Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 12/2/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) Nestlé in the U.S.—Strategically Consumer-Centric
Dec 2, 2016 | Packaging World
By Pat Reynolds
Nestlé in the U.S. has a diverse portfolio of food and beverage products providing nutritious options for every member of the family, including not only infants, toddlers, teens, adults, and mature adults but also dogs and cats. -
Trump to Announce 'Almost All' Cabinet Picks Next Week
Dec 2, 2016 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Nolan D. McCaskill
President-elect Donald Trump suggested he will reveal "almost all" of his remaining Cabinet choices next week. -
EPA, Interior, DOE Picks Could Come Next Week
Dec 2, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
President-elect Donald Trump said most of his remaining Cabinet announcements will be made next week, a signal that he could be ready to name chiefs for U.S. EPA and the Interior and Energy departments. -
(ACC Mentioned) Trade Group Launches Center to Assist on TSCA Compliance
Dec 2, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
The American Chemistry Council announced the launch yesterday of a center to streamline corporate compliance with the overhauled Toxic Substances Control Act. -
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Launches Center to Support Companies, New Chemical Safety Act
Dec 2, 2016 | Hydrocarbon Processing
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) announced the creation of the Center for Chemical Safety Act Implementation, a scientific, technical and advocacy hub that will assist companies with the implementation of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (LCSA), bipartisan legislation enacted to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
A Pro-Industry EPA Could Undermine New Chemical Safety Law
Dec 2, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Melanie Benesh
By releasing the first 10 chemicals to be reviewed under the new federal chemical safety law, the Environmental Protection Agency reminds us of what’s at stake – and how decisions made by the incoming Trump administration could jeopardize Americans' health. -
New Chemicals Under the New TSCA: Growing Pains Now, but a Stronger System Going Forward
Dec 2, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
In the many conversations I have had over these last many years about the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the single thing that most resonated with people about why the old law didn’t work was about new chemicals. -
Announcement and Implications of First 10 Chemicals to Undergo Risk Evaluation
Dec 2, 2016 | Lexology
By Thomas C. Berger, Martha E. Marrapese, and Adrienne M. Timmel
Fulfilling another of its mandates under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg Act), which amended the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) effective June 22, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the first 10 chemical substances on which it will conduct risk evaluations under section 6 of TSCA. -
EPA to Hold Public Meeting on Changes to New Chemicals Review Program - Update
Dec 2, 2016 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson
As noted in our blog posting on November 16, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on December 1, 2016, that its Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) will hold a public meeting on December 14, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (EST) to update the public on changes to the New Chemicals Review Program under the Toxic Substances Control Act, as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (TSCA). -
Will Oil, Loyalty Trump Western Traditions at Interior?
Dec 2, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
It's an unwritten rule of federal politics that the person who runs the Interior Department must hail from the American West. -
Obama Admin Choking Oil and Gas Leasing Process — Industry
Dec 2, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A prominent oil and gas industry group doubled down this week on its claim that the Obama administration has been illegally hampering federal oil and gas leasing for years. -
Congress Should Take the Lead on Our Nation’s Energy Policies
Dec 2, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Dr. Margo Thorning
Almost a year ago, Congress made history by lifting the ban on crude oil exports – an archaic provision in the law that stifled America’s ability to become global energy leader. Now, Congress has the opportunity to make history once more by refocusing on long overdue items in the final days before the end of the year, specifically on the much-needed Energy Policy Modernization Act (EPMA). -
Court to Hear Challenge to New Plant Carbon Rule in April
Dec 2, 2016 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments over EPA's rule limiting carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants on April 17, the court announced today. -
Trump Adds ‘Mother in Love with Fracking’ to EPA Team
Dec 1, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A Colorado think tank chief who opposes key Obama administration energy regulations has been added to Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) transition team. -
A Play for 'Common-Sense' Fracking Rules in Ga.
Dec 2, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Kristi E. Swartz
A broad coalition of northwest Georgians want to update the state's oil, gas and deep well drilling law to include provisions for hydraulic fracturing. -
SoCal Edison Makes Efficiency Advances on Gas-Fired Power Plant
Dec 2, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
With a series of technology collaborations, Southern California Edison Co. (SCE) has turned its 1,100 MW natural gas-fired Mountainview generation plant in Redlands, CA, into an efficiency and water-saving model.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News - There are no clips to report at this time.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Nestlé in the U.S.—Strategically Consumer-Centric
Dec 2, 2016 | Packaging World
By Pat Reynolds
Nestlé in the U.S. has a diverse portfolio of food and beverage products providing nutritious options for every member of the family, including not only infants, toddlers, teens, adults, and mature adults but also dogs and cats. There are eight main businesses: Nestlé USA, Nestlé Purina PetCare Co., Nestlé Waters North America, Nestlé Nutrition, Nestlé Professional, Nespresso, Nestlé Skin Health, and Nestlé Health Science. Together, these companies operate in more than 120 locations in 47 states and employ over 51,000 people. The U.S. is Vevey, Switzerland-based Nestlé S.A.’s largest market with combined product sales in the U.S. totaling more than $26 billion in 2015.
Conversations we’ve been having with David Strauss, Head of Packaging at Nestlé USA, led us to select Nestlé in the U.S. as the subject of our annual VIEW FROM THE TOP profile. Picking the brains of all eight businesses is hardly practical, so we focused primarily on two: Nestlé USA and Nestlé Purina PetCare.
Strategic framework
In his role as Nestlé USA’s Head of Packaging, Strauss describes himself as driver of the overall strategic alignment where packaging is concerned. Flying under the Nestlé USA flag are such iconic brands as DiGiorno®, Stouffer’s®, Coffee-mate®, Lean Cuisine®, Carnation®, Libby’s®, Edy’s®, and Haagen-Dazs®. Across all of them, says Strauss, optimizing the cost of packaging is a high priority. But he emphasizes that “optimizing” is a balancing act and is definitely not synonymous with “cost cutting.”
“We are in an environment of high competitive intensity, so we must be competitive when it comes to packaging. Where cost is concerned, this means being neither too high nor too low. The minute your packaging spend gets too low, you risk losing operational efficiency, and what once looked like a cost advantage can quickly become a disadvantage.”
When asked about technologies that are relatively new kids on the packaging block, like printed electronics and digital printing, Strauss says printed electronics is probably better suited at this point to non-food areas where price points are higher. Electronics, pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics, he says, will probably adopt it sooner than mainstream food. As for digital printing, he says, it’s squarely on his radar screen, though it, too, is still at the start of its development curve where Nestlé USA brands are concerned. “Right now where it is useful is primarily in short runs for customization,” he observes. “But as it evolves, it will expand past that, and I expect it to present some real opportunities in streamlining workflow and serving as a tool for manufacturers like us to lean out their packaging supply chains.”
Another bedrock philosophy at Nestlé USA, just as it is throughout Nestlé global, is transparency. And an important subset of transparency, Strauss points out, is a commitment to sustainable packaging.
“In years past we’ve been what you might call a silent leader when it comes to the sustainable packaging movement, but lately we’ve gotten more vocal and visible, also in the U.S.,” says Strauss. “Last year, for example, we joined Ameripen and the Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC). On some of our brands you’ll now see labels that show our participation in SPC’s How2Recycle program [launched in 2008, it aims to reduce confusion by creating a clear, well-understood, and nationally harmonized label that lets industry help consumers understand how to recycle a package].”
Strauss says that biopolymers are a part of the sustainable packaging conversation, but applications by Nestlé thus far have been limited. Aside from cost and performance issues, part of the problem with some of them, he says, is that they don’t necessarily deliver the lowest overall environmental footprint when viewed from a true Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) perspective. But that doesn’t mean Nestlé isn’t interested in biopolymers. “In our research centers we’re exploring a number of options, though mostly in what’s called Generation 3 biopolymers,” says Strauss. In other words, biopolymers derived not from corn or beets or potatoes but rather from non-food sources such as wood, agricultural waste, drought-resistant plants, and algae.
Larry Baner, Packaging Research Scientist at Nestlé Purina, is among those who are involved in the research Strauss mentions. “Nestlé’s road map for packaging sustainability includes finding appropriate uses of biopolymers in packaging, which is why we are a member of the World Wildlife Fund Bioplastic Feedstock Alliance,” says Baner. “That membership demonstrates our long-term commitment to be involved in finding ways to use non-food sources to make packaging out of renewable resources. Nestlé also has its own global sustainable packaging network. We meet regularly and offer webinars on biopolymers where we talk about which ones are available, which ones meet our LCA requirements, and which ones are or aren’t appropriate for use.”
Three platforms
Diane Herndon, Senior Manager, Sustainability, Nestlé Purina PetCare Company, summarizes the company’s view of sustainable packaging this way. “We’re active on three platforms. First is what we do in-house, which revolves around light weighting and finding new materials or configurations. Second is raising consumer awareness around recyclability, which is why we adopted the How2Recycle label. Consumers want to know how they can recycle our packages, so we think this is a step in the right direction. And third is a matter of trying to push the evolution of the recycling infrastructure at the Materials Recovery Facility, or MRF. Are these facilities optimally organized to handle flexible packaging materials, for instance? PET water bottles and HDPE milk jugs they know how to handle. But too many pet food bags that make it to the MRF get pulled off at the front of the material flow into the MRF and are sent to the landfill. There is a lot of resin in those bags that could be recycled and reused.”
Nestlé Purina and Nestlé USA are both members of a collaborative called Materials Recovery for the Future (MRFF), which recently announced the findings of research showing that automated sorting technologies in use today can be optimized to capture flexible plastic packaging material. The group contends that with adequate screening and optical sorting capacity, flexible plastic packaging can be efficiently captured in a single-stream MRF. The American Chemistry Council, also a MRFF member, issued a press release September 22 announcing the survey results, and in it research scientist Baner had this to say: “We now know how flexibles flow through a MRF and that the technology already exists for separating flexibles out of the materials streams. Although there is still a lot of work to be done to define the best way to separate flexibles from single-stream recyclables, this research moves us closer to solutions.”
New usage occasions
Using the power of packaging to break into new usage occasions is a strategy that smart CPG companies use whenever the opportunity presents itself. Nestlé USA pulled it off recently when it introduced Stouffer’s Cups: single-serve 6-oz portions of classic macaroni and cheese sold two per paperboard sleeve in the freezer case.
“Historically when people think Stouffer’s mac and cheese it’s been in terms of a lunch or dinner type setting,” says Packaging Group Manager Chastity Prince McLeod, who works out of a Nestlé Development Center in Solon, OH. Nestlé S.A. has the largest R&D network of any food company in the world, including 39 R&D locations globally. “That package format enabled us to get into more of a snack setting, and along the way it opened a lot of eyes internally and externally for how we might be able to leverage our products in a new way.”
Robert Champion, Group Packaging Engineering Manager at Nestlé USA, was project manager as the cup and its brand new packaging line was developed for the Jonesboro, AR, frozen-food plant where Stouffer’s and Lean Cuisine brands are produced. He describes it as a very cross-functional initiative involving R&D, the Stouffer’s business unit, supply chain, operations, corporate engineering, and strategic suppliers. Material development centered on the design of the pre-made thermoformed PP cup, consumer handling of the container from a safety standpoint, and optimized microwave ability.
“There was a lot of background work,” says Champion, “before we landed at the point where we could say ‘This is how to execute on this concept so now it’s time to commercialize it.’ The innovation from a machinery standpoint was a matter of how do you connect our existing mac and cheese processing line with this brand new multi-lane packaging line and run the cups at steady rates? Ensuring accurate fill weights on the cup-filling machine and inspecting for seal integrity were also challenging. We engrafted new equipment within upstream processing equipment and downstream freezing equipment. Unique design features were implemented at the infeed to our freezer to handle these little cups instead of trays. Exiting the freezer there was the challenge of putting the cups into the paperboard sleeve. The cross-functional team working with key equipment suppliers were able to find a solution.”
No doubt the contributions coming out of R&D helped move things along. According to McLeod, the goal shared by her and her R&D counterparts around the world is to focus on science and technology that will drive the future of the business. She also makes it clear that it isn’t always a matter of waiting for the supplier community to bring the next big thing to Nestlé.
“In some cases it’s us pushing to generate those sciences and technologies if there are gaps between what we need to achieve from a strategic business standpoint and what the supplier community currently has available,” says McLeod. “A purely hypothetical example might revolve around biopolymers for a frozen food package. Such products go from below 0 degrees to in excess of 400 degrees in the consumer’s oven. If we wanted to look into the possibility of a biopolymer for one of our frozen food packages it’s pretty unlikely that there would be one available off the shelf. In all likelihood we’d have to work with the supplier community to generate what would work.”
When asked how she’d describe Nestlé’s approach to packaging innovation, McLeod says it’s strategic and consumer-centric. “We align ourselves with what Nestlé’s business strategies are, and those strategies are always consumer-centric. We work hand in hand with marketing, consumer insights experts, technical managers, and our factories to make sure innovation unfolds as an inclusive process.”
As for where Nestlé looks for packaging innovation inspiration, McLeod says it varies widely. “It could be engineers who have a good idea because they know the strategic vision for the company and they came across a technology that they think fits that vision. It could be marketing that comes up with a great idea because it tested well. And sometimes it’s a customer who alerts us to a gap in our portfolio. But at the end of the day it’s the brands working together with packaging and R&D. If an idea originates in marketing, they often come to R&D to help them leverage the right technologies and sciences that will allow them to execute on that idea. Perhaps they want to go after the value channel and they need low-cost materials to hit a certain margin, then that’s what we look for.”
The innovation continuum
Packaging innovation at Nestlé can represent anything from a breakthrough moment to a simple modification of an existing format. Clearly in the breakthrough category is the molded pulp jug for Pro Plan Renew Premium Clumping Litter, which represents a joint effort by Nestlé Purina and Ecologic Brands Inc. Made of recycled newspaper and corrugated fiber board, this container is positioned as an environmentally friendlier alternative to F-style plastic jugs. It’s similar to previous molded-pulp offerings that Ecologic developed for Seventh Generation, TWC’s BodyLogix, and Paperboy wine. Like these, the Nestlé Purina jug is made by dipping molds into a fiber slurry. Two shells emerge from this process, and the shells are joined by adhesive to create the finished bottle. But the Nestlé Purina bottle is notably different in two ways. First, it has no inner liner made of flexible film. Perhaps even more intriguing, the friction-fit cap is molded pulp as well. The three containers mentioned above all had plastic threaded closures in addition to having inner film liners.
Part of the challenge in making the Nestlé Purina container revolved around the weight of the contents. Overlapping flaps designed into the package help give it the strength it needs to hold the 10.5 lb of product in the larger size. As for the molded-pulp cap, it need only be robust enough to withstand three or four reclosings. An “annular ring” in the neck finish is a design feature that adds strength to the container and contributes to the friction-fit functionality. An existing filling line had to be modified to accept the molded pulp container.
Compared to this paper jug, the development of the beveled carton for Stouffer’s Fit Kitchen line of frozen meals—aimed at consumers looking for protein, complex carbs, and great taste—is more tweak than breakthrough. But it does a great job of differentiating the package without breaking free of the fairly traditional carton format.
“It functions like a fifth panel,” says Ya-Wen Lee, Director of Prepared Foods/Pizza & Snacking/Baking Packaging at Nestlé USA. She’s the first to admit it’s anything but a breakthrough moment in packaging innovation. But that doesn’t mean it was a slam dunk getting it launched. “If you don’t pay close attention to the impact this slight modification to a conventional carton can have on your packaging lines—from how the carton is die cut to line speeds on an existing line—you can run into trouble pretty quickly,” says Lee.
One part of any new package development process involves Life Cycle Assessment software that Nestlé developed in-house. “We use it as a project moves from concept through development,” says Baner. “It’s another design tool that helps guide us in our decision making on which materials we should be using. We look at the typical LCA outputs like greenhouse gases, energy usage, water requirements, end-of-life scenarios, recyclability, and so on.”
This thoroughness of approach is perhaps the quality that manifests itself most repeatedly as one talks with packaging professionals like Baner and the others included here. They and the many colleagues they work with in Nestlé’s global packaging network are clearly big believers in all that packaging contributes to the Nestlé brand, which, by the way, celebrates its 150th anniversary this year.
“We’re not selling product as much as we are selling a consumer experience,” says Strauss. “Packaging is vital to the overall consumer experience. So if packaging doesn’t match the consumer’s expectations, then we’ve underdelivered on the experience.”
It’s that kind of focus that will carry the firm through its next century and a half.
What about packaging machinery?
Of all the folks interviewed for the VIEW FROM THE TOP profile, Nestlé USA Group Packaging Engineering Manager Robert Champion had the most to say about packaging machinery. Here are a few of his observations:
• Packaging machinery Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) can improve their chance of getting Nestlé’s attention these days if they have a clear focus on building machines that are safe to operate and are designed with hygiene and sanitation as top priorities. Some OEMs, he notes approvingly, are incorporating hygienic features as standard components in base models where in the past they might have charged extra for them.
• In evaluating packaging machinery, speed takes a back seat to operational stability. “It’s about setting a target production rate and then hitting it,” says Champion.
• One thing OEMs have done well in recent years is to simplify diagnostics by making data more readily available and, even more important, making it more actionable right at the HMI screen. Champion includes OMAC’s PackML, the ISA industry technical standard for the control of packaging machines, as one of the positive influences that has shaped and continues to shape packaging machinery today. “If you see green on the HMI screen you know your machine is in a good and steady state, and if it veers into yellow you can take action before it goes to red,” says Champion. “PackML shows us machine status in real time and helps us meet that all-important targeted production goal.”
• Performing Factory Acceptance Tests in the OEM’s plant still serves a vital purpose, but progress checks performed virtually during machine development can be a big help. “We have stage gates where we perform health checks virtually through 3D follow-up modeling, renderings, review of drawings and systems, and so on,” says Champion. “These are done strategically during project execution along with on-site reviews at the OEM’s plant where we compare the physical asset with what we’re seeing in the virtual reviews. This lets us decrease timelines and, ideally, mitigate risk virtually while validating physically.”
• Champion is part of the Worker’s Safety committee of PMMI’s OpX Leadership Network, an initiative aimed at convening the builders and the buyers of packaging machinery with the goal of solving operational challenges and achieving operational excellence through safety. Safety is a by-product of packaging systems that do not stop due to unplanned downtime. “It’s one of the best organizations available when it comes to sharing with machinery builders the requirements of CPG companies like Nestlé USA so that they can produce the capital equipment we need,” says Champion. “It’s been very fruitful for us.”
http://www.packworld.com/sustainability/supply-chain/nestle-us-strategically-consumer-centric
-
Trump to Announce 'Almost All' Cabinet Picks Next Week
Dec 2, 2016 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Nolan D. McCaskill
President-elect Donald Trump suggested he will reveal "almost all" of his remaining Cabinet choices next week.
Trump announced his nominee for Defense secretary, retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, at a thank-you rally Thursday in Cincinnati. His transition team has said no more Cabinet appointments are expected this week, but Trump himself hinted that more news is coming "literally very soon."
Trump has already tapped Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions as attorney general, American Federation for Children Chairwoman Betsy DeVos as Education secretary, Georgia Rep. Tom Price as secretary of HHS, former Labor Secretary Elaine Chao as Transportation secretary and former Goldman Sachs executive Steven Mnuchin as Treasury secretary and billionaire private-equity investor Wilbur Ross as Commerce secretary.
“We have some other announcements coming up literally very soon, and people are loving our choices so far,” Trump told Fox News’ Ainsley Earhardt in an interview conducted Thursday but broadcast today. “We’re gonna have an amazing Cabinet.”
And more Cabinet appointments will roll in "big league" next week, Trump said.
"We already have some that we have, but they’ll be starting next week big league. We have some tremendous people, tremendous people that are coming on," he continued.
Trump added that "we’re getting credit for having one of the great Cabinets ever picked," hailing his choices as "people of great distinction, great success."
"Which is what you need," he said. "You know, you’re negotiating with people. You can't have people that didn't know how to get there. And we have tremendous people joining the Cabinet and beyond the Cabinet. So you'll be seeing almost all of them next week."
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
EPA, Interior, DOE Picks Could Come Next Week
Dec 2, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
President-elect Donald Trump said most of his remaining Cabinet announcements will be made next week, a signal that he could be ready to name chiefs for U.S. EPA and the Interior and Energy departments.
Trump told Fox News reporter Ainsley Earhardt last night in an interview that additional Cabinet announcements are "coming up literally very soon, and people are loving our choices so far, we're going to have an amazing Cabinet."
He said during the interview that aired this morning, "They'll be starting next week bigly. ... We have some tremendous people, tremendous people that are coming on. We're getting credit for having one of the great Cabinets ever picked. These are people of great distinction, great success, which is what you need. ... You'll be seeing almost all of them next week."
Trump has already named his picks for top jobs including attorney general and secretaries of Transportation, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Transportation, Education, Defense, and Treasury.
Still remaining beside EPA, Interior and DOE are openings for leaders at the Agriculture Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Labor Department, the White House Office of Management and Budget, and other key administration jobs.
Trump's pick for secretary of State could be up next. He's been criticized by some on the right for considering former Massachusetts Republican Gov. Mitt Romney. Also rumored to be in the mix are former New York City Republican Mayor Rudy Giuliani, retired Gen. David Petraeus and Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).
Trump's campaign promises and his selections for transition team members in environmental agencies suggest he'll steer drastic shifts from the Obama administration when it comes to energy and climate policies.
Leading contenders
Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence have already met with several officials who are rumored contenders for some of the remaining vacancies.
On Monday, two prospects for EPA administrator, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) and former Texas environmental regulator Kathleen Hartnett White, visited Trump Tower (Greenwire, Nov. 28).
Another state attorney general, Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia, is an often-mentioned contender for EPA leader. Like Pruitt, he has been fighting the administration's Clean Power Plan in court.
Any of those candidates — and many others floated as possibilities — would represent a drastic change in the agency's leadership, and would be expected to roll back many of the climate policies the Obama team put in place.
At EPA, for example, Trump has pledged to obliterate the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan to curb power plants' greenhouse gas emissions. He picked a prominent global warming skeptic, Myron Ebell, to head the transition for that agency. And yesterday, Trump named a Colorado free-market think tank leader who proudly wears a "Mothers in Love with Fracking" shirt to join Ebell's team (E&ENews PM, Nov. 1).
EPA isn't technically a Cabinet-level job, but it's been given Cabinet-level status by previous administrations.
For Interior, Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) appears to be a leading contender for secretary. She met with Trump last week, when they discussed "transportation, infrastructure and issues relating to Western land usage," according to the transition team (Greenwire, Nov. 21).
Retiring Wyoming Republican Rep. Cynthia Lummis, another potential Interior contender, also met with Trump last week. And Trump has discussed public lands issues during meetings with Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and former Oklahoma House Speaker T.W. Shannon (R) (Greenwire, Nov. 22).
Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who met with Trump last week, is said to be in the running for Energy secretary (Greenwire, Nov. 21).
One of Trump's top advisers, oil tycoon Harold Hamm, said yesterday that he's prodding Trump to pick North Dakota Rep. Kevin Cramer for the DOE job (E&ENews PM, Dec. 1).
Heitkamp, Manchin 'have a lot to contribute'
Other possible candidates for top energy jobs include Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), who is scheduled to meet with Trump today.
Trump spokesman Jason Miller declined to say today whether Heitkamp or Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) — another rumored candidate for a Trump administration job — are under consideration for specific posts.
"I think it would be too premature to go and say that specific administration roles are being discussed with either," Miller told reporters today. "Obviously, Sens. Heitkamp and Manchin are both very highly respected political leaders who have a lot to contribute to the national conversation and how we move our country forward."
In addition to the Heitkamp meeting, Trump is scheduled to sit down today with Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.); Jay Cohen, a retired Navy rear admiral and former Homeland Security Department undersecretary; former Defense Secretary Robert Gates; Florida Republican Attorney General Pam Bondi; former U.S. Ambassador John Bolton, who is a rumored contender for secretary of State; and David Malpass, president of Encima Global and a Trump economic adviser.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/02/stories/1060046583
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trade Group Launches Center to Assist on TSCA Compliance
Dec 2, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
The American Chemistry Council announced the launch yesterday of a center to streamline corporate compliance with the overhauled Toxic Substances Control Act.
The trade group's Center for Chemical Safety Act Implementation will serve as "a scientific, technical and advocacy hub" for manufacturers coming to terms with the TSCA reform, which President Obama signed into law in June (Greenwire, June 22).
The center will help companies "share costs and promote efficiency" regarding chemical regulation, the group said.
"Because of our constructive role in the enactment of the [chemical reforms], ACC is well versed in the new law, and we are already actively engaged with EPA on implementation," said ACC President and CEO Cal Dooley in a statement. "Through the Center for Chemical Safety Act Implementation, we offer a centralized approach that will help companies and EPA fulfill the law's requirements."
ACC's move follows EPA's announcement of the first 10 priority compounds it would regulate under the reformed law (E&ENews PM, Nov. 29).
ACC's Chemical Products and Technology Division will manage the new center. The group said the hub will be available to both member corporations and nonmembers.
Some public health advocates expressed concern that ACC is trying to stymie tight chemical regulation.
"On behalf of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, I am deeply concerned to see press releases from the American Chemistry Council trying to delay or complicate TSCA implementation," said Linda Reinstein, the group's COO and president. "However, the reformed TSCA passed with bipartisan support, and we believe it has strong statutes to protect public health and the environment."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/02/stories/1060046557
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Launches Center to Support Companies, New Chemical Safety Act
Dec 2, 2016 | Hydrocarbon Processing
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) announced the creation of the Center for Chemical Safety Act Implementation, a scientific, technical and advocacy hub that will assist companies with the implementation of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (LCSA), bipartisan legislation enacted to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Under the new law, chemical manufacturers, processors, importers and downstream users of chemistry will have multiple opportunities to provide input to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and may be subject to Agency requests for additional information on chemicals.
In an effort to share costs and promote efficiency, this new Center will provide opportunities for companies to work together through consortia to develop comments or new data to submit to EPA. This new collective effort will also help inform EPA decisions on chemical prioritization, risk evaluations and risk management options.
“Because of our constructive role in the enactment of the LCSA, ACC is well versed in the new law, and we are already actively engaged with EPA on implementation,” said ACC President and CEO Cal Dooley. “Through the Center for Chemical Safety Act Implementation, we offer a centralized approach that will help companies and EPA fulfill the law’s requirements.”
ACC’s Center for Chemical Safety Act Implementation is open to both ACC members and non-members, and will enable them to take advantage of the following services: LCSA strategy guidance; consortia management; managing data generation, including use and exposure information; data compensation agreements; and advocacy/engagement on risk evaluation and management decisions.
http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/news/2016/12/acc-launches-center-to-support-companies-new-chemical-safety-act
-
A Pro-Industry EPA Could Undermine New Chemical Safety Law
Dec 2, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Melanie Benesh
By releasing the first 10 chemicals to be reviewed under the new federal chemical safety law, the Environmental Protection Agency reminds us of what’s at stake – and how decisions made by the incoming Trump administration could jeopardize Americans' health.
Many of the chemicals identified by the EPA are found in consumer products and have been linked to cancer. But the team deciding how the incoming administration will implement the new law is led by Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an industry-funded front group that has consistently downplayed the risks toxic chemicals pose.
The front group's so-called experts deem chemicals posing serious health hazards safe – including arsenic, mercury, phthalates and formaldehyde. The Institute even laments that the notorious killer asbestos might be among the first “casualties” of the new law, which gives the EPA new power to review and regulate the most dangerous chemicals.
If people like Ebell, who is not a scientist, are put in charge of the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, there’s no telling how the science will be twisted to serve the chemical industry. And if the EPA gets it wrong with these first 10 chemicals, there could be serious consequences.
Several of the chemicals on the list are found in consumer products:
1,4-dioxane is a likely carcinogen, can lead to irritation in the respiratory tract, and cause damage to the kidneys, liver and brain. It’s used in dyes, varnishes and waxes. The chemical can also contaminate cosmetics and cleaners because it is created as a byproduct of chemicals sometimes used in those products. In fact, there are more than 9,000 cosmetics in EWG’s Skin Deep® database with chemicals that may produce 1,4-dioxane as a byproduct. While technology exists to strip out 1,4-dioxane contamination, there is no requirement to do so or mandatory reporting, making it nearly impossible to know which companies have taken action.
1-bromopropane, is “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen,” and is linked to reproductive and developmental harms. It is especially risky for women who are pregnant or of child-bearing age because even short-term exposure can harm a developing fetus. It is a powerful solvent used in degreasers, aerosol spray adhesives, aerosol spot removers, and aerosol cleaners and degreasers. 1-bromopropane is also sometimes used in dry cleaning.
Tetrachloroethylene, better known as PERC, is a solvent used in dry cleaning fluid by approximately 28,000 U.S. dry cleaners. It is also used in household products like water repellents, spot removers, wood cleaners, adhesives and silicone lubricants. The EPA considers PERC a probable human carcinogen and it is on California’s list of known carcinogens. It has also been linked to harmful effects on the nervous system and reproductive system, and can affect fetuses.
These chemicals and the others on the EPA’s list pose serious risks to consumers, workers and the environment. The new law should be an opportunity for the EPA to finally restrict these toxic chemicals and ensure that consumers are safe. But if the EPA’s top spots are packed with pro-industry officials, Americans may never have the safety protections in place that we deserve.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2016/12/under-new-law-epa-names-first-10-chemicals-safety-review
-
New Chemicals Under the New TSCA: Growing Pains Now, but a Stronger System Going Forward
Dec 2, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
In the many conversations I have had over these last many years about the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the single thing that most resonated with people about why the old law didn’t work was about new chemicals. Folks were stunned when they learned that the old law didn‘t require our government to review chemicals and determine they were safe before they were allowed onto the market. People simply assumed this was the case and were shocked to find it wasn’t. I heard repeatedly, what could be a more basic need to ensure protection of the public’s health?
That is why many in Congress worked so hard to drive improvements to the new chemicals provisions in the new law – that, and a clear understanding of the many ways in which the old law hamstrung EPA when it came to new chemicals. In my view, these reforms and robust implementation of them by EPA are absolutely essential to the task of restoring public and market confidence in our national chemical safety system – the shared objective that allowed disparate stakeholders and lawmakers to come together to support the Lautenberg Act.
I have blogged previously about why the new chemicals reforms in the new law represent a balanced approach, on the one hand, ensuring that the safety of new chemicals is carefully examined and a reasonable assurance of safety is provided before market entry; and, on the other hand, ensuring an efficient process that doesn’t unduly slow or create too high a bar for market entry.
Of course, even as it has supported the new law’s balanced reforms, the chemical industry did and continues to assert that the old new chemicals system worked just fine. I’ve always maintained that’s because it rarely required much of them. It’s not wholly surprising, therefore, that the industry is expressing angst over EPA’s implementation of the new requirements. Change is hard.
Bear in mind also that the new requirements of the law not only changed the status quo significantly, they also became effective immediately upon passage of the law, without any time given to EPA to migrate to the new regimen. That, too, has been a source of the growing pains felt by both EPA and the regulated community. Abrupt change is even harder.
But a broader and longer view of the new law is called for. The bulk of this post will describe why EDF believes that EPA’s implementation to date is not only consistent with the new law but in fact mandated by it, and why, despite initial growing pains, the new system will be a major improvement over the long run for both public health and business. But first …
Playing the “don’t-stifle-innovation” card
But before doing so, I want to briefly address an overarching argument that industry uses to try to lend greater weight to its complaints about EPA’s actions under the new law: that those actions threaten to impede innovation, which they assert is directly at odds with Congress’ intent under TSCA.
This claim relies on the only reference to innovation in all of TSCA, in a list of the law’s policy intentions (section 2(b)(3), same language in both the old and new law). Industry typically paraphrases this provision as saying that, under TSCA, EPA shouldn’t act in a manner that impedes innovation. But that is a selective reading of the actual provision; I quote it in its entirety below (emphasis added):
(b) POLICY.—It is the policy of the United States that—
…
(3) authority over chemical substances and mixtures should be exercised in such a manner as not to impede unduly or create unnecessary economic barriers to technological innovation while fulfilling the primary purpose of this Act to assure that such innovation and commerce in such chemical substances and mixtures do not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.
Given that the development and application of new chemicals are a clear source of innovation, how else is that primary purpose of TSCA – providing an assurance that innovation and commerce in chemicals do not present unreasonable risk – to be provided other than through robust scrutiny of new chemicals prior to their commercialization?
Congress clearly got it that innovation without safety doesn’t really qualify as innovation.
New chemical reviews under old vs. new TSCA
The Lautenberg Act made five major improvements to the new chemicals provisions of TSCA, each of which addressed a critical flaw in the original law:
It mandates that EPA review each new chemical and make an affirmative finding as to its safety. The old law had neither mandate.
If 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. The old law essentially forced EPA to allow manufacture to commence for a new chemical lacking sufficient information – such chemicals typically were simply dropped from further review and manufacture could start at the end of the review period.
It requires EPA to consider and mitigate unreasonable risks of a new chemical under its “conditions of use,” which the new law defines to include “reasonably foreseen” circumstances of production, processing, distribution use or disposal, as well as those intended by the company providing the new chemical notice to EPA. Under the old law EPA had to confine any risk finding it did make to the specific uses identified by the company.
It requires EPA to protect against potential risks to “potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations,” including workers. Such a provision did not exist in the old law.
Where EPA imposes conditions on the manufacturer of a new chemical, it must consider whether to promulgate a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) to apply those conditions to other companies making the same chemical. It must 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 and, until recently, was infrequent.
In implementing these new requirements, which took effect immediately upon the law’s enactment, EPA has taken a number of actions. Our understanding of these actions has been informed both through various conversations with companies and EPA staff, and by examination of EPA’s interim recommendations on pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) that are made publicly available here.
Support in the law for EPA’s actions to date
Based on the information available to us, EDF supports each of EPA’s actions described below, both as consistent with or required by the law and as representing sound policy and practice:
First, EPA reset the baseline 90-day clock on reviews that were already in process on the date of enactment. Because the new requirements applied immediately to these new chemicals, that action was both appropriate and necessary. (EPA has explained the legal basis for its decision here [see answer to question 11].)
Second, EPA has identified a number of new chemicals for which it either lacked sufficient information to “permit a reasoned evaluation” or had information that led it to make a finding that the chemical “may present an unreasonable risk.” In such cases, EPA is proceeding, as required under section 5(e) of the new law, to impose testing or other requirements through an order, typically a consent order being negotiated with the company. As was longstanding practice under the old law, the additional time required for testing or negotiating a consent order also typically necessitates an extension of the initial 90-day review period, which is authorized under section 5(c) of the law, or a suspension of the review period done at the request of the PMN submitter.
Third, it appears EPA has identified a number of new chemicals for which it has identified “reasonably foreseen” conditions of use that “may present an unreasonable risk.” This finding may have been reached even where EPA did not find that the intended conditions of use identified by the company may present such risk. Sections 5(e) and 5(f) of the law expressly require that, where EPA finds a new chemical presents or may present an unreasonable risk under its conditions of use – which is defined in the law to include both intended and reasonably foreseen circumstances (section 3(4)) – it must issue an order imposing conditions sufficient to mitigate such risk. It appears that EPA has taken just such action, in some cases by limiting the company to its intended conditions of use – which is necessary to support the affirmative finding that the new chemical is not likely to present an unreasonable risk under its conditions of use, as required to allow manufacture to commence.
Fourth, EPA has identified a number of new chemicals the characteristics of which raise particular concern for workers, especially with regard to the potential for adverse chronic health effects associated with long-term exposures to contaminated air in the workplace. In such cases, we understand EPA is requesting that companies conduct testing to inform its decision as to whether the chemical presents or may present, or is not likely to present, an unreasonable risk. Based on information available to us, EDF believes this is a prudent approach. It is also wholly consistent with the law, which provides EPA with authority to mitigate potential risks posed by new chemicals in workplaces, including where workers represent a “potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation.”
Looking past growing pains to better incentives and renewed public confidence
EDF recognizes that these changes being implemented in EPA’s new chemicals review process, while fully consistent with and required by the new law, are resulting in development of more orders and longer review times compared to the program under the old law. This outcome is not unexpected as EPA develops and implements new procedures and practices to meet the new mandates under the law. We expect that EPA’s processes will become more efficient over time and allow in many cases for more expeditious reviews.
We also hope that companies will now have greater incentive both to: 1) provide EPA with more information about their new chemicals to facilitate EPA’s mandated review and safety finding; and 2) anticipate when filing new chemical notices that their chemicals may well be produced and used for purposes beyond those they initially intend once those chemicals enter commercial distribution.
Companies have noted repeatedly that they often lack knowledge of the full range of uses of chemicals they make and may have little or no control over such uses once those chemicals are being commercially distributed. Hence it is vital – as well as mandated by the new law – that EPA consider reasonably foreseen uses of new chemicals in making the required safety findings.
Companies concerned that limitations placed on their ability to produce and use a new chemical may impede innovation or competitive position can and should incorporate a broader range of conditions of use into their new chemical notices and provide EPA with the information it will need to evaluate that broader range of conditions of use.
By acting on these strengthened incentives to provide more information and anticipate future uses, companies can better ensure that the much-needed enhanced review of the safety of new chemicals mandated by the Lautenberg Act can be achieved without impeding innovation or the ability to compete.
For too long, economic factors have dominated over the public’s right to expect that chemicals to which they may be exposed will not be allowed into use without adequate assurance of their safety. That has undermined consumer confidence in our chemical safety system. The public understands that the most efficient and effective stage at which to provide assurance of safety is before commercial production and use begins, rather than waiting and then having to try to mitigate risks that arise after a new chemical is embedded in commerce.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2016/12/02/new-chemicals-under-the-new-tsca-growing-pains-now-but-a-stronger-system-going-forward/
-
Announcement and Implications of First 10 Chemicals to Undergo Risk Evaluation
Dec 2, 2016 | Lexology
By Thomas C. Berger, Martha E. Marrapese, and Adrienne M. Timmel
Fulfilling another of its mandates under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg Act), which amended the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) effective June 22, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the first 10 chemical substances on which it will conduct risk evaluations under section 6 of TSCA. Section 6(b)(2)(A) requires EPA to ensure that risk evaluations are being conducted on 10 chemicals drawn from EPA’s 2014 TSCA Work Plan Chemicals Assessment List by December 19, 2016, and to publish this “List of 10” within the same timeframe.
EPA’s November 29, 2016 announcement, available at https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/evaluating-risk-existing-chemicals-under-tsca, included the following table setting forth the List of 10 as well as existing hazard and exposure information for each chemical, which EPA compiled as part of the Work Plan.
--
Chemical
Exposure
Hazard
--
1,4-Dioxane
Used in consumer products. Present in groundwater, ambient air and indoor environments. High reported releases to the environment.
Possible human carcinogen
--
1-Bromopropane
Used in consumer products. Present in drinking water, indoor environments, surface water, ambient air, groundwater, soil. Estimated to have high releases to the environment.
Possible human carcinogen
--
Asbestos
Used in chlor-alkali production, consumer products, coatings and compounds, plastics, roofing products, and other applications. Also found in certain imported products such as brakes, friction products, gaskets, packing materials and building materials.
Known human carcinogen; Acute and chronic toxicity from inhalation exposures
--
Carbon Tetrachloride
Used in commercial/industrial products. Present in biomonitoring, drinking water, indoor environments, surface water, ambient air, groundwater, soil. High reported releases to the environment.
Probable human carcinogen
--
Cyclic Aliphatic Bromide Cluster (HBCD)
Flame retardant in extruded polystyrene foam, textiles, and electrical and electronic appliances.
Acute aquatic toxicity
--
Methylene Chloride (MC)
Used in consumer products. Present in drinking water, indoor environments, ambient air, groundwater, and soil.
Probable human carcinogen
--
N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP)
Used in consumer products. Present in drinking water and indoor environments. High reported releases into the environment.
Reproductive toxicity
--
“Pigment Violet 29,” Anthra[2,1,9-def:6,5,10-d’e’f’]diisoquinoline-1,3,8,10(2H,9H)-tetrone
Used in consumer products. Estimated to have moderate releases to the environment.
Aquatic toxicity
--
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Used in consumer products. Present in drinking water, indoor environments, surface water, ambient air, groundwater, and soil.
Probable human carcinogen
--
Tetrachloroethylene (also known as perchloroethylene)
Used in consumer products and dry cleaning. Present in biomonitoring, drinking water, indoor environments, ambient air, groundwater, soil. High reported releases to the environment.
Probable human carcinogen
--
In selecting the first 10 chemicals, EPA indicated that it took into account recommendations from the public, industry, environmental and public health groups, and members of Congress. It is no surprise that asbestos is on the list. Vacatur of the previously proposed section 6 rule on asbestos in the 1991 Corrosion Proof Fittingscase caused many to believe that section 6 was too challenging to implement and was the primary impetus for TSCA reform.[1] With the passage of the Lautenberg Act, many senators, including Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), have called on EPA to act on asbestos first.[2]
EPA also indicated that in creating the list it attempted to prioritize chemicals for which it had already performed considerable work. Indeed, EPA has already initiated risk assessments for many of these chemicals under the Work Plan program and, thus, it could move forward with the notice and comment process quickly if it does not expand the scope of uses under evaluation. With respect to the subject substances:
The Agency has completed risk assessments on three of these chemicals – MC, NMP and TCE – and, as we discussed here, has sent proposed section 6 risk management rules for them to the Office of Management and Budget for approval prior to publication in the Federal Register. Section 26(l)(4) of TSCA authorizes EPA to publish proposed and final section 6 rules for chemicals on which a risk assessment was completed under the Work Plan prior to June 22, 2016, which are consistent with the scope of such risk assessment and with other applicable requirements of section 6.
A Draft Risk Assessment has been completed and peer reviewed, but not finalized, for 1-Bromopropane.
EPA has completed Work Plan Problem Formulation and Initial Assessments on HBCD and 1,4-dioxane. These documents may satisfy the scoping element of the new law.
EPA has initiated no activity under the Work Plan for asbestos, carbon tetrachloride, Pigment Violet 29, or perchlorethylene.
Publication of this list in the Federal Register will trigger a series of statutory deadlines. Pursuant to section 6(b)(4)(D), EPA must release a risk evaluation scoping document between three and six months for at least the four chemicals for which no action has been initiated, which identifies the hazard(s), exposure(s), conditions of use, and the potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation(s) the Agency plans to consider in the evaluation of each chemical.
Section 6(b)(4)(G) requires EPA to complete the risk evaluations for all 10 chemicals within three years. One of the major changes to TSCA was that these risk evaluations must not take into consideration cost or other non-risk factors. If EPA concludes that any of these chemicals presents an unreasonable risk, then the Agency must promulgate a risk management rule within two years of completing the risk evaluation, as mandated by section 6(c)(1)(B). Notably, Section 18(b)(1) entirely exempts chemicals in the List of 10 from preemption until the final section 6 rule is issued, so that states can continue to regulate these chemicals until such time. By contrast, chemicals designated by EPA as “high-priority” are subject to what is known as “pause preemption.”[3]
To view all formatting for this article (eg, tables, footnotes), please access the original here.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f9d55a66-f3b6-4e1e-b894-76492610dd63
-
EPA to Hold Public Meeting on Changes to New Chemicals Review Program - Update
Dec 2, 2016 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson
As noted in our blog posting on November 16, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on December 1, 2016, that its Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) will hold a public meeting on December 14, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (EST) to update the public on changes to the New Chemicals Review Program under the Toxic Substances Control Act, as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (TSCA). Note the time change from EPA’s previous announcement of this public meeting; the meeting time has been extended to end at 3:00 p.m. instead of the original 12:00 p.m. Reportedly, the response to EPA’s earlier notice was quite robust so EPA has extended the public meeting by three hours.
EPA states that it will “describe its review process for new chemicals under the amended statute, as well as discuss issues, challenges, and opportunities that the Agency has identified in the first few months of implementation.” Interested parties will have the opportunity to comment “on their experiences with the New Chemicals Review Program, including submittal of pre-manufacture notices (PMNs), microbial commercial activity notices (MCANs), and significant new use notices (SNUNs) under section 5 of the law.” Information obtained during this meeting and from submitted written comments will be considered as EPA works to “implement the new requirements and improve the efficiency of its review process under TSCA.”
In-person and webinar registration is available now. EPA is requesting that interested parties register by December 13, 2016. Written comments will be accepted via www.regulations.gov under Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0658 and must be submitted by January 14, 2017.
More information on new chemicals review under amended TSCA is available in our memorandum TSCA Reform: An Analysis of Key Provisions and Fundamental Shifts in the Amended TSCA.
Commentary
As noted in our earlier blog, given the considerable impact of new TSCA on EPA’s New Chemicals Program, this public meeting is a must attend for TSCA stakeholders. Interested parties should come to the meeting with thoughtful questions and clear expectations as to what stakeholders can usefully share with EPA at the meeting. This could be the first of several such meetings to help interested parties understand the processes OPPT is developing in response to new TSCA, add greater transparency to those processes, and to assist EPA as appropriate with implementing the new law.
One point in particular that we draw attention to is a sentence at the top of page 86714 in the Federal Register notice describing the affirmative determinations that initially are tied to unreasonable risk determinations, then goes on to claim that there is an alternative concerning “insufficient information to allow for a determination.”
Pursuant to the amended law, EPA is now required to make an affirmative determination as to whether or not the new use or new chemical presents, may present, or is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, or, alternatively, if there is insufficient information to allow for a determination.
This reading of the law is plainly at odds with the text that clearly states (Section 5(a)(1)(B)) that EPA has to “make a determination under subparagraphs (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (3).” The insufficient information provision appears at Section 5(a)(3)(B)(i). and, thus, “insufficient information” is both included within (B) and is a determination. We also note that in discussing the affirmative determinations, EPA has omitted discussion of the substantial production/exposure determination at Section 5(a)(3)(ii)(II).
While this may only represent an error in drafting the notice, it is also possible that it indicates a basic misunderstanding of the new chemicals provisions, a view that may find support in some of the decisions recently communicated to our clients in “action letters” on Section 5 notices.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-to-hold-public-meeting-changes-to-new-chemicals-review-program-update
-
Will Oil, Loyalty Trump Western Traditions at Interior?
Dec 2, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
It's an unwritten rule of federal politics that the person who runs the Interior Department must hail from the American West.
But now Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) is said to be a leading contender for Interior secretary in the Cabinet of President-elect Donald Trump, which raises the question — is Oklahoma a Western state, and does it matter?
Oklahoma has wide-open spaces, cattle and cowboys. But it lacks Rocky Mountain peaks or a Pacific shoreline. Only its thin western Panhandle lies west of the 100th meridian, the traditional boundary between the arid West and the humid East.
And perhaps most importantly, it is not a public lands state.
A tiny fraction of its lands — less than 2 percent — belong to the federal government. The five major federal lands agencies own more than a third of Colorado and nearly 85 percent of Nevada. Even Vermont has more (7.5 percent) than the Sooner State. In the West, most of that federal land is managed by Interior.
You have to go back to the 1970s to find an Interior secretary who was not from one of those public lands states.
"It would be a break," said Patty Limerick, a historian of the American West at the University of Colorado. A pick from Oklahoma, she said, could be seen as "challenging" the traditional selection criteria.
What Oklahoma does have in common with traditional Western states, in addition to a strong Native American presence, is oil.
Oklahoma ranks fifth in U.S. crude oil production, mostly behind much larger states. In recent years, Oklahoma has outproduced all onshore federal land combined.
Oil and gas is the dominant industry in the state, and 1 of every 5 jobs is said to be connected to it. The state Capitol is surrounded by working oil wells. Inside, the names of Halliburton Co., Phillips Petroleum Co. and Conoco Inc. are engraved in the dome.
Oil and gas executives are the corporate titans of the state and have provided much of Fallin's campaign cash. Among industries, oil and gas was the biggest contributor to her 2014 re-election campaign. According to FollowTheMoney.org, she received $808,896 from oil and gas, topping health professionals, who gave $740,597. But the industry affiliation of many donors was unspecified. Data at OpenSecrets.org show that oil and gas was also her top financial supporter during her two terms in Congress.
Fallin endorsed Trump in early May, shortly after his path to the nomination cleared. She was even mentioned as a potential vice presidential pick. She was in tune with her state, which gave Trump more than 65 percent of the vote. She met with Trump for 40 minutes last week (Greenwire, Nov. 23).
The incoming president has financial interests in oil and gas. Trump's oil and gas holdings include Exxon Mobil Corp., Halliburton and TransCanada Corp. They are held in brokerage and wealth management accounts, according to the financial disclosure report he filed in May. His holdings had included Dakota Access pipeline builder Energy Transfer Partners LP, but Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks told the Dallas Business Journal that he had sold his stake in the company in July.
Broad responsibility for oil
Interior isn't the only department with responsibility for oil and gas. U.S. EPA regulates select aspects, Energy funds research, and Transportation oversees pipelines.
But managing public lands and offshore areas gives Interior some of the broadest responsibilities for production. Despite rapid increases in production on private lands, federal oil and gas leases still account for one-fifth of U.S. domestic production. But that's down from more than 35 percent before the nation's oil drilling boom. Bonus bids, rents and royalties are often the second-highest source of federal revenue after income taxes.
Yet the rangelands of the West occupy a pre-eminent place in the department, going back to its founding. It was created in the 1840s as the nation wrestled with how to absorb a host of new territories in the West.
"Interior has a greater and more consequential presence in the West" than elsewhere, said Limerick.
The importance of where the secretary hails from is embedded in the culture of the department. Unlike other agencies, its list of former leaders includes the states from which they came.
None has come from Oklahoma.
Historians and academics have long labored over what exactly constitutes "the West," said Limerick. Oklahoma and Texas, she said, are among the most confounding questions.
"The definition of 'Western' has been up in the air for quite some time," she said.
Larry Swanson, a regional economist and director of the O'Connor Center for the Rocky Mountain West at the University of Montana, said he groups Oklahoma with Arkansas and Texas as the "Southern Gulf."
Other potential contenders for Interior come from more traditional states. There are retiring GOP Rep. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) and Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) (E&ENews PM, Dec. 1).
Still, Oklahoma has similarities with its neighbors to the west, Limerick said, starting with tribal issues. Once called "Indian Territory," the state has 38 federally recognized tribes. Interior includes the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Issues of the trust relationships with tribes and sovereignty have tripped up several Interior secretaries.
What is clear is that Oklahoma is not one of the 12 states with more than 10 million acres managed by the five major federal lands agencies, an attribute unique to states west of the 100th meridian.
Managing those millions of acres is a balancing act between preservation and development. To find the right balance, some say, it helps to have lived there.
Coming in with a purely pro-development view of public lands won't work as well as it once did in many parts of the West, said the University of Montana's Swanson. Nor would a purely preservationist view. He says Westerners demand a more nuanced approach to development.
"The view from afar is that you're either for it or against it," he said. "The view from afar can be absolutely wrong."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/12/02/stories/1060046555
-
Obama Admin Choking Oil and Gas Leasing Process — Industry
Dec 2, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A prominent oil and gas industry group doubled down this week on its claim that the Obama administration has been illegally hampering federal oil and gas leasing for years.
Western Energy Alliance urged a federal court Wednesday to consider its arguments that the Interior Department has failed to meet legal requirements to hold quarterly lease sales for oil and gas development on public lands. The filing comes after government lawyers and environmental groups last month pushed the court to dismiss the alliance's lawsuit.
According to the group, Interior's Bureau of Land Management has violated the Mineral Leasing Act by delaying and canceling several scheduled lease sales in the West in recent years. The MLA specifies that "lease sales shall be held for each State where eligible lands are available at least quarterly and more frequently if the Secretary of the Interior determines such sales are necessary."
Industry critics say the agency is bowing to pressure from the "keep it in the ground" movement against fossil fuels. The agency's New Mexico state office, for example, held just two lease sales in fiscal 2015, while the Montana/Dakotas office will hold no more than two during fiscal 2016.
"Denying the right to bid for eligible lands that are available deprives the Alliance's members of a statutory right under the Mineral Leasing Act and limits the members' ability to optimize their economic well-being," BakerHostetler lawyers representing the industry group told the court.
BLM and environmental groups backing the agency in the litigation pushed back on the group's arguments last month, urging the court to dismiss claims that the agency had violated the Mineral Leasing Act. Government lawyers say Western Energy Alliance lacks standing to bring the lawsuit, has not demonstrated that any particular members have been harmed by BLM's leasing schedule and is attempting to bring an impermissibly broad challenge to the leasing program, rather than focusing on specific actions.
"Petitioner seeks the precise type of sweeping programmatic review barred by [legal precedent]," Justice Department lawyers representing Interior told the court. "Petitioner's claims must be dismissed because it attempts to challenge BLM's policies on a 'wholesale' basis rather than challenging a discrete final agency action."
Western Energy Alliance fired back this week, arguing that BLM and its allies have misconstrued the lawsuit as a broad attack on Interior's discretion over leasing.
"The Alliance presents no challenge in this lawsuit to curtail the Secretary's discretion over oil and gas leasing, to limit the environmental review of parcels to be leased, or to otherwise modify the process by which eligible lands are classified as 'available' for leasing," the group told the court Wednesday, adding later: "It is these cancellations of entire lease sales based on administrative whim, convenience, or preference — despite the existence of parcels that are 'available for leasing' — that the Alliance challenges in this case."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/12/02/stories/1060046521
-
Congress Should Take the Lead on Our Nation’s Energy Policies
Dec 2, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Dr. Margo Thorning
Almost a year ago, Congress made history by lifting the ban on crude oil exports – an archaic provision in the law that stifled America’s ability to become global energy leader. Now, Congress has the opportunity to make history once more by refocusing on long overdue items in the final days before the end of the year, specifically on the much-needed Energy Policy Modernization Act (EPMA).
The Senate voted earlier this summer to conference with the House in an effort to hammer out final provisions between the two chambers’ competing energy bills. However, before conferees could complete their work, members became sidetracked by the elections and the negotiations stalled. As a result, legislative language to improve the time it takes to review applications for the export of liquefied natural gas (LNG) is in jeopardy.
Earlier this month, House Democrats sent a revised offer to the Senate that did not include the LNG export language, which would give the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 45 days to finish its review of a project – instead of the open-ended process currently in place – after environmental analysis has concluded.
This much needed change would make the DOE review process more efficient and ensure that projects don’t face unnecessary and costly delays. A more predicable process would also reduce uncertainty and restore the advantage for U.S. LNG projects to compete for a share of the global market. That share can translate into billions of dollars in new investments, and thousands of jobs.
The failure to include the LNG provision was disappointing. Some LNG export applications have been pending for years, tied up in the bureaucratic process somewhere between DOE and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), including an application for an export terminal in Georgia that was pending for more than 1,000 days before finally being approved.
The United States has an estimated 2,200 trillion cubic feet of economically recoverable natural gas – the equivalent of 84 years of domestic consumption at current rates. With an abundant supply of U.S.-produced, low-cost natural gas to meet domestic demand for decades, exporting LNG is the next obvious step on the path to increased economic prosperity and global energy leadership.
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., LNG was the world’s second-most traded commodity last year. Demand for LNG around the world is projected to continue to grow. Our allies in Europe are especially interested in buying U.S. LNG, which would provide a stable source of baseload energy that offers a cleaner alternative to other traditional fossil fuels. IEA and Goldman also pointed out that U.S. natural gas is an affordable alternative in many emerging markets where prices for locally produced energy have been high and supplies limited.
During the past year, both chambers of Congress have recognized the necessity of modernizing our national energy policies to reflect the recent energy renaissance, yet LNG export applications continue to languish. It is disappointing that the LNG language was stripped from the House’s counter to the original Senate bill, but there is still time to correct the error.
America has not seen a major energy policy bill since the Bush administration – an error that is threatening our energy security. U.S. LNG is already being exported in limited quantities, but the application process remains slow and cumbersome, resulting in lost opportunities for U.S. businesses as other global projects come online.
As the year comes to a close, the debate over LNG exports and modernizing out energy policy is at a tipping point. Before the 114th Congress comes to a close, we encourage lawmakers to reconcile differences and send a final energy bill to the president for signing that includes overdue reforms to the DOE review process for LNG export licenses.
Dr. Margo Thorning is Senior Economic Policy Advisor with the American Council for Capital Formation.
http://origin-nyi.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/308395-congress-should-take-the-lead-on-our-nations-energy
-
Court to Hear Challenge to New Plant Carbon Rule in April
Dec 2, 2016 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments over EPA's rule limiting carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants on April 17, the court announced today.
However, it is unclear whether those arguments actually will take place. President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to repeal that regulation, along with its twin rule, the Clean Power Plan, and a variety of other Obama-era environmental regulations. While the court put the CPP legal challenge on a special fast track, the challenge to the new plant rule, also known as the 111(b) rule or the NSPS, has proceeded at a normal pace.
Trump's administration will have several months before the April 17 arguments to try to convince the court that the rule should be sent back to the agency for reworking, a move that is likely to be supported by industry and opposed by environmentalists.
The D.C. Circuit said it will reveal the three judges who will hear the case a month before arguments.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Trump Adds ‘Mother in Love with Fracking’ to EPA Team
Dec 1, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A Colorado think tank chief who opposes key Obama administration energy regulations has been added to Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) transition team.
Trump officials named Amy Oliver Cooke, the vice president and director of the Independence Institutes’ Energy Policy Center, to his EPA landing team on Thursday.
Cooke has spoken out against Democratic environmental polices both in Washington and Colorado. In a September op-ed in the Denver Post, she said the EPA’s landmark Clean Power Plan (CPP) rule is “backstopped by a cap-and-trade scheme,” and that Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) was “like Obama ... intent on imposing climate policies over the will of the people.”
In a Wednesday blog post, Cooke wrote, “in 2017 the EPA will be very different under a President Trump administration. During the campaign, Mr. Trump said the Clean Power Plan is DOA.”
An earlier post said a local utility should retool its clean energy generation plans because, “given the outcome of the national presidential election, the CPP is probably dead, and it’s unlikely there will be additional federal regulation on carbon."
Her Independence Institute biography page says, “She’s famous for her provocative messaging like ‘Mothers In Love with Fracking’ and ‘I’m an energy feminist because I’m pro-choice in energy sources.’”
Environmentalists have criticized Trump for appointing EPA transition team members hostile to both Obama administration rules and climate change science.
The head of his EPA transition team, Myron Ebell, is the director of energy and environment policy at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, and is a leading skeptic of climate science.
Trump met Monday with Kathleen Hartnett White, who directs energy and environment policy at a Texas think tank, to discuss a potential cabinet appointment.
The League of Conservation Voters said White, if she is appointed to the EPA, would “give polluters a free pass to regulate themselves — putting our clean air and water at risk.”
http://www.thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/308378-trump-adds-mother-in-love-with-fracking-to-epa-team
-
A Play for 'Common-Sense' Fracking Rules in Ga.
Dec 2, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Kristi E. Swartz
A broad coalition of northwest Georgians want to update the state's oil, gas and deep well drilling law to include provisions for hydraulic fracturing.
The push comes as an increased number of wildcatters have asked to buy mineral rights from landowners in the Peach State, according to Joe Cook, with the Coosa River Basin Initiative. Drilling is not imminent, but Cook said should natural gas prices rise, that gives speculators and drillers an incentive to explore new shale plays.
"We want to have some common-sense regulations in place before that happens," he said.
Georgia, and broadly the Southeast, is far removed from the shale fields that launched the domestic natural gas boom. But the state's northwest corner sits atop a shale field that could prove to be lucrative in the future, some say.
The state's Oil and Gas and Deep Drilling Act was passed in 1975 and hasn't been updated since. This means it contains several arcane provisions that Cook was able to name without hesitation.
There is no requirement for drillers or the state government to notify local governments or residents of a pending permit and no opportunity for public comment on such a permit, and the state's environmental protection division can issue or deny a permit to drill in just 15 days.
What's more, drillers are not required to identify nearby groundwater and monitor that water to make sure they are not polluting it, Cook said.
Cook made it clear that they do not want to ban or limit fracking or drilling. The law needs updated regulations that would typically come with projects that could affect the environment, he said.
An updated law "would provide communities with the opportunity to comment and know what was taking place in their backyards," he said. The neighboring states of Alabama and Tennessee have such protections in place, he said.
"We're actually playing catch-up with Alabama, which is an unusual circumstance as far as environmental regulations go," he said.
CRBI has been working with the Southern Environmental Law Center on proposed legislation for Georgia's 2017 session, which begins in January.
Gil Rogers, director of the SELC's Atlanta office, said the law was crafted long before anyone was thinking about fracking by way of the modern processes that are now being used. That includes its impacts on natural resources, private property values and the environment.
"So the law does need to be updated to provide basic protections for both the natural resources that are impacted and the private property owners whose lands are being sought after for future fracking or even speculation about possible fracking," he said.
Jim Kennedy, a geologist with the state's Environmental Protection Division, has agreed to review technical language in draft legislation. He said the federal underground injection control (UIC) permit — part of the Safe Water Drinking Act — covers Class II injection wells, the type used to dispose of oil and gas waste, however.
"I'm not saying don't update the law, but the EPD is not updating the regulations," he said.
As with most regulations, the issue is technical and complicated.
The UIC portion of the law regulates holes drilled to inject industrial waste deep underground. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 exempted hydraulic fracturing from the UIC provisions of the Safe Water Drinking Act, however.
Scott Tolleson with the Municipal Gas Authority of Georgia said his organization would support an update of the regulations but not a fracking ban. He also said changing the law now is premature.
"We think production is decades away," he said. What's more, fracking is the chief driver of low natural gas prices, so if drillers want to enter Georgia, the state should welcome that type of economic development, he said.
MGAG and some Georgia lawmakers also share the opinion that they should stay out of any negotiated agreements between a company and property owner.
"It's a private property issue," Tolleson said. "They are going to have negotiated contracts, and we don't get in the middle of that."
This likely is one of two issues involving energy and property rights that the Georgia Legislature will entertain next year. The second involves the taking of land by eminent domain to build pipelines.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/12/02/stories/1060046546
-
SoCal Edison Makes Efficiency Advances on Gas-Fired Power Plant
Dec 2, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
With a series of technology collaborations, Southern California Edison Co. (SCE) has turned its 1,100 MW natural gas-fired Mountainview generation plant in Redlands, CA, into an efficiency and water-saving model.
A pilot project tested at SCE's Mountainview plant has proven to be cheaper to build, less expensive to run, and recovers 90% of the wastewater treated, according to utility officials.
Sylvan Source Inc. (SSI) has completed a pilot test of its SSI Core water treatment system at the SCE facility, which is tied in with the Electric Power Research Institute's (EPRI) Water Management Technology program. Sylvan officials bill their developing technology as "platforms that are applicable to a broad range of industrial processing and thermal energy management applications, as well as markets with complicated or challenging water treatment opportunities," such as the SCE gas-fired power plant.
"A lot of good work has been going on at the Mountainview plant in the last couple of years," an SCE spokesperson told NGI. "This project was an effort to test the technology on a real wastewater stream during normal operations, and the technology is showing real promise on the water use and reclamation front."
Mountainview has had recent improvements that have increased its capacity from 1,054 MW to about 1,100 MW -- enough to power about 715,000 homes, the spokesperson said. "Recent improvements done with GE Power and Water have also enabled the plant's six turbines (four gas-fired and two steam-driven) to ramp up and down more quickly in response to the fluctuations of solar and wind power throughout the day."
The turbines also use less gas, and new combustion technology reduced the plant's emissions without the need for additional water in the steam-generation process, the spokesperson said.
If the technology proves to be commercially viable, it could be a major breakthrough not just for utilities, but any industry that treats its wastewater, the utility spokesperson said. "This would be especially valuable in a state like California that is facing an ongoing and historic drought."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/108597-socal-edison-makes-efficiency-advances-on-gas-fired-power-plant
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Add recipients
Suggested