Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 12/15/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) What's in a Name? A Heck of a Lot
Dec 15, 2016 | Plastics News
By Don Loepp
I don’t think the Society of the Plastics Industry Inc. needed to change its name. But I understand why it did, and I think the new name makes sense. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Groups Seek Changes to TSCA New Substance Reviews
Dec 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Catherine Cooney
Industry groups have urged the EPA to reassess the changes it has made to the new chemicals programme as a result of TSCA reform. The call comes amid a slowdown in pre-manufacture notice (PMN) reviews and an uptick in consent orders. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Floats Options for Clearing Backlog of TSCA New Chemicals Reviews
Dec 15, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA is floating options for how the chemical sector could improve submission of pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) for new chemicals as required under section 5 of the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), eying steps that could streamline the process given a significant backlog of PMNs EPA is facing since the new law took effect. -
EPA Seeks Input on Defining 'Small Business' for TSCA Reporting Rules
Dec 15, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA is soliciting public comment under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) on whether to broaden its standards for determining the manufacturers and processors that qualify as “small business” manufacturers and processors for purposes of applying the reporting and recordkeeping rules under TSCA section 8(a). -
US EPA Seeks SME Definition Feedback
Dec 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA is seeking public comment on the adequacy of the existing standards for determining a small business. -
EPA Requests Public Comment on Revision of Current Size Standard Definitions Under TSCA
Dec 15, 2016 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson & Margaret R. Graham
On December 15, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a notice requesting public comment on whether a revision of the current size standard definitions for small manufacturers and processors, that are used in connection with reporting regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), is warranted at this time. -
EPA Includes Asbestos in Top 10 Dangerous Chemicals
Dec 15, 2016 | Asbestos.com
By Beth Swantek
Asbestos, a mineral linked to various deadly health conditions and cancer such as mesothelioma, may finally get the scrutiny it needs so regulators can ban the toxic substance in the U.S. -
EPA Names Perc for Review Under TSCA Legislation
Dec 15, 2016 | Laundry and Cleaning News
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced this month that tetrachloroethylene, also known as perchloroethylene (perc), is among the first ten chemicals it will evaluate for potential risks to human health and the environment under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
Washington State Advances 18 Candidates for CHCC List
Dec 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Washington state has issued preliminary draft rule text that would add 18 substances to its Chemicals of High Concern to Children (CHCC) list. -
Time for Dollar Tree to Step Up and Rid Its Shelves of Harmful Chemicals
Dec 15, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Kathy Attar
When my daughter was young she put everything in her mouth, as most babies and toddlers do. I mean everything—toys, clothes, books—anything that fit. -
Non-Animal Methods Can Detect Skin Sensitisers Requiring Activation
Dec 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
A team of scientists has demonstrated that OECD-validated non-animal skin sensitisation assays can reliably predict substances that are sensitisers that require activation by skin cells. -
ICCA Consults on Value Chain Communication Principles
Dec 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Chemical industry associations working through the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) are planning to broaden a programme of outreach to sector supply chains in 2017. The aim is to apply principles for communicating chemicals safety that take the needs of upstream and downstream companies into account. -
PFOA Restriction Gets Green Light from REACH Committee
Dec 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
A large majority of EU member states have backed a draft Regulation setting out a proposed restriction on the manufacture and marketing of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). -
Echa Committees Adopt 19 Opinions on Chromium Authorisations
Dec 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
At their November and December meetings, Echa's Risk Assessment and Socio-economic Analysis committees (Rac and Seac) adopted 19 final Opinions recommending authorisation of uses of chromium VI compounds. -
(ACC Mentioned) The Shale Gas Boom by the Numbers
Dec 14, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alex Tullo
The amount of U.S. investment that chemical companies have announced since the beginning of the decade due to cheap shale gas, according to the American Chemistry Council. The trade group attributes 275 projects to the new gas resource. -
Former DOE Chief of Staff Navin Talks Future of Agency Under Perry
Dec 15, 2016 | E&E TV
By OnPoint
Will the Department of Energy's agenda shift if former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) — President-elect Donald Trump's pick to lead the agency — is confirmed? During today's OnPoint, Jeff Navin, co-founder and partner at Boundary Stone Partners and a former acting chief of staff and deputy chief of staff at DOE, explains how Perry could shape the agency's future. Navin also discusses the confirmation prospects for Trump's picks to lead U.S. EPA and the State Department. -
The Oil and Gas Industry is Quickly Amassing Power in Trump’s Washington
Dec 15, 2016 | Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin, Steven Mufson, and Philip Rucker
After eight years of being banished and sometimes vilified by the Obama administration, the fossil fuel industry is enjoying a remarkable resurgence as its executives and lobbyists shape President-elect Donald Trump’s policy agenda and staff his administration. -
EPA Brief Offers Supporters Roadmap to Defend Power Plant GHG NSPS
Dec 15, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
EPA has filed a long-awaited brief defending its power plant new source performance standards (NSPS), the legal prerequisite of its landmark greenhouse gas rule for existing plants, providing a roadmap for environmentalists, states and other supporters who will continue to defend it when the incoming Trump administration takes office in January and seeks to roll back the rule. -
Investor Groups Call for More Corporate Disclosure
Dec 15, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
Oil and gas firms need to provide more quantitative evidence that they are addressing community concerns about hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling operations, investor advocacy groups said. -
Land in Ohio's Only National Forest Auctioned for Drilling
Dec 15, 2016 | E&E Energywire
Parcels of land inside Ohio's Wayne National Forest have been made available for lease by oil-and-gas-drilling companies, despite strong opposition from environmental groups. -
PHMSA Boosts Standards for Underground Gas Storage
Dec 15, 2016 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration today added new industry-backed practices for underground natural gas storage facility, such as the Aliso Canyon site that leaked billions of cubic feet of gas last year. -
'Cabinet of Big Polluters' or 'Clear-Eyed and Realistic'?
Dec 15, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
Meet President-elect Donald Trump's energy and environment Cabinet: a crusader against climate rules, a former governor who's pledged to ax the agency he's been picked to lead and an up-and-coming freshman Montana congressman. -
Greens Push Senators to Reject Trump’s EPA Pick
Dec 15, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
An environmental group is launching an advertising campaign to pressure senators to vote against President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) What's in a Name? A Heck of a Lot
Dec 15, 2016 | Plastics News
By Don Loepp
I don’t think the Society of the Plastics Industry Inc. needed to change its name. But I understand why it did, and I think the new name makes sense.
I’m not exactly excited about it, but that’s OK. It’s good enough at this point to say I’m a fan.
The new name, the Plastics Industry Association, is on point. That’s great. When you re-brand something, whether it’s an association, a company or a product, you don’t want to confuse people.
The old name, SPI, was a little confusing, and the new one is more specific. SPI sounds a bit like a club that people join to learn about plastics. PIA — and let’s deal with that acronym in a minute — is more like what someone would call a modern plastics industry trade association.
People in the plastics industry will have to get used to not calling it “SPI.” But the new name isn’t really aimed at them. They’ll adapt.
President and CEO Bill Carteaux says on Capital Hill, he wants the group to be referred to as “plastics.” That makes sense — congressional staffers just need to know that this group represents the plastics industry. Hopefully that means it’s an important group — representing the third-largest U.S. manufacturing sector, behind automotive and chemicals. Maybe the new name can help reinforce that message.
This is an important time for manufacturing. I don’t say that lightly. I’m skeptical when others make claims like “this is a critical time in the country’s history,” or “this is the most important election in our lifetime.” But for manufacturing, it’s really true.
We’ve been through decades of upheaval as a result of globalization, automation and advanced manufacturing. A few decades ago, a lot of people in Washington had the attitude that America was becoming a service economy. We didn’t need to make things anymore. It was fine if those jobs all went to lower-cost places. And our country’s economic policy reflected that. There was no manufacturing policy. Because our leaders, and all the experts, thought it was inevitable that everything — plastics, cars, steel — would be made somewhere else.
But coming out of the Great Recession, manufacturing companies have won new respect. They’re job creators. They’re worth fighting for. Donald Trump won blue-collar votes in part because he wants to cut taxes and regulations on businesses. It’s an opportunity for trade associations like the Plastics Industry Association.
But plastics, in particular, still face big challenges. Don’t forget, a majority of California voters just approved a ban on single-use plastic bags. What other products may be banned? What other states will follow California’s lead? Bags were an easy target for a lot of reasons I’ve written about before. But the vote is still a symptom of the plastics industry’s persistent image problem.
A new name won’t make people love plastics. But if it was that easy, it would have happened a long time ago.
The industry still has a lot of work to do to help solve issues like marine litter. And even though “fracking” hasn’t been a major topic of debate in Washington — remember what I said about the country being more manufacturing-friendly since the Great Recession — it’s still lurking in the shadows. The U.S. plastics industry may be on the verge of an era of unprecedented growth, thanks to plentiful shale-gas feedstocks. But I expect all the plastics trade groups, including PIA and the American Chemistry Council, will face a battle sometime down the road to keep that momentum.
OK, I wrote it again, PIA. I tried to avoid it, but I couldn’t. So let’s cover that.
Carteaux was very specific that the group won’t use that acronym. He prefers PLASTICS, in all capital letters, or the full name, Plastics Industry Association.
That’s a good idea. Washington is an alphabet soup of trade groups. There are dozens in the big shiny office buildings on and around K Street. PIA would be an ineffective identity for the plastics industry in Washington, just like SPI has been.
But it won’t mean that others won’t write and say “PIA.” People will use the acronym anyway. I couldn’t have written this column without it. It would have become awkward (always spelling out Plastics Industry Association) or weird (having PLASTICS in all caps scattered throughout the column).
No one asked me, but I think U.S. Plastics Industry Association would have been an even better name. Although the U.S. Private Investigators Association may have been unhappy with the plastics industry trying to hijack its acronym.
And I suspect that we don’t want a bunch of angry private investigators on our case.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20161215/BLOG01/312159998/whats-in-a-name-a-heck-of-a-lot
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Groups Seek Changes to TSCA New Substance Reviews
Dec 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Catherine Cooney
Industry groups have urged the EPA to reassess the changes it has made to the new chemicals programme as a result of TSCA reform. The call comes amid a slowdown in pre-manufacture notice (PMN) reviews and an uptick in consent orders.
The comments came as the EPA convened a 14 December public meeting to discuss its process for review of new chemicals under TSCA section 5, as revised by the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act.
This requires the agency to make an "affirmative finding" on the safety of a new substance and to issue a determination summarising its conclusions. But businesses say the resulting increase in consent orders and lengthened review periods have delayed new products coming to market.
"Right now, innovation is stuck, because completion of new chemical reviews has ground to a halt", said the the American Chemistry Council's (ACC) Karyn Schmidt in a blog post two days before the meeting.
"EPA has expanded its review of new chemicals well beyond the uses designated by the PMN submitter, and in some cases has focused on uses (and in some cases manufacturing processes) that are remote or speculative, well beyond those reasonably anticipated from the conditions of use described in the PMN," said Ms Schmidt.
And she said she hoped "the experience of the section 5 programme over the last six months will be seen simply as a 'growing pain', and not a permanent condition."
Meanwhile, in public testimony, the American Petroleum Institute's Derek Swick said it was "essential that EPA limits changes to the new chemicals programme." The Lautenberg Act, he said, "does not direct EPA to change the length of the review process, reduce reliance on modelling evaluations, require data it did not previously require […] or otherwise make materials significant changes to the new chemicals programme."
The American Alliance for Innovation, an umbrella group of several dozen trade groups, wrote in a letter to the EPA last month that the section 5 practice "has been turned on its head."
It encouraged the agency to review the implementation of the new law to ensure it is in keeping with Congressional intent "to support innovation in US chemical manufacturing, processing, and use."
But NGOs disagree that the EPA has misinterpreted the Lautenberg Act's intent.
"Many in Congress worked hard to drive significant improvements to the new chemicals provisions in the new law; indeed, for some it was a central reason for their involvement in reforming TSCA," said Joanna Slaney with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).
"The changes that were made were a compromise on both sides but they were not insignificant, and the new requirements are clearly laid out in the language of the Lautenberg Act.”
Speeding along the review process
After six months of implementation there is high interest in how the EPA is reviewing new chemical applications, Jeff Morris, acting director of the agency's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, told the meeting.
After the new law was enacted the EPA began with 500 cases that needed to be evaluated, said Dr Morris. Of those, about 120 are undergoing further review. And over 100 letters have gone out to companies identifying preliminary determination.
To help speed the review, submitters should provide as much information as possible on their PMN, said Greg Schweer, chief of the EPA's New Chemicals Management Branch.
"Many companies provide a lot of very useful information in their submissions, but a lot don't. There is certain information that is required to be submitted on exposure, the uses [and] the chemistry and some people do the minimum, and some provide a very detailed description," said Mr Schweer.
Even if the information is not required, it will help the agency with its review if it is part of the PMN, said Mr Schweer. "Without actual data, or exposure information or use information, the agency will have to make an assumption."
Industry eyes pace of review
The American Chemistry Council says that some 350 pre-manufacturing notices (PMNs) were under review when the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act was implemented. A further 200 notices have since been filed with the agency.
Twenty seven of these have been determined not likely to pose an unreasonable risk. Interim recommendations have been posted for 172 others. The ACC says "progress toward a final decision has been extremely slow" on these.
Some PMNs currently under agency review date back to 2015, added the trade group.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51739/industry-groups-seek-changes-to-tsca-new-substance-reviews
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Floats Options for Clearing Backlog of TSCA New Chemicals Reviews
Dec 15, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA is floating options for how the chemical sector could improve submission of pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) for new chemicals as required under section 5 of the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), eying steps that could streamline the process given a significant backlog of PMNs EPA is facing since the new law took effect.
Those options include providing: measured values for chemical property information; a description of the analytical methods used to generate data; detailed information on worker activities that might yield exposure potential, or affect the frequency and duration of the exposures; gloves and other protective clothing used by workers; more transparent disposal information such as the type of wastewater treatment technology expected to be used; and other key pieces of information, said Greg Schweer, chief of the new chemicals management branch within EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics (OPPT), during a Dec. 14 meeting on the new chemicals program in Washington, D.C.
PMNs generally are notifications of new substances that industry submit to EPA so the agency can review whether they will or may present an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment.
"It all basically boils down to providing more robust PMN submissions," Schweer said. "Some people do the minimum, some people do a lot, but to the extent that people could provide more it would help us out a lot." In the absence of adequate data, EPA likely will make a "worst case assumption" that often results in a finding that a chemical will or may present an unreasonable risk and therefore cannot be sold, he added.
Industry officials, however, used their comments at the public meeting to criticize EPA's approach to implementing the new requirements for reviewing PMNs for new chemicals under section 5 of the reform law, saying that the agency is overreaching what is required under the revisions to the section.
Animal rights advocates used their testimony at the meeting to raise similar concerns with EPA's approach, saying that the reform law requires the agency to minimize vertebrate animal testing, and that the agency has issued findings of insufficient information that necessitates new testing.
Meanwhile, environmentalists praised the agency's current approach to implementing the new requirements and pushed back against industry's charges that EPA is overstepping the reform law's new chemicals' provision. Representatives from environmental groups said that the approach is in line with Congress' intent in the revised law to address what they say are longstanding concerns with the original 1976 TSCA's new chemicals program.
EPA has identified a number of challenges in working through what has become a backlog of several hundred pending reviews for new chemicals under the revised section 5, with the law's new evaluation requirements potentially complicating the agency's ability to process the long queue of reviews.
The program was the most immediately affected by the reform law, which became effective June 22, because the agency already had a number of PMNs in the queue for which it opted to reset the clock, and typically receives about 1,000 new PMN each year. The new provisions require that EPA must now make an affirmative finding on new substances' safety prior to their commercial use, address not only the conditions of use outlined in the PMN but also those that are "reasonably" foreseeable and ensure protection of susceptible subpopulations.
Additionally, the law requires a first-time finding that EPA flag chemicals where "insufficient information" hinders its ability to determine risk, and issue a section 5(e) order for those chemicals to develop new information.
Under section 5 of the original TSCA, EPA did not have to issue findings on the safety of new chemicals entering the marketplace, although it had the authority to do so. A company could under the prior TSCA begin manufacturing and sales of a new chemical after 90 days barring an EPA finding that the chemical "may present an unreasonable risk," but the agency was not required to make an affirmative finding of safety for a substance to be used in commerce.
EPA held the Dec. 14 meeting to outline its approach and the challenges it is facing in implementing the changes to section 5, and to take input from stakeholders on the revisions.
During the meeting, OPPT acting director Jeff Morris said that the agency aims to host a second meeting in six months, which will mark the one-year anniversary of the statutory revisions, to review the state of implementation.
At the same meeting, OPPT risk assessment division director Maria Doa said that some of the scientific issues that have come up that have hindered PMN reviews are unrelated to the new requirements, but rather are the result of internal reviews of the way the program assesses the safety of new chemicals.
The internal reviews raised questions on some assumptions EPA had been relying on in reviewing PMNs, Doa said, such as some assumptions on the link between certain chemical structures and toxicity, especially for dermal endpoints; and a number of chemicals where lung effects may be a concern but the agency has struggled with crafting quantitative benchmarks for toxicity.
On the lung effects, EPA is currently conducting a literature review and hopes to "identify some quantitative benchmarks or risk reduction rules of thumb" for those effects, particularly for worker exposures, given that workers are considered a "susceptible subpopulation" in many PMN reviews.
During the meeting, Karyn Schmidt, senior director at American Chemistry Council (ACC), said that "much of EPA's approach is creating a backlog" stymieing new chemicals from coming to market,.
She warned that the delays will grow worse. Moreover, EPA's increase in issuing section 5(e) orders that either require new information to be developed or place controls on a chemical is "mot supported by congressional intent or the statute," Schmidt said, pointing to the reform law's retention of the 90-day review time frame and inclusion of a refund provision. ACC does not believe the affirmative determination requirement "justifies a radical departure" or "drives a fundamental rethink" from the way the agency previously operated the program.
Derek Swick, director of regulatory and scientific affairs for American Petroleum Institute, highlighted several changes EPA appears to be making he argued are not required under the new statute, including reduced reliance on modeling in favor of ordering new tests and "abandoning" use of non-5(e) significant new use rules.
EPA should clearly describe the changes it is making to the program, particularly those not related to the reform law, in a guidance and issue it for notice-and-comment, Swick said.
Also during the meeting, Catherine Willett, of the Humane Society of the United States, said the group is "especially concerns about the possible effects on animal testing" given that EPA through an increase in section 5(e) orders may require additional tests on new chemicals.
Under the new law, EPA must give an explanation of the basis for additional data to be generated for vertebrate testing, as opposed to using alternative toxicological methods, Willett said.
Environmental groups, however, support the changes EPA is making to section 5 reviews and argued that the agency is required to do so under the new law.
For example, Bob Sussman -- a former EPA official speaking on behalf of the environmentalist coalition Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families -- said EPA is "off to a strong start" and that "industry is dead wrong" that EPA is overstepping the new provisions of the reform law, saying a major objective of the reform law was to strengthen PMN reviews.
https://insideepa.com/inside-epa/epa-floats-options-clearing-backlog-tsca-new-chemicals-reviews
-
EPA Seeks Input on Defining 'Small Business' for TSCA Reporting Rules
Dec 15, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA is soliciting public comment under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) on whether to broaden its standards for determining the manufacturers and processors that qualify as “small business” manufacturers and processors for purposes of applying the reporting and recordkeeping rules under TSCA section 8(a).
Under the TSCA reform law, EPA must within 180 days of the law's June 22 enactment review the adequacy of the standards for identifying small manufactures and processors, and determine by Dec. 19 whether the revision is warranted.
“EPA’s preliminary determination is that revisions to currently codified size standards for TSCA Section 8(a) are indeed warranted,” the agency says in a Dec. 15 Federal Register notice. “As part of the ongoing review process, the EPA is requesting public comment on whether a revision of the current size standard definitions is warranted at this time.”
The agency will take comment through Jan. 17 on whether to revise its decades-old standards for determining which manufacturers and processors are subject to TSCA section 8(a) reporting requirements.
The current definition defines a “small” manufacturer or importer as one whose total annual sales are less than $40 million, or produces or imports a particular substance at a volume of more than 100,000 pounds; and manufacturers or importers whose total earnings are less than $4 million per year regardless of volume produced or imported. Analogous standards for “small” processors are established under TSCA section 8(a).
EPA says in the Register notice that as an initial step in reviewing the current definition the agency reviewed the changes in the Producer Price Index (PPI) for Chemicals and Allied Products, in the years between 1988, when EPA issued its definitions, and 2015.
“EPA found that the PPI has changed by 129 percent, far exceeding the 20 percent inflation index specified as a level above which EPA may adjust annual sales levels in the current standard if deemed necessary” and that among the more than 500 revenue-based size standards set by the Small Business Administration (SBA), the lowest is $5.5 million, and more than 75% of those standards are in excess of $7.5 million. “Thus, EPA’s existing $4 million annual sales standard is an outlier at the low end of this range,” EPA says.
Because of the magnitude of the increase in the PPI since the last revision of the size standards and the current annual sales standard is comparatively low given current revenue-based size standards developed by SBA, EPA has “preliminarily determined” that a revision to the definition is necessary, but is in the process of consulting with SBA on the issue, which the new law requires.
Specifically, EPA is requesting public comment on the adequacy of the current standards and whether revision of the standards is warranted, and not on what a revised standard should be, the Register notice says.
If EPA decides to revise the standards, any such revision would occur in a future rulemaking, which would then provide industry and other stakeholders the opportunity to comment on how to revise the definition.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-seeks-input-defining-small-business-tsca-reporting-rules
-
US EPA Seeks SME Definition Feedback
Dec 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA is seeking public comment on the adequacy of the existing standards for determining a small business.
The Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act requires the EPA to review the size standards for small manufacturers and processors. These are used in connection with reporting requirements under section 8(a) of TSCA.
The EPA says it has preliminarily determined that a revision is warranted to the currently codified standard of what constitutes a small manufacturer. This is due to the magnitude of the increase in the producer price index (PPI) since the last revision of the size standards in 1989. It is also due to the comparatively low current annual sales standard given current revenue-based size standards developed by the Small Business Administration (SBA).
The agency is seeking public comment to determine whether revision is necessary. It is also in consultation with the SBA.
Should the EPA determine that a revision is necessary, it will begin a subsequent rulemaking with further opportunity for public comment.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51744/us-epa-seeks-sme-definition-feedback
-
EPA Requests Public Comment on Revision of Current Size Standard Definitions Under TSCA
Dec 15, 2016 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson & Margaret R. Graham
On December 15, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a notice requesting public comment on whether a revision of the current size standard definitions for small manufacturers and processors, that are used in connection with reporting regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), is warranted at this time. Under amended TSCA Section 8(a)(3)(C), the EPA Administrator, after consultation with the Administrator of the Small Business Administration (SBA), is required to “(i) review the adequacy of the standards prescribed under subparagraph (B); and (ii) after providing public notice and an opportunity for comment, make a determination as to whether revision of the standards is warranted.”
EPA states in the notice that its preliminary determination is that revisions to currently codified size standards for TSCA Section 8(a) are indeed warranted due to “the magnitude of the increase in the [Producer Price Index (PPI) for Chemicals and Allied Products] since the last revision of the size standards and the current annual sales standard is comparatively low given current revenue-based size standards developed by SBA.”
The need to review and update the definition is long overdue. Stakeholders have been seeking a more appropriate definition for years recognizing that the existing metric is dated and has not kept pace with the passage of time, posing unintended regulatory consequences. EPA is to be commended for its rapid response to yet another new TSCA mandate.
Comments must be received on or before January 17, 2017.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-requests-public-comment-revision-current-size-standard-definitions-under-tsca
-
EPA Includes Asbestos in Top 10 Dangerous Chemicals
Dec 15, 2016 | Asbestos.com
By Beth Swantek
Asbestos, a mineral linked to various deadly health conditions and cancer such as mesothelioma, may finally get the scrutiny it needs so regulators can ban the toxic substance in the U.S.
The lethal mineral is now among the top 10 substances the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency must review in accordance to the newly reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which granted the federal agency more leverage against hazardous chemicals.
In June, President Barack Obama signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act into law, updating the almost three-decade-old TSCA, which wasn’t as effective as it should be when it came to protecting Americans against toxic substances.
“Under the new law, we now have the power to require safety reviews of all chemicals in the marketplace,” said Jim Jones, assistant administrator of the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
Meanwhile, the Environmental Defense Fund, a nonprofit that advocates for the protection of the environment, issued this statement: “The potentially dangerous chemicals on this list are long overdue for attention from EPA. This action is a sign that the reformed law, passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, is on the right track.”
Rebecca Meuninck, deputy director of the Ecology Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan, looks forward to the possibility that the new law opens the way for an asbestos ban.
“We are hopeful that they can really slam the door on this nasty chemical and get it out of commerce,” she said.
Next Steps the EPA Takes Regarding Asbestos
In a list of 90 chemicals listed in the EPA’s 2014 TSCA Work Plan, asbestos and nine other chemicals ranked the most problematic based on their potential for high hazard and exposure, as well as other considerations.
The EPA also took into account recommendations from the public, industry, environmental and public health groups, and members of Congress, especially giving weight to chemicals already under assessment for risks.
However, there is much work EPA officials must complete now that it added asbestos to the top 10 list of dangerous chemicals.
Step 1: EPA officials will release a scoping document within the next six months, explaining the hazards, exposure, conditions of use, and the potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations the agency plans to consider for the evaluation.
Step 2: Federal law allows the agency three years to complete risk evaluations to determine whether asbestos causes an unreasonable risk to humans and the environment.
Step 3: If the EPA discovers an unreasonable risk, the legislation allows two years to mitigate the hazard.
“There’s no cost-benefit analysis. I guess [that] is the best way to explain it,” Meuninck said on Michigan Radio WUOM-FM. “So [if] the hazard is high enough…after the risk assessment for a chemical like asbestos, they can ban it. Whereas, that was not possible previously.”
Asbestos Is a Known Killer
Asbestos causes the fatal cancer mesothelioma, which claims 3,000 lives each year in the United States.
Doctors diagnose most people with the pleural type of the disease, which forms on the lining of the lungs, but the cancer can also form around the lining of the abdomen or heart. Symptoms usually show 20 to 50 years after exposure to asbestos.
While asbestos consumption in the U.S. has decreased significantly in recent decades, it still exists in housing and public buildings constructed prior to the 1970s. It’s often found in flooring, ceiling tiles and pipe insulation.
EPA’s List of Chemicals Is Expected to Grow
As the EPA completes each risk evaluation of the first 10 chemicals, new toxic substances will be added to that list and undergo the same investigative process.
The TSCA requires the EPA to have at least 20 risk evaluations underway at any given time by the end of 2019.
Jones said the EPA can ensure it will “deliver on the promise to better protect public health and the environment.”
https://www.asbestos.com/news/2016/12/15/epa-asbestos-top-10-dangerous-chemicals/
-
EPA Names Perc for Review Under TSCA Legislation
Dec 15, 2016 | Laundry and Cleaning News
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced this month that tetrachloroethylene, also known as perchloroethylene (perc), is among the first ten chemicals it will evaluate for potential risks to human health and the environment under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). In addition, EPA is proposing to ban certain uses of trichloroethylene (TCE) due to health risks when used as a degreaser and a spot removal agent in drycleaning.
TCE is as used as a solvent, a refrigerant and in drycleaning fluid.
“For the first time in a generation, we are able to restrict chemicals already in commerce that pose risks to public health and the environment,” said Jim Jones, assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “Today's action will help protect consumers and workers from cancer and other serious health risks when they are exposed to aerosol degreasing, and when drycleaners use spotting agents. I am confident that the new authority Congress has given us is exactly what we need to finally address these important issues.”
The chemicals were drawn from EPA's 2014 TSCA Work Plan, a list of 90 chemicals selected based on their potential for high hazard and exposure as well as other considerations.
When the list is published in the Federal Register, it will trigger a statutory deadline to complete risk evaluations for these chemicals within three years. This evaluation will determine whether the chemicals present an unreasonable risk to humans and the environment. If it is determined that a chemical presents an unreasonable risk, EPA must mitigate that risk within two years.
http://www.laundryandcleaningnews.com/news/newsepa-names-perc-for-review-under-tsca-legislation-5698232
-
Washington State Advances 18 Candidates for CHCC List
Dec 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Washington state has issued preliminary draft rule text that would add 18 substances to its Chemicals of High Concern to Children (CHCC) list.
The state's ecology department says this marks the start of the final comment period before it submits a formal proposed rule early next year. It is the latest development in a stakeholder process, initiated in August, to amend the list of substances that require reporting under the state's Children's Safe Products Act (CSPA).
In the draft, the department has proposed adding:
the phthalates DIBP and DCHP;
the flame retardants DBDPE, TCP, TPP, TCPP, TBPH, TBB, TBPP, TDBPP, TNBP and EHDPP, IPTPP, SCCP, and V6;
the bisphenols BPF and BPS (alternatives to current CHCC-listed BPA); and
the perfluorinated compound PFOA, and its related substances.
It has also proposed delisting:
phthalic anhydride;
octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4); and
molybdenum.
The department had earlier said it would exclude D4 from consideration for delisting. But in the newest draft, it says stakeholder comments provided new scientific studies sufficient to identify it for possible removal. The substance was originally included in the CHCC reporting list based on listing by the European Union as a possible endocrine disruptor.
Comments on the draft list amendments, evaluations of each chemical, and proposed changes to the regulatory text will be accepted until 17 January.
The Department of Ecology will host a webinar on 4 January to review the draft rule language and the updated CHCC list.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51741/washington-state-advances-18-candidates-for-chcc-list
-
Time for Dollar Tree to Step Up and Rid Its Shelves of Harmful Chemicals
Dec 15, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Kathy Attar
When my daughter was young she put everything in her mouth, as most babies and toddlers do. I mean everything—toys, clothes, books—anything that fit. On her first birthday, we have a picture of her biting a shiny plastic book with a super wide grin. During this time, through my work as an environmental health advocate, I started to learn about health dangers related to certain chemicals in consumer products.
I remember when my daughter first started eating solid food; I tried to buy spoons and bowls that did not have BPA or other harmful chemicals in them but it wasn’t always easy. I went to the dollar store in my neighborhood and they unfortunately did not carry BPA-free or phthalate-free options.
Every day, children and adults are exposed to a variety of chemicals found in common household items. A growing body of research suggests that many of these chemicals—which are used in plastics, personal care and cleaning products—may also pose a threat to our health.
The toxic chemicals found in some dollar store products have been linked to learning and developmental disabilities, asthma, cancer, and other health problems.
Exposure to harmful chemicals is disproportionately greater among children in communities of color and low-income communities—a fact that raises serious concerns about environmental injustice. Not everyone can go to stores in their communities which may sell less toxic products.
The statistics reflect an increase in chronic conditions connected to toxic chemicals: Diagnoses of developmental disorders in children have grown to one in six and childhood leukemia has increased by 55 percent between 1975 and 2011.
If the goal is to protect all communities and families then dollar stores must step up their efforts to phase out and ban toxic chemicals from their shelves.
The call to reduce risk became more urgent and real for me last October, when I was diagnosed with invasive ductal carcinoma, a form of breast cancer. Fortunately, the cancer was diagnosed in its earlier stages and my long-term prognosis is good. Many women—especially low-income and women of color—aren't diagnosed until their cancer is more advanced.
While I will never definitely know what "caused" my cancer, exposure to environmental pollutants may have played a leading or supporting role in the onset of my disease. Ultimately we need policy change that, by keeping toxic chemicals out of our products and our lives, can reduce the risk of chronic diseases for all families and individuals across the board. Until such an overhaul, our children and families will remain test subjects for chemicals which haven’t always been proven safe.
My daughter, now seven, joined me this last Thursday as I delivered a letter to my neighborhood Dollar Tree store, as a partner of the Campaign for Healthier Solutions—asking them to adopt open and accountable corporate policies to remove toxic chemicals from the products they sell. Will you join us by calling on Dollar Tree to act?
Kathy Attar is Toxics Program Manager with Physicians for Social Responsibility.
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/310536-time-for-dollar-tree-to-step-up-and-rid-its-shelves-of-harmful
-
Non-Animal Methods Can Detect Skin Sensitisers Requiring Activation
Dec 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
A team of scientists has demonstrated that OECD-validated non-animal skin sensitisation assays can reliably predict substances that are sensitisers that require activation by skin cells.
Three non-animal skin sensitisation assays have been developed following regulations limiting the testing of cosmetics on animals. They are:
the direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA);
KeratinoSens; and
the human Cell Line Activation Test (h-CLAT).
They have been shown to reliably predict skin sensitisers. However, there are concerns over their ability to detect compounds called pre- and pro-haptens that only become sensitisers after interaction with cell metabolism.
In a paper in the peer-reviewed journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, scientists reviewed 127 substances where traditional animal skin sensitisation data from the local lymph node assay (LLNA) was available.
The researchers came from the US EPA, the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC), Liverpool John Moores University and the Institute of Chemistry. The EU Reference Laboratory for Alternatives to Animal Testing (EURL Ecvam) provided the data.
Of the test substances, 28 were sensitisers requiring activation. The authors report that these were all correctly identified by one or more of the non-animal assays.
Twenty two of the sensitisers were classified as pre-haptens – substances converted biochemically to protein-reactive substances – and six were pro-haptens – substances converted by enzymes to protein-reactive compounds.
The authors conclude that skin metabolism is unlikely to be a major obstacle for assessing sensitisation potential.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51731/non-animal-methods-can-detect-skin-sensitisers-requiring-activation
-
ICCA Consults on Value Chain Communication Principles
Dec 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Chemical industry associations working through the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) are planning to broaden a programme of outreach to sector supply chains in 2017. The aim is to apply principles for communicating chemicals safety that take the needs of upstream and downstream companies into account.
The ICCA’s Value Chain Outreach programme started earlier this year with the electronics sector and will be extended to the automotive and textiles sectors next.
Speaking on behalf of the ICCA, Cefic product stewardship manager Stéphane Content, said the programme aims to help reduce uncertainty and unpredictable outcomes. It will promote "science-based" thinking at a time when companies face a dynamic regulatory environment, NGO pressure and increased public questioning about the chemicals in products.
An ICCA survey of international chemical companies with members in US, Europe and Asia found that 90% of respondents receive customer requests to disclose ingredient information for their products. Sixty percent said such requests are increasing both in number and complexity. Three-quarters of the companies said they receive requests through third parties.
To develop its outreach approach, the ICCA held a workshop with the electronics sector in Germany in May. International chemical companies and associations representing the electronic sector in Europe attended along with service providers offering chemicals safety communication and management tools to the sector. These included BomCheck, Compliance Data Exchange (CDX), iPoint Compliance Agent, Octopus, SAP, Myrmex, Tec4U and chemSHERPA.
The event helped the ICCA develop a list of possible criteria (see box) and principles for best practice in communication that could be taken into account in developing new communication tools.
It now intends to test five key principles on value chain communication with the electronics sector to validate the proposed concept. It will also approach other sectors such as automotive and textiles. The organisation also plans to hold workshops next year in the US and Asia, and to see if the initiative can contribute to the UN Environment Programme's chemicals in products programme.
The five proposed principles are:
to increase benefits for all stakeholders in the supply chain. This to be done by engaging in an open dialogue about the experience of using different tools, particularly on issues such as confidential business information;
information about the safety of chemicals, extending beyond legally required information, should always be disclosed and not claimed as confidential;
an international standard is needed to define what substances, substance groups and material classes need to be shared along supply chains;
supply chain communication tools should offer efficient exchange of information with compatible and secure processes; and
the ICCA encourages proactive communication on human health hazards, exposure during certain uses; environmental impacts and other sustainability considerations as long as these are based on science and risk.
Possible criteria for supply chain communication tools
Degree of information disclosure, for example, requiring disclosure only of relevant substances for defined purposes and clear deadlines.
Management of customer-supplier relationship. For example, data supplier should remain data owner and decide who information is given to.
Scope of product evaluations. For example, chemical producers have the responsibility to evaluate the sustainability performance of their products.
IT security. For example, extra security is needed for cloud-based systems and the information available to service providers should be specified while access should be open to authorities.
User-friendliness. For example, tools should permit mass uploads of data and use standardised interfaces.
Management of change. For example, tools should allow for clear dating of information and notification of relevant stakeholders when changes occur.
Process transparency. For example, service providers should be fully transparent about functionalities, legal liabilities.
Involve clients in tool development. For example, companies need to be more proactive in asking service providers to meet their needs in tool development.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51633/icca-consults-on-value-chain-communication-principles
-
PFOA Restriction Gets Green Light from REACH Committee
Dec 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
A large majority of EU member states have backed a draft Regulation setting out a proposed restriction on the manufacture and marketing of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).
The restriction, which also covers PFOA's salts and related substances, will come into force three years after the Regulation is published.
However, discussing the proposal at the 7 December REACH Committee meeting, a majority of member states rejected France's proposal to shorten the transition period to 30 months.
The restriction would apply to the use of PFOA, its salts and related substances in the production of or marketing in another substance as a constituent, a mixture, or an article at concentrations above 25 parts per billion (ppb) of PFOA, including its salts; or 1,000ppb of one, or a combination of, PFOA-related substances.
The original proposal from Germany and Norway suggested a 2ppb limit for PFOA. However, Echa's committees for risk assessment (Rac) and socio-economic analysis (Seac) proposed the higher limits that made it into the proposed Regulation. At the time, NGOs accused the committees of "rubber stamping" industry proposals.
At the recent REACH Committee meeting, member states agreed the proposed restriction should apply to latex printing inks and equipment for making semiconductors five years after the date of the Regulation's entry into force.
They also agreed a six-year transition period for its application to:
textiles for the protection of workers from risks to their health and safety;
membranes intended for use in medical textiles, filtration in water treatment, production processes and effluent treatment; and
plasma nanocoatings.
Medical devices other than implantable medical devices will have a 15-year transition period.
Some uses are exempted - these include:
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and its derivatives;
byproducts formed during the manufacture of C6 fluorochemicals;
implantable medical devices;
photographic coatings applied to films, papers and printing plates;
photolithographic processes for semi-conductors; and
firefighting foams placed on the market before the three-year transition period after entry into force of this Regulation.
'Meaningless' proposal
The European Environmental Bureau (EEB) said the finally agreed concentration limits render the proposal "meaningless" as they will not reduce global consumption and emissions of PFOA.
"The European Commission's proposal not only undermines the original submission, but also the EU's own proposal for listing PFOA in the UN Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants," said chemicals senior policy officer Tatiana Santos. The EU, she said, should "exert leadership in its own regulatory response to truly protect human health and the environment".
ChemSec senior chemicals advisor Jerker Ligthart said although the proposal covers most of PFOA's uses "some of the delays and exemptions are difficult to understand considering the nature of PFOA as a classified CMR [carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic] substance. The delay for textiles and printing inks are of particular concern due to the wide dispersiveness of the use."
The European Council and Parliamen will now consider the proposed Regulation before its formal adoption by the Commission, expected by March.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51663/pfoa-restriction-gets-green-light-from-reach-committee
-
Echa Committees Adopt 19 Opinions on Chromium Authorisations
Dec 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
At their November and December meetings, Echa's Risk Assessment and Socio-economic Analysis committees (Rac and Seac) adopted 19 final Opinions recommending authorisation of uses of chromium VI compounds.
The authorisations concern applications of compounds in the aerospace, automotive, metal plating, canning, and pulp and paper industries.
The compounds covered include chromium trioxide, sodium and potassium dichromate and chromic acid. The Opinions will shortly be published in full on Echa's website.
Ten Opinions cover five applications made by the REACH consortium CCST related to uses in the aerospace industry. These will last for seven years, not 12 as originally requested. They include conditions to reduce the compounds' carcinogenic risks.
The committees have been considering a large number of chromium VI authorisation applications over the last year, affecting thousands of processes. In September they adopted seven final Opinions on chromium trioxide uses. Several more Opinions, for which the applicant did not comment, were adopted as final in between the two meetings.
The committees' next meetings in March will discuss more chromium final Opinions. Seac chairman Tomas Öberg said the committees will then be "past the peak" of chromium VI applications.
Meanwhile, last week's REACH Committee meeting saw member state officials back the granting of applications for uses of sodium chromate, sodium dichromate and chromium trioxide.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51734/echa-committees-adopt-19-opinions-on-chromium-authorisations
-
(ACC Mentioned) The Shale Gas Boom by the Numbers
Dec 14, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alex Tullo
$170 billion
The amount of U.S. investment that chemical companies have announced since the beginning of the decade due to cheap shale gas, according to the American Chemistry Council. The trade group attributes 275 projects to the new gas resource.
8The number of 180-m tankers that Ineos hopes will deliver inexpensive U.S. ethane feedstock to its ethylene plants in Scotland and Norway every month by 2020.
8.5 million metric tonsThe amount of ethylene production capacity currently under construction on the U.S. Gulf Coast. About two-thirds of this capacity is set to come onstream in 2017.
1,800The number of Olympic-sized swimming pools that 8 million metric tons of polyethylene could fill. This is the amount of new annual polyethylene capacity the consulting group IHS Markit expects to come online in the U.S. by 2020.
http://yearinreview.cenmag.org/shale-gas-boom-numbers/
-
Former DOE Chief of Staff Navin Talks Future of Agency Under Perry
Dec 15, 2016 | E&E TV
By OnPoint
Will the Department of Energy's agenda shift if former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) — President-elect Donald Trump's pick to lead the agency — is confirmed? During today's OnPoint, Jeff Navin, co-founder and partner at Boundary Stone Partners and a former acting chief of staff and deputy chief of staff at DOE, explains how Perry could shape the agency's future. Navin also discusses the confirmation prospects for Trump's picks to lead U.S. EPA and the State Department.
Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Jeff Navin, co-founder and partner at Boundary Stone Partners and a former acting chief of staff and deputy chief of staff at the Department of Energy. Jeff, it's nice to have you back on the show.
Jeff Navin: It's great to be here.
Monica Trauzzi: So, Jeff, a wide range of opinions on Donald Trump's nomination of Rick Perry to lead DOE. He's the former governor of oil-rich Texas, but he's also credited with pushing a strong renewable energy standard in Texas. He's also a critic of climate science, so your thoughts on this nomination.
Jeff Navin: Well, there's — the question is which Rick Perry are we going to get? If we get Gov. Rick Perry, I think, as you pointed out, he's pretty diverse set of activities and interests that he took as governor of Texas, obviously pro-oil and gas. Permitted a pipeline that made a lot of wind power possible, supported nuclear power in his state, you know, as well. When he ran for president, you know, he took a more aggressive approach on things like climate science and things like wanting to dismantle the Department of Energy and the like. If we get Gov. Rick Perry, I think the department looks one way. If we get presidential candidate Perry, it's going to look a little different.
Monica Trauzzi: So taking a look at the DOE transition itself right now, what's your take on how things are progressing and what we've been hearing coming out of the transition team?
Jeff Navin: Well, the big news obviously was the, you know, request for the list of people who've been engaged in some of the climate negotiations. That's pretty troubling, and I think they recognized it was a mistake. You saw some move by the Trump organization to distance themselves from that a little bit. It is a big agency, it is a very diverse agency. I think the transition team is finding that out. The good news is there's a pretty dedicated group of career officials there that are going to make sure that the balls don't get dropped between the Obama administration and the Trump administration.
Monica Trauzzi: But going back to this request for the list of names that had attended climate conferences and dealt with climate issues, like you said, the Trump team has walked back from that and said that was an unauthorized request. However, what could the intention be there of asking for those names?
Jeff Navin: Well, it's — I can't get my head into where they are and to try to figure out what they were intending. I do think it's going to send a pretty significant chilling effect through the agency. You know, that request went to career staff, who many of whom probably worked on some of those issues. I think it'll be really important for Secretary Perry, if he is confirmed, to send a very clear message early on about the important role that the career staff play to that there's room for everyone and that he recognizes that. You know, you shouldn't be punished for following out the orders of the previous Energy secretary.
Monica Trauzzi: How much are you anticipating that we could see DOE's work actually shift under a Trump administration? How quickly could things happen? How realistic that we see a dramatic shift?
Jeff Navin: Yeah, the important thing to remember about the Department of Energy, I think a lot of the people who don't pay close attention, you know, don't really appreciate this. Forty percent of the budget is nuclear weapons, the nuclear deterrent, maintaining and dismantling nuclear weapons. Another 20 percent goes to the Office of the Environmental Management, which is cleaning up the old nuclear weapons facilities and sites. Another 20 percent roughly goes to the Office of Science, basic energy science, not particularly related to what we think of as energy. And then you've got about 15 percent that's actually the energy programs, the things that tend to be somewhat controversial. So even within that small slice of the Department, where there's some political difference potentially between the two, between this president and President Trump, you know, there's still a lot of support in Congress for an all-of-the-above energy strategy. There are people in both parties who support continuing the really good work that's happened in renewable energy. You see issues of nuclear energy where you've got bipartisan groups of people working together on those issues. There will be shifts here and there in terms of the priority, but there's 115,000 people that work in the DOE enterprise. Most of them are working on things that aren't directly related to those sort of hot button energy political issues. They're going to continue to do the work that they were doing on January 19th.
Monica Trauzzi: But when we focus in on programs like ARPA-E and the loans program, do you think that those are potentially at risk for being on the chopping block or being cut back?
Jeff Navin: Well, there will be targets placed on those because there, you know, have been critics of those programs. I would say that both of those programs, however, do have pretty broad bipartisan support. You know, ARPA-E started off focusing a lot on renewable technologies. In the last couple of years, they've brought — they do fossil research, they do nuclear research, they do a whole host of things, the biofuels and the like. And so there are Republicans that support that agenda. I think by and large, if there's been any bipartisanship and agreement on energy, it's that early stage R&D is a right — is the right kind of thing for governments to focus on.
The loan program obviously gets tagged with Solyndra, but that program is returning billions of dollars to the taxpayers. It's been very successful in launching a whole range of industries, and people forget that there's a lot of money on the table for the loan program for nuclear, for fossil energy projects and for the kinds of advanced manufacturing through the vehicles program that President Trump has said that he wants to bring back to the United States. Now, Trump as a private businessman had no fear of using debt to build things. He's indicated that he wants to be able to use debt to build things in the United States as president, and he can do that right now with that program without having to go to Congress. So I think they'll probably take a look at it, there will be some questions asked, but at the end of the day, I think that program survives because it's one of the best tools available for Donald Trump to do the things that he says he wants to do.
Monica Trauzzi: And there's a big energy angle also over at EPA with what we might see energy markets evolve to do over time. Obviously the Pruitt nomination there means big things for the Clean Power Plan. How quickly could we see the Clean Power Plan potentially dismantled?
Jeff Navin: Well, the Clean Power Plan is — has gone through the formal rulemaking process, so there's no magic wand that he can wave to eliminate that. Now, it's going through the courts now. If the D.C. Circuit or the judicial system determines that the Clean Power Plan is improper and throws it out, that's a huge help to Mr. Pruitt and the Trump administration and their efforts to get rid of that plan. I will say, however, that the EPA is still under obligation from the Supreme Court to regulate CO2, so they're going to have to do something. If the plan is upheld, it comes back to EPA and they want to undo it, they've got to go through a formal rulemaking process to do so. That said, it does send a signal to the states, pretty strong signal that they don't have to put developing compliance plans on the front of the burner.
Monica Trauzzi: But energy markets are still sort of moving in that direction regardless. Investments are being made that are in line with the power plan.
Jeff Navin: That's right. I think regardless as to whether the Clean Power Plan is enacted, you're going to see coal plants being retired, and that generation's going to be replaced with a combination of renewables, natural gas and some of the new nuclear that's coming online. The rates of those change — of that change will be impacted by whether or not there is a federal policy, but you just saw, you know, this week in Indiana an announcement that they're going to shut down two coal plants that are almost literally sitting on top of coal mines, and they're doing it for economic reasons. And if I'm a utility CEO and I've got to make a decision about building a new coal plant, I've got to make a bet that that plant is going to be allowed to operate for the next 40 years. There are eight presidential elections between now and 2050, and if you're going to make the bet that not one of those presidential elections is going to result in some kind of regulation on CO2, that's a pretty tough bet for an executive to make.
Monica Trauzzi: So any predictions on which energy technologies and industries stand to gain the most over the next four years?
Jeff Navin: I think that the market's going to have a much bigger impact on that than the policy lovers. We continue to see decreasing costs for renewable technologies like wind and solar. We've seen them be the bulk of new capacity that's been added in the United States. Natural gas obviously has gone gangbusters in terms of its growth, and I haven't seen anything that gives me any reason to believe that those prices are going to kind of come up significantly in the near term. But I'm really excited about some of the things that are happening with advanced nuclear. You know, there's a lot of work to be done there, but some of those breakthroughs could have pretty profound impacts on the markets.
Monica Trauzzi: So ultimately do Perry, Pruitt and Tillerson over at State, do they all make it through their confirmation hearings?
Jeff Navin: I — you know, Perry I think probably, you know, if he handles — you know, you never know, right? Things come up through these processes, and the things that tend to derail the nominations are generally not positions on issues; they're sort of extraneous issues, so one, we'll see. But given what we know, Perry I think has a pretty strong likelihood of going through. Tillerson's problems are really about sort of Russia, and it's a handful of Republican senators on his side that he's going to have to spend some time with. I think he can probably get there. The interesting thing about Pruitt is there's this renewable fuel standard issue, and Joni Ernst was very quick to make clear her position on that issue and her expectation that Mr. Pruitt adopt Donald Trump's very strong support of the renewable fuel standard. So if he navigates that successfully, I think it becomes much easier for him. I think he's probably going to have to win that battle with almost all the Republicans, however. Many Democrats are going to oppose him just because of his point of view on climate science.
Monica Trauzzi: Very interesting stuff. Thank you so much for coming on the show. It's nice to see you again.
Jeff Navin: Thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
http://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2187/transcript
-
The Oil and Gas Industry is Quickly Amassing Power in Trump’s Washington
Dec 15, 2016 | Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin, Steven Mufson, and Philip Rucker
After eight years of being banished and sometimes vilified by the Obama administration, the fossil fuel industry is enjoying a remarkable resurgence as its executives and lobbyists shape President-elect Donald Trump’s policy agenda and staff his administration.
The oil, gas and coal industries are amassing power throughout Washington — from Foggy Bottom, where ExxonMobil chief executive Rex Tillerson is Trump’s nominee to be secretary of state, to domestic regulatory agencies including the departments of Energy and Interior as well as the Environmental Protection Agency.
“It feels like the grizzly bear in ‘The Revenant’ has been suddenly pulled off our chest,” said Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Association.
The energy sector is no stranger to political influence. The oil industry once claimed a president as its own: George H.W. Bush, who co-founded and ran Zapata Oil before becoming the nation’s 41st commander in chief.
But the industry’s breathtaking power grab during the first month of Trump’s transition is palpably different — and has alarmed environmentalists, who fear the new administration will undo what they see as a decade of progress in combating climate change.
“I think there’s a level to which the puppeteers have become the actors, a change unprecedented in its breadth,” said Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign, a nongovernmental organization that focuses on automobile fuel efficiency. “The ship of state is about to be turned into the Exxon Valdez.”
A slew of Obama administration policies on fossil fuels are expected to be reversed after Trump is sworn into office on Jan. 20. Eliminating these regulations — which limit carbon emissions on power plants and restrict oil, gas and coal extraction — would represent major gains for the industry.
At a rally Tuesday night in West Allis, Wis., Trump vowed to “eliminate all wasteful job-killing regulations. On energy, we will cancel the restrictions on the production of American energy, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean beautiful coal.”
Oil and gas favorites have been nominated to lead the Cabinet agencies that regulate the industry: former Texas governor Rick Perry as energy secretary, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt as EPA administrator and Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.) as interior secretary.
Energy executives are advising Trump in more informal ways, including Harold Hamm, a billionaire who heads the major oil producer Continental Resources, and Carl Icahn, a billionaire investor who owns a pair of oil refineries. Both men are friends of Trump’s and helped him devise energy and economic policies during the campaign.
Other industry officials and allies, who have been sidelined and stigmatized during the Obama years, are working on Trump’s transition team to shape the next administration’s agenda and look to enjoy ready access to the Republican White House."
On Capitol Hill, Democrats plan to use whatever power they have in the minority of both chambers to serve as an aggressive check on the executive branch’s power, especially on energy and environmental policies.
Incoming Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Trump “is rigging the Cabinet top to bottom with allies of the oil industry.”
“It’s pretty clear that the bottom line of oil companies is going to take precedence over clean air and water protections for American families,” Schumer said in an email. “We’re going to fight hard to make sure that the Senate is a bulwark against those who want to undo environmental protections next year.”
Trump transition officials did not respond to several requests for comment.
While Trump’s energy and environment picks have already come under sharp criticism from the left, Ben Bulis, president of the American Fly Fishing Trade Association, said he was hopeful Zinke would compromise when it comes to wildlife protection.
“He’s going to come with a balanced approach to it,” Bulis said. “As an industry, we’re not opposed to responsible oil and gas development.”
Registered lobbyists are banned from serving on Trump’s transition team, but some energy lobbyists are serving as informal liaisons between transition staffers and the industry.
For instance, Michael McKenna — a lobbyist who represents the utility giant Southern Co. — recently accompanied the head of Trump’s Energy Department transition team, Thomas Pyle, to an official meeting on the nation’s security grid with representatives from President Obama’s Energy Department and utility executives.
McKenna, who had to quit Trump’s transition team because he did not want to relinquish his lobbying work, said he made a brief appearance at Washington’s Mandarin Oriental hotel, where the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council was meeting Nov. 29, to introduce Pyle to Southern’s chief executive, Thomas A. Fanning. After doing so, he left, he said.
Pyle is not a paid lobbyist, but he once was one for Koch Industries, the oil and gas company owned by Charles and David Koch, who have funded a wide array of libertarian groups and think tanks. Pyle also has worked for American Energy Alliance and its sister group, the Institute for Energy Research, both with strong ties to the oil industry.
Paul Bledsoe, an energy consultant who served as a climate change adviser in the Clinton White House, said the permeation of “big oil” in the emerging Trump administration reflects the president-elect’s vision of geopolitics.
“Trump seems to view fossil fuels as at the center of U.S. economic power at home and abroad, providing cheap energy for the dream of increased domestic manufacturing and also lucrative export markets for U.S. oil, natural gas and coal,” Bledsoe said. “Overseas, he appears stuck in a ’70s-era world view of oil and gas power plays, where flows of energy are the key to global geopolitics — perhaps because Russia and other traditional foes are so dependent on oil and gas revenues.”
Trump’s posture represents a turnabout from the Obama years, when fossil fuel industries and the White House navigated tense relations.
While it is not clear whether these policies can revive the sagging U.S. industry, which faces significant global market pressures, it could boost domestic energy production broadly and translate into higher carbon emissions.
Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, said it was not just a matter of policy. It was, he said in his own energy-centric state of the union talk in January, because the Obama administration “continues to adhere to last century’s thinking that pits increased energy production against climate goals.” Obama, he said, had a “tendency to place ideology over experience.”
Yet the oil and gas industry fared reasonably well. Obama did not move to curtail shale oil and gas drilling and lifted the 40-year-old oil export ban. And industry executives have had ready entree. Tillerson, for example, met with half a dozen or more of the most senior White House officials early in the administration, and he continued to meet others later.
The energy industry has ambitious plans to overhaul energy and environmental policies almost immediately after Trump’s inauguration.
Pyle mapped out an agenda that he described as “a big change” in a Nov. 15 email to supporters, which was obtained by the Center for Media and Democracy. In it, Pyle predicted that the Trump administration would withdraw from or stop participating in the Paris climate accord, lease more federal lands for drilling, lift the moratorium on coal leases on federal lands, push a “reset” button on the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan for reducing carbon dioxide emissions and give states greater say in managing federal lands.
Pyle’s note also said the new administration would stop using the “social cost of carbon,” a method the EPA uses in calculating the cost and benefits of climate change. It added that Trump’s government would relitigate the 2007 Supreme Court ruling that carbon dioxide was a pollutant under the Clean Air Act and that the EPA was obligated to regulate it as a result.
Michael Catanzaro, a lobbyist with CGCN Group who had recused himself from the Trump DOE transition team, recently spoke on behalf of the transition at a meeting in Washington of the Edison Electric Institute, the utility industry’s main trade group.
During that session, Catanzaro identified himself as a member of Trump’s “policy implementation team” and outlined some of the legal tools the new administration would use to undo Obama policies, according to multiple individuals who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the meeting was private. Catanzaro said the incoming administration has a “100-day plan” and “200-day plan” to roll back policies, including the Clean Power Plan and social cost of carbon.
Catanzaro could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
In the final months of Obama’s presidency, his administration has finalized several rules designed to bolster and protect his environmental legacy. They include an Interior Department restriction on the flaring of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, during oil and gas operations on federal land. The department also issued a five-year leasing plan that bars drilling in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas off Alaska, as well as in waters off the southeast Atlantic coast.
And the Army Corps of Engineers recently denied Energy Transfer Partners — on whose board Perry sits — a crucial permit to complete the controversial Dakota Access pipeline on the Great Plains.
All of these measures could be overturned, either through the Congressional Review Act, which allows a congressional majority to vacate a regulation within 60 legislative days of it being issued, or through other means.
The industry may expect favorable treatment from the Trump administration and congressional Republicans after heavily supporting their campaigns.
Under Tillerson, ExxonMobil’s PAC gave $1.8 million this election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, with 91 percent of donations to federal candidates going to Republicans.
The three politicians Trump has appointed to relevant Cabinet positions have taken in large campaign contributions from the energy sector.
In Oklahoma, Pruitt received more than $318,000 from fossil fuel companies since 2002, and his 2013 reelection campaign was chaired by Hamm, federal campaign finance filings show.
Nearly half of the donations made over the past two years to Pruitt’s affiliated super PAC, Liberty 2.0, came from the energy sector.
The oil and gas industry gave more than $2.6 million to Perry’s two presidential campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, while Kelcy Warren, the chief executive of Energy Transfer Partners, donated $5 million to a pro-Perry super PAC in the 2016 race. After his White House run ended, Perry joined the company’s board.
In Montana, the oil and gas industry is Zinke’s largest-single industry contributor, giving him $345,136 for his campaigns, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Zinke has been a vocal proponent of coal extraction, representing a region, the Powder River Basin, where much of the federal government’s coal is leased.
Popovich, the mining industry spokesman, said that given Zinke’s roots “he obviously understands the importance of natural resources like coal — too important to be ‘kept in the ground,’ as [the Obama] administration proposes to do.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-oil-and-gas-industry-is-quickly-amassing-power-in-trumps-washington/2016/12/14/0d4b26e2-c21c-11e6-9578-0054287507db_story.html?utm_term=.3f6e5826c8b6
-
EPA Brief Offers Supporters Roadmap to Defend Power Plant GHG NSPS
Dec 15, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
EPA has filed a long-awaited brief defending its power plant new source performance standards (NSPS), the legal prerequisite of its landmark greenhouse gas rule for existing plants, providing a roadmap for environmentalists, states and other supporters who will continue to defend it when the incoming Trump administration takes office in January and seeks to roll back the rule.
The agency Dec. 14 filed its opening brief in the case, State of North Dakota, et al. v. EPA, et al., which argues that its standards for new and modified plants are “appropriate” and that the agency's decision to include a partial carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) requirement for new coal plants is justified.
The agency's stance on CCS -- likely the central issue in the case -- may receive a boost as a group of technical experts Dec. 13 asked the court for permission to file an amicus brief defending the technology as “ready for deployment” at new coal plants.
Opponents of the NSPS -- including Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general who President-elect Donald Trump has tapped to lead the agency -- charged in their Oct. 13 opening briefs that the regulation unlawfully relies on CCS technologies, which they described as “nascent” and falling far short of the Clean Air Act requirement that it be “adequately demonstrated” and shown to be “achievable.”
They argued that the rule unlawfully relies on pilot CCS projects funded by the Department of Energy (DOE), and that EPA cannot point to a single coal plant in the world that uses all of the components it identified when setting the rule's coal standard.
But EPA in its brief pushes back on opponents' claims, saying it “reasonably exercised expert judgment” in concluding the best system of emission reduction for the regulation included partial CCS.
“In short, there is no new source that would be restricted from achieving the standard of performance due to lack of access to sequestration capacity, both because there is adequate capacity and because alternative means of compliance are readily available. CO2 can be stored securely and at reasonable cost. Accordingly, it was reasonable for EPA to conclude that partial CCS is adequately demonstrated,” EPA writes.
It also noted in the brief that the agency “made it clear that its conclusions regarding CCS are amply supported and independent of EPA’s consideration of facilities that received Federal support.”
While the North Dakota litigation is not as high profile as the lawsuit over EPA's GHG rule for existing plants, it is nonetheless critical because section 111 of the Clean Air Act bars the agency from regulating existing sources under section 111(d) before new ones under section 111(b). That means if the court vacates the NSPS, the existing source rule would fall as well.
Under a schedule outlined by the D.C. Circuit, states and respondent intervenors' briefs are due Dec. 21. Petitioner reply briefs are due Jan. 19 and final briefs are due Feb. 6. In a surprise move, the court recently scheduled oral arguments for next April -- even though briefing had not yet concluded.
Inside The Agency
While Trump transition officials have reportedly said they will stop defending the existing source performance standard (ESPS) if the D.C. Circuit does not rule on its merits before Inauguration Day, it is unclear how the Trump administration intends to proceed with the litigation in this case once in office.
Trump has already targeted the ESPS for early repeal, and it is likely the administration will seek to undermine the NSPS, as well.
Pruitt, who signed onto a brief filed by West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R) in this case, could move to roll back or curtail the NSPS from inside the agency, though environmentalists, states and other rule defenders are likely to oppose such a move.
Environmental advocates are also expected to continue to defend the NSPS in court, even if the Trump administration were to pull back its defense.
As such, EPA's brief provides environmental advocates with a blueprint for how they can continue to defend the rule.
Under the NSPS, new coal plants must meet a GHG emissions rate of 1,400 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour. That standard is based on the use of CCS to capture a portion of a plant's CO2 emissions.
While that requirement is sometimes referred to as a “CCS mandate,” the standard does not require installation of the technology. EPA notes in the rule that plants can comply with the standard by co-firing with natural gas.
EPA in its opening brief says it “reasonably determined” that the 1,400 lb-CO2/MWh standard is achievable. “Further, EPA permissibly determined that the costs of implementing partial CCS are reasonable. EPA considered costs carefully and conservatively, assessing costs at an industry-wide level and using two separate metrics to assess costs at the level of an individual plant,” the agency writes.
In addition, EPA charges petitioners' other attacks on its legal interpretations, methodological approach and judgments “lack merit.”
“EPA established appropriate modification and reconstruction standards for steam units. EPA reasonably explained why the Best System for new combustion turbines does not include CCS. EPA reasonably determined that CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel-fired power plants were proper candidates for regulation as they pose threats to public health and welfare,” the agency writes.
It adds: “And, on reconsideration, EPA properly declined to docket certain emails related to a different rulemaking that do not bear upon matters of central relevance.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-brief-offers-supporters-roadmap-defend-power-plant-ghg-nsps
-
Investor Groups Call for More Corporate Disclosure
Dec 15, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
Oil and gas firms need to provide more quantitative evidence that they are addressing community concerns about hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling operations, investor advocacy groups said.
A scorecard released yesterday by As You Sow, Boston Common Asset Management LLC and the Investor Environmental Health Network (IEHN) relied on narrative evidence to show that 20 of the 28 energy companies it rated have improved their practices on chemical use, waste management, air emissions and other environmental impacts since last year (Climatewire, Dec. 18, 2015). All three groups have a focus on sustainable development.
"Companies are disclosing numerous operational and technological innovations that reduce their environmental footprint, yield bottom-line benefits, and reduce social conflicts," Steven Heim, a managing director at Boston Common Asset Management, said in a statement yesterday. "Companies are sourcing water for hydraulic fracturing operations from treated municipal wastewater, drawing water from deep saline aquifers for which there is no current competition from other users, and treating their own wastewater. These are very positive signs."
But without improved disclosure on methane leakage, induced seismicity and other impacts, oil and gas companies will struggle to stay accountable to their shareholders, Heim said.
"These are very narrow successes industrywide," he said during a conference call with reporters yesterday.
Tracking community complaints, violation notices and other quantifiable data would allow for annual comparisons and comparisons against other companies in the same peer groups, Heim said.
Some firms are doing a particularly good job of this, the investor groups found. BHP Billiton Ltd., the scorecard's top performer with 40 out of 43 possible points, reports corporate response to community impact concerns on a play-by-play basis. Three other high-scoring firms — Noble Energy Inc., Consol Energy Inc. and EQT Corp. — do the same, according to the index.
"Despite the fracking downturn, a core group of companies within the industry has maintained and enhanced disclosures of their practicehttp://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/12/15/stories/1060047213 for managing the environmental risks and community impacts of their operations," IEHN Executive Director Richard Liroff said in a statement. "We find it very encouraging that some companies responded to our challenge in this period."
Most companies still lag on investor disclosure, the investor groups found. About seven out of 10 firms included in the scorecard earned failing scores for providing information on less than half of the index's indicators this year.
"Fifteen companies — more than half of those reviewed — failed to report on even 1/3 of the key metrics we examine, making it extremely difficult for investors and the public to assess and compare companies' performance and to gauge how well these companies are addressing environmental and community impact risks," As You Sow President and Chief Counsel Danielle Fugere said in a statement.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/12/15/stories/1060047213
-
Land in Ohio's Only National Forest Auctioned for Drilling
Dec 15, 2016 | E&E Energywire
Parcels of land inside Ohio's Wayne National Forest have been made available for lease by oil-and-gas-drilling companies, despite strong opposition from environmental groups.
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management on Tuesday auctioned off about 719 acres of the national forest. The agency had initially been planning to make nearly twice as much land available for auction, but withdrew the additional parcels before the auction began.
Ohio's only national forest already has more than 1,200 conventional drilling rigs, but this time the leases are specifically for hydraulic fracturing, a practice that many worry would lead to increases in air pollution, groundwater contamination and other environmental impacts.
In a report earlier this fall, BLM said drilling would have no significant impact on the environment and would not violate any known environmental protection requirements or local, state, federal or tribal laws.
Environmentalists remained skeptical of the agency's review process, arguing it was inadequate and outdated. Before Tuesday, over 99,000 people signed a petition to stop the auctioning of the forest.
Meanwhile, industry groups say the move is a step in the right direction. Also, Ohio Rep. Bill Johnson (R) defended the federal agency's decision, saying it would "strike the appropriate balance between the legacy of energy production and recreation activities frequently enjoyed by many".
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/12/15/stories/1060047219
-
PHMSA Boosts Standards for Underground Gas Storage
Dec 15, 2016 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration today added new industry-backed practices for underground natural gas storage facility, such as the Aliso Canyon site that leaked billions of cubic feet of gas last year.
The new standards include safety updates regarding well integrity, wellbore tubing and casing, according to PHMSA. The rule adds practices recommended by the American Petroleum Institute to safety regulations, one for storage sites at salt caverns and another for sites at depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs and aquifer reservoirs.
The rule is just a first step, said PHMSA Administrator Marie Therese Dominguez. “These minimum federal standards will help to prevent incidents like the one at Aliso Canyon from happening in other communities around the country.”
As an interim final rule, rather than a proposed rule, the standards will take effect 30 days after they are published in the Federal Register. That means it will take effect before Jan. 20, until a final rule is issued by the Trump administration, according to a release from Rep. Brad Sherman who represents the Aliso Canyon area. Comments are due within 60 days.
The standards will apply to 200 gas storage sites that cross state lines, and set a federal floor for state-controlled facilities. The rule was required as part of the pipeline safety bill passed by Congress last summer.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
'Cabinet of Big Polluters' or 'Clear-Eyed and Realistic'?
Dec 15, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
Meet President-elect Donald Trump's energy and environment Cabinet: a crusader against climate rules, a former governor who's pledged to ax the agency he's been picked to lead and an up-and-coming freshman Montana congressman.
Trump officially announced plans this morning to nominate Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.) for the coveted job of Interior secretary, filling out his team's roster for top administration energy posts. Trump has selected Oklahoma Republican Attorney General Scott Pruitt to lead U.S. EPA and former Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry to become Energy secretary.
Traits they share: They're all Western politicians, white men and fossil fuel supporters who have expressed skepticism about climate change science. They've been ardent critics of the Obama administration's policies, and they can all expect to face the wrath of the left as they lead the charge to roll back environmental rules and expand domestic energy production.
Conservatives and energy industry advocates love Trump's selections.
Christine Harbin, director of federal affairs and strategic initiatives at Americans for Prosperity, called Trump's team "a really interesting trio." Harbin said she's "generally optimistic for the opportunity for energy policy reform that these officials present."
Their confirmations aren't certain, and Democrats and environmentalists will certainly mount a fight against the nominees.
"It's a disaster," said Bill Snape, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, of Trump's energy team.
Pruitt in particular has attracted fierce opposition, given his role fighting the Obama administration's signature climate change and water regulations in court. But resistance from the left isn't likely to thwart these nominees; if the GOP holds its ranks, Republicans have the simple majority they need in the Senate to clear Trump's picks.
EPA's administrator isn't technically a Cabinet position, but it's been given Cabinet-level status by past presidents and requires Senate confirmation.
Trump's pick for secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, is also being closely watched in energy and environmental circles, given his tenure as CEO of Exxon Mobil Corp. At the helm of the State Department, Tillerson would play a major role in shaping international climate and energy policies.
Next up, observers will be watching closely to see who the Trump team selects to fill lower-level positions in EPA and the departments of the Interior and Energy. Those undersecretary and assistant administrator jobs can play major roles in shaping Trump's policies. Nominees for many of those posts will likely roll out early next year.
How it's playing
Trump's roster of energy leaders contrasts starkly with President Obama's first-term picks for those jobs.
In late 2008, Obama rolled out his picks for top environmental posts: former New Jersey regulator and EPA veteran Lisa Jackson to lead EPA, Nobel Prize-winning scientist Steven Chu to lead DOE and Colorado Democratic Sen. Ken Salazar to head Interior.
Other environmental advocates were named to Obama's White House team. Then-Deputy Mayor Nancy Sutley of Los Angeles was picked to head the Council on Environmental Quality, and former EPA Administrator Carol Browner was named energy and climate "czar." Trump's team may opt to demolish the White House czar roles set up by the Obama administration (Greenwire, Nov. 15).
In 2008, League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski dubbed Obama's team a "green dream team."
By contrast, Karpinski said today, "Trump is picking a Cabinet of the big polluters, by the big polluters, and yes, for the big polluters."
Greenpeace spokeswoman Cassady Craighill said, "Trump's energy Cabinet picks share a common denominator — they've all paved the way for oil and gas companies to profit off risking the health, safety and future of their constituents."
Meanwhile, energy industry advocates are welcoming a change from the Obama team.
"The selections of Gov. Perry, AG Pruitt and Rep. Zinke represent a positive and much-needed shift in our country's energy policy," said Chris Warren, vice president of communications at the American Energy Alliance.
"These are three leaders who come from energy-rich states and who recognize that more domestic energy production leads to affordable energy for American families, more jobs for American workers, and an overall stronger economy," Warren said. "This was President-elect Trump's promise on the campaign trail, and these Cabinet picks show that he is following through on that promise."
Scott Segal, an industry lobbyist at Bracewell LLP, said Trump's energy team members "each in their own way have a great deal of experience in the subject matter area that they're being asked to address."
"This team is clear-eyed and realistic," Segal said.
Climate science
The left has already begun hammering Trump's team for their views on climate science.
Pruitt co-wrote an op-ed earlier this year in the National Review calling the debate over global warming science "far from settled" and encouraging further debate.
DOE nominee Perry, who previously floated abolishing that department, has also said that "the science is not settled" on climate change and that acting on it would jeopardize the U.S. economy (Climatewire, Dec. 14).
And Zinke, whose nomination has garnered tempered praise from some conservation and outdoors groups, has said that climate change isn't a hoax but that "it's not a proven science, either" (Climatewire, Dec. 15).
Segal said those criticisms are too simplistic.
"As is typical, these candidates are not being viewed in three dimensions," Segal said. "The activist community would rather search for not even full sentences — but individual phrases that they can find — as opposed to looking at their records on a whole."
Harbinger of Americans for Prosperity, too, said it's a "mischaracterization" to dub these nominees climate science deniers.
"When you actually look at some of their policies, they're actually much more moderate when it comes to action on climate," she said. She expects the Trump administration's regulatory rollbacks to be based on considerations of costs and regulatory overreach.
A common thread among Trump's picks, she said, is "a desire to seriously revisit a number of these rules and regulations and try to reduce their impact."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/15/stories/1060047275
-
Greens Push Senators to Reject Trump’s EPA Pick
Dec 15, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
An environmental group is launching an advertising campaign to pressure senators to vote against President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency.
With a digital ad campaign worth at least $10,000, the Sierra Club is hoping to sway enough senators to keep Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma’s attorney general, from receiving the 51 votes he needs for confirmation.
The group is dubbing Pruitt “Polluting Pruitt,” emphasizing his skepticism of climate change science, his close work with oil and natural gas companies and his record of suing the EPA multiple times to try to block President Obama’s environmental agenda.
“Scott Pruitt’s record isn’t pretty,” Melinda Pierce, the Sierra Club’s legislative director, said in a statement.
“A self-proclaimed ‘leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda,’ he is unfit to head the Environmental Protection Agency, an agency charged with protecting all Americans from threats to their water, air, and health.”
The ads will run for a week in the home states of 10 senators the group is targeting, urging the public to press their lawmakers to oppose Pruitt.
The targets include some senators who are facing potentially tough reelection battles in the 2018 campaign cycle, like Sens. Dean Heller (R-Nev.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.).
Other targeted senators have shown moderate positions on environmental policies in the past: Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Susan Collins(R-Maine), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.).
The GOP will have 52 seats in the next Senate. Democrats — and the Independents who caucus with them — will need three Republican votes in addition to their own to block Pruitt or Trump's other executive nominees.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/310432-greens-push-senators-to-reject-trumps-epa-pick
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested