Dunham, a senior policy adviser with Holland & Knight.
Dunham said he hopes Trump's team will bring in someone very familiar with the new law as soon as possible.
“The last thing in the world anyone wants is to end up where we were with the old TSCA where the federal system falls apart,” he said.
Government-wide Policy Proposals
Depending on whether and how they are implemented, government-wide policies Trump has announced so far could harm the nascent law, said Aidala, who spent decades at the EPA dealing with chemicals and pesticides.
Specifically, he referred to the federal hiring freeze and plan to eliminate two regulations for every new one issued, which Trump announced in October. That could impede efforts to boost the EPA's oversight of chemicals, Aidala said.
Bryan McGannon, policy director for the American Sustainable Business Council, said such executive office policies, combined with House Speaker Paul Ryan's desire to couple tax cuts with deep spending cuts, could result in an underfunded, understaffed EPA.
The result could be the agency's chemical risk evaluations being driven by industry-generated analyses, McGannon said.
He referred, among other scenarios, to a provision of the Lautenberg Act that allows industry coalitions and other third parties to submit risk evaluations to the agency.
Aidala, Dunham, Karakitsos and McGannon were among the attorneys and other policy professionals Bloomberg BNA has interviewed since Nov. 8 to discuss how a Trump administration could implement the chemicals law.
Congress is Watching
Congress will be watching and wanting the EPA to carry out the law's requirements, said a number of chemical policy professionals Bloomberg BNA contacted.
“I expect the incoming administration to implement and enforce the law fully, and will be watching closely to ensure that it does,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) said by e-mail.
“This was an important piece of legislation to a lot of members of Congress,” said Karakitsos, who now works with the Washington, D.C., offices of Holland & Knight LLP.
Congress signaled its support by providing the agency $3 million for the statute's implementation in the continuing resolution for funding the government that President Barack Obama signed into law Sept. 29 (Pub. L. No. 114-223), he said.
Industry officials and some nongovernmental organizations also backed the law, Whitehouse and Karakitsos said.
Finally, EPA staff helped in developing the statute and thus have a good understanding of its requirements, Karakitsos said.
The EPA doesn't have to wait until its next administrator and assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention to be confirmed in order to continue implementing the law, he said.
Decisions the EPA will make on new chemicals may provide an early signal as to how the Trump administration will implement the Lautenberg Act, several individuals said.
Business as Usual?
While waiting for signals from the incoming administration, Aidala predicted there will be some business as usual (see related story).
New administrations generally want actions to “cease and desist” for at least six months, he said.
That could delay some of the statutorily mandated rules, Lynn Bergeson, managing partner at Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. said.
Following the initial suspension of action, Aidala said, a new administration typically announces it will pursue its policies in a way that's “cheaper, cleaner and smarter” than the previous administration did.
The incoming Trump administration may find it easier to move chemical policies forward quickly if the proposed rules the agency already has submitted to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review—and the additional ones it plans to submit—provide multiple regulatory options, Aidala and Auer said.
The EPA has said it will propose four rules under the new law by the end of this year. Two are already at OMB: one laying out procedures the EPA could use to decide which chemicals in commerce are a priority for risk evaluation and another describing the agency's risk evaluation procedures.
A proposal to determine which chemicals have been in commerce during the last 10 years and another laying out fees industry would pay for the EPA's chemicals oversight have yet to be submitted for review.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=101172479&vname=dennotallissues&fn=101172479&jd=101172479
-
Here we Go: The First 10 Chemicals The EPA Will Target Under Lautenberg
Nov 30, 2016 | Chem.Info
By Meagan Parrish
The Environmental Protection Agency has released a list of the first 10 chemicals the agency will evaluate under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety For The 21st Century Act.
The highly anticipated list includes asbestos, a substance advocates have been calling on the federal government to ban for decades.
Now, under Lautenberg, the agency will have three years to study the chemicals and determine if they present an “unreasonable risk to humans and the environment.” Then, the EPA will have two years to reduce that risk through new rules — and it may decide to ban the use of that substance all together.
Under the new rules, the EPA will also no longer be required to consider the business cost of how it regulates chemicals.
Here’s a complete list of the chemicals and their uses: 1,4-Dioxane — Dyes, varnishes, waxes and other products 1-Bromopropane — Vapor degreasing, aerosol adhesives, foam cushions, dry cleaning Asbestos — Insulation, brake pads, chlor-alkali industry Carbon tetrachloride — Spot removers and other industrial products Cyclic aliphatic bromide cluster — Flame retardant, textiles, electrical appliances Methylene chloride — Paint-removing products, spray paint, adhesives N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) — Cleaning agent, paint-removing products Pigment violet 29 — Automotive dyes, plastics Trichloroethylene (TCE) — Dry cleaning, commercial and industrial degreasers Tetrachloroethylene — Spot removers, dry cleaning, wood cleaners, shoe polish
Most of the chemicals on the list are suspected human carcinogens. Others were chosen by the EPA because of the potential environmental harm associated with the chemical’s presence in groundwater, air or soil.
Three of the chemicals — NMP, methylene chloride and TCE — have already been evaluated by the EPA and have restricted use rules that are pending review by the Office of Management and Budget.
The EPA said that when choosing its first 10 chemicals, it considered public, industrial and environmental concerns.
After the EPA finishes reviewing these chemicals, it will have to begin evaluating other. Under the Lautenberg laws, by the end of 2019, the agency will have to have at least 20 chemical risk evaluations going at any given time.
http://www.chem.info/news/2016/11/here-we-go-first-10-chemicals-epa-will-target-under-lautenberg
-
CPSC Asked To Avoid Controversial Regulations During US Presidential Transition
Dec 1, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
Two lawmakers have called on the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to avoid complex, partisan or otherwise controversial regulatory actions during the presidential transition period.
"Although the leadership of the CPSC will soon change, congressional oversight of the Commission will continue," wrote John Thune (R-South Dakota) and Fred Upton (R-Michigan) in a letter to CPSC Chairman Eliot Kaye.
"Therefore, any action taken by the CPSC before a new chairman is designated with receive enhanced scrutiny."
Mr Thune is chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, and Mr Upton is chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
While the government has not yet frozen the creation of new regulations, it is common practice for federal regulatory bodies to postpone or halt the introduction of new regulations during a change of administrations.
The CPSC recently sent its regulatory agenda for autumn 2016 to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In-progress regulations include:a petition for rulemaking for products containing organohalogen flame retardants;a proposed rule for the flammability standard for upholstered furniture; anda final rule on the use of phthalates in children’s toys and products.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51322/cpsc-asked-to-avoid-controversial-regulations-during-us-presidential-transition
-
Scientists Push Policy Considerations Under Trump Administration
Dec 1, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
More than 2,300 scientists, including 22 Nobel Prize recipients, have released an open letter urging the incoming Trump administration and the 115th Congress to use sound science to inform federal policies.
The letter from the Union of Concerned Scientists lays out the science community's expectations of the Trump administration. Signatories come from government agencies such as the EPA and major chemical manufacturers like Dow.
Chief among the concerns is ensuring the nation's bedrock public health and environmental laws keep a strong scientific foundation.
The letter lays out three further actions the Trump administration and Congress can do to ensure science is a cornerstone of federal decision making. Those are:providing scientists with adequate resources to conduct research in the public interest and effectively carry out agency missions;adhering to high standards of scientific integrity and independence in responding to current and emerging public health and environmental threats; andappointing Cabinet members with a strong history of supporting science.
"These steps are necessary to create a thriving scientific enterprise that will strengthen our democracy and bring the full fruits of science to all Americans and the world," the letter says.
"We will continue to champion efforts that strengthen the role of science in policy making and stand ready to hold accountable any who might seek to undermine it."
https://chemicalwatch.com/51323/scientists-push-policy-considerations-under-trump-administration
-
'I Believe We Are Going To Get A Deal' — Murkowski
Dec 1, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Geof Koss and Tiffany Stecker
After meeting with Energy and Natural Resources Committee ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) for more than an hour yesterday, Senate Energy Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) told reporters that she's still confident that the conference process will yield a final energy bill that can be signed into law this year.
"I believe we are going to get a deal," Murkowski said. "And I believe it will be a good deal."
But whether that deal includes language addressing LNG exports and the Land and Water Conservation Fund — both key to the Senate, which passed its energy package with both provisions intact by a wide margin earlier this year — remains to be seen.
Cantwell told reporters that staff will continue "trying to close out sections of the bill" but made it clear that LNG exports and LWCF continue to be major sticking points.
"I think the issue is that there are things that were big parts of the Senate bill for both sides of the aisle, and I think that people want to see those things," she told reporters.
However, with lawmakers reportedly looking to close the curtains on the 114th Congress on Dec. 9, when the latest continuing resolution expires, time is of the essence.
"Not a lot of time, we got to get down to brass tacks," said Cantwell.
While Murkowski said Tuesday that an agreement would need to be struck this week to allow time to prepare the conference report for floor votes, Bishop signaled to reporters that Dec. 5 is the deadline "for filing purposes."
Murkowski signaled another meeting is planned today with House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), who did not attend yesterday's huddle because the House was voting on his medical innovation bill, a top priority for him as his chairmanship comes to a close because of GOP term limits.
Also absent from yesterday's meeting was Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Arizona Rep. Raúl Grijalva, the top Democrat on the Natural Resources panel.
Bishop told reporters that yesterday's meeting focused on issues within his jurisdiction, not Upton's, "which is really, I think, the bigger problem area."
He described yesterday's meeting as positive but was also skeptical that talks could wrap up in time.
"There's still a pulse going," Bishop said. "It grows fainter each day."
However, he noted that the Senate has appeared to move closer to some of the LWCF reforms he's sought as a condition for extending the program.
"There's areas we can explore," Bishop said. "To get it done by December 5, so they can file it, it's still a long way from that."
Given that LWCF was extended for three years in last month's omnibus, "you could pass a bill without LWCF at all," he added.
LNG exports will be a topic of discussion for today's meeting with Upton. The House dropped the provision from its recent counteroffer to the House, and Murkowski and Cantwell reinserted it in the response they sent across the Capitol last week.
Upton this week blamed the omission in part on the opposition of Pallone, noting that the House counteroffer mirrored provisions backed by both parties.
But Murkowski yesterday noted that the election results had curbed the House's appetite for finishing the energy bill.
"I think you have just some on the House side who generally felt we didn't necessarily need to do a bill this year, we can just wait til next year," she said. "I think that was our biggest slowdown."A 'potential vehicle' for drought bill?
Talks on integrating a drought package to help California and other affected regions in the West in the energy bill are actively underway, with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) taking a more active role in the negotiations, Bishop said late Tuesday.
At issue is legislation that would tweak operations of California's major water projects that bring melted snow from wetter Northern Califorina to the arid center and southern part of the state. House California Republicans have called for increased pumping to help irrigate farmland and hydrate cities, though environmentalists and most Democrats have said this would violate laws to protect listed species under the Endangered Species Act.
"There's a lot of people who keep moving the goalposts on California water, which is frustrating," said Bishop, though he declined to elaborate.
"One way or another there needs to be a vehicle to solve that problem," Bishop added. "It's a potential vehicle, it's not the only potential vehicle."
The Golden State's GOP members have wrangled with Feinstein on the issue before, saying her solution, S. 2533, would not provide significantly more water to farmers.
"I'm very pessimistic," said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), whose district's farmers have clamored for more water in the state's drought. "We may be able to get some language before the end of the year, but is it going to produce any water? Probably not much."
"What they'll agree to is not legislation that actually works," he told E&E News.
California is entering its sixth year of drought. Feinstein has said that her bill, which provides funding for water conservation projects and allows for short-term operational changes, would have a better chance of passing the Senate than House GOP language.
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), a foe of efforts to divert water from environmental purposes to human uses, said he would expect any attempts to do so would be opposed by Northern California members, some senators and the White House.
"I'm confident that we have champions for the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Water Act, and state water law in the Senate and in the White House, and we're not going to see this stuff prevail," he said.
Reporter George Cahlink contributed.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/12/01/stories/1060046469
-
Energy Bill Deal Still Elusive As Negotiators Pledge To Keep Talking
Dec 1, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Nick Juliano
Lawmakers still haven't reached a deal to advance an energy bill before Congress adjourns next week, but key negotiators emerged from an hour-long meeting Wednesday saying they would keep at it.
Sticking points remain on liquefied natural gas exports, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, wildfire prevention and the California drought, but members of the conference committee are mostly united on the energy efficiency provisions in the bill, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski said after the meeting. Negotiators need to reach a deal this week on what would be included in a bill for there to be time to get it to the president’s desk this year, she said.
Murkowski acknowledged there is resistance from some House Republicans to passing the bill at all this year, hoping they would have more leverage after President-elect Donald Trump is inaugurated. And she disputed House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton’s suggestion Tuesday that it was Democrats who were blocking the LNG exports language.
“I think you have just some on the House side who generally felt that we didn’t necessarily need to do a bill this year, we could just wait until next year. That was our biggest slowdown,” Murkowski told reporters after the meeting. “Think about the position of somebody who has their sights set on a specific issue and it resonates with the conservative crowd, and if they’ve had to compromise a little bit to get where it is now, and they’re thinking, 'Well, it’s going to be a better climate for me next year, maybe I don’t need to do it this year.'”
But she argued that it would be better to “take the wins that we have,” given how long it has taken the bill to get to this point. And she cited the heavy workload the Senate will have next year confirming all of Trump’s nominees.
Murkowski, ENR Ranking Member Maria Cantwell and House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop met for about an hour Wednesday in Murkowski’s Capitol hideaway. Upton was not present because he was managing the House debate on the 21st Century Cures Act, a major health care bill out of his committee that is a top priority this year.
Bishop said he was encouraged by the LWCF discussion, praising Murkowski and Cantwell for embracing more of the reforms he would like to see in the program in exchange for a long-term reauthorization.
“The authorization is not the key to me. It’s the reforms that are essential,” he told reporters. “If you put the right reforms in, I’ll give a stupid 50-year authorization to it, which is bizarre. But if the right reforms are there, I could go along with it.”
The overall areas of disagreement haven't changed much in months, but Murkowski said she hoped the ticking clock could break the impasse.
“We’re closer to the end, and people are still at the table, and that’s the difference,” Murkowski told POLITICO later. “Keep in mind, this bill has been written off for dead so many times, and here we are, we are working through conference.”
Cantwell said Upton’s absence was not helpful — especially in light of the fact that the health care bill is partially paid for by selling oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve — but she said negotiations would continue with the goal of reaching a deal this week.
“Well, I definitely wouldn't be stealing SPRO money to put in a healthcare bill and ignoring energy — I don't think that’s helpful,” Cantwell told reporters after the meeting. “But I think he is busy today and hopefully we will hear back from them.”
Murkowski said they planned to meet with Upton on Thursday.
Bishop said there was still “a long way to go” to reach an agreement, and he questioned whether one would be possible in the limited amount of time remaining.
“There’s still a pulse going,” he said. “It grows fainter each day.”
Anthony Adragna contributed to this report.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2016/11/energy-bill-deal-still-elusive-as-negotiators-pledge-to-keep-talking-139317
-
Energy Bill Conference Lags; LNG Exports Excluded
Nov 30, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jeremiah Shelor
Language to speed up approval of liquefied natural gas (LNG) export projects could get left behind as lawmakers in the Senate and House conference try to rescue an energy reform bill before time runs out, a congressional staffer said Tuesday in Washington, DC.
Speaking at a Natural Gas Roundtable hosted by the American Gas Association, Bill Cooper, staff director for the House Committee on Natural Resources and the senior policy adviser on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), was not optimistic the energy reform bill would make it through the current Congress, leaving new energy policy to the incoming Trump administration.
Both the House and the Senate have passed energy reform bills and have been in conference to hammer out their differences to send something to the president’s desk. But there’s still a lot of disagreement over some of the more controversial issues, Cooper said.
The language on LNG exports, a major item that seemed to enjoy bipartisan support in both chambers as they passed their respective energy bills, has been inexplicably left out of the conference process, according to Cooper.
“Interestingly enough, what’s not in play, apparently, is LNG exports. It absolutely is flabbergasting to think about it. It may not make it into the energy report, or conference. It may not find a home elsewhere, either,” Cooper said. “It just goes to show you how things are in Congress, a bill that was filed in the House early in the start of the Congress...passed the House by 277 to 133, with 41 Democrats on board. Essentially the companion version with slight differences in language in the Senate was introduced...with six Democrats as the original co-sponsors. Now it’s amazing that it can’t seem to find its way into law yet.”
He added, “It’s one of those rare examples that a bill is in the Congress that hasn’t made it out of Congress that enjoys such broad support...I really wanted to see it move and still do, because I believe it’s great policy and has long-term benefits for the LNG industry. I just want to see it get a home.”
With the upcoming deadline to pass a continuing resolution to fund the government, there may not be any movement on energy reform before the next Congress, he said.
“There have been several proposals and counter-proposals and counter-proposals to the counter-proposals that got kicked around lately without a lot of traction or agreement on some of the big pieces,” Cooper said. “Not sure we can get there in the time that we have left. Typically speaking, when you’re coming up against a deadline like Dec. 9 on money for the government, and you have to pass some sort of continuing resolution, which appears to be what’s going to happen, when that’s done, they’re usually done.”
While Congress could decide to pass a package of less controversial items, such as energy efficiency and appliance standards, given “the election and the fact that Mr. Trump’s our new president-elect and the Senate’s still in GOP control, albeit by the small margin that it is, there may be a desire to wait and take it up in the next Congress.”
As for what else might happen in the energy space under the next Congress, Cooper said he would expect a lot of focus on attempting to undo certain federal rules using the Congressional Review Act. Within 60 working days of a federal agency notifying Congress of a new rule, lawmakers may pass a joint resolution of disapproval to invalidate that rule, according to Cooper.
Some possible targets for a resolution of disapproval might be the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) guidance on calculating greenhouse gas emissions or the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations on methane from the oil and gas industry, among others, he said.
“So if you start thinking about the next Congress and the litany of regulations or rules where we’d like to see something happen, again it’s the age-old problem in Congress. It gets time-constrained,” Cooper said.
Cooper said the next Congress may try to streamline NEPA reviews.
“We will do something on NEPA, I think. NEPA’s in the jurisdiction of our committee, and NEPA certainly needs to be streamlined...I think without boxing ourselves in, I think we probably want to take a look at the CEQ guidance on greenhouse gas emissions as the first stop.
“The final guidance was completed a little while back. It’s hard for any applicant in a permit process to attack that except through the permitting agency, and we think it’s an opportunity for us to correct a lot of wrongs. That in and of itself should streamline the process. But we’ll take a look at the whole of the statute and see if there’s anything we can do.”
Changes to federal policy on management of western lands could also be on the way, at least if House Committee on Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) has anything to say on it, Cooper said.
“I can say that it is the heartfelt desire of Mr. Bishop to see that dynamic changed and see those lands lined up in state hands,” he said. “And you’ll have a strong push in the upcoming Congress to try to achieve that. I just can’t predict the outcome. But we’re going to try.”
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/108580-energy-bill-conference-lags-lng-exports-excluded
-
Pipeline Fight Creates Partisan Divide In Senate
Dec 1, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Hannah Northey
A standoff over the $3.78 billion Dakota Access oil pipeline triggered a partisan spat hundreds of miles away in the Senate yesterday, with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle looking to the White House for answers.
Democratic Sens. Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico doubled down on calls for President Obama to step in and find a peaceful solution — even if that meant rerouting the oil pipeline — to protect and respect the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.
Bolstering that message was a letter from more than a dozen Sioux tribes calling on Obama to immediately intervene and stop the Dakota Access pipeline to protect drinking water and preserve Native homelands. And earlier this week, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) appealed to President-elect Donald Trump from the floor of the upper chamber to find an alternative path for the project.
Central to the messaging frenzy is North Dakota's push to remove protesters from an encampment along the pipeline route in central North Dakota as winter sets in.
Heinrich in a letter to Obama questioned North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple's call this week for all protesters to vacate their encampment near the oil pipeline's route, saying such a move would only worsen tensions there.
"In particular, I question the decision to close the area to demonstrators on December 5, 2016," Heinrich wrote. "This arbitrary date is certain to escalate an already volatile situation and I would urge you to overturn this decision by the Corps of Engineers."
Dalrymple, a Republican, ordered hundreds of protesters to immediately leave the Oceti Sakowin camp — located on Army Corps of Engineers land. Dalrymple cited harsh winter weather and said the camp sites were not suitable for such conditions.
Days earlier, the Army Corps called for protesters to leave the camp. The corps has said it will not "forcibly remove" demonstrators but has warned that anyone present after Dec. 5 would be considered trespassers and subject to prosecution (EnergyWire, Nov. 29).
More than 2,000 veterans are traveling to the camp to serve as human shields, according to reports. At the same time, law enforcement officials have threatened to impose fines and block supplies from entering the encampment.
Udall in a separate letter to Obama cited his position as incoming vice chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee in calling for a peaceful resolution, pointing to the use of water cannons in freezing temperatures, rubber bullets and attack dogs on protesters. Udall warned that allowing the situation to escalate could damage the relationship between the government and tribes, including his constituents in New Mexico, going forward.
Members of the Sioux Nation in their letter also took aim at the governor's plan but called on Obama to act by pulling back the corps. "It is not right for the Army Corps to give its blessing for North Dakota to attack our Native people for wanting to live," they wrote.
But Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) reiterated his call for the project to be approved and built during a speech on the Senate floor. The senator compared Dakota Access to thousands of other crude oil pipelines that cross rivers and waterbodies, including more than 1,000 in North Dakota.
Hoeven and proponents of the pipeline, including the Midwest Alliance for Infrastructure Now, made the case that the corps' decision not to approve an outstanding easement for Energy Transfer Partners to cross at Lake Oahe and finish building the pipeline was only inflaming violent protests. The situation, they said, was growing more dangerous as temperatures dropped, and they called for immediate approval.
"It's past time that the final easement is approved and construction is completed," Hoeven said. "We need to resolve this issue."
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/12/01/stories/1060046468
-
‘Pipeline Purgatory’ the Goal as U.S. Activists Take Fight Local
Dec 1, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Meenal Vamburkar and Jennifer A. Dlouhy
For fossil-fuel foes fighting a new generation of U.S. pipelines, Donald Trump's election as president may be somewhat beside the point.
Instead of engaging a federal bureaucracy they believe will line up against them, activists now plan to “double down on the state and local level,” according to Jane Kleeb, president of Bold Alliance, a national activist network that's fought both the Dakota Access Pipeline and the Keystone XL project. “The opposition is going to be much more local, much more focused,” she said.
Although Trump has promised to speed up federal permits and regulatory review, his influence doesn't extend to local communities or states. That's where activists are working aggressively to get regulators, lawmakers and the courts on their side, Kleeb and others said. Already, they've helped get new laws passed in Georgia and North Carolina limiting the use of eminent domain to seize property for pipelines.
Call it “pipeline purgatory,” said Matthew Hoza, an analyst at the Colorado-based consulting firm BTU Analytics LLC. By exploiting local landowner concerns and state permit processes, activists are ensnaring projects “in unending litigation on a state level,” making them “not really alive, not really dead,” he said.
Aging Infrastructure
The network of pipelines now in place for liquids including oil and gasoline stretches 207,800 miles, according to a websitesponsored by the Association of Oil Pipe Lines. Builders say new pipelines are needed as locations of key energy sources change, and to replace aging infrastructure. When pipeline capacity fills, drillers are forced to resort to more expensive rail shipments, raising costs for their product. Meanwhile, natural gas can be stranded because pipes are the only delivery option.
It's an argument that has gained some momentum across the border in Canada. On Nov. 29, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau approved pipeline proposals by Kinder Morgan Inc. and Enbridge Inc. in a decision aimed at balancing environmental protection with expanded market access for oil producers.
Pipelines also can offer local communities an economic gain, according to Alan Armstrong, the chief executive officer at Tulsa-based Williams Partners LP, which owns and operates more than 33,000 miles of U.S. gas-gathering and distribution lines. In May, Armstrong said his company's Constitution Pipeline will aid development in New York and help New England's transition to cleaner natural gas from coal-fired power.
Environmentalists, meanwhile, are playing a long game, aiming to completely change America's energy profile in the future, according to Lena Moffitt, director of the Sierra Club's Dirty Fuels campaign.
“We're in this critical window where renewables are going to be cost competitive in a few years,” said Moffitt, who is based in Oakland, Calif. “If we can forestall gas infrastructure being put in the ground and locking in that demand for the next 60 years -- if we can forestall that by maybe just five years—the hope is that renewables will come in and be cost competitive in all markets.“
Delay Costs
Delays add costs, as does re-routing. The pushback Moffitt and others describe has already scared off investors, slowed plans and spurred developers to abandon others.
In March, following opposition in Georgia, Kinder Morgan Inc.scrapped its Palmetto pipeline, designed to carry gasoline, diesel and ethanol from South Carolina into Florida. The Constitution Pipeline, set to transport natural gas from Pennsylvania to New York, remains in legal limbo as developer Williams Partners fights a state agency's rejection of a water permit almost two years after it was blessed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
“It's the new reality of what we deal with as pipeline developers,” said Blue Jenkins, the executive vice president of EQT Corp., a Pittsburgh-based integrated energy company. “The opponents are very organized, they are very aggressive, and they are very vocal.“
To be sure, Trump is likely to make a difference nationally for two pipelines that have long been flash points: TransCanada Corp.’s 1,179-mile Keystone XL project, and the 1,172-mile Dakota Access Pipeline developed by Energy Transfer Partners LP.
President Obama rejected Keystone last year, saying it wouldn't aid the U.S. economy, drop gasoline prices or boost energy security. That followed a seven-year dispute that, at times, turned more on political issues than economic ones. The $3.8 billion Dakota Access pipeline was delayed in September after local Native Americans said it will hurt culturally significant sites. Trump has said he'll approve Keystone XL as soon as Jan. 20, his first day in office.
Public comments submitted to FERC help indicate which plans are likely to receive the most resistance. The PennEast pipeline, designed to carry gas from Pennsylvania to New Jersey, received more than 3,500 comments since 2014. Even if federal regulators ultimately okay it—now at least seven months later than planned—the same people who flooded FERC with feedback are likely to contact state regulators, BTU's Hoza said.
Activists Emboldened
Activists have “been emboldened by Keystone and the growing number of victories like Constitution,” prompting grassroots efforts nationwide, said the Sierra Club's Moffitt. They're “looking at the legal hooks” that can tie up approvals for years.
Nancy Vann, 69, is among the local activists. Since 2013, the retired attorney has fought Spectra Energy Corp.’s Algonquin Incremental Market project, which runs through her neighborhood near Peekskill, N.Y. She questions its proximity to the Indian Point Energy Center nuclear plant, and disputes its need. As head of the local Safe Energy Rights Group, Vann said she's often in touch with other activists and has helped train foes of the Constitution project on rights of way and land rights.
Vann's involvement highlights a key difference now as opposed to the past. Developers are crossing more urban areas, and in places relatively unaccustomed to them. Pipelines may be ubiquitous in Texas and Oklahoma; they are not in Massachusetts and Maine.For now, pipeline operators are dealing with the problem by increasing outreach to local residents, hewing to existing rights of way when possible and favoring small projects.
“Pipelines, like it or not, have been pulled into this broader philosophical debate about climate policy,” said Donald Santa, president and chief executive officer of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America. “We have become a theater in that war.“
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=101172467&vname=dennotallissues&fn=101172467&jd=101172467
-
Finding That Wells Not Contaminated by Fracking Gets Hearing
Dec 1, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
A groundwater investigation that said hydraulic fracturing was unlikely to be the cause of contamination near Pavillion, Wyo., will be the subject of a public hearing held by state officials on Dec. 8.
The state reported Nov. 10 it was unlikely that hydraulic fracturing caused any impact to domestic water supply wells, based on an evaluation of drilling history and methods used by Encana Corp., the operator in the Pavillion field.
The state's investigation reached a different conclusion than that of a December 2011 draft analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency that fracking contributed to contamination in the drinking water wells.
In its draft report issued in December 2011, the EPA said “data indicates likely impact to ground water that can be explained by hydraulic fracturing.” Wyoming said U.S. EPA later backed off from this determination, and environmentalists and nearby residents said the federal agency “deserted” them by handing the continuing investigation over to the state.
The state commission and department then conducted several followup inquiries into the groundwater contamination. None found a causal link to fracking, and the state even suggested two monitoring wells drilled by EPA in 2010 contributed to the contamination. In the release of the final report in November, the state said the two wells present a “potential hazard” to groundwater supplies and public safety and noted the EPA had agreed to plug and abandon them.http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=101172489&vname=dennotallissues&fn=101172489&jd=101172489
-
Cheap, Clean And Easily Accessible? An Energy Resource Any U.S. President Could Love
Nov 30, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By James L. Sweeney,
Energy efficiency, though not the most exciting topic in these political times, has been and will continue to be fundamental to three things President-elect Donald Trump has promised to improve – economic growth, trade deficits, and national security – and one thing about which he promised to keep an open mind – climate change.
Energy efficiency is about making or consuming more goods and services with less energy, not sacrificing quality of life. No need for the latter. The United States has made big gains in economically reducing energy use, and plenty more opportunities remain.
How does that improve the U.S. economy, trade deficits and national security? Smarter use of energy reduces oil imports, frees domestic coal and natural gas for export, and reduces vulnerability to international energy trade as a political weapon. Reducing energy in manufacturing cuts costs, making our products more competitive in international markets. Reducing households energy costs frees money for buying other goods or reducing debt. Energy efficiency in the military allows aircraft to fly farther, ships to remain on battle station longer and ground forces to reduce the enormous vulnerability of fuel convoys. Reductions in energy use lessen U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants, good for both the global environment and the air we breathe.
Energy efficiency has another advantage: it has been a non-partisan issue ever since energy rose to national prominence in 1973 – also a time of heightened partisanship – and politicians of both parties have supported energy efficiency ever since. A Democratic Party-controlled Congress and Republican President Richard Nixon, just two weeks before he resigned, created the U.S. Federal Energy Administration (FEA) to address the 1970s oil crisis, in which OPEC embargoed exports to the United States and other supporters of Israel.
President Gerald Ford directed the FEA to develop broad measures to improve energy efficiency and increase domestic energy production. The resulting “Project Independence Report” emphasized that we needed both energy efficiency and increases in domestic energy production to achieve energy self-sufficiency. As a member of the team that developed that framework, I thought that energy efficiency and domestic production enhancements would have roughly equal impacts. I never expected what actually happened: Energy efficiency would have far greater impact.
Later, as an FEA office director, I worked with Democratic Party staff of the House and Senate committees who were drafting the first-ever U.S. automobile fuel efficiency standards. We examined countless proposals to boost car and truck fuel economy, which then was a lowly 12.5 miles per gallon on average for new automobiles. We did so based on facts and analysis, united by a common goal that was clearly in the national interest.
The effort was completely bipartisan. Even in the FEA office I directed, as a Republican I was probably outnumbered by Democrats. Party affiliations were irrelevant for analysis of policy options. In the end, the Republican president, Gerald Ford, and the Democratic-controlled House and Senate enacted the Energy Policy & Conservation Act of 1975, the federal government’s first comprehensive approach to energy policy.
Since then, volatile energy prices, improved understanding of issues and new public policies led businesses and families to pay attention to energy consumption. This trend has been global, though particularly strong in the United States. Prior to 1973, total U.S. energy use grew almost in line with general economic growth, trailing GDP by just 0.5 percent. Since then, energy-efficient processes and technologies permeated the entire economy, and energy use has grown on average 2.0 percent less than real GDP.
The difference between 0.5 percent and 2.0 percent annually may seem small, but over time it has been massive. Had pre-embargo growth patterns continued, we would now consume 85 percent more energy than we actually consume. And in addition, had there been no increases in domestic energy production, our energy net imports would be ten times as high as they are. Oil prices would be drastically higher than we have ever seen. The U.S. trade deficit would have ballooned to frightening levels. The United States would still be vulnerable to oil imports used as an international political weapon. Increased domestic oil, gas, nuclear and hydropower production helped reduce energy imports since the oil embargo, but the contribution from wiser energy use has been about four times that of all domestic energy production increases taken together.
Almost all energy efficiency gains have been profitable for firms and have reduced consumer costs. New lighting technologies, better HVAC systems, new contractual forms for commercial office space, and better information systems have reduced energy costs for commercial buildings. Airlines burn one-fourth as much fuel to fly a passenger one mile as they did in 1973, resulting in lower airfares. U.S. industrial production has more than doubled since 1973, but the industrial sector uses less energy in 2015 than in 1973.
From Ford through Barack Obama, every president except Bill Clinton has signed legislation advancing energy efficiency. These laws have included mileage requirements for cars, appliance standards, tax credits, Energy Star certifications, and labeling.
So, what can the Trump administration do? Plenty. The National Academies estimated in 2009 that cost-effective technologies could reduce U.S. energy consumption 30 percent - 35 percent by 2030. This estimate did not include overcoming non-technical barriers to efficiency, such as limited information, institutional inertia and market imperfections. Addressing these issues could provide additional savings. Specific possible actions are too numerous to discuss here.
However, there is a general framework the new administration could use as it hones energy policies. First, it will be well served by embracing existing energy efficiency programs (managed by the DOE, DOT, EPA, and FTC) as crucial for improving the economy, foreign trade, national security, and the environment. These programs should be enhanced, keeping oversight to assure that they continue to meet cost-benefit criteria.
Second, research and development enabled many of the energy efficiency gains. The federal government paid for some R&D, though the private sector, primarily manufacturers, made most investment, often linked to federal R&D. But Federal energy research has decreased since the early 1980s. Reversing those reductions and encouraging energy efficiency R&D in the private sector will deliver new benefits.
Third, price signals are crucial to continuing private sector energy-efficiency innovation. A revenue-neutral carbon tax could include the real external costs the unaided free market does not capture. Although it is opposed by many people, economic conservatives should reconsider a revenue-neutral carbon tax. For every dollar raised, other taxes would be cut. A price on all carbon-dioxide emissions could replace the labyrinth of tax credits and subsidies across all sources of energy, creating a level playing field for competition based on merit and consumer choice.
Regardless of political persuasion, we can all agree that smarter use of energy is the cheapest, cleanest, most abundant energy resource we have, and we should be able to support policies consistent with that agreement.
James L. Sweeney, a Stanford University professor of management science and engineering, is the author of Energy Efficiency: Building a Clean, Secure Economy (Hoover Press, 2016). He is the director of Stanford’s Precourt Energy Efficiency Center, and a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution, of the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research and of the Precourt Institute for Energy.
https://origin-nyi.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/308170-cheap-clean-and-easily-accessible-an-energy-resource
-
Walden Favored To Be Next Energy And Commerce Chairman
Dec 1, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By George Cahlink
Oregon Republican Greg Walden is the front-runner to win the backing of House GOP colleagues to head the Energy and Commerce Committee in the next Congress.
The House Republican Steering Committee will hear closed-door presentations from Walden and the two other candidates, Reps. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) and Joe Barton (R-Texas), later today and then vote on a recommendation for chairman. Their pick will then go to the entire GOP conference for final ratification tomorrow morning.
The current chairman, Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), is term limited from continuing as leader of the panel with broad sway over federal energy and regulatory policies. He sits on the Steering panel but will not endorse anyone in the race.
None of the GOP leaders have endorsed a candidate yet either.
But aides say Walden is viewed as the favorite given his performance as chairman of the House GOP's campaign arm, the National Republican Congressional Committee, over the past four years. In the most recent election cycle, the GOP lost only six seats, despite expectations they could lose as many as 20, and Walden has raised tens of millions of dollars for the party.
Rep. Luke Messer (R-Ind.), who sits on the Steering Committee, declined to name a favorite in the race but said the presentations from the candidates will have a "big impact" on who gets nominated.
"Many of the big issues of the next year will be handled by Energy and Commerce, which makes the decision that much more vital," he added.
All three candidates have been reaching out to members of the Steering Committee, a panel of about three dozen lawmakers comprised of leaders and members elected by region, since the lame-duck session began. It's rare for the conference to overturn their picks.
Walden, known as one of the most politically savvy House GOP members, was spotted working the House floor at votes last evening. He'll likely benefit from serving in leadership for the past four years as well as having a slot on the Steering Committee as NRCC chair.
Having served nine terms from a mostly rural eastern Oregon district, Walden has focused his committee work on technology issues as chairman of E&C's communications and technology subcommittee, where he's been a frequent Federal Communications Commission critic and written internet policy.
Unlike his rivals, Walden has backed tax breaks for renewable energy. He also has sometimes waded into local environmental issues, including a pending water agreement related to the Klamath Basin in his state.Shimkus, Barton make their case
Shimkus, who is completing his 10th term, wrote in a recent letter to colleagues that he's eager to work with the incoming Donald Trump administration to limit federal agencies from issuing new regulations.
"We will use our oversight and investigative authority to rebalance the federal government, recommending changes so future administrations won't have the same ability to abuse their power," he wrote. "In particular, this will entail building the case against the Chevron Deference, which has enabled executive agencies to upend congressional intent through the courts."
An outspoken conservative, Shimkus touted his experience on the panel in a letter and brochure circulated among House Republicans. He noted he's served on all six subcommittees, including as a ranking member or chairman of three.
Shimkus cited his work in authoring the first update of chemical safety laws in 40 years that passed Congress earlier this year. He also noted he led an effort in 2008 to protest Democrats adjourning for a recess without first voting to expand domestic fossil fuel exploration as gas prices soared.
Barton, a fierce defender of the oil industry who served as ranking member and then chairman of the committee from 2004 to 2010 before being term limited, is seen as the longer shot of the three candidates.
"I think it's wide open, I've reached out to every Steering Committee member and I think I have a very good chance, but I understand there are two other great candidates," Barton told E&E News.
Barton said when meeting with the committee he will stress his past legislative successes on the panel, which include shepherding through the last major energy policy bill in 2005.
The 15-term lawmaker from the Dallas-Fort Worth region also said he will stress his ability to work with leadership and Democrats, as well as underscore he is the most senior member of the panel.
"There's three good people [running] and that's good for the conference. That means there will be a real competition," he added.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/12/01/stories/1060046467
-
House Passes RESPONSE Act to Enhance Hazmat Training for Emergency Responders
Nov 30, 2016 | American Journal of Transportation
Washington, DC - The House of Representatives today approved the RESPONSE Act of 2016 (S. 546), a bill to enhance emergency responder training for incidents involving hazardous materials rail transportation.
“Rail safety is critical to the transport of goods and services through our country,” said U.S. Rep. Jeff Denham (R-CA), Chairman of the Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee. “I believe the RESPONSE Act will succeed in improving the safety of our nation’s rail network.”
The RESPONSE Act establishes a temporary subcommittee under the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) National Advisory Council to provide recommendations and advice regarding emergency responder training related to hazardous materials incidents involving railroads.
The subcommittee will be composed of members from various government agencies, including the Federal Railroad Administration, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and FEMA. The subcommittee will also include non-governmental members, including those from affected industries, technical experts, and emergency responder training providers.
The RESPONSE Act will enhance rail safety by helping improve access to training for emergency responders, identifying challenges to obtaining appropriate training for emergency responders, modernizing training course content related to rail hazardous materials incidents, and identifying strategies to integrate data regarding the flow of hazardous materials by rail and other relevant data for local emergency responders.
S. 546 was introduced by Senator Heidi Heitkamp (ND) and passed in the Senate earlier this year by unanimous consent. In September, the House Transportation Committee approved S. 546 with an amendment. The bill now goes back to the Senate for further consideration. The original news release mistakenly noted the bill now goes to the President.
https://www.ajot.com/news/house-passes-response-act-to-enhance-hazmat-training-for-emergency-responde
-
Majority Of States Comply With SSM 'SIP Call' But Handful Might Buck EPA
Nov 30, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
A majority of states subject to an EPA rule forcing them them to scrap language in their Clean Air Act compliance plans that exempts some facility emissions from federal air pollution limits are complying with the regulation, sources say, though a handful of states appear to be trying to buck EPA by crafting alternative air law waivers.
The 36 states subject to the rule forcing changes to the state implementation plans (SIPs) faced a Nov. 22 deadline for submitting to EPA their modified SIPs removing the language on emissions limit exemptions from facilities during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM). The agency says the rule, known as a “SIP Call,” is necessary after appellate rulings found the waivers unlawful, and has also scrapped the waivers in federal air rules.
But industry and some states argue they are vital to regular facility operations and that some emissions limit exceedances are unavoidable. Observers say that some states appear in their response to the SSM SIP Call to be trying to craft alternative waivers rather than simply strike the SSM exemptions from their approved SIPs.
EPA's June 2015 rule requires the affected states to remove either blanket SSM exemptions, “director's discretion” exemptions granted by state environmental agency heads, “affirmative defenses,” or others.
Affirmative defenses, once used as a alternative to blanket exemptions by EPA, shield industry from civil liability in the event of malfunctions considered “unavoidable” by regulators. But the agency has been taking steps to remove the defenses from its regulations, following a U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit finding that they unlawfully limit federal courts' discretion to decide penalties for air limit violations.
EPA is now collating state responses to the SSM SIP Call and deciding on next steps. If states do not supply adequate modifications to their SIPs, EPA must instead issue federal implementation plans (FIPs) to correct perceived problems. Meanwhile, a coalition of states opposed to the rule are challenging it in the D.C. Circuit case Walter Coke Inc., et al. v. EPA, claiming EPA lacks legal authority for the regulation.
One environmental attorney closely following the issue says the majority of states appear to have complied, and in most cases this involves simple removal of affirmative defenses from SIPs -- although in a number of cases the defenses are retained for state-only rules, separate from federally-approved and enforceable SIP provisions.
“It seems to me that the majority of states are doing the right thing,” but “a few states are questionable or troublesome,” the source says, listing Texas, Florida, Colorado, Delaware and West Virginia as examples of states where proposed or final SIP measures are questionable.
Other states contacted by Inside EPA, such as Ohio, are still going through their own notice-and-comment procedures to adopt final changes to their rules.
Alternative Exemptions
Among the alternatives to strict numerical emissions limits during SSM periods that states are floating is Texas' plan to retain its affirmative defense, but adding language to its SIP to the effect that Texas' provisions “are not intended to limit a federal court's jurisdiction or discretion to determine the appropriate remedy in an enforcement action.” However, Texas adds a caveat that the change in language does not take effect until all judicial appeals against the rule are finished.
Colorado is also seeking to retain the option of an affirmative defense, the environmental attorney says, while Delaware has put forward measures that change averaging times for fine particulate matter limits, “basically loosening their rules,” the source says.
West Virginia, meanwhile, has opted for alternative emission limits for groups of sources, in contrast to an approach EPA has said it could accept that states examine alternatives on a case-by-case basis, the source says. Florida is modifying its rule allowing “excess emissions,” to - among other changes - add language that says, “Excess emissions that are caused entirely or in part by poor maintenance, poor operation, or any other equipment or process failure that may reasonably be prevented during startup, shutdown or malfunction shall be prohibited.”
Some states are also opting for “work practice standards” as an alternative to numeric limits. This may be allowed under certain conditions, according to EPA. An EPA spokeswoman says, “Valid emission limitations can include numerical limits, specific control technologies, or specific 'work practices' so long as they meet applicable stringency and enforceability requirements. Work practices may be acceptable in appropriate circumstances, presuming that they meet statutory requirements. EPA has itself imposed specifically defined and enforceable work practices when appropriate.”
Environmentalists are generally opposed to work practices, which even industry sources say are “vague” and must be tailored to industry sectors, rather than applied across an entire SIP.
“We would prefer numerical limits because they are enforceable and more likely to provide for a continuous reduction” of pollution as required by the air law, the environmental attorney says. Industry and some states dispute, however, the “continuously applicable” interpretation of the law.
Environmentalists could live with work practice standards “in cases where it is just entirely not feasible” to craft other limits, the environmental attorney says.
One Texas environmental attorney says, “Texas’s so-called clarification is better than nothing. Remember, in Texas, we have already killed the exemption and we are only left arguing over the legality of an affirmative defense. So, we have already moved the ball forward on the issue to the point where we are close to the goal.”
The source echoes other environmentalists, however, in saying that environmental groups stand ready to sue EPA should it fail to enforce the SIP Call. “Yes, this is an issue that we will keep fighting over. Yes, it is likely to be in the courts for many more years,” the attorney says.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/majority-states-comply-ssm-sip-call-handful-might-buck-epa
-
Obama Admin Leaving HFC Deal To Trump White House
Dec 1, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Hannah Hess
It will be up to President-elect Donald Trump's administration to determine what to do with international efforts to curtail use of highly warming chemicals used in air conditioning and refrigeration.
The State Department spent weeks reviewing the final text of the long-sought agreement reached in October at the Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in Kigali, Rwanda, that would phase down hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs (E&ENews PM, Oct. 14).
Now officials say President Obama will pass one of his final acts of climate diplomacy to the next administration, leaving supporters fearful that Trump could deem it a "bad deal" and place it in his crosshairs like the Paris climate agreement.
"We don't want this to get caught up in climate politics," said Francis Dietz, a spokesman for the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute. Appliance manufacturers are part of an industry that worked "long and hard" on HFCs over the past seven years, Dietz said.
If the deal enters into force, companies will have to abide by the agreement reached by delegations from the 197-member Montreal Protocol whether or not the United States ratifies it. AHRI has reached out to Trump's transition team, encouraging the president-elect to submit the deal to the Senate for ratification. The industry group has also been talking to Republicans on Capitol Hill.
"The whole reason really for doing this amendment in the first place was so that we would have everybody operating under the same set of rules," Dietz said.
But to others it's clearly about climate.
Outgoing Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who doubts the notion that human activity contributes to global warming, has criticized the amendment as an overreach (Greenwire, Oct. 24).
U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, who led the U.S. delegation to the summit, and Secretary of State John Kerry have touted cutting the potent, heat-trapping chemical as a straightforward step toward meeting the Paris Agreement's goal of keeping global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius.
Contrary to what McCarthy first suggested, legal experts contend the amendment for the phase-down of HFCs to the ozone-pollution treaty is a change that will require a two-thirds Senate vote (ClimateWire, Oct. 25).
The underlying treaty, a 1987 environmental pact ratified by the Senate during the Reagan administration, has a history of bipartisan support.
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), a vocal proponent of Obama's climate plans, told E&E News he did not think the HFC amendment had attracted controversy.
"But I don't know — I can't mind-read what Donald Trump will actually do," Cardin said.
Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), a contender to be Trump's secretary of state, said last month that he was taking a close look at the amendment. Corker was in New York this week meeting with Trump. A spokesman for the committee did not respond to an inquiry.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), who will chair the EPW Committee in the next session of Congress, declined to comment on international climate deals under a Trump administration.
Cardin said, "It probably would be advisable to try and get at least pending in this Congress even if we can't take it up."
But the action will be postponed until at least January.
"We expect the decision on the domestic form of the amendment to take place in the next administration," a State Department official told E&E News on Tuesday.
Supporters of the Kigali amendment hope to convince Trump it's smart politics.
Paul Bledsoe, a White House climate adviser during the Clinton administration, suggested yesterday in a Politico opinion piece that Trump could support the HFC deal "with the full support of the industry and garner much needed international support, as well."
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/12/01/stories/1060046464
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested