Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 12/16/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics & Environment
Dec 16, 2016 | Plast Europe
Seven industry associations have joined the "Declaration of the Global Plastics Associations for Solutions on Marine Litter" (www.marinelittersolutions.com). The new partners in the group, which is also known as the Joint Declaration, were announced at the 27th Global Meeting on Plastics and Sustainability that took place in Hanoi / Vietnam, on 12 December. -
Government, NGOs, and Industry Gather for EPA TSCA New Chemicals Review Meeting
Dec 16, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Joanna Slaney
EPA held a public meeting Wednesday on the implementation of the New Chemicals Review Program under the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
EPA Review of New Chemicals Slows
Dec 16, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
It’s been six months since Congress made major changes to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the law that governs the use of chemicals in industrial and household products in the U.S. One unanticipated outcome of the overhaul is a backlog of new chemicals waiting to be reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency. -
EPA to Establish Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Under Amended TSCA
Dec 16, 2016 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson, Charles M. Auer, Kathleen M. Roberts, and Margaret R. Graham
On December 15, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)published a notice in the Federal Register of its intention to establish a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee (NRC) under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act. -
Kids' Car Seats Laden With Flame Retardants — Study
Dec 16, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
Children's car seats are laced with toxic flame retardants, according to a study released this week by HealthyStuff.org. -
EPA Restricts Dentists' Mercury Discharges
Dec 16, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
U.S. EPA finalized a rule yesterday to reduce mercury discharges from dental offices. -
Commission's Latest EDC Criteria Draft to be Discussed Next Week
Dec 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
Member states' environment ministers will discuss the latest revision to the European Commission's draft criteria proposal for the identification of endocrine disruptors (EDs) on 21 December. -
Scott Pruitt is the Ideal Nominee to Lead the EPA
Dec 16, 2016 | Real Clear Energy
By Donald R. van der Vaart
Amid the hang-wringing and name-calling about the nomination of Scott Pruitt as Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator, I would like to offer my observations about why Pruitt is the ideal leader for an agency that under the current administration has flagrantly forced an activist agenda on states. -
Pruitt Dismantled Environmental Unit in Okla.
Dec 16, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
President-elect Donald Trump's pick to run U.S. EPA has already eliminated one environmental protection entity during his time in government. -
Former DOE Chief of Staff Navin Talks Future of Agency Under Perry
Dec 16, 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. -
Tillerson's Exxon Showed Appetite for Risk, with Mixed Results
Dec 16, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
An archnemesis of the environmental movement steps down from the nation's largest oil company at the end of the year. -
Calif., N.M. Oppose Fellow Western States in BLM Methane Fight
Dec 16, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
Two more Western states have asked to intervene in the litigation over the Bureau of Land Management's new methane rule. -
Corpus Christi Eases Tap-Water Restrictions in Outlying Area
Dec 16, 2016 | Washington Post
By Associated Press
Officials eased restrictions on tap water use in outlying parts of Corpus Christi, nearly 24 hours after warning all 320,000 residents of the Gulf Coast city to stop using it because a harmful chemical had leaked from an industrial plant into the water supply. -
Mercury Contamination Claims in Virginia to Cost DuPont $50 Million
Dec 16, 2016 | Bloomberg BNA
By Sylvia Carignan
The Department of Justice has asked DuPont to pay $50 million to settle claims for mercury contamination at the company’s former synthetic fiber manufacturing plant in Waynesboro, Va., ( United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., W.D. Va., No. 5:16-cv-00082, proposed consent decree filed 12/15/16 ). -
PHMSA Issues Interim Final Rule for NatGas Storage
Dec 15, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued an interim final rule (IFR) revising safety regulations for underground natural gas storage facilities, meeting a key requirement from a sweeping pipeline safety bill signed into law last summer. -
U.N. Warns of Nuclear Plant Hacks, Bio and Chemical Attacks
Dec 16, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Security officials call it the "nightmare scenario" — a power plant hack releasing uncontrolled radiation — and states need to defend against it, according to U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson. -
(ACC Mentioned) Union Pacific Receives 20th Responsible Care® Certification
Dec 16, 2016 | RT&S
Union Pacific (UP) recently received its 20th American Chemistry Council's Responsible Care®Management System (RCMS) certification, which recognizes the railroad’s safe handling of hazardous materials during customer shipments. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry, EPA Settle Lawsuit Over Waste Storage, Treatment
Dec 16, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
The American Chemistry Council has settled a lawsuit against U.S. EPA stemming from revised agency regulations covering hazardous air emissions from businesses that store and treat used oil, used solvents and other wastes. -
Exxon Shifted on Climate Change Under Trump Pick
Dec 16, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Rex Tillerson oversaw a major shift on climate change as chairman and CEO of Exxon Mobil Corp. as the nation’s largest oil company accepted the scientific consensus that humans are contributing to a warming planet. -
Red States Ask Trump for Quick Action Against Climate Rule
Dec 15, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Officials from 24 conservative states want President-elect Donald Trump to take action on his first day in office against President Obama’s climate change rule for power plants. -
Looming Pick Will Play Major Role in Environmental Policy
Dec 16, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Marc Heller
President-elect Donald Trump has one outstanding Cabinet nomination that will have a significant impact on environmental issues. -
Defunct Texas Project May Be Reborn
Dec 16, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Christa Marshall
A defunct Texas carbon capture project that was a focus of the Obama administration could be revived under a new design.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics & Environment
Dec 16, 2016 | Plast Europe
Seven industry associations have joined the "Declaration of the Global Plastics Associations for Solutions on Marine Litter" (www.marinelittersolutions.com). The new partners in the group, which is also known as the Joint Declaration, were announced at the 27th Global Meeting on Plastics and Sustainability that took place in Hanoi / Vietnam, on 12 December.
Steve Russell, vice president Plastics for the American Chemistry Council (ACC, Washington DC / USA; www.americanchemistry.com), said the signatories bring perspectives from countries in Asia and Africa, or types of plastic not previously represented. Delegates at the meeting also agreed that, going forwards, the group will be known as the Global Plastics Alliance.
The additional organisations include the American Fiber Manufacturers Association (AFMA, Arlington, Virginia / USA; www.fibersource.com), the Bangladesh Plastic Goods Manufacturers & Exporters Association(BPGMEA, Dhaka / Bangladesh; www.bpgmea.org.bd), the Flexible Packaging Association (FPA, Annapolis, Maryland / USA; www.flexpack.org), the Ghanaian Plastics Manufacturers Association (GPMA, Accra / Ghana), the Myanmar Plastics Industries Association (MPIA, Yangon / Myanmar; www.plastics-myanmar.in), the Indonesian Olefins, Aromatics and Plastics Association (INAPLA), and the Vietnam Plastics Association(VPA, Ho Chi Minh City / Vietnam; www.vpas.vn).
Addressing marine litter issues effectively requires that we bring local, regional and global stakeholders together. Broadening our fold helps us find new partners and opportunities to tackle this very serious problem,†said Karl-H. Foerster, executive director of PlasticsEurope (Brussels / Belgium; www.plasticseurope.org).
Callum Chen, secretary general of the Asia Plastics Forum, added that the industry is currently involved in hundreds of marine litter prevention programmes around the world. As of May 2016, the Joint Declaration had 260 projects planned, underway or completed (see Plasteurope.com of 20.06.2016).
Launched in March 2011 (see Plasteurope.com of 24.03.2011), the declaration has been signed by 69 plastics associations to date. It is focused on six key areas: education; research; public policy; sharing best practices; plastics recycling/recovery; and plastic pellet containment.https://www.plasteurope.com/news/PLASTICS_amp_ENVIRONMENT_t235798/
-
Government, NGOs, and Industry Gather for EPA TSCA New Chemicals Review Meeting
Dec 16, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Joanna Slaney
EPA held a public meeting Wednesday on the implementation of the New Chemicals Review Program under the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21stCentury Act required EPA to begin implementation of the reforms to the program on the day the legislation was signed into law. The meeting was an opportunity to discuss the effort and progress to date.
As we’ve noted before, and as I noted on Wednesday, the changes made to the New Chemicals Review Program were fundamental to TSCA reform and the promise of a new system that better protects public health and the environment.
Representatives from state government, the Senate, NGOs, and industry gathered to hear a series of presentations by EPA about new chemicals reviews under the reformed law, scientific and data issues the Agency is navigating, and the types of information it needs from manufacturers and processors to facilitate a streamlined review process.
A series of oral comments from various stakeholders included a robust showing of support for EPA’s actions from public interest groups representing labor, the environment, and public health, as well as concerns from some in industry with certain aspects of implementation. EPA concluded with a commitment to meet again in six months to discuss its progress in implementing revisions to the New Chemicals Review Program.
A few of the notable stakeholder comments included:
Jonathan Black of Senator Tom Udall’s office read a statement from the Senator noting how essential the reforms to the New Chemicals Program were to him as an author of the Lautenberg Act. He said, “I would not have supported compromises in the package without them. . . New chemicals should not enter the market without findings based on safety and sufficient information and without restrictions necessary to prevent harm while sufficient information is being developed.”
Dr. Jennifer Lowry, representing the American Academy of Pediatrics, urged EPA to “continue its implementation of the new program to ensure as new chemicals enter commerce they do not pose risk to children.”
Racquel Segall, of the labor-environmental coalition Blue Green Alliance, spoke about the importance of “ensuring that products entering the market do not expose workers and members of the public to unreasonable risk.”
Melanie Benesh, an attorney at Environmental Working Group, said “EWG agrees with EPA's interpretation of the law and we think that speed and efficiency and market innovation are important goals but they should never displace robust review of chemical safety and concerns about public health. If we get the public health wrong up front, we may have bigger problems in the future.”
EDF also spoke in support of EPA’s progress. You can read our full oral comments here.
There is still an opportunity to weigh in on EPA’s new chemical review process. Written comments can be submitted to the docket until January 14th, 2017. For more information about opportunities to engage on implementation of the reformed TSCA, check out our Engagement Guide.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2016/12/16/government-ngos-and-industry-gather-for-epa-tsca-new-chemicals-review-meeting/
-
EPA Review of New Chemicals Slows
Dec 16, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
It’s been six months since Congress made major changes to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the law that governs the use of chemicals in industrial and household products in the U.S. One unanticipated outcome of the overhaul is a backlog of new chemicals waiting to be reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Chemical manufacturers are up in arms about the delays, claiming EPA’s slowness is impeding their innovation. Some sectors, for example paints and coatings, are threatening to move their businesses overseas because of increased U.S. regulatory burdens from the updated law.
At issue is EPA’s handling of new chemicals under the revised TSCA. The law requires EPA to determine that a new chemical is unlikely to pose a risk to human health and the environment before it enters the marketplace. Under the old statute, EPA did not have to make such a determination.
The new law also gives EPA authority to request additional toxicity data from manufacturers if the agency determines that it has insufficient information to assess whether a new chemical poses a risk to human health or the environment.
Chemical manufacturers and their major trade association, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), supported the changes to TSCA when the law was enacted in June. Now, they are questioning the need to provide EPA with additional toxicity data. They claim EPA’s implementation of the new law is bogging down the process for getting new chemicals into commerce.
When the revised TSCA was signed into law, the agency was in the process of reviewing 308 new chemicals, according to Jeff Morris, acting director of EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics.
Since then, EPA has only allowed 33 of them to enter the U.S. market. For many of the chemicals, the agency has requested more information from manufacturers. EPA has received about 200 additional new chemical submissions since the new TSCA was enacted, Morris said.
Part of the delay is being caused by a contentious provision in the new law that allows regulators to consider all “reasonably foreseen” uses of a chemical when estimating its exposure. Representatives of chemical manufacturers say EPA is considering too many hypothetical uses for chemicals that may never occur.
Meanwhile, many environmental and public health advocates contend that the agency is on the right track. They support EPA’s thorough review of the safety of new chemicals and predict that the current backlog of new chemicals awaiting agency review is temporary. They also argue that the changes made to TSCA went into effect immediately when the law was enacted on June 22, giving the agency no time to transition to a new process.
To help resolve some of the delays, EPA is seeking input from stakeholders on how to implement the new law more efficiently. The agency heard opposing views on the issue from the chemical industry and environmental groups at a public meeting on Dec. 14 in Washington, D.C.
“We believe that much of EPA’s approach today is creating a backlog and time delays in bringing new chemistries to market,” said Karyn M. Schmidt, ACC senior director of chemical regulation. “We are seeing that effect now,” she noted, adding that the situation “is becoming more serious with time.”
Jim Cooper, senior petrochemical adviser at the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, urged EPA not to venture too far into the hypothetical when it conducts its exposure assessments for new substances. “ ‘What ifs’ can go too far,” Cooper said.
Several representatives of the chemical industry suggested that EPA go back to the way it reviewed new substances under the 1976 TSCA, saying that the old system worked well. They emphasized that it was the intent of lawmakers to get new chemicals reviewed for commercialization within 90 days.
But Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), who was instrumental in getting TSCA rewrite legislation through the Senate, countered that argument.
“Prior to our reforms, I had almost no confidence that new chemicals were getting robust serious review by EPA,” he said in a statement. “The requirements set out for new chemicals in the original TSCA did not do enough to ensure public health and safety,” Udall stressed.
“The reforms we implemented and the principles behind them therefore were central to me. I would not have supported compromises in the package without them.”
Environmental and public health advocates urged EPA to continue down its current path, despite growing pressure from industry to speed up the process. They argued that EPA is required under the new TSCA to support its findings with data, and that information takes time to generate and review.
“EPA must make a case that risk is low and publish an analysis supporting its determination,” said Robert M. Sussman, counsel for Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, a coalition of advocacy organizations. Sussman served as a senior adviser at EPA early in the Obama Administration.
The revised TSCA requires EPA to “review and manage for safety every new chemical prior to market entry,” said Jennifer McPartland, a health scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, an environmental group. The absence of such a mandate was “a signature failure of the old law,” she said. The process for approving new chemicals under the old law not only put “human health and the environment at risk, but also significantly contributed to the erosion of marketplace and public confidence in the chemical sector.”
Advocacy groups also cautioned EPA to refrain from requiring more animal testing of chemicals. Animal welfare organizations encouraged the agency to allow the use of high-throughput in vitro assays and computational modeling to predict toxicity as much as possible. Such data could go a long way, they argued, toward restoring public confidence in the safety of chemicals in the marketplace.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/web/2016/12/EPA-review-new-chemicals-slows.html
-
EPA to Establish Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Under Amended TSCA
Dec 16, 2016 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson, Charles M. Auer, Kathleen M. Roberts, and Margaret R. Graham
On December 15, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)published a notice in the Federal Register of its intention to establish a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee (NRC) under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act. 81 Fed. Reg. 90843. The NRC will implement the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a)(6) requirement that EPA “enter into a negotiated rulemaking … to develop and publish, not later than 3 years after the date of enactment … a proposed rule providing for limiting the reporting requirements under this subsection for manufacturers of any inorganic byproducts, if the byproducts, whether by the byproduct manufacturer or by any other person, are subsequently recycled, reused, or reprocessed.”
Earlier this fall, we noted the significance of this rulemaking for many entities subject to reporting requirements under TSCA’s Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) provisions under Section 8(a). A “byproduct” is defined as a chemical substance produced without a separate commercial intent during the manufacture, processing, use, or disposal of another chemical substance or mixture. EPA is of the view that byproducts without a separate commercial value are nonetheless produced for the purpose of obtaining commercial advantage since they are part of the manufacture of a chemical substance produced for commercial purpose. Accordingly, byproducts are considered manufactured substances under TSCA and must be listed on the TSCA Inventory and, therefore, reportable under the CDR -- unless they are exempt. Byproducts are exempt from Inventory listing and CDR reporting if their only commercial purpose is use by public or private organizations that burn it as a fuel, dispose of it as a waste, or extract component chemical substances from it for commercial purposes.
EPA has interpreted “extract component chemical substances from it” narrowly and has determined the exemption is voided if an extraction process involves a chemical reaction. Stakeholders have long asserted that this interpretation discourages recycling programs that necessarily involve a chemical reaction, processes that are frequently used to extract commercially valuable metals or other materials from byproducts that would otherwise be destined for disposal. The speed with which EPA has moved to implement this provision reflects EPA’s interest in ensuring this regulatory disconnect is addressed before the next CDR reporting cycle in 2020.
The notice states that the main purpose of the NRC is to conduct discussions in a good faith attempt to reach consensus on proposed regulatory language. The notice provides a clear and comprehensive discussion of the negotiated rulemaking process and procedures, initially identifies specific parties that may be interested in participation, and requests comment on the extent to which the approaches described in the notice are adequate and appropriate. The notice should be carefully reviewed by any entity having an interest in this issue. Comments are due by January 17, 2017.
We note in addition that the notice specifically discusses the Section 8(a) CDR rule as being relevant to the negotiation. While we agree that the CDR is clearly of interest, we note that the negotiation as structured applies to any rule under Section 8(a), such as the Preliminary Assessment Information Rule (PAIR) (40 C.F.R. Part 712) and any chemical-specific Section 8(a) rules (40 C.F.R. Part 711). At the same time, the negotiation as described in new TSCA is limited to Section 8(a) and does not address the issues of Inventory listing and potentially associated Section 5 notification requirements for inorganic byproducts. We note also that as a FACA Committee, the NRC can consider and, by consensus, determine its interest in also picking up these closely related issues for discussion and attempt to develop a consensus approach.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-to-establish-negotiated-rulemaking-committee-under-amended-tsca
-
Kids' Car Seats Laden With Flame Retardants — Study
Dec 16, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
Children's car seats are laced with toxic flame retardants, according to a study released this week by HealthyStuff.org.
Researchers with the Ecology Center, a nonprofit based in Ann Arbor, Mich., tested 15 car seat brands using a variety of methods. They found flame retardants in 14 of the 15 seats.
"[F]or the first time," the study said, flame retardants "were found to be in widespread use in the fabrics of car seats."
Scientists with the nonprofit castigated companies for putting children at risk, noting that still-developing bodies are particularly vulnerable to chemicals. Many flame retardants have been linked to cancer; hormone disruption; and immune, nervous and reproductive system damage.
"It is essential that parents put their kids in properly installed car seats, which provide vital crash protection, regardless of chemical hazard," said Jeff Gearhart, the Ecology Center's research director, in a statement. "However, there are some seats that are healthier than others in terms of toxic chemical content."
The Ecology Center has conducted six car seat studies since 2006. It claimed its findings showed "an improvement from previous years" but added that persistent and bioaccumulative compounds such as brominated flame retardants were still prevalent in the children's products. And when companies moved to replace brominated compounds, they often failed to test the alternatives, the study said.
The study did praise one company, UPPAbaby, for completely eliminating flame retardants from one of its car seats.
"UPPAbaby has finally proved that it is possible to make a car seat that meets federal flammability requirements without adding toxic flame retardants," said Gearhart. "We now challenge other companies to follow suit, especially those that make low-cost seats. Car seats are required by law for children in vehicles, and an affordable seat should not come with a chemical exposure cost."
The Ecology Center is petitioning lawmakers to exempt car seats from the federal flammability standard.
Artsana USA Inc., Dorel Juvenile Group Inc., Britax and Baby Trend Inc. — several companies targeted in the study — did not respond to requests for comment.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/16/stories/1060047322
-
EPA Restricts Dentists' Mercury Discharges
Dec 16, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
U.S. EPA finalized a rule yesterday to reduce mercury discharges from dental offices.
Dentists use mercury in amalgams to fill teeth. The use of the heavy metal in dental operations has long been controversial, with many public health groups calling for a ban. Though the Food and Drug Administration deemed dental mercury safe in 2009, environmental regulators quickly came under fire from lawmakers saying they were failing to protect public health (E&E Daily, May 27, 2010).
Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that is also linked to immune, digestive and respiratory ailments.
When dentists finish filling teeth, they often pour amalgams — which can contain up to 50 percent mercury — down the drain. Mercury then enters the sewage system and penetrates publicly owned treatment works.
Incineration, landfilling or "land application" of wastewater sludge subsequently releases quicksilver into the environment.
EPA pegs total discharge from dentists' offices at 5.1 tons annually.
The new rule will enforce the use of amalgam separators, which capture mercury before it is discharged. The technology will eliminate dental mercury discharge, the agency said, in addition to 5.3 tons of other waste metals.
In a fact sheet, EPA said its new rule is a "common sense solution to managing mercury that would otherwise be released to air, land, and water."
The American Dental Association, which said it "worked with EPA on the rule for several years," praised the regulation.
The rule "represents a fair and reasonable approach to the management of dental amalgam waste," ADA President Gary Roberts said in a statement. "We believe this new rule — which is a federal standard — is preferable to a patchwork of rules and regulations across various states and localities."
Nonprofits such as the Mercury Policy Project have supported tighter regulation of the heavy metal for years.
"Mercury from dental clinics is the largest source of mercury in municipal wastewater, the largest consumer use and also the largest reservoir of mercury in use today," Michael Bender, the group's co-founder and director, said in a statement. "Amalgam separators are easy to install and maintain. They are also a practical, affordable and available technology for capturing mercury."
EPA's move comes a week after the European Union prohibited the use of mercury-laden fillings for children under 16 and in pregnant women, a rule that will take effect in July 2018.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/16/stories/1060047350
-
Commission's Latest EDC Criteria Draft to be Discussed Next Week
Dec 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
Member states' environment ministers will discuss the latest revision to the European Commission's draft criteria proposal for the identification of endocrine disruptors (EDs) on 21 December.
The second revised version of the proposed draft Regulations related to biocides and plant protection products (PPPs) were sent to member states last week ahead of the Environment Council meeting on 19 December.
They introduce a new exemption for substances which act by "regulating or moulting and/or growth of harmful organisms via their endocrine system". This mode of action, says the text, should not be considered for the identification of EDCs, with respect to non-target organisms.
NGOs still critical
CHEM Trust senior policy advisor Ninja Reineke described the change as surprising and substantial: "[It] opens the door to the widespread exposure of wildlife to substances that are potentially harmful to many species."
The NGO warns the criterion risks harming organisms with moulting hormones, especially if the biocides or pesticides are degrading slowly in the environment.
The Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) says exemptions for certain substances should be proposed after their identification – not before. "The criteria are supposed to be horizontal," said senior policy officer for chemicals and health, Lisette van Vliet. "It is no good making the identification criteria preemptively warped for the purpose of the biocides and pesticides laws."
The NGOs also question why the exemption was added so late in the criteria drafting process.
The other changes to the texts are minor and do not address the sticking points in criticism from member states. These include the high level of proof required to identify an EDC, and the exclusion of 'presumed' EDCs from the proposal.
According to minutes from the 18 November meeting of the competent authorities (CAs) for biocides, the Commission considers 'presumed EDCs' to be included in the criteria because it is clear that evidence from animal studies should be considered.
Member states unhappy
But member states such as France, Denmark and Spain, along with Switzerland, said the terminology first introduced by the November draft, and retained in the latest version, makes it unclear what level of evidence is required to show that a substance is an EDC.
This concerns, for example, the text’s phrasing that a substance would be defined as an EDC if it "shows an adverse effect". This replaced the phrase "known to cause an adverse effect" from the previous version.
France, for example, insists that EDCs should be identified according to three distinct categories:
known;
presumed; and
suspected.
But the Commission told the biocides CAs that the consequences of defining categories would go beyond its mandate.
Other countries, such as Austria and Norway, criticise the new terminology for requiring a level of evidence that is higher than for other classes of chemicals, such as carcinogens, mutagens and reprotoxicants (CMRs).
And several member states continue to stress that the criteria should be more consistent with the World Health Organization (WHO) definition of EDCs. This has also been a key element of the European Parliament's Environment Committee's criticism of the Commission's work.
The Commission argued that the changes it introduced in November aimed for a better alignment to the WHO definition. This includes the use of the word 'shows', which, it said, is less stringent than 'known'.
In November, only one member state was ready to support the proposed text, according to the CA meeting minutes. Four were against it and two said they would abstain. The rest were either absent or had no final position yet.
Two separate meetings of the standing committee on plants, animals, food and feed (PAFF), and the expert group of competent authorities (CA) for biocides, on 21 December will discuss the latest revision and the member state comments received since the November discussions.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51743/commissions-latest-edc-criteria-draft-to-be-discussed-next-week
-
Scott Pruitt is the Ideal Nominee to Lead the EPA
Dec 16, 2016 | Real Clear Energy
By Donald R. van der Vaart
Amid the hang-wringing and name-calling about the nomination of Scott Pruitt as Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator, I would like to offer my observations about why Pruitt is the ideal leader for an agency that under the current administration has flagrantly forced an activist agenda on states.
As the head of a state environmental department with two decades of experience enforcing environmental protection laws, I am disappointed by the attacks on Pruitt’s views. The extreme environmentalist left is distorting his mainstream views because they want to bully Americans into their job-killing climate change agenda. Americans overwhelmingly rejected this outlook in November.
Like President-elect Trump, Pruitt is committed to clean air and clean water, and to restoring EPA to its original mission of enforcing the environmental laws written by Congress. He has laid out a view that human activities do impact the climate, and we should be encouraging a healthy debate over the government’s proper role in addressing them rather than trying to shut down the discussion.
As a state attorney general, Pruitt has seen the real-world consequences of EPA’s unlawful regulations, and North Carolina was proud to join Oklahoma in taking on tough fights on behalf of states who are being overrun by federal overreach. Pruitt has been a national leader in fighting back against President Obama’s various job-killing and unconstitutional regulations including those related to the "War on Coal" and the Waters of the United States rule.
When EPA attempted to expand the federal government’s power over nearly every puddle and pond in the country, Pruitt led efforts along with North Carolina and more than two dozen other states to successfully block the attempt to redefine what “navigable” water means under the Clean Water Act. Pruitt fought the rule to protect farmers, property owners and economic development from being subjected to onerous, costly and unnecessary federal regulation that would drive down property values, impede development, and hinder the ability of farmers to work their land.
Pruitt also led a coalition of states to challenge the Clean Power Plan – a scheme that would ostensibly reduce greenhouse gas emissions – but would in fact drive up energy costs for industry and consumers while doing little to protect the environment. Pruitt knows the federal agency has an appropriate role in environmental protection but also understands that state governments have demonstrated the ability to implement environmental protections without destroying the very thing that makes environmental protection possible: a strong economy.
This experience has prepared Pruitt to enact President-elect Trump’s energy plan, which will protect clean air and clean water and unleash an energy revolution that will bring millions of new jobs and higher wages to this country. He supports American energy producers and believes that our domestic energy revolution will create jobs and bring new wealth to the American people. As Oklahoma’s Attorney General, he pushed for protections for local oil and gas producers to ensure they weren’t being infringed upon by an overbearing regulatory state. But he also demonstrated his willingness to sue oil and gas producers when they polluted in his own state.
Pruitt understands that a balanced approach to regulation that manages our natural resources and protects the environment can also foster economic growth and protect state and local rights. At the direction of President-elect Trump, Mr. Pruitt will restore a thoughtful balance to EPA and will seek to preserve the environment in a responsible manner that will not unduly sacrifice our nation's economic well-being to appease the extreme left.
Donald R. van der Vaart is the Secretary of the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality.
http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2016/12/15/scott_pruitt_is_the_ideal_nominee_to_lead_the_epa_110146.html
-
Pruitt Dismantled Environmental Unit in Okla.
Dec 16, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
President-elect Donald Trump's pick to run U.S. EPA has already eliminated one environmental protection entity during his time in government.
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) quietly folded the Environmental Protection Unit in his office after he was first elected in 2010. Around the same time, Pruitt, who says environmental regulation is best left to the states, created a Federalism Unit under his solicitor general to handle Pruitt's legal challenges against EPA.
"One of the first things he did was dismantle the Environmental Protection Unit and form the Federalism Unit," said Mark Derichsweiler, who retired a year ago from his job at the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. "It just didn't get much attention."
Responding after this story was initially published, Pruitt's staff said the environmental unit wasn't dismantled, but instead was moved under a new management structure. They were put under the solicitor general's office, who also leads the Federalism Unit.
"It's important to note that responsibilities for environmental staff and their caseloads have not changed since AG Pruitt took office," said Pruitt spokesman Lincoln Ferguson. "Under the leadership of AG Pruitt, this team has held bad actors accountable and protected stewardship of Oklahoma's natural resources."
Trump said during the campaign he'd like to abolish EPA entirely, though he later softened his rhetoric. Still, he and his team have made it clear they want to slash Obama administration programs and shrink the agency's role (Greenwire, Dec. 5).
His selection of Pruitt was greeted by green groups as an act of political war, because he's made a career of fighting the agency he would now run.
The Environmental Protection Unit in Oklahoma was created in 1996 by Pruitt's Democratic predecessor, Drew Edmondson, who didn't seek re-election in 2010. It investigated water contamination from refineries, lead paint waste and illegal dumping. But it is probably best known for its yearslong fight with poultry companies over pollution in the Illinois River basin. Oklahoma accused 14 companies of allowing nutrient runoff to pollute the basin.
The case has been on ice since Pruitt took office. In 2013, Pruitt announced that his state and Arkansas would conduct a three-year study before taking any further action on the pollution problem.
State budget documents show that funding for "environmental law" in the attorney general's office fell from $463,000 in 2010 — the year before Pruitt arrived — to zero in 2014.
The office of the solicitor general, where the Federalism Unit is housed, went from zero dollars in 2010 to $545,000 in 2014. In the 2016 budget, it got $3.6 million.
In the state's 2016 budget, there was still a line item for "environmental law" with zero dollars.
Some state attorneys general incorporate environmental protection into other divisions of their office, said Marjorie Tharp, spokeswoman for the National Association of Attorneys General.
"Each attorney general's office does some level of environmental protection work," Tharp said. "Either there is a fully operational environmental protection unit or a section that works on environmental cases that are handled directly, or subsumed within another office unit that handles myriad cases."
The website for the Oklahoma Attorney General's Office notes that the AG "represents the interests of ... the state's natural resources." But on that page, none of the descriptions of the 12 units lists the environment as part of its mission.
For example, the mission of the Public Protection Unit is listed as protecting consumers from fraud, along with managing the state's "Do Not Call" registry and a state mortgage settlement fund.
Derichsweiler, now vice chairman of the state Sierra Club chapter, said he can't recall Pruitt championing any environmental enforcement while in office.
"He hasn't really done anything to protect Oklahomans," Derichsweiler said. "He campaigned on EPA overreach."
Pruitt has long accused EPA of overzealous enforcement of environmental regulations. He accused President Obama and both of his EPA administrators, Lisa Jackson and Gina McCarthy, of breaching the balance of state and federal authority to protect air and water.
He is among the chief attorneys general leading a 28-state fight against the agency's carbon regulations for power plants. He's joined a lawsuit against methane emissions limits for the oil and gas sector, and for years waged an unsuccessful legal fight against a haze plan for his state.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/12/16/stories/1060047302
-
Former DOE Chief of Staff Navin Talks Future of Agency Under Perry
Dec 16, 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
-
Tillerson's Exxon Showed Appetite for Risk, with Mixed Results
Dec 16, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
An archnemesis of the environmental movement steps down from the nation's largest oil company at the end of the year.
Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Rex Tillerson is leaving the only company he's ever known for 41 years to become secretary of the Department of State, nominated to replace John Kerry by President-elect Donald Trump. Darren Woods will succeed him at Exxon on Jan. 1, 2017.
Exxon Mobil had earlier planned to retire Tillerson from his position in March 2017 when he turned 65, per company policy, but Trump's nomination upended those plans, while angering environmental groups across the nation simultaneously.
The Irving, Texas-based company congratulated Tillerson on his new appointment, which still has to clear the Senate. The environmentalists with whom Tillerson battled during the 10 years he led the company condemned him.
"His company is currently under investigation for its failure to disclose the risks of climate change and is a leading funder of climate denial," said Environment America director Margie Alt. "Naming Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson to secretary of State is unacceptable and dangerous."
Caught off-guard by booms
Under Tillerson, Exxon Mobil's business performance has been mixed.
His company has done a better job maintaining the size of its oil and gas holdings relative to its peers, but the actual value of Exxon Mobil's crude oil reserves is now in dispute in the wake of the oil price drop. The company is seen writing off billions of dollars in value to comply with Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules.
Tillerson has led the company during some of its largest acquisitions, and Exxon sometimes paid steeply.
He and his team failed to prepare for the collapse in natural gas prices and the continually weak pricing that followed the 2008 economic recession. The later plunge in crude oil prices caught Exxon off-guard, as well. The gas price plunge came shortly after Exxon acquired XTO Energy Inc., becoming the largest natural gas producer in the United States.
The XTO merger was an example of the supermajor oil and gas companies arriving to the U.S. shale boom late in the game.
The Barnett and Marcellus shales gas booms happened almost entirely without the giants. Chesapeake Energy Corp. became a force during this era, with Exxon playing catch-up by outright acquisition, grabbing XTO in a bid to shift toward gas. It and other oil companies had grown worried that they may be locked out of the largest remaining onshore conventional oil reserves.
Then came the shale oil boom, again bypassing the supermajors.
Exxon is now a shale oil contender but was forced to enter the space when the cost to do so was relatively high. Since then, Tillerson's company has made up ground and now controls substantial holdings in the shale-oil-rich Permian Basin, affording Exxon access to vast quantities of oil that it can extract relatively cheaply in the future.
Prior to the shale booms, the supermajor U.S. oil companies had largely abandoned U.S. onshore fields to the smaller companies, instead focusing on offshore and large overseas opportunities. Here again, Exxon has made missteps.
Tillerson's company has been forced to sink massive sums of money into the Kashagan field, a $50 billion effort in Kazakhstan to deliver crude from beneath the Caspian Sea. Kashagan has been plagued by cost overruns and delays, and began delivering oil for export just two months ago.
Kashagan took 16 years to build, an unusual lag even for a major offshore project. By comparison, the Prirazlomnaya field, a massive Russian Arctic offshore project built by Gazprom in much harsher weather conditions, took around 10 years to complete. Kashagan was built by a consortium of seven companies.
Yet, Kashagan demonstrates Exxon's appetite for risk and a fearlessness for taking on some of the largest engineering challenges in the world, an attitude that Tillerson encouraged.
In counter to Kashagan, Exxon can point to PNG LNG, a groundbreaking endeavor to export liquefied natural gas from a major gas field in Papua New Guinea. Exxon finished PNG LNG, almost entirely a greenfield project, early and on budget, building an array of facilities spanning over 400 miles at a cost of around $19 billion.
Prior to the oil price drop, Tillerson's Exxon displayed serious interest in drilling for oil in the Alaskan Arctic. Tillerson famously presided with Russian President Vladimir Putin over a signing ceremony committing Exxon to aid Russia in developing its Arctic oil resources. Republican senators have voiced concerns over Tillerson's known close ties to Putin.
Tillerson's Exxon also introduced offshore oil production to the icy waters of Newfoundland and Labrador, and to remote reaches of the frigid Sakhalin island in the Russian Far East.
Two of its Newfoundland projects involve placing topsides and derricks atop huge concrete pedestals doubling as oil storage tanks. The engineering marvel Hibernia is currently considered the world's largest offshore oil platform, weighing so much that gravity alone is enough to keep it fixed to the seafloor, even in harsh seas. Its twin, Hebron, will soon join it in the North Atlantic.
Gambling on massive offshore projects in dicey climates has paid off.
Already an enormous company when he took over in 2006, Tillerson has managed to maintain Exxon's extreme size and dominant presence in the industry. The company reported an annual profit of $16.2 billion in 2015. The company boasted over $40 billion in profit in 2008 when oil prices skyrocketed to $148 per barrel. Crude now trades at around $50 to $55 per barrel.
Last year, Exxon produced 4.1 million barrels of oil equivalent per day in natural gas and oil.
Business-wise, Tillerson draws praise from industry experts, even given the company's famous past mistakes.
"His new job will be to advance the interests of the United States," University of Houston economist Ed Hirs said in an interview. "He is certainly aware of State Department activities and protocols, especially with regimes that may not necessarily be completely aligned with the United States."
Court battles
More unshakably, Tillerson's Exxon Mobil has been a thorn in the side of environmentalists, taking a harder line than many of its peer companies on many issues, including climate change, toxic waste cleanup and air pollution.
Tillerson was not in charge when the Exxon Valdez ran aground and spilled crude into Alaska's Prince William Sound back in 1989. But he has led while the company battled some aspects of the case in court.
That devastating spill was the largest in U.S. history until BP PLC's Macondo offshore well exploded in the Gulf of Mexico. All litigation over the Exxon Valdez spill didn't come to a complete and total end until October 2015, 26 years later. The U.S. government and BP reached a final settlement in New Orleans federal court six years after the Gulf spill.
The company also fought New Jersey in court for 10 years over a Superfund site, where an Exxon refinery polluted adjacent wetlands. The company could have faced as much as $8 billion in damages, but exhausted state attorneys settled with Exxon last year in a deal that will have the company paying out $225 million. An earlier $325 million settlement offer was rejected by the company's lawyers in 2012.
Exxon is still fighting environmental groups in court over air pollution from Houston-area refining and chemical processing plants.
A coalition of organizations, including the Sierra Club and Environment Texas, sued companies with active refining and petrochemical operations in the Houston area for releasing toxic emissions beyond what their permits allowed. The releases occurred during so-called "upset" events, usually when equipment is shut down and restarted during maintenance.
Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Chevron Phillips Chemical settled out of court with the environmental organizations in 2009 and 2010 respectively. But not Exxon. Its refining division, Exxon Mobil Chemical Co., continues to fight it out in court to this day, says Environment Texas Director Luke Metzger.
"We're now awaiting a new ruling by the judge," he said in an email. A federal judge in Houston earlier decided to not level any penalties on Exxon Mobil Chemical, and Metzger and his team won an appeal, sending the case back to the lower court.
Tillerson ended Exxon's funding of groups advocating inaction on climate change, but he has firmly been at odds with organizations and governments on a response. Exxon has said it would support a carbon tax. Carbon Tax Center Director Charles Komanoff said in an email yesterday that he's unimpressed, deeming Exxon's carbon tax proposal to be largely toothless.
Green groups are unanimously appalled at Tillerson's nomination to the post of secretary of State. Business interests are praising it.
During his tenure at Exxon, Tillerson had acquired a reputation as a pragmatist who always puts the interests of shareholders ahead of others, including environmental organizations and even the State Department under the Obama administration. His pushback on proposed climate change mitigation measures won him admiration in oil and gas circles and from executives in other extractive industries.
Caterpillar Inc. CEO Doug Oberhelman said in a statement that Tillerson's loyalty to Exxon will translate to fealty to the interests of the United States. "His voice is well respected around the world, and I'm confident he will bring a common-sense approach to diplomacy in a complex and constantly changing world."
Environmentalists are left fuming, with some insisting that Tillerson is bound to use his authority to win his former company even greater profits in the future.
"Rex Tillerson, while unlikely to wear his Russian friendship medal during his Senate confirmation hearings, will almost certainly use his new job to lobby for the reopening of Exxon's Russian Arctic oil exploration," said Greenpeace U.K. Director John Sauven.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/12/16/stories/1060047299
-
Calif., N.M. Oppose Fellow Western States in BLM Methane Fight
Dec 16, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
Two more Western states have asked to intervene in the litigation over the Bureau of Land Management's new methane rule.
But these two states, California and New Mexico, are siding with BLM and environmental groups against oil industry groups and their fellow Western states.
California Attorney General Kamala Harris, a Democrat who was elected to the U.S. Senate in November, and New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas (D) filed a motion to intervene yesterday.
The filing indicates that Harris is representing the California Air Resources Board.
California and New Mexico said in their filings yesterday that they "fundamentally disagree" with their fellow states Wyoming, Montana and North Dakota. They argue that their residents will benefit from the rule because of increased royalties, cleaner air and reduced climate change impacts.
"California and New Mexico have a strong interest in preventing the waste of public resources, as well as in reducing the emission of harmful air pollutants that threaten the health of the states' citizens, the integrity of their infrastructure, protection of their unique environments and ecosystems, and the continued viability of their economies," they wrote yesterday.
In addition, the California and New Mexico filings argue the rule "does not cause irreparable harm to state sovereignty."
Finalized last month, the plan to cut methane emissions from oil and gas development on public and tribal lands was promptly hit with challenges from industry groups and the states. The challengers have asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming to freeze BLM's rule as the litigation plays out.
Earlier this month, a coalition of environmental groups entered the fray (Energywire, Dec. 5).
Oil and gas operators routinely vent or burn off excess methane, and the gas can leak from well sites, compressor stations and pipelines. BLM's rule would require operators to install equipment to monitor for leaks and to capture large amounts of gas instead of releasing it into the atmosphere (Greenwire, Nov. 15).
The rule is part of the Obama administration's Climate Action Plan, which also features a U.S. EPA rule to cut methane emissions from new oil and gas operations. That rule is also under attack in the courtroom by industry and states, which say it is an expensive regulatory overreach.
A hearing in the case has been scheduled for Jan. 6, where BLM and its opponents will argue over whether the court should issue a preliminary injunction barring the rule from taking effect as scheduled on Jan. 17 (Energywire, Dec. 1).
The hearing will be before Judge Scott Skavdahl, the same Obama-appointed judge who froze and ultimately struck down BLM's rule for hydraulic fracturing on public and tribal lands earlier this year.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/12/16/stories/1060047314
-
Corpus Christi Eases Tap-Water Restrictions in Outlying Area
Dec 16, 2016 | Washington Post
By Associated Press
Officials eased restrictions on tap water use in outlying parts of Corpus Christi, nearly 24 hours after warning all 320,000 residents of the Gulf Coast city to stop using it because a harmful chemical had leaked from an industrial plant into the water supply.
The city released a map late Thursday showing the parts of the city where it was now safe to drink water from the faucet. The majority of city residents should continue to refrain from using tap water until further notice, officials said.
Ergon Asphalt and Emulsions Inc. said in a statement Thursday night that it has been in contact with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and is “working cooperatively to provide all information to ensure state officials can remedy the situation as quickly as possible.”
The statement from the Mississippi-based company, which specializes in the development of engineered paving and pavement preservation products, does not take responsibility for the spill. However, City Councilwoman Carolyn Vaughn told the Corpus Christi Caller-Times that the city believes Ergon was responsible.
The company didn’t respond to emails from The Associated Press seeking comment.
City officials sent out notifications late Wednesday advising residents to avoid using tap water for anything, including consumption and showers, until test results confirm it is safe. City officials had warned that “Boiling, freezing, filtering, adding chlorine or other disinfectants, or letting the water stand will not make the water safe.”
Tensions built throughout Thursday as officials held several news conferences. At one, a group of residents began chanting, “What do we want? Clean water! When do we want it? Now!”
The leak forced school closures, disrupted commerce and caused a run on bottled water at supermarkets.
“I feel there’s a lot more information that we’re not being told,” Reba Gandara told the Corpus Christi-Caller Times. “We deserve transparency and (knowing) what’s going on with the water that is being provided to us. And it’s not just the water — it’s how it occurred.”
Mayor Dan McQueen said he didn’t think the release of the chemical extended beyond the industrial district. “We are pushing very hard to get our water turned on as soon as we can,” McQueen said.
City spokeswoman Kim Womack told KRIS-TV that officials did not find a “backflow preventer” at the site. “They’re saying there is one and we’re telling them ‘show us,’” she said.
“In the simplest terms, someone was careless when they were injecting chemicals with a pump and ... when the injection occurred, it crossed over into our water system,” she told KRIS-TV.
Anywhere from three to 24 gallons of the chemical got into the water system. It is an asphalt emulsifier that can burn the skin in concentrated amounts.
“We haven’t confirmed that this product is even in the flow system,” McQueen said.
City councilman Michael Hunter told the Caller-Times early Thursday that it was unlikely that the leaked chemicals were concentrated enough to do harm, but that officials must take every precaution.
The TCEQ said it has initiated “multiple measures,” including sampling “to determine the extent of potential impact.” Meanwhile, Gov. Greg Abbott said his office is coordinating with the TCEQ, the Texas Division of Emergency Management and the Department of State Health Services on the issue. The Texas Division of Emergency Management is coordinating shipments of drinking water to the city.
It is just the latest in a string of water scares for this Gulf Coast city of 320,000 people.
In May, Corpus Christi officials issued their third boil-water advisory in a year. That notice lasted two weeks and officials at the time said it was largely a precautionary measure taken after nitrogen-rich runoff from rain flowed into the water system, resulting in low chlorine disinfectant levels in the water supply.
Boil-water notices were issued last year because of elevated levels of E. coli and another for low chlorine levels, the Caller-Times previously reported. The notices mirrored two others that were issued in 2007.
City crews have worked to reconfigure some water mains to ensure that water keeps circulating and to prevent bacteria growth. But an overarching concern is an old water system where more than half of 225 miles of cast-iron pipe needs to be upgraded. Many of the pipes were installed in the 1950s and when they decay they’re prone to collapse or to slow water flow, allowing bacteria to fester.
Civic leaders have expressed concern that recurring water advisories and warnings could cause long-term harm to the area’s vibrant tourism business.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/energy-environment/texas-citys-water-deemed-unsafe-due-to-chemical-leak/2016/12/15/84b4d032-c336-11e6-92e8-c07f4f671da4_story.html?utm_term=.4a082315e9ca
-
Mercury Contamination Claims in Virginia to Cost DuPont $50 Million
Dec 16, 2016 | Bloomberg BNA
By Sylvia Carignan
The Department of Justice has asked DuPont to pay $50 million to settle claims for mercury contamination at the company’s former synthetic fiber manufacturing plant in Waynesboro, Va., ( United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., W.D. Va., No. 5:16-cv-00082, proposed consent decree filed 12/15/16 ).
The settlement addresses wildlife, water quality and other natural resources and is the largest such settlement in Virginia’s history, according to the department.
Federal and state investigations of the Waynesboro site found elevated concentrations of mercury in soil, fish and wildlife at the Waynesboro plant. Mercury was also found in the Shenandoah River about 100 miles south of the plant.
Several years ago, the EPA directed DuPont to create a facility investigation plan under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The agency approved the final comprehensive report last May.
About $42 million from the settlement will be allocated to natural resource restoration projects. According to the consent decree filed in U.S. District Court in the Western District of Virginia Dec. 15, remediation is expected to take “many years.”
“Losses are expected to continue indefinitely into the future,” the decree states.
The EPA, the Commonwealth of Virginia and federal Fish and Wildlife Service want the $42 million to go toward improved riparian zones along the Shenandoah River, mussel restocking efforts, protection of migratory songbirds and purchasing land to protect them in perpetuity.
The state and federal agencies also are asking DuPont to design and pay for improvements to the existing Front Royal Fish Hatchery, about 100 miles north of the Waynesboro plant. The restored hatchery would produce smallmouth bass to supplement the population in Virginia rivers.
DuPont, also known as E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, started manufacturing yarn and cellulose acetate flake at the Waynesboro plant in 1929, according to the EPA. The acetate flake manufacturing process was the main source of the mercury contamination.
According to the Department of Justice, mercury levels in that area have remained stable with no clear decreases over time.
https://www.bna.com/mercury-contamination-claims-n73014448715/
-
PHMSA Issues Interim Final Rule for NatGas Storage
Dec 15, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued an interim final rule (IFR) revising safety regulations for underground natural gas storage facilities, meeting a key requirement from a sweeping pipeline safety bill signed into law last summer.
But despite support for PHMSA to regulate natural gas storage using consensus standards, groups representing the oil and gas industry called the 12-month timeline for compliance "unrealistic."
The IFR [Docket 2016-0016], issued Wednesday, addresses safety issues related to downhole facilities, including well integrity, wellbore tubing, and casing. Release of the rule satisfies a key requirement of the SAFE PIPES Act, which President Obama signed into law last June. Two months ago, PHMSA and Department of Transportation officials said the IFR would be released before the end of the year.
"This IFR addresses aging infrastructure and is the first step in a multiphase process to enhance the safety of underground natural gas storage," 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."
The IFR will take effect 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, and PHMSA will accept public comments on the rule up to 60 days after publication.
According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), there are approximately 400 interstate and intrastate underground natural gas storage facilities currently in operation in the United States, which collectively have more than 4 Tcf of natural gas working capacity. Of the 400 storage facilities, 326 are depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs, 31 are salt caverns and 43 are depleted aquifers. The EIA said 197 are interstate facilities, while the remaining 203 are intrastate facilities.
In 2015, PHMSA and the American Petroleum Institute (API), which sets standards for the oil and gas industry, collaborated to develop a pair of recommended practices (RP): 1170 and 1171.
Specifically, the API RP 1170 outlines several functional recommendations for salt cavern facilities used for natural gas storage -- including geomechanical assessments, cavern well design and drilling, and solution mining techniques and operations. Meanwhile, API RP 1171 focuses on the depleted hydrocarbon and aquifer reservoirs being used for storage -- addressing storage well, reservoir and fluid management for functional integrity in the design, construction, operation, monitoring, maintenance, and documentation practices.
Both RPs also include operations and maintenance procedures and practices for newly constructed and existing underground facilities. PHMSA said the procedures address operations, maintenance, threat identification, monitoring, assessment, site security, emergency response and preparedness, training and recordkeeping.
According to a regulatory impact analysis prepared by PHMSA, incremental annualized costs to implement the RPs would range from less than $100,000 to $193.6 million, depending upon whether full, partial or regulatory compliance is enacted, and whether a 3% or 7% discount rate is applied. The high end of the cost spectrum assumes regulatory compliance only at a 7% discount rate.
"To the degree that the IFR promotes implementation of safer practices by making them mandatory and enforceable, PHMSA expects the benefits of the IFR in general, and of the mechanical integrity testing requirements in particular, to derive from preventing catastrophic natural gas releases due to the failure of storage wells or of fugitive and vented emissions ancillary to the operation of storage facilities," PHMSA said.
One such catastrophe began in October 2015, when workers with Southern California Gas Co. (SoCalGas) discovered a natural gas leak from its Aliso Canyon underground storage facility in southern California, prompting the evacuation of thousands of nearby households. The leak was permanently plugged four months later. Last month, SoCalGas asked California regulators for permission to reopen the facility.
Industry Calls Deadline 'Unrealistic'
In separate statements Wednesday, officials with the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) and API were critical of the 12-month deadline for compliance.
"We are concerned that a rushed 12-month implementation of the entirety of the RPs would impose a substantial burden on operators and could undermine the effectiveness of these risk-based integrity management programs," said INGAA CEO Don Santa. "In contrast, the implementation period for the gas transmission pipeline integrity management program requirements was ten years.
"We are reviewing this IFR, and hope PHMSA will take our concerns into consideration."
API Midstream Group Director Robin Rorick concurred. "While we are encouraged that the new rule adopts API's rigorous safety management practices, we fear that the new rule's unrealistic compliance timeline will prevent operators from effectively implementing the requirements of the rule and could potentially undermine the very safety efforts the rule is trying to promote," Rorick said.
"While we will continue to review the impacts of this rule, we hope that PHMSA will work with our industry to ensure that the rule can be implemented in a fashion that both improves safety and ensures that clean and reliable supplies of natural gas from the U.S. energy renaissance are consistently available to the country."
The SAFE PIPES Act passed both chambers of Congress with broad bipartisan support last June. The bill included a provision creating the Aliso Canyon Natural Gas Leak Task Force -- led by the secretary of the Department of Energy -- to determine the cause and contributing factors for the leak, and to make recommendations to prevent future leaks.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/108756-phmsa-issues-interim-final-rule-for-natgas-storage
-
U.N. Warns of Nuclear Plant Hacks, Bio and Chemical Attacks
Dec 16, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Security officials call it the "nightmare scenario" — a power plant hack releasing uncontrolled radiation — and states need to defend against it, according to U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson.
At a U.N. Security Council meeting, he warned of terrorists and nonstate actors turning to cyberattacks, biological and chemical weapons, and nuclear attacks that could include power plants.
The council meeting focused on halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction by extremist groups and criminals. Members unanimously approved a measure to more closely monitor what countries are doing to prevent the spread of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.
Eliasson said radioactive material, scientific advances, and new technologies, like 3-D printing and drones, are lowering access barriers to creating or obtaining weapons of mass destruction. He noted that no global health institution is capable of responding to a large-scale attack.
Brian Finlay, president of the Stimson Center in Washington, said the resolution "has provided a near unprecedented rallying point for global efforts to prevent terrorist acquisition of these weapons".
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/16/stories/1060047335
-
(ACC Mentioned) Union Pacific Receives 20th Responsible Care® Certification
Dec 16, 2016 | RT&S
Union Pacific (UP) recently received its 20th American Chemistry Council's Responsible Care®Management System (RCMS) certification, which recognizes the railroad’s safe handling of hazardous materials during customer shipments.
The RCMS certification is noted as the chemical industry's initiative to drive continuous improvements and excellence in the areas of environmental, health and safety and security.
Certification requires meeting the chemical industry's stringent global standards, addressing risks and consenting to independent audits by certified inspectors.
"Receiving the RCMS certification for two continuous decades reflects Union Pacific's commitment and is a tribute to our dedicated employees who handle our customers' products in the safest, most secure manner," said Kari Kirchhoefer, vice president and general manager – chemicals. "We pledge to continue meeting or exceeding the chemical industry's standards."
Companies seeking RCMS certification must pledge to operate according to specific guiding and ethical principles. Non-chemical companies handling hazardous materials, such as railroads, were invited to begin participating in the program in 1995.
Representatives say UP was the first railroad to participate in the RCMS program, and the railroad received the rail industry's first RCMS certification in 1996.
http://www.rtands.com/index.php/freight/union-pacific-receives-20th-responsible-care%C2%AE-certification.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry, EPA Settle Lawsuit Over Waste Storage, Treatment
Dec 16, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
The American Chemistry Council has settled a lawsuit against U.S. EPA stemming from revised agency regulations covering hazardous air emissions from businesses that store and treat used oil, used solvents and other wastes.
Under the agreement, which is subject to a 30-day public comment period beginning Monday, EPA will reconsider provisions relating to pressure relief devices used to prevent dangerous vapor buildups, with a final decision due by January 2018, according to an upcoming Federal Register notice.
After EPA published the revised regulations in March of last year, the chemistry council filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit over the provisions. Among the trade group's concerns: that regulators had effectively created a zero-emissions limit for the devices, notwithstanding a Clean Air Act requirement to set standards based on the best-performing sources, according to a later filing.
EPA had proposed the tighter standards for what are technically known as "off-site waste and recovery operations" in 2014, as part of a legally required risk assessment and technology review of existing regulations (Greenwire, July 2, 2014). By the agency's count, there are about 50 "major source" operations in the United States; the revised standards will cut annual emissions of toluene, methanol and other pollutants by about 200 tons per year, EPA officials said in issuing the final rule last year.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1060047340/search?keyword=%22American+Chemistry+Council%22
-
Exxon Shifted on Climate Change Under Trump Pick
Dec 16, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Rex Tillerson oversaw a major shift on climate change as chairman and CEO of Exxon Mobil Corp. as the nation’s largest oil company accepted the scientific consensus that humans are contributing to a warming planet.
Tillerson, whom President-elect Donald Trump this week tapped to be his secretary of State, took charge as Exxon Mobil's top executive in 2006.
Just a year later, Exxon shifted from its public position of doubting climate change to declaring that there is “no question” that human activity was the source of carbon dioxide emissions contributing to the phenomenon.
“Before and after Rex Tillerson, Exxon had a very different profile, as a company, in the issues related to climate change, and that’s worth noting,” said Sam Adams, the United States director for the World Resources Institute, a nonpartisan group that advocates for international climate action.
Under Tillerson’s predecessor, CEO Lee Raymond, Exxon fought the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and other climate policies, frequently framing climate science as shaky at best.
After Tillerson took over, the company backed a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, implemented an internal accounting measure to put a fee on carbon emissions and stopped funding many groups that outright reject the scientific consensus behind climate change, all major shifts away from its previous positions.
Exxon endorsed last year’s agreement in Paris on global warming.
“The appropriate debate isn’t on whether climate is changing, but rather should be on what we should be doing about it,” then-spokesman Kenneth Cohen said in February 2007, according to Greenwire, in a statement that underlined the company’s shift.
Exxon spokesman Alan Jeffers said the company's evolution aligned with a landmark report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which concluded that “most” of the 20th century's global warming is “very likely” due to the increase in greenhouse gases from human activity.
“Our views have really followed the science,” he said.
Tillerson nonetheless disagrees with environmentalists’ views that fighting climate change means using less fossil fuels. Instead, Exxon looks at solutions like replacing coal with natural gas — which the company produces — and adapting to the effects of a changing world.
“Our plan B has always been grounded in our beliefs around the continued evolution of technology and engineered solutions to address and react to whatever the climate system and its outcomes present to us, whether that be in the form of rises in sea level, which we think you can address through different engineering accommodations along coastal areas, to changing agricultural production due to changes in weather patterns that may or may not be induced by climate change,” he told investors last year.
Exxon Mobil’s stated positions on climate change set it apart from other major United States-based fossil fuel companies and closer to the opinions of big international oil companies like BP, Royal Dutch Shell and Statoil.
Many of the countries in which Tillerson and Exxon Mobil did business have populations that were keen to tackle climate change. A more pro-green outlook was good business for the company.
It’s also unclear whether the positions taken by Exxon Mobil match Tillerson’s personal views.
They could be at odds with the views of Trump, who has repeatedly said climate change is a hoax. He wants to pull the U.S. out of the Paris agreement as quickly as possible and has forcefully said that a carbon tax is completely out of the question.
Environmentalists don’t buy Exxon Mobil’s shift, and as such don’t appear to believe Tillerson will have a moderating effect on his boss.
Timmons Roberts, an environmental studies professor at Brown University, said that those favoring actions on climate change should not get their hopes up about Tillerson.
“A lot of the hopes that Tillerson would be a moderating force are probably wishful thinking,” he said.
“Tillerson has said good things recently, that it’s real, that something needs to be done about it, that a carbon tax is a good way to address it. But then you look at the actions of Exxon over these years, and they’re extremely worrisome.”
He and other environmentalists say that Exxon Mobil, like its competitors, continued to expand production of fossil fuels under Tillerson. The company still donates millions to politicians fighting climate change policies.
Exxon also has been embroiled over the last year in controversy over its past climate positions.
InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times published reports last year concluding that as early as the 1970s, Exxon Mobil’s scientists knew that greenhouse gases from oil and natural gas caused climate change.
The reports said that despite that knowledge, Exxon Mobil for years tried to sow doubt about global warming, fearing that policies to fight it would hurt its bottom line.
The accusations have spurred condemnation from environmentalists and Democrats and investigations by the Democratic attorneys general of New York and Massachusetts. Exxon Mobil has denied the allegations, saying its positions have always aligned with prevailing science.
“Rex Tillerson hid climate science so it could cash in on disaster, instead of transitioning his company to a position of true leadership,” said Annie Leonard, executive director of Greenpeace.
She criticized Trump’s decision to make the nomination.
“This appointment is a desperate grab for power by a failing industry that is perfectly fine bringing the American people down with it.”
As secretary of State, Tillerson would be responsible for the country’s climate change diplomacy, something that is worrying green groups.
“Handing over U.S. global policy to Big Oil is an epic mistake,” Rhea Suh, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement. “This industry has been near the center of more conflict than any other in modern time; tapping its chief oilman as the nation’s top diplomat sends the wrong message at home and abroad.”
Tillerson's supporters, including the oil industry, usually cite his Exxon Mobil leadership as a reason that he would be an effective diplomat.
“Rex Tillerson is world class. He has decades of experience working with global leaders and overseeing the creation of thousands of jobs,” said Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute. “He understands that American voters want to strengthen our national security, grow jobs, and protect American interests globally.”
http://www.thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/310647-exxon-shifted-on-climate-change-under-trump-pick
-
Red States Ask Trump for Quick Action Against Climate Rule
Dec 15, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Officials from 24 conservative states want President-elect Donald Trump to take action on his first day in office against President Obama’s climate change rule for power plants.
The officials, led by West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R), wrote to Trump Thursday with a four-part plan to undo the Clean Power Plan and ensure that a future president could not implement a similar policy in the future.
“The Clean Power Plan is an unlawful attempt to force states to fundamentally alter electricity generation in their states by shifting from existing fossil-fueled power plants to other methods of generation preferred by [the Environmental Protection Agency],” the state representatives wrote.
“The incoming administration and Congress now have the opportunity to withdraw this unlawful rule and prevent adoption of a similar rule in the future.”
The first step in the process is for Trump to issue an executive order on Jan. 20 to instruct the EPA not to enforce the rule.
While the federal government usually needs to go through an in-depth and time-consuming regulatory process to repeal regulations — and the states ask Trump to do that down the line — Morrisey and his colleagues argue that since the Clean Power Plan is illegal, Trump can issue an order to stop its implementation immediately.
“The order should explain that it is the administration’s view that the rule is unlawful and that EPA lacks authority to enforce it,” they wrote. “The executive order is necessary to send an immediate and strong message to states and regulated entities that the administration will not enforce the rule.”
The letter also asks Trump to review the ongoing litigation over the rule and to work with Congress to pass legislation preventing a future president from writing a similar rule.
The rule mandates a 32 percent cut in the power sector’s carbon dioxide emissions, through cuts assigned to each state. The Supreme Court put it on hold earlier this year pending the court cases brought by Morrisey, other attorneys general and energy companies.
Trump pledged on the campaign trail to repeal the Clean Power Plan and all other Obama actions fighting climate change.
He has chosen Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma’s Republican attorney general and one of the leaders in the litigation against the climate rule, to be EPA administrator.
Pruitt did not sign on to Thursday’s letter.
http://www.thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/310626-red-states-ask-trump-for-quick-action-against-climate-rule
-
Looming Pick Will Play Major Role in Environmental Policy
Dec 16, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Marc Heller
President-elect Donald Trump has one outstanding Cabinet nomination that will have a significant impact on environmental issues.
Whoever becomes the next Agriculture secretary will help influence and implement the 2018 farm bill, face the increasing cost of fighting wildfires through the Forest Service, deal with demands to scale back the agency's killing of wolves and coyotes to protect livestock, and shape rural development programs in regions that helped push Trump to victory.
Prominent interest groups — including farm groups and other organizations that lobby on farm policy — are already weighing what they may gain or lose from a Trump administration, depending on who becomes the nominee.
When Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) emerged as a potential secretary of Agriculture, the North Dakota Farm Bureau didn't celebrate its home-state senator's possible rise.
"We'd prefer somebody that has a direct tie to agriculture, not just someone from an agricultural state," said Daryl Lies, North Dakota Farm Bureau president, in a telephone interview this week.
Heitkamp's name rose to the top of the candidate list within the past few weeks, after reports she was meeting with the Trump transition team. Then yesterday, Idaho Gov. Butch Otter (R), a former congressman, appeared on the list after his staff said he was being considered.
Another potential top-tier candidate is former Department of Agriculture Deputy Secretary Chuck Conner, who served in the George W. Bush administration and now heads the trade group for farmer-owned cooperatives, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives.
Representatives of industry groups said they don't have any inside word on who has the best chances or even whether Trump is about to pick from the list of widely reported names.
During the campaign, Trump didn't send a clear signal on agriculture policy, other than to endorse a smaller role for the government in environmental regulation and to say he supports renewable fuel, which might signal that he won't dismantle the renewable fuel standard that encourages the use of corn ethanol.
Asked at a briefing today about the search for an Agriculture secretary, Trump spokesman Jason Miller said Trump is carefully considering his options. Heitkamp, he said, is "obviously very well qualified and has a great deal of leadership experience."
Of the potential candidates whose names have generated the most publicity, Conner is the best-known to farm groups, with whom he has a relationship from his time at USDA. Farm groups privately say they'd like to see him in the position, and Conner has been tight-lipped about the prospect, declining to answer reporters' questions about it.
Heitkamp serves on the Senate Agriculture Committee, and she played a role in the 2014 farm bill, which outlines most programs at USDA. She's a former attorney general in North Dakota.
"We've been on opposite sides, and we've agreed, off and on," Lies said. He said NDFB shares Heitkamp's support for bioenergy and her opposition to the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan but believes she leans too heavily toward government handouts in the department's commodity programs for farmers.
Environmental groups said they would expect Heitkamp to support the working lands program that protects wildlife while keeping fields in agricultural production and to help reduce the backlog in the department's designations of wetlands, which determine which areas farmers are allowed to drain for crops. Farmers sometimes wait years for such determinations, and the backlog is especially long in the Dakotas.
But Heitkamp also opposed tying conservation programs to crop insurance. In deliberations on the 2014 farm bill, she and Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) pushed a failed amendment to prohibit any conservation requirements for farmers who enroll in federally subsidized crop insurance.
While the North Dakota Farm Bureau has reservations about its home-state senator, other farm groups have supported her in the Senate. The National Farmers Union has given her its "Golden Triangle" legislative award each of the four years she's been in the Senate and gave her a 100 percent score in its legislative scorecard for 2014.
Heitkamp has worked in the energy field and as a lawyer for U.S. EPA early in her career, but she has never been associated with the agriculture industry professionally.
Otter's name emerged earlier this week when his staff told reporters he was being considered (Greenwire, Dec. 15).
A third-term governor and congressman from 2001 to 2007, Otter served on committees dealing with natural resources, energy, transportation and government reform but didn't play a direct role in agriculture policy. He stood out for opposing the Patriot Act that boosted security after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, joining others who said the measure went too far in curtailing personal freedoms.
As governor, Otter has embraced a policy called "good neighbor authority" from the 2014 farm bill that allows states to work with the Forest Service on timber-clearing projects that help reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire.
"Before Good Neighbor Authority, Idaho could not legally help the Forest Service with the enormous and complex job of restoring our national forests," Otter said in a news release this fall.
Otter, 74, is a former executive with the J.R. Simplot Co., which started as a producer of potatoes and has grown into one of the country's biggest agribusinesses. That could push away groups critical of so-called Big Ag, which charge that the government is already too close to big companies involved in genetic modification of crops, for instance.
Later, he became a rancher — and was accused by EPA of violating the Clean Water Act three times. He paid a $50,000 fine in 2001.
As governor, Otter has gained farmers' approval by supporting the federal renewable fuel standard, said Kent Wright, president of Northwest Farmers Union.
"The governor seems to be pretty staunch on it," said Wright, who's received positive messages from his group's members about the potential of Otter getting the position. "They seem to be pretty supportive of the idea."
Otter also wins praise from the Family Farm Alliance, a group that advocates for irrigated agriculture in Western states.
"It's good news for us," said Dan Keppen, the FFA's executive director. The group looks for USDA to maintain support for voluntary conservation programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program in the next farm bill.
"It'd be good to get a Westerner in there, from my standpoint," Keppen said.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/16/stories/1060047353
-
Defunct Texas Project May Be Reborn
Dec 16, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Christa Marshall
A defunct Texas carbon capture project that was a focus of the Obama administration could be revived under a new design.
Summit Power Group LLC is examining ways to move forward with the Texas Clean Energy Project so it captures and stores the same level of carbon dioxide from coal power generation as originally planned.
The project, one of a handful of large "clean coal" projects backed by the 2009 Recovery Act, never broke ground and lost its Department of Energy funding this September after it failed to reach milestones.
U.S. EPA once hailed it as one of four examples of the viability of carbon capture for power plants. The Department of Energy's Office of Inspector General warned earlier this year that the project could put taxpayers at risk (E&E News PM, May 26).
The proposed complex near Odessa, Texas, originally envisioned gasifying coal into gas, capturing 90 percent of the resulting CO2 and using the syngas for both a new 400-megawatt power plant and urea production for fertilizer.
To move forward, Summit is considering abandoning the power plant portion of the project and instead adding additional facilities for urea, said Bret Logue, managing director of Summit Texas Clean Energy, a subsidiary of Summit Power.
Under the plan, which has not been finalized, the overall facility would still capture and store approximately 1.5 million tons of CO2 annually for use in enhanced oil recovery in West Texas, said Logue.
The idea would "potentially generate more revenue for the project and be a relatively simple design change," he said. There's still high demand for both fertilizer and CO2 in West Texas oil fields, he said.
Summit revealed the concept this month during a public meeting in Odessa over the status of its land grant for the project.
Essentially, the CO2 capture and coal gasification portion of the project would not change under the plan, and the resulting cleaned-up syngas would be used for one purpose rather than two.
There are other operating facilities in the United States that capture CO2 from industrial plants, including for fertilizer production.
Capturing the greenhouse gas from power plants has been more of a challenge because of high costs and the energy sapped from electricity production by CO2 capture.
The International Energy Agency said in a report last month that countries and power producers should significantly boost CCS use to avoid dangerous global warming.
Logue said Summit would aim for financial closing in mid-2017 if the plan moves forward. The project likely would need more than $200 million in additional investment.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/16/stories/1060047351
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested