Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 1/20/2017
-
As Obama Exits, GOP Hit List is Long and Sweeping
Jan 20, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Arianna Skibell
In the last eight years, President Obama has used his executive authority to move a number of measures to fight climate change, grow the clean energy economy, and protect public lands and endangered species. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Clarifies Duty For 'Upfront' CBI Substantiation Under Revised TSCA
Jan 19, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA is clarifying when companies must substantiate confidential business information (CBI) claims under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) by saying the substantiation is due “upfront” at the time the information claimed as CBI is submitted... -
TSCA New Chemicals Programme Causing 'Major' Supply Chain Disruptions
Jan 20, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
The Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (Socma) is among groups that have raised concerns over the US EPA's process for new chemicals under the amended TSCA. Delays in approving pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) have caused major disruptions... -
US EPA Petitioned to Order Flame Retardant Testing
Jan 20, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Six NGOs have petitioned the US EPA to require hazard and exposure testing for four flame retardants. -
New Small Business Panel Urged to Set Firm Size for Toxics Law
Jan 20, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency should form a small business advisory panel as it updates its definition of what constitutes a small chemical manufacturing or processing company, according to a trade association official and federal small firm advocacy office. -
(ACC Mentioned) Obama EPA’s Last-Minute Moves on Chemicals
Jan 18, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson and Jessica Morrison
In a last minute push to get several rules out before the Trump Administration took control, the Obama Environmental Protection Agency released a series of regulations, proposals, and policies affecting chemicals. -
Departing EPA Research Chief Optimistic On Future Of IRIS, CompTox
Jan 20, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA's departing research chief Tom Burke is optimistic about the future of the agency's research program, its collaboration with other agency programs... -
EWG Investigates: Trump's EPA Pick Unaware Lead is Unsafe at Any Level for Kids
Jan 19, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Colin O’Neil
The man who could be in charge of ensuring the safety of the nation’s drinking water doesn't know the most basic fact about a grave health threat for American children: lead contamination of tap water. -
California Requires Replacement of All Lead Service Lines – But Vigilance Needed on Implementation
Jan 19, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
In 2016, California became the first state in the country to make enforceable commitments to eliminating all lead service lines (LSLs) in the state. -
Canada Updating Status of About 1,500 Chemicals
Jan 20, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Menyasz
Canada wants industry data on commercial uses of about 1,500 chemicals to determine whether additional regulation and existing controls are needed. -
(ACC Mentioned) Pennsylvania Town Approves Construction of Shell Petrochem Facility
Jan 19, 2017 | Reuters
By Scott DiSavino
The town council of Potter, Pennsylvania unanimously approved a conditional use permit late Wednesday allowing a unit of Royal Dutch Shell PLC to move forward with construction of a multibillion-dollar petrochemical complex near Pittsburgh. -
(ACC Mentioned) Pennsylvania Township Approves Permit for Shell Cracker
Jan 20, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
After a series of contentious public hearings, Potter Township, PA, supervisors late Wednesday unanimously approved a conditional-use permit that allows Shell Chemical Appalachia LLC to proceed with construction of its multi-billion dollar ethane cracker. -
(ACC Mentioned) Potter Officials Approve Permit for Shell's Cracker Plant
Jan 19, 2017 | Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
By Natasha Lindstrom
A national chemical industry trade group on Thursday praised Potter Township officials for clearing the way for Royal Dutch Shell to build a $6 billion petrochemical plant along the Ohio River in Beaver County. -
GOP Tax Reform and What’s at Stake for the Oil Industry
Jan 19, 2017 | Platts
By Meghan Gordon
The U.S. still imports a lot of crude oil. It also now exports crude oil. It’s also the world’s biggest exporter of petroleum products. -
FERC Locks Out Protesters, Approves Gas Pipelines
Jan 19, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey and Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission today approved two contentious East Coast gas pipelines proposed by TransCanada Corp., developer of the stalled Keystone XL oil project. -
EPA Defends Revised Utility MACT Cost Finding from Industry's Criticisms
Jan 19, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA in a new legal brief is defending its revised cost assessment for its contested utility air toxics rule from the power sector's attacks, defending its freedom under the Clean Air Act to determine whether the costs are reasonable from industry's criticisms... -
PHMSA Tightens Pipeline Oil and Gas Leak Notification Rule
Jan 19, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Esther Whieldon
DOT's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration today issued a final rule that requires pipelines to provide faster notifications of oil and gas leaks. -
The Way to Clean Energy-for-All in a Trump Administration, In California and Beyond
Jan 19, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jayant Kairam
The late California historian Kevin Starr once wrote, “California had long since become one of the prisms through which the American people, for better and for worse, could glimpse their future.” These words have never felt truer. -
Report Shows 1,500 Oil Train Cars Per Week Through Washington
Jan 19, 2017 | OPB
By Tony Schick
In the final three months of 2016, railroads hauled 618 million gallons of oil through Washington. That means more than 1,500 rail cars every week hauling flammable crude through the state. -
Citing Trump, N.Y. and Others Wade into Cross-State Fight
Jan 19, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
A half-dozen Northeast states are siding with U.S. EPA in the legal free-for-all over the agency's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule update. -
Texas Seeks Review of EPA Visibility Rule
Jan 20, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
EPA's new visibility rule gives federal land managers authority to make Clean Air Act certifications of visibility impairment although the act doesn't grant them that authority, Ken Paxton, Texas attorney general (R)... -
6 Unanswered Questions from the Perry Hearing
Jan 20, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Christa Marshall
There were many certainties in yesterday's hearing on the nomination of Rick Perry to lead the Energy Department. -
Trump Nominees Share a Less Urgent Climate-Change Line
Jan 20, 2017 | Washington Post
By Brady Dennis and Chris Mooney
No so long ago, Rick Perry described the science behind human-caused climate change as a “contrived phony mess.” On Thursday, during his confirmation hearing to become the next head of the Energy Department, the former Texas governor expressed a markedly different view... -
Keeping Cool About Hot Temperatures
Jan 19, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Editorial Board
By now you’ve seen the headline: 2016 was the hottest year on record. The news has been paired with predictions of civilization’s imminent demise.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
As Obama Exits, GOP Hit List is Long and Sweeping
Jan 20, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Arianna Skibell
In the last eight years, President Obama has used his executive authority to move a number of measures to fight climate change, grow the clean energy economy, and protect public lands and endangered species.
Some advocates would have seen him do more, but most agree his environmental record is strong, from the Clean Power Plan and the Paris Agreement to enhanced fuel efficiency standards for vehicles and habitat restoration efforts.
"The Obama administration left an incredible legacy on both climate and energy, especially in the second term," said David Goldston, director of government affairs at the Natural Resource Defense Council. "Really very comprehensively addressing both the climate problem and the need for clean energy."
Republicans and their allies, on the other hand, have spent the same eight years disgruntled and frustrated. They see a number of Obama's actions as executive overreaches that have stymied the economy and derailed job growth.
William Yeatman, senior fellow with the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, said the Obama administration favored the "single-minded" agenda of environmental activists, demonizing commodities like coal.
"The EPA was captured by environmental special interests whose narrow agenda comports poorly with environmental policymaking as set forth by all these statues," he said, referencing the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act.
"I assume the incoming administration will be more open, more cooperative, to take more voices into account," he said.
With Obama leaving office today, congressional Republicans are dusting off environmental and regulatory reforms more likely to fly under President-elect Donald Trump. The list includes proactive measures that would change the way rules are promulgated, reactive regulatory rollbacks, changes to judicial review, and modifications to bedrock environmental laws like the Endangered Species Act and Clean Air Act.
And the list is long.
Regulatory reform
· The "Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act," H.R. 26, known as the "REINS Act," would require congressional approval of measures with an estimated annual economic impact of more than $100 million. The legislation has passed the House a number of times but has stalled in the Senate. Proponents argue it would increase accountability for major executive branch policy decisions. But skeptics see the bill as a potentially unconstitutional poison pill that would result in paralysis of all regulatory activity (E&E Daily, Jan. 4). House Republicans passed the bill again this month.
· The "Regulatory Accountability Act," H.R. 5, would require federal agencies to identify the objective of a proposed rule and choose the lowest-cost alternative. It would repeal the Chevron and Auer legal doctrines, which encourage the courts to defer to agencies' interpretations of laws. It would also prevent billion-dollar rules from taking effect until courts can resolve litigation brought against those agency actions, among other reforms. Among other ramifications, that could affect U.S. EPA's ability to set air quality standards under the Clean Air Act. The bill passed the House this month (E&E Daily, Jan. 12).
· The "SEC Regulatory Accountability Act," H.R. 78, would amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to increase the use of cost-benefit analyses in the rulemaking process, primarily in the financial sector. The measure would require the SEC to take a number of additional steps before issuing new regulations. The agency would be required to assess whether there are cheaper alternatives that are still legal and conduct a cost-benefit analysis. The agency would be required to ensure that any regulation is written in accessible language. Critics worry it opens the door for other agencies (E&E Daily, Jan. 11). The measure passed the House this month.
· The "Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act," S. 119, the "sue-and-settle" bill, would prevent environmental and other groups from compelling federal agency action through litigation. The measure requires that consent decrees and settlements be filed only after interested parties have had a chance to comment. The bill stipulates that 60 days be left between proposal and filing. Courts would then be required to incorporate the public comments into their decisionmaking. The bill also makes it easier for a new administration to petition a court to modify consent decrees approved during past administrations. Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) introduced the measure. The duo unsuccessfully introduced the bill in the 113th, 114th and 115th sessions of Congress. Former Rep. Ben Quayle (R-Ariz.) also introduced the measure in the 112th Congress (Greenwire, Jan. 13).
· The "Secret Science Reform Act," the latest version of which is still forthcoming, would fundamentally alter how science is used in crafting environmental policy. It would require that EPA use only "transparent or reproducible" science to develop regulations and that such scientific data be posted online so that they can be scrutinized. Proponents argue that the legislation simply makes science transparent. Democrats and scores of scientific organizations say the measure would have a crippling effect. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said the bill would be one of his top priorities this year (Climatewire, Jan. 9).
· The "Separation of Powers Restoration Act," H.R. 76, sponsored by Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), would limit federal agencies' ability to interpret legislation and promulgate regulations. Ratcliffe said the measure is intended to restore three "co-equal" branches of government. The bill passed in the House last year, and Ratcliffe said he is optimistic it will again in this new session of Congress.
· The "All Economic Regulations are Transparent Act," H.R. 75, would prevent the administration from implementing new rules without first alerting the public and providing at least six months for comment. The bill passed the House last year, 244-173.
· The "Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act," H.R. 33, would amend the Regulatory Flexibility Act and require agencies to tally direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of new rules on small businesses (E&E Daily, Jan. 17).
· The "Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act," known as the "SCRUB Act," which passed the House last year, would establish a nine-member body and authorize an appropriation of up to $30 million to independently assess which regulations are outdated or unnecessarily burdensome (E&E Daily, Jan. 8, 2016).
Climate
· The Clean Power Plan: Repealing the Clean Power Plan has long been a top priority for congressional Republicans. The Supreme Court in February 2016 halted implementation of the Clean Power Plan until judges determine whether it is legal. Many states canceled their planning efforts, although 14 asked EPA to provide guidance on carbon trading and other elements of the regulation. Certain programs related to the plan could be axed with an executive action, but the Clean Power Plan itself would have to be repealed through tradition, lengthy repeal or court challenge. House Republicans tried to torpedo the regulation in last year's budget proposal.
· The Paris Agreement: The Paris climate agreement is a global response to the risks of climate change. It was signed by nearly 200 countries and went into effect last November. Trump has said he has an "open mind" about the agreement, but many conservatives would have him pull out. Former Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Rex Tillerson, Trump's pick to lead the State Department, said the administration should "maintain a seat at the table" for international climate negotiations so it can keep tabs on whether other big polluters are committed to cutting their greenhouse gas emissions and "adjust our own course accordingly," he said during his confirmation hearing (E&E Daily, Jan. 12).
· Hydrofluorocarbon international commitments: It will be up to Trump's administration to determine what to do with international efforts to curtail the use of highly warming chemicals used in air conditioning and refrigeration. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), a climate change skeptic, has criticized the Montreal Protocol as an overreach. But some industry groups are encouraging Trump to send the treaty to the Senate for ratification (Greenwire, Jan. 12).
· Oil and natural gas standards: Last year, EPA released regulations under the Clean Air Act that directly limit emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. The rules cover new and heavily modified equipment and operations in the oil and gas industry. Republicans have said they plan to use the Congressional Review Act to roll back the rules, but new analysis from the Congressional Research Service revealed the regulations may not be eligible (Greenwire, Dec. 21, 2016).
· Financing for overseas coal projects: In 2013, the Obama administration laid out strict new criteria for deciding what foreign coal projects the World Bank and other institutions could finance. The guidelines set in motion the Climate Action Plan and were an effort to use the United States' muscle with development banks to encourage greener energy investments. The coal industry strongly opposed the regulation (Climatewire, Oct. 30, 2013).
Energy
· Arctic and Atlantic drilling: The Obama administration denied all applications to conduct seismic surveys in the Atlantic Ocean this month, two weeks after the president banned drilling in parts of the Atlantic and most of the Arctic. The Interior Department also had previously removed Atlantic waters from its five-year oil and gas drilling plan. While some Republicans voiced support for the move, many would like to see it repealed (Greenwire, Jan. 6).
· Coal: The Interior Department's Stream Protection Rule, which would implement new water quality restrictions on coal mining, was released last month. Republicans immediately said they would work to see its demise through the CRA. And 13 states have already sued. The rule went into effect yesterday (Greenwire, Jan. 18). Pro-mining lawmakers are also taking aim at an ongoing review and moratorium on coal leasing.
· The Keystone XL pipeline: Obama rejected the proposed Keystone XL crude oil pipeline, which would have run 1,200 miles from Canada through Nebraska to the Gulf Coast. Trump has spoken out in favor of the pipeline (Greenwire, Dec. 22, 2016).
· The Dakota Access pipeline: In a win for environmentalists and activists, Obama ordered a full environmental impact statement for the controversial pipeline. This month, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia approved the environmental review, but many Republicans would like to see the pipeline advance (Energywire, Jan. 19).
· Vehicle standards: EPA set tighter fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks for 2022-2024. Some automakers are already asking Trump to soften the federal rules. Trump's pick to lead EPA, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R), would not commit during his confirmation hearing to allow states to set their own standards. Pruitt said he would review California's current waiver under the Clean Air Act to set its own vehicle pollution rules (Climatewire, Jan. 19).
· Clean energy tax incentives: In 2015, Congress extended credits for wind and solar in a deal to end the oil import ban, but the final legislation did not cover other clean energy technologies. While many industries have pushed for the tax break to be extended to other forms of clean energy, many Republicans have called for an end to the tax breaks altogether (E&E Daily, Dec. 2, 2016).
· Energy efficiency standards: The Obama administration pledged to finalize standards that would cut carbon emissions by 3 billion tons by 2030. As of the new year, it's achieved more than 70 percent of that target through finalized efficiency rules. Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) introduced a bill this month to repeal federal energy efficiency standards. The measure would prohibit state or federal agencies from adopting or implementing "any requirement to comply with a standard for energy conservation or water efficiency with respect to a product" (Greenwire, Jan. 5).
Air and water
· Ozone standards: In 2015, EPA strengthened the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone to 70 parts per billion. The new standards were a revised version of the 2008 ones. EPA is already proceeding with the first steps toward enforcement of the new standard, but at the same time close to 120 million people still live in areas out of compliance with the 2008 standard of 75 ppb. The House last year approved a measure that would delay the implementation of the new standard well into the next decade, but the bill failed to move in the Senate. Last week, the Senate failed to give a vote to a similar proposal by Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) (E&E Daily, Jan. 12).
· Toxic air pollution standards: Last year, EPA issued air pollution standards for cement and brick kilns. The rule set emission limits for mercury, particulate matter and other pollutants. The Brick Industry Association and other industries have filed a lawsuit. EPA acknowledged last year that the new regulations could put some brickmaking plants "at significant risk of closure," eliciting contempt from both congressional Republicans and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The House passed a bill last fall that would put the regulation on hold until all lawsuits over the rule are settled. EPA's response brief was due yesterday, with final briefs scheduled for March 14 (Greenwire, Nov. 15, 2016).
· Clean Water Rule: Gutting the controversial Waters of the U.S., or WOTUS, rule is the No. 1 priority for many Republicans, and a handful of Democrats are wary of the rule. Dozens of lawsuits and a nationwide stay have already halted EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers' plans to implement the standards on the ground. During his campaign, Trump vowed to repeal the regulation, which seeks to define which water bodies are automatically covered under the Clean Water Act. Now, it's only a matter time before it dies, say observers (Greenwire, Nov. 16, 2016).
Public land and species
· The Antiquities Act: The 1906 law has authorized Obama to designate a slew of protected monuments, including the world's largest marine protected area. Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.) strongly suggested during his confirmation hearing to be Interior secretary that the Trump administration would take the unprecedented and legally uncertain step of attempting to undo some national monuments established unilaterally by presidents using their authority under the act (E&E Daily, Jan. 18).
· The Endangered Species Act: The law has added protections for sage grouse, gray wolves and salmon. But new Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) wants to overhaul the Endangered Species Act, adding to the list of key Republicans eyeing the landmark law for reforms. Lawmakers this week floated a bill to end gray wolf protections. Other key Republicans have also made clear that the ESA is in their sights, including House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah), who last year suggested the law should be repealed entirely (Greenwire, Jan. 17).
· Public lands: Obama expanded the areas designated as protected public lands, but congressional Republicans continue to work to turn over federal lands to their respective states. But the Outdoor Industry Association this week issued an open letter to the incoming Trump administration and members of Congress urging opposition to any proposals aimed at disposing of federal lands, either in private sales or to individual states (E&E News PM, Jan. 18).
· The Marine Mammal Protection Act: The law has been used to prevent offshore oil and gas development and to protect marine life from Navy sonar. The law was a point of contention in the early 2000s, with the Navy seeking allowances and environmental advocates urging stronger protections. In 2003, the Navy sought revisions to the act in response to a long-running battle with environmentalists who wanted to stop the deployment of sonar systems they said disturbed marine life.
Toxics
· Chlorpyrifos: The federal government faces two benchmarks in the dispute over the pesticide chlorpyrifos, which EPA has considered banning because of potential threats to drinking water. A public comment period on the proposed ban ended this week, and a federal court has told EPA to reach a final decision by March 31. Environmental groups sued the agency in 2007 to force a ban. Groups urging the ban now worry a Pruitt-led EPA won't pursue it once Trump takes office (Greenwire, Jan. 17).
· Carcinogens: In 2015, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared glyphosate — a key ingredient in Roundup, marketed by Monsanto Co. — a probable carcinogen, stirring controversy over the agency's research methods among industry. Then, last fall, reports surfaced that WHO petitioned its scientists to withhold documents on the glyphosate study. EPA has since approved the use of the chemical, infuriating green groups, who are likely to go to court over the matter (Greenwire, Nov. 2, 2016).
· "Safer Choice": EPA developed a program in which companies voluntarily submit their products to the agency, which confirms that chemicals of concern are not present. Then, the companies receive permission to use an EPA-approved label to tout the products' benefits to consumers. The program has had an impact not only at niche operations but at major corporations like Wal-Mart Stores Inc. But many manufacturers of chemicals and groups have pushed back against the program, including the American Chemistry Council (E&E News PM, April 28, 2016).
Judicial review
· The "Furthering Asbestos Claims Transparency Act," or "FACT Act," focuses on plaintiffs injured by asbestos exposure. Currently, lawyers are allowed to tell separate stories about client's exposure history in the civil courts and when speaking to companies that have set up bankruptcy trusts to pay out claims. The practice was detailed in the Garlock Sealing Technologies bankruptcy proceedings, in which Garlock eventually filed racketeering lawsuits against the firms that represented them. But opponents argue the bill burdens claims' trust accounts set up to handle asbestos claims, slowing or stopping their ability to compensate victims. The measure passed the House last year.
· The "Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act," which passed the House last year, would reform the federal class-action lawsuit framework by requiring affected parties to file separate class-action suits based on the extent of harm inflicted. The reasoning is that people who share injuries of the same type and extent should be grouped together, as opposed to one suit for everyone affected, no matter the extent. The measure could have a significant impact on environmental class-action lawsuits.
· The "Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act," which passed the House last year, would require monetary sanctions on attorneys who file "baseless" lawsuits in federal courts. Under the current system, it is up to the judge's discretion whether or not to impose sanctions. The bill would also make it impossible for parties and their attorneys to avoid sanctions by withdrawing frivolous claims within 21 days. Mandatory sanctioning was in place from 1983 to 1992 but was repealed after it was shown to increase, rather than decrease, nonmeritorious lawsuits. The American Bar Association opposed the bill.
Handicapping the reform efforts
Goldston of NRDC said the Trump administration has indicated it intends to follow through with many of these measures.
"And Congress wants to do even more and weaken the bedrock underlying statues. House Republicans want to shut down the entire regulatory system," he said. "These issues are going to be much higher profile than they've been."
He added: "It's an agenda that's promoted by a mix of industrial and ideological interests but will benefit nobody."
Nevertheless, Jim Barnette, a partner and energy lawyer with Steptoe & Johnson LLP, said Congress likely won't have time to address every single measure, especially the regulatory reform proposals.
"All those face such an uphill battle in the Senate," he said. "It's hard for me to believe that the Senate will have time for long, drawn-out battles on ideological regulatory reform issues, particularly when the Trump administration can accomplish some of those reforms all by itself."
He said the future for many of these environmental regulations is truly unknown.
"Anyone who tells you how all the various environmental matters are going to play out has a much better crystal ball than I do," he said.
But Trump has left little doubt that he plans to scale back as many regulations as possible.
"We're going to cut your taxes. We're going to get rid of the regulations that are strangling the economy," he said at a GOP fundraiser in Washington on Wednesday night, according to the new web publication Axios. "I know the biggest businessmen and the small ones that love me and voted for me, and I love them. ... Almost every single person that I ask was more excited about the regulations being cut than the taxes, which is surprising. So, we're going to do that."
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/01/20/stories/1060048686
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Clarifies Duty For 'Upfront' CBI Substantiation Under Revised TSCA
Jan 19, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA is clarifying when companies must substantiate confidential business information (CBI) claims under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) by saying the substantiation is due “upfront” at the time the information claimed as CBI is submitted, after industry expressed confusion about how the agency is applying the new CBI requirements.
“EPA is interpreting the revised TSCA section 14(c)(3) as requiring substantiation of all CBI claims at the time the information claimed as CBI is submitted to EPA, except for claims for information subject to TSCA section 14(c)(2),” the agency says in a Jan. 19 Federal Register notice.
The amended TSCA law, which took effect in June, sets new requirements for asserting, substantiating and reviewing all CBI claims submitted for protecting information from disclosure where it would reveal processes or formulaic mixture information that could be used in reverse engineering by competitors.
In the Register notice, EPA says that under TSCA section 14(c)(1)(a) regulated entities must assert a claim for protection from disclosure concurrent with submission of the information in accordance with existing or future rules, and must substantiate that claim. The agency is clarifying that it is interpreting this to mean the provision requires substantiation for all non-exempt CBI claims, saying that is the “clear import of the language that says “a person asserting a claim to protect information from disclosure under this section shall substantiate the claim. . .”
EPA says it is interpreting the language to mean that the submission must be in accordance with EPA rules, but not that it is a requirement conditional upon a future EPA rulemaking, adding, “EPA considers the statutory substantiation requirement to be in place as of the effective date of this action.”
Moreover, the notice says, interpreting the language as requiring substantiation to be concurrent with submission of a CBI is a “natural reading of the requirement that 'a person asserting a claim . . . . shall substantiate the claim.'”
Reading the law as requiring substantiation concurrent with the CBI claim also comports with the legislative history, EPA says, pointing to stakeholder concerns in legislative discussions before the law was passed that the original 1976 TSCA did not have a requirement for up-front substantiation, which resulted in “an over-abundance of CBI claims, some of which may not be legitimate.”
Also in the notice, EPA is clarifying its position that section 14(c)(3) imposes a substantiation requirement for all CBI claims other than those which are exempt, saying that a reading that EPA has the authority to require such substantiation but must first issue a rule runs counter to legislative intent. The “provision is not worded as a mere grant of authority,” EPA says, noting that in numerous other provisions of both previous TSCA and the new law Congress used more straightforward language when it intended simply to grant EPA rulemaking or other authority.
Confidential Information
EPA also clarifies that the effective date of the notice is March 20, meaning after that date submitters must provide a substantiation for all information claimed as confidential, other than information exempt from substantiation.
EPA toxics chief Jim Jones highlighted dealing with CBI claims as one of the agency's earliest challenges in implementing the new law, saying in a Dec. 22 interview with Inside EPA that "just putting into place the procedures" to comply with the law's requirement that EPA evaluate the basis for all chemical identities has been among the issues the agency has "run across." Previous TSCA allowed EPA to review CBI claims but did not require substantiation.
The CBI requirements were among the first of the new TSCA provisions to take effect as soon as the law passed in June, meaning the agency struggled to immediately implement them.
In a Jan. 18 blog post, Environmental Defense Fund lead senior scientist Richard Denison writes that “EPA initially took a narrower approach on an interim basis in the flurry of activity following last June’s passage” of the Law, today’s notice supersedes that earlier approach and clarifies the upfront substantiation requirement.”
Denison notes that a broad swath of stakeholders have voiced support for the upfront substantiation requirement as a key reform in the new law, pointing to a Nov. 29 letter to EPA chief Gina McCarthy from the American Alliance for Innovation, a broad coalition of industry groups that includes American Petroleum Institute, American Chemistry Council and others.
In the letter, the coalition argues that EPA's management of the new CBI provisions “appears to have become far more onerous, well beyond what Congress anticipated in making the amendments,” and that companies have been routinely asked to substantiate their claims, even though the original submissions contain the appropriate justification to protect the information from disclosure.
“This practice certainly requires the expenditure of more EPA resources than would otherwise be expected, and has resulted in confusion among the regulated community,” the letter says. The coalition adds that EPA should temporarily halt all CBI claim reviews until it has established a “clear and consistent review process, and appropriate guidance, are made available.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-clarifies-duty-upfront-cbi-substantiation-under-revised-tsca
-
TSCA New Chemicals Programme Causing 'Major' Supply Chain Disruptions
Jan 20, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
The Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (Socma) is among groups that have raised concerns over the US EPA's process for new chemicals under the amended TSCA. Delays in approving pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) have caused major disruptions to supply chains, it says.
Socma submitted comments to the EPA following a 14 December stakeholder meeting that discussed the changes implemented to the new chemicals programme following the passage of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act.
"Given Congress's decision to retain the principal features of Section 5, there was great hope among the regulated community that the EPA's new chemicals program would be able to maintain its historic level of productivity allowing the United States to remain at the forefront of chemical innovation," Socma wrote in comments. "Those hopes are fading, however".
Under the amended act the process of bringing a new chemical to the market has changed significantly. TSCA now requires an 'affirmative finding' of safety for PMNs. If the agency determines a substance poses an unreasonable risk, it must issue an order to prohibit or restrict it.
In its letter, Socma argues that the new process has greatly reduced the speed PMNs get approved. When the Lautenberg Act was enacted on 22 June 2016, 336 PMNs were awaiting action. In the 90 days that followed, action was taken on only 24 PMNs, Socma says.
The EPA is also "coercing" submitters to voluntarily suspend the 90-day review period under pain of having their submissions found likely to pose an unreasonable risk, it says.
"Socma continues to hear from members that they are getting requests to suspend their cases, sometimes with no clear explanation why, and with no end in sight," the organisation says.
"This has already caused major disruptions to supply chains. If this continues the resulting uncertainty and delays will likely start to cause serious harm to businesses and companies' ability to innovate."
The American Cleaning Institute, along with a number of other industry groups, echoed Socma's comments on PMN delays.
"Such delays have made the review process unpredictable, untimely, and unnecessarily restrictive, yet without clearly enhancing public safety nor reducing environmental risk," writes the ACI .
The International Fragrance Association North America (Ifra) called on the EPA to better meet deadlines for PMNs and voiced concern that the notices are being routinely subjected to either consent orders or significant new use rules (Snurs). The association says increased reliance on these restrictions would make the US chemical registration programme similar to REACH, or how the US currently regulates pesticides, drugs and food additives.
"This will dramatically and unnecessarily restrict innovation and market responsiveness in our industry and others."
Advocacy groups support programme changes
A number of NGOs, however, have broadly supported the changes to the new chemicals programme. They disagree that the changes seen are inconsistent with the intent of the Lautenberg Act.
Dr Jennifer Lowry, writing on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics, says the increased wait time for PMNs to be approved is necessary to ensure that the EPA properly vets all chemicals before they reach the market.
"There is a misconception that the finding that 10% chemicals required consent prior to TSCA reform implies that 90% were safe for commercial use, which was not the case," Dr Lowry writes. "It is the point of the Lautenberg Act to increase evaluation and oversight of new chemicals. Evaluating PMNs with the information supplied without a request for additional data to ensure safety to children and the environment is a gross injustice."
https://chemicalwatch.com/52296/tsca-new-chemicals-programme-causing-major-supply-chain-disruptions
-
US EPA Petitioned to Order Flame Retardant Testing
Jan 20, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Six NGOs have petitioned the US EPA to require hazard and exposure testing for four flame retardants.
Filed under section 21 of TSCA, the two citizen's petitions call for mandatory testing of the following TSCA work plan chemicals:
· tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA); and
· substances in the chlorinated phosphate ester cluster: TCEP, TDCPP, and TCPP.
"Due to overall lack of available data or existing data gaps, EPA will be unable to conduct the robust chemical risk evaluations mandated by the reformed TSCA unless it requires manufacturers and processors to develop health and safety information about their chemicals”, said both petitions, filed 13 December and 6 January.
The petitions lay out an array of tests for the EPA to order under TSCA section 4 to address these data gaps. They cover several toxicity endpoints, exposure pathways, and environmental releases. In the case of TBBPA, the NGOs urged the EPA not to begin risk evaluation until sufficient data has been collected.
The EPA's problem formulation and initial assessment of TBBPA was completed in August 2015. It identified the need to assess risks to workers, consumers, the general population and aquatic, sediment- and soil-dwelling organisms exposed due to the substance's manufacture, processing and use.
Substances in the chlorinated phosphate esters cluster were determined to need assessment of risks to consumers, the general population and aquatic organisms.
Two other substances for which the EPA completed problem formulations and initial assessments in 2015 – 1,4-dioxane and HBCD – are included in the first ten substances subject to risk evaluation under the revised TSCA. But TBBPA, TCEP, TDCPP and TCPP were not included.
Under the reformed TSCA, petitioners can request EPA require section 4 testing if they can demonstrate that information is insufficient to permit "a reasoned evaluation" of a substance's health and environmental effects, and, absent such information, that the chemical may present an unreasonable risk, will enter the environment in substantial quantities, or is anticipated to result in significant human exposure.
The agency must to respond to citizen's petitions within 90 days. Should it grant a petition, it must begin appropriate actions promptly. It must publish reasons for denying a petition in the Federal Register.
The EPA acknowledged receipt of both petitions. It says it will respond to the TBBPA and chlorinated phosphate ester cluster petitions by 13 March and 6 April, respectively.
The petitioners were:
· Earthjustice;
· Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC);
· Toxic-Free Future (TFF);
· Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families (SCHF);
· BlueGreen Alliance (BGA); and
· Environmental Health Strategy Center (EHSC).
https://chemicalwatch.com/52301/us-epa-petitioned-to-order-flame-retardant-testing
-
New Small Business Panel Urged to Set Firm Size for Toxics Law
Jan 20, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency should form a small business advisory panel as it updates its definition of what constitutes a small chemical manufacturing or processing company, according to a trade association official and federal small firm advocacy office.
Consulting with small entities would help the agency prepare the updated definition of small businesses it may propose, Dan Newton, senior government relations manager at Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates (SOCMA) told Bloomberg BNA Jan. 19. The society represents small companies that make batches of specialty chemicals.
“EPA should engage in a robust consultation with affected small entities,” wrote the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy in comments it submitted regarding the EPA's effort. Comments were due Jan. 17.
Newton and the business administration's advocacy office referred to a notice the EPA published Dec. 15, 2016.
The agency announced its provisional intention to update the definition of small chemical manufacturer and processor used for certain regulations it issues under the Toxic Substances Control Act (81 Fed. Reg. 90,840). Qualifying small business benefit from reduced—or exclusions from—reporting requirements, and they pay smaller fees for the EPA's review of new chemicals they want to make.
The small business advocacy office as well as several trade associations including SOCMA all supported the EPA's intention to update its small business definition. However, they encouraged the EPA to craft its updated definition after forming a small business advisory panel and based on metrics the agency's Dec. 15 notice didn't mention.
Vermont's Agency of Natural Resources offered a different perspective in comments it submitted. The state agency said current size standards for small manufacturers should not be revised.
First Update Since 1988
The agency hasn't updated the small business definition it uses for chemical regulations since 1988.
The agency currently defines a small chemical manufacturer, importer or processor using either of two standards:
• The company is small if its total annual sales, including those of its parent company if it has one, are less than $40 million and its annual production or importation volume of a particular chemical at any site it controls is 100,000 pounds or less.
• A manufacturer, importer or processor is small if its total annual sales, when combined with those of its parent company, are less than $4 million, regardless of the volume of chemicals produced, imported or processed.
The 1988 revenue standards are so small that many small companies are excluded, Newton said.“At a minimum the standards should be updated to reflect inflation” Newton said.
Number of Employees
The definition itself also should be revised to consider the number of employees a company has, not just its revenue, he said, echoing multiple trade associations.
“A revenue-based standard inherently discriminates against companies—like most SOCMA members—that produce low-volume, high-value products,” Newton wrote in comments the trade association submitted.
Companies that are making low volumes of high-value chemicals may have large revenues, because the materials they buy to make the chemicals are expensive, he told Bloomberg BNA.
Yet such companies may not be more profitable than equivalently sized firms that make less expensive chemicals in large volumes, he said.
The small business advocacy office also urged the EPA to consider a company's number of employees, rather than revenue or inventory volume.
The agency might want to refine its definitions even more, the advocacy office said.
Sector Differences?
The EPA could have diverse definitions of small in different sectors, the advocacy office said.
It referred to sectors defined by the North American Industry Classification System, or NAICS. That system has more than two dozen chemical manufacturing sectors including adhesive, synthetic dye, printing ink, explosives and other manufacturers.
Newton said the EPA should consider a sector-based definition. However, the chemical manufacturers society would like EPA's definition to be straightforward and easy to understand, he said. A sector-based definition may be too complicated, Newton said.
Additional factors the EPA could use to define small business include average firm size, which includes employees and revenue, growth trends as well as start-up and expansion costs, the advocacy office said.
The bottom line, the advocacy office said, is that EPA should consider a broad set of factors as it defines size, and it should establish a Small Business Advocacy Review panel to offer advice.
Vermont: Size Doesn't Change Risk
Vermont's Agency of Natural Resources said updating the small business definition could mean the EPA would not receive toxicity, exposure or other information it, states and local governments and emergency responders need to understand chemical risks.
Total annual sales and production and importation volumes, the current standards EPA uses to exempt companies from certain reporting requirements, “are not rationally tied to and do not necessarily represent the threat of harm posed by chemical substances,” the agency wrote.
“Without a complete understanding of chemical usage, it is challenging for states and local and emergency planners to plan for or respond to emergencies and threats posed by chemicals, including legacy chemicals and chemicals of emerging concern,” the state agency wrote.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103876492&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103876492&jd=103876492
-
(ACC Mentioned) Obama EPA’s Last-Minute Moves on Chemicals
Jan 18, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson and Jessica Morrison
In a last minute push to get several rules out before the Trump Administration took control, the Obama Environmental Protection Agency released a series of regulations, proposals, and policies affecting chemicals. The actions involve pesticides, toxic solvents, and nanoscale materials.
Many of the moves had long been in the works, including three pesticide-related actions announced on Jan. 12. In one, EPA expanded the use of Dow AgroScience’s herbicide Enlist Duo, a combination of glyphosate and 2,4-D. The controversial mixture can now be sprayed on cotton that has been genetically modified to tolerate the chemicals, as well as on corn and soybeans in 34 U.S. states.
Environmental groups are infuriated by EPA’s decision to expand the use of the herbicide mixture. EPA first approved Enlist Duo for use on corn and soybeans in a handful of states in 2014, but then found information in a patent application that suggested synergistic effects would increase the product’s toxicity. EPA subsequently asked a federal court to overturn the approval.
In November 2016, after receiving additional data from Dow, EPA said that it agrees with the company that the two active ingredients do not amplify each other’s toxicity.
Earlier this month, the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group, submitted a Freedom of Information Act request seeking data from four unpublished studies by Dow that EPA relied on in making its decision. “EPA’s about-face on Enlist Duo was very sudden and came only after it received a handful of unpublished studies on the pesticide from Dow,” says Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the center.
In a separate move, EPA released draft assessments of four neonicotinoid pesticides, finding that some spray applications pose potential risks to bees and other pollinators. The agency also released voluntary guidelines for labeling all moderately to highly toxic pesticides to protect pollinators during blooming times. Granting the requests of pesticide makers, EPA eased restrictions for some applications.
The part of EPA that oversees the safety of chemicals in household and industrial products also was active during the last days of the Obama Administration. On Jan. 13, the agency released three proposals intended to ensure that EPA meets several June deadlines under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
One of the proposals would require chemical manufacturers and importers to notify EPA of chemicals they are producing. Another would establish a process for EPA to choose chemicals for risk evaluation. The third would set out a process for EPA to evaluate chemicals’ risks.
Chemical makers and environmental groups are praising EPA for proposing those processes in time to meet the June deadlines that Congress mandated for finalizing them under the new TSCA. But the American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical manufacturers, is urging the agency to provide clearer criteria for identifying low- and high-priority chemicals.[+]Enlarge
“The risk-based prioritization rule must do more than address procedural requirements,” ACC says. “It must explain how statutory decisions will be based on the best available science and the weight of the scientific evidence.”
EPA also released two proposals that would ban certain uses of three common solvents under TSCA. One proposal would prohibit trichloroethylene in vapor degreasing. The other would bar the use of methylene chloride in paint removers and ban or restrict N-methylpyrrolidone in paint removers. EPA says it has identified unreasonable human health risks associated with such uses. The fate of these proposed rules under the Trump Administration is uncertain.
In yet another action, EPA on Jan. 12 finalized a long-awaited data collection rule for commercial nanoscale materials. The regulation requires manufacturers of certain new and existing nanomaterials to report data that includes chemical identity, manufacturing methods, production volume, and available health and safety information. The one-time reporting rule applies to commercial materials with dimensions approximately 1–100 nm at any production volume.
The rule is not meant “to conclude that nanoscale materials will cause harm to human health or the environment,” EPA says. The agency says the effort will help it decide if it needs more data about nanoscale materials for risk reviews under TSCA.
“This basic rule has been a very long time coming,” says Richard Denison, a lead senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, an advocacy group. “EPA can at last begin to get basic risk-relevant information needed to make sound decisions about which materials and uses present concerns and which do not.”
http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i4/Obama-EPAs-last-minute-moves.html
-
Departing EPA Research Chief Optimistic On Future Of IRIS, CompTox
Jan 20, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA's departing research chief Tom Burke is optimistic about the future of the agency's research program, its collaboration with other agency programs, including the toxics office responsible for implementing the new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and even the controversial Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program.
"If you look at the multistep [IRIS] process . . . and the inclusive nature of the IRIS process, it creates time pressures," Burke said of long-running concerns over the lengthy process to complete the IRIS toxicological assessments.
These documents are used by other agency programs and regions in their risk assessments. They are often the basis for agency rules and other decision making, but have long been criticized for being so long in coming as to be out of date, while some regulated entities and state regulators consider them to be overly conservative.
Burke told Inside EPA in an exclusive Jan. 12 exit interview that "one of my frustrations, and there have been very few -- I share the frustration that IRIS assessments take a very long time" to complete.
President Barack Obama nominated Burke more than once to serve as assistant administrator for the Office of Research and Development (ORD), but the Senate never confirmed him. Instead, he has held the positions of ORD deputy assistant administrator and EPA science advisor -- neither of which required confirmation -- and has acted as de facto assistant administrator for research since 2014.
Burke thinks that it is "absolutely . . . possible" for IRIS assessments to be completed in the two year time line set up for the IRIS process in 2013. "We're moving in that direction, we're getting the right people in place. We're working with the scientific community so we can hone that information, meet the goals of the [National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 2011] formaldehyde report," he said.
The NAS' report, a critical review of EPA's draft formaldehyde IRIS assessment, included a rare extra chapter outside its charge, in which it outlined concerns and recommendations to improve the IRIS program and process more broadly. The report led Burke's predecessor, Paul Anastas, and others to implement a series of efforts intended to address the recommendations. It is in part because of these efforts that EPA published no final IRIS assessments between December 2014 and September 2016, and published just one IRIS assessment in 2014, research officials have argued.
Burke seemed to echo this argument. The report "had a profound impact on the IRIS program," he said. "Let's face it, it focused on providing clear assessments, more and better presentation of the evidence, recommendations on systemic review -- it had a tremendous impact for better or for worse."
'Best Data'
Burke said that "on the one hand it's important to have excellence in science . . . [but] the challenge in public health is how to make best use of the science to get to solutions. . . . We very often have to use the best data available to make the best decisions we can to protect public health. While the [NAS] report made important contributions to science, it also had consequences for a process that is incredibly lengthy."
Burke came to EPA from Johns Hopkins University, where he was associate dean for public health practice and training after a career as a state regulator in New Jersey. He said that his experience at EPA was "a dream job for me." But he said there are pressures and challenges on EPA scientists that aren't apparent until working at the agency, even for someone like him who served on EPA's Science Advisory Board and several NAS committees advising EPA.
EPA "may be one of the hardest places to do science because it's so influential. But it is so important and so influential," Burke said. "Science is by nature filled with gaps and uncertainties. . . . Most scientists are familiar with . . . review and the scientific process. But the level of interest, stakeholder involvement, public comment, scientific peer review, scrutiny, even from a public policy perspective that EPA scientists are subject to makes it one of the most challenging" places to be a scientist. Burke said he now has "a whole new appreciation for the high stakes of science" while trying to build trust and maintain credibility.
Burke said one of the things he is most proud of from his time at EPA is strengthening the relationships between ORD and the program offices. "There are many, many new collaborations and a real spirit of working together to make sure that our science meets the needs of our programs," he said.
That new relationship with the toxics office will be helpful as the agency continues its efforts to implement new authorities and responsibilities in TSCA. "New TSCA is tremendous for needs of public health, far beyond the agency," he said. "We've been planning well before it was signed to make sure we are working well together. [To ensure] computational toxicology and exposure science [staff are ready] to meet the needs of all folks but particularly" the toxics office.
Noting that Tina Bahadori, recently the national program director for ORD's chemical safety and sustainability research program, is moving to direct ORD's National Center for Environmental Assessment, which manages IRIS, Burke said that will further those relationships.
"We are working to put together a dream team, [to address the] challenges of IRIS, of risk assessment with new toxicity data. This is a cross-disciplinary, a team approach. It's really important to get not just the leadership but have a team to work together."
Burke added that Vincent Cogliano, recently the director of the IRIS program, will "have a broader role as part of that team."
A source told Inside EPA late last month that Cogliano would be moving to ORD's front office, where he will be assisting with new TSCA implementation, while one of the other top three candidates for the open NCEA director's job, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences' Kristina Thayer, would take over as IRIS director. At the time, an agency spokeswoman declined to comment.
'Fuller Team'
Burke said that he is "broadening the role of IRIS as well. We see a much fuller team with John Vandenburg and folks in the National Center for Computational Toxicology. And our colleagues over at" the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. He declined to provide any details.
Burke's counterpart, Jim Jones, in a separate exit interview with Inside EPA, said that he sees his office as a new customer to IRIS. The toxics office will have to perform many reviews of chemicals' risks under the requirements of new TSCA, a practice Jones said the office hadn't performed until he took office. Jones said that the toxics office would use IRIS assessments and wait up to three years for any in progress before starting its own risk analyses without them.
Burke also praised NAS' latest advice for the academy, in the report released Jan. 5, "Using 21st Century Science in Risk-Based Evaluations." The report was intended to help EPA advance beyond earlier NAS advice on using newer non-animal toxicology and exposure science methods in its risk analyses. The report also touched upon a key risk assessment report to EPA, which Burke chaired, the 2009 report "Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment."
"It does address important issues, the incorporation of new knowledge . . . early indicators of adverse effect . . . the incredible challenge we have of integrating [that] into risk analysis," Burke said. "If you look at toxicity testing, the future of science and EPA . . . it shows the field evolving, the problems are evolving. It's really about a systems approach, a bigger picture of environmental protection, tradeoffs . . . We don't do this to regulate. We do this to protect the environment and public health."
Burke said that he is looking forward to returning to Hopkins' Risk Sciences and Public Policy Institute in Baltimore, where he was director before joining EPA. "I'm an old professor by nature," he said. "[I] think I've learned to be a better professor here."
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/departing-epa-research-chief-optimistic-future-iris-comptox
-
EWG Investigates: Trump's EPA Pick Unaware Lead is Unsafe at Any Level for Kids
Jan 19, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Colin O’Neil
The man who could be in charge of ensuring the safety of the nation’s drinking water doesn't know the most basic fact about a grave health threat for American children: lead contamination of tap water.
In his confirmation hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee yesterday, Scott Pruitt – President-elect Donald Trump's pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency – was asked by Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland: “Do you believe there is any safe level of lead that can be taken in to the human body, particularly [for] a young person?”
“Senator,” Pruitt replied, “that is something that I have not reviewed, nor know about.”
Among scientists and public health officials, there is no debate that there is no safe level of lead exposure. Any exposure can harm children’s brains and development.
Pruitt, the attorney general of Oklahoma, should know this, given his home state's long history with lead contamination, most notably from Tar Creek – a former lead and zinc mine that is now a Superfund cleanup site.
EWG’s analysis of data from the state Department of Environmental Quality shows that more than 10,000 Oklahomans live or work in communities with current violations for lead in drinking water. In 2014, the rate of children testing positive for elevated blood lead levels in Grant County, Okla., was among the 10 highest counties in America.
The drinking water crisis in Flint, Mich., brought renewed attention to the dangers of lead exposure, but the threat is national. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that more than half a million children have blood lead levels higher than the action level at which the CDC recommends that doctors and local or state health agencies provide additional care.
If Pruitt is confirmed, one of his most important responsibilities will be to oversee a drinking water action plan drafted by the Obama administration, including proposed revisions to the EPA’s Lead and Copper Rule. That's not a responsibility that should be entrusted to someone ignorant of the facts about lead.
http://www.ewg.org/planet-trump/2017/01/ewg-investigates-trumps-epa-pick-unaware-lead-unsafe-any-level-kids
-
California Requires Replacement of All Lead Service Lines – But Vigilance Needed on Implementation
Jan 19, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
In 2016, California became the first state in the country to make enforceable commitments to eliminating all lead service lines (LSLs) in the state. These lead pipes that connect the main under the street to homes are the primary source of lead in drinking water and unpredictably release lead particulate when disturbed. Under the leadership of Senator Connie Leyva, the state’s Senate voted unanimously, and the Assembly voted 72 to 7 to pass SB1398 to require drinking water utilities to inventory LSLs in use and then provide the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) a timeline for replacement of the lines.
Based on a national survey of utilities, the American Water Works Association reported that California has 65,000 LSLs out of 6.1 million nationally. Large utilities have the most with 46,000 LSLs, medium systems have 4,700 and small systems have 15,000. However, most utilities do not have an accurate inventory of LSLs, so the true number may be much greater.
California’s SB1398 recognized that an accurate inventory was critical and laid out a thoughtful two-step plan to accomplish the objective of full LSL replacement. By July 1, 2018, it requires public water systems (PWS) to submit an inventory of known LSLs and a timeline for their replacement. Two years later, PWSs must submit an updated inventory of LSLs and provide a timeline to replace any service line where it may be made of lead. The law does not set a deadline for replacement that PWSs must meet.
This two-step approach makes replacing known LSLs the highest priority and, by essentially presuming that a service line is lead unless known otherwise, also creates an incentive for PWSs to develop accurate inventories in the next three years.
How the Water Board implements the law is critical. We see three key issues:
What is a lead service line?
The law applies to any “user service line,” which is defined by the Water Board to mean “the pipe, tubing, and fittings connecting a water main to an individual water meter or service connection.” This definition seems straightforward on its surface. If the meter is inside the home, it includes the underground pipe from the main to the home. However, my understanding is that in California most meters are not in the home, they are near the property line. This means that a PWS could declare a home as served by a non-lead line when, in fact, part of the line is made of lead.
In contrast, the federal and California regulatory definitions of “lead service lines” covers the entire line from the water main to the building inlet – not the meter. We understand that the legislature did not use the LSL definition because it would be inconsistent with the presumption that a line was an LSL if the materials were not known. In other words, it is not an LSL until it is known to have a lead pipe. As a result, California’s definition of “user service line” referenced in SB1398 could be applied in a manner that is narrower and less protective than that used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA).
The issue is critical since replacing only the part of the line to the meter (a “partial replacement”) does not reduce lead levels and, in the short-term, may actually increase them. We hope that the Water Board will quickly revise its definition of user service line to include the entire line from the water main to the building inlet.
Given the attention on LSLs as a result of Flint, it is difficult to imagine that a California utility would comply with the new mandate by ignoring the portion of the LSL from the meter to the home. Similarly, we hope that they will not conduct partial LSL replacements, except as a temporary measure with a protections for residents and short-term plan for full replacement.
What replacement timeline is sufficient?
The law calls for lead water pipes to be “identified and replaced as promptly as practicable” and that the work be done on “a schedule that is commensurate with the risks and costs involved.” With this guidance, the legislature leaves it to the Water Board and the PWSs to negotiate a timeline. We assume that the Water Board will issue guidance or rules to facilitate the process so the timelines proposed by the PWSs are realistic.
Can the Water Board meet deadlines?
The Water Board reports that there are 7,500 PWSs in the state. When it receives each of the timelines from a PWS, it has 30 days to approve it or propose a revised timeline and explain its reasoning. Then the Board and the PWS have 30 days to develop a compromise timeline. If the Water Board fails to act, the timeline is deemed approved.
If most of the timelines are submitted close to the 2018 and 2020 deadlines, the Water Board will have a major task on its hands to review the submissions and make a decision. If it falls behind, the replacement timeline is final.
The bottom line is that California’s legislature has taken strong action to protect public health and left it to the Water Board to implement the law. It will be critical to make sure the Water Board and PWSs use a definition of service line that means the entire line from the water main to the building inlet and not just the meters. Otherwise, drinking water will still be flowing through lead pipes, which is what the legislature wanted to stop.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/01/19/california-sb1398-on-lsls/
-
Canada Updating Status of About 1,500 Chemicals
Jan 20, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Menyasz
Canada wants industry data on commercial uses of about 1,500 chemicals to determine whether additional regulation and existing controls are needed.
Companies are required to submit data on their manufacture, import and use of the substances by July 17. Other interested parties, including environmental groups, are invited to submit additional information and comments.
The inventory update is part of the Chemicals Management Plan, which helps set priorities and guide decision-making on regulatory action, the government said in a Jan. 14 notice.
“The scope has been expanded and now considers emerging science, evolving domestic and international programs and the need to keep pace with chemical landscape fluctuations in order to ensure future priorities are reflective of Canada's dynamic market,” it said.
Substances are listed in a schedule to the notice, which is divided into four parts. Data is required from companies using substances in Parts I, II or III in quantities greater than 100 kilograms in either the 2014 or 2015 calendar years or substances in Part IV in quantities greater than 100 kilograms in those years in cosmetics, foods or therapeutic or natural health products.
Substances in Part I include carbon disulfide; various forms of benzenedicarboxylic acid; cyclohexane; heptane; various metals such as iridium, osmium, palladium, platinum and rhodium and compounds containing them; Pigment Red 169; paraffin waxes; and alkanes.
Part II substances include various forms of benzothiazole; various phenol compounds; bromine; and various forms of naphthalenesulfonic acid.
Substances in Part III include octadecanoic acid; various silanes various benzene compounds; phenol; propane; butane; octane; ethane; formic acid; barium oxide; manganese chloride; sulfuric acid; tungsten carbide; formaldehyde; glass oxide; alcohols; and fish oils.
Part IV chemicals include various compounds containing mercury; various phenol compounds; ethanesulfonic acid; zinc phosphide; aluminum magnesium hydroxide; various forms of acetic acid; metals compounds such as bromides and iodides of antimony, iron, radium, lead, zinc, gold and tin; aluminum oxide; dyes such as Basic Blue 22, Basic Red 22 and Direct Blue 199; barium sulfide; chromium potassium oxide; isohexadecane; paraffin and hydrocarbon waxes; various silicones and siloxanes; alcohols; and various petroleum compounds.
The Chemicals Management Plan, launched in 2006, has completed toxicity assessments on 2,765 of the approximately 4,300 chemicals originally identified as priorities for review by 2020, the government said.
Failure to submit required data is subject to penalties ranging from fines to jail terms.
A spokesman for the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada told Bloomberg BNA Jan. 16 that it can't comment on the initiative because companies only recently received notice of the chemicals that are included in the update.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103876459&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103876459&jd=103876459
-
(ACC Mentioned) Pennsylvania Town Approves Construction of Shell Petrochem Facility
Jan 19, 2017 | Reuters
By Scott DiSavino
The town council of Potter, Pennsylvania unanimously approved a conditional use permit late Wednesday allowing a unit of Royal Dutch Shell PLC to move forward with construction of a multibillion-dollar petrochemical complex near Pittsburgh.
Last June, Shell's Shell Chemical Appalachia LLC unit made a final investment decision to build the complex, which includes an ethylene cracker.
Ray Fisher, a spokesman at Shell, said on Thursday the company has not disclosed the cost of the project. Local media has reported the project will cost about $6 billion.
The facility will use low-cost ethane from shale gas producers in the Marcellus and Utica basins in Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia to produce 1.6 million tonnes of polyethylene per year.
"We greatly appreciate the Supervisors' due diligence and their careful consideration throughout the process ... and ... look forward to fulfilling our goal of constructing a world-class polyethylene manufacturing facility in Potter Township," Shell said in a statement emailed on Thursday.
Polyethylene is a plastic used in many products, from food packaging and containers to automotive components.
Ethane, a natural gas liquid, is the U.S. chemical industry's main feedstock.
Fisher at Shell said the company was still waiting for a permit from the state of Pennsylvania and was continuing its early work to get the site ready for construction.
The company expects to be able to start construction sometime near the end of 2017, with a target in-service date early in the next decade.
"Thanks to abundant supplies of natural gas, the U.S. chemical industry is investing in new facilities and expanded production capacity, which tends to attract downstream industries that rely on petrochemical products," Cal Dooley, President and Chief Executive of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), said in a statement on Thursday.
Shell's pioneering project – the first of its kind outside the Gulf Coast – could be the cornerstone for regional economic growth for decades to come," Dooley said.
The project will bring lots of jobs to the region, with up to 6,000 construction workers involved in building the facility, and an expected 600 permanent employees when completed.
A cracker plant breaks down large molecules from oil and gas into smaller ones. An ethylene cracker produces base petrochemical “building blocks” which are the first stage in the chemicals manufacturing chain. Polyethylene is a derivative of ethylene.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-shell-pennsylvania-idUSKBN1532X2
-
(ACC Mentioned) Pennsylvania Township Approves Permit for Shell Cracker
Jan 20, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
After a series of contentious public hearings, Potter Township, PA, supervisors late Wednesday unanimously approved a conditional-use permit that allows Shell Chemical Appalachia LLC to proceed with construction of its multi-billion dollar ethane cracker.
The company submitted a thick application for the project last year, and the township aired concerns about possible noise, pollution and traffic at the enormous facility. A public hearing on the permit last month stretched over two days before the supervisors delayed their decision and ultimately decided last week to approve a motion to draft it that led to Wednesday's approval.
Supervisors have asked Shell to conduct monthly noise and lighting studies as well as traffic reviews, according to local news media reports. The facility would be built on about 400 acres near the Ohio River in Potter and Center Townships. It would have the capacity to consume roughly 100,000 b/d of ethane and the ability to produce 1.5 million metric tons/year (mmty) of ethylene and 1.6 million mmty of polyethylene, both building blocks for plastics.
Site preparation has been under way for months now and construction of the facility is slated to begin early next year. A subsidiary of Shell is also planning to begin construction of a 94-mile ethane transport system late next year that would extend from Pennsylvania into West Virginia and Ohio to feed the plant.
The company is still waiting on other regulatory approvals from the state to amend its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit and Air Quality Plan. During construction, Shell has said 6,000 people would be employed followed by another 600 permanent employees once the plant is operational in the early 2020s.
Construction is already under way on six new crackers in Texas and Louisiana, the Energy Information Administration said this week. The U.S. petrochemical industry has gained an advantage with low-cost shale gas and billions of dollars are being invested in new ethylene capacity and other derivatives expansions. Shell's facility is expected to start a second wave of construction on ethylene facilities planned to enter service next decade.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC), which on Thursday praised Potter Township's decision in a statement, said that as of this month 281 chemical industry projects valued at $170 billion have been announced. Half of those, ACC said, are completed or under construction.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109108-pennsylvania-township-approves-permit-for-shell-cracker
-
(ACC Mentioned) Potter Officials Approve Permit for Shell's Cracker Plant
Jan 19, 2017 | Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
By Natasha Lindstrom
A national chemical industry trade group on Thursday praised Potter Township officials for clearing the way for Royal Dutch Shell to build a $6 billion petrochemical plant along the Ohio River in Beaver County.
In a unanimous vote Wednesday, Potter's board of supervisors granted Shell final approval of a conditional-use permit for its planned complex, which is expected to create 6,000 construction jobs and 600 jobs for operations.
“We applaud local Pennsylvania officials for their vote of confidence in Shell's project, which has exciting potential to help make the region a hub of manufacturing activity and job creation,” Cal Dooley, president and CEO of the Washington-based American Chemistry Council, said in a statement.
The so-called ethane cracker plant will convert — or “crack” under high heat — ethane liquids from Marcellus shale wells into ethylene and polyethylene, the building blocks of plastics. The complex will include a polyethylene derivatives unit and is expected to attract manufacturers interested in using its products.
“Shell's pioneering project — the first of its kind outside the Gulf Coast — could be the cornerstone for regional economic growth for decades to come,” Dooley said.
Township supervisors green-lighted the permit after multiple public hearings and listening to testimony from more than a dozen people and groups who opposed the project for environmental reasons, including the Philadelphia-based Clean Air Council.
“It is unfortunate that the township supervisors seem unwilling to push Shell to take basic measures that would protect the health, welfare and quality of life of nearby residents,” said Joe Minott, the Clean Air Council's executive director and chief counsel.
The township has asked Shell to do a lighting study and report data proving the project adheres to local noise ordinances.
Pennsylvania has offered the global energy giant a package of credits worth as much as $1.6 billion over 25 years.
Last year, Shell closed on the property in Potter, landed key environmental permits, began an $80 million remediation of the former Horsehead Corp. zinc smelter site and started building an access bridge over Route 18.
Shell still needs state environmental regulators to modify two pollution permits held by the property's former owner and to get federal permits before construction may begin.
http://triblive.com/local/regional/11809670-74/shell-potter-project
-
GOP Tax Reform and What’s at Stake for the Oil Industry
Jan 19, 2017 | Platts
By Meghan Gordon
The U.S. still imports a lot of crude oil. It also now exports crude oil. It’s also the world’s biggest exporter of petroleum products.
So any change in the country’s corporate tax system that has an enormous shift in the tax treatment of imports and exports is going to have the potential to impact oil flows, and by extension, oil markets.
It’s a realization that is starting to spread through the nation’s oil industry as the inauguration of Donald Trump draws closer and the possibility of DBCFT becomes more possible. DBCFT is the abbreviation for Destination Based Cash Flow Tax, and it’s the general term for the type of tax that is at the heart of the Republicans’ corporate tax proposal, spearheaded primarily by Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Ways and Means chairman Kevin Brady (R-CA).
The analyses of the tax plans are coming out fast and furious in the last few weeks. The short version of what you need to know is this:• The intellectual basis for the plan actually comes from the left side of the political divide: Alan Auerbach, a professor at the University of California-Berkeley, who released a paper in 2010 under the auspices of the Center for American Progress, which in the Obama years has been the most prominent left-leaning think tank. The DBCFT has been likened to having many of the same fundamental characteristics as a European VAT. As the Ways and Means blueprint on the proposal states: “The focus on business cash flow…(is) a move toward a consumption-based approach to taxation.”• The US version of the DBCFT would lower the top corporate tax rate to 20%. But its provisions that have gotten the most attention — because they are such a radical departure from current policy — are that companies would not need to count revenue from exports in their tax base, but would not be allowed to deduct the cost of imports.• The economics 101 analysis of the impact of these changes is that the value of the dollar would increase significantly, offsetting the higher prices for imports (like low-cost apparel to be sold at Walmart), thereby negating price increases for the US buyers of that product. This part of the equation is much in dispute, but it does seem clear that a further strengthening of an already healthy dollar would occur, as imports decrease (putting fewer dollars into global markets) and now tax-favored exports increase (necessitating dollars for the goods’ purchase).
The potential areas of impact to the global oil industry are clear. The US oil industry will be incentivized to export more crude and products, import less of the same, and the always-present correlation between the dollar and the price of oil will be a significantly bearish factor. Just how much of an impact remains a significant question.
In a report published by the Brattle Group, energy economist Philip Verleger was blunt: “No sector…will be more affected than petroleum.”
Verleger estimates the policy would drive a 25% wedge between domestic and imported oil prices. For example, if Continental Oil sells Bakken crude to a domestic refiner for $50/b, it will owe $10/b in US taxes. However, it would have no tax liability if it sells the oil to an overseas buyer.
“Obviously Continental would want to sell the oil to foreign buyers for $50 rather than to domestic buyers,” Verleger said. “To bid the oil away from the foreign buyers, domestic refiners would have to pay Continental $62.50/b.”
Given that the US oil industry is a net importer of all categories of petroleum — importing 9.45 million b/d versus exporting 4.74 million b/d last year — the policy would hurt the sector as a whole assuming crude and product prices don’t fully adjust to compensate for the import tax impact, said Tudor Pickering Holt analyst Chi Chow. PBF Energy is by far the most exposed refiner because its net imports represent 51% of production, with Par Pacific Holding not far behind with 39%.
TPH expects refiners to respond by shifting toward domestic crude sourcing, which could cause WTI, Bakken, LLS, Mars and ANS prices to rise sharply. Higher domestic demand would spur US production, and exports of both crude and products could surge.
Gasoline and diesel prices will rise, along with prices for most consumer goods, an impact that some see would make DBCFT a political nonstarter. Verleger estimates retail gasoline prices would rise 30 cents/gal, or 13%, and diesel would increase 27 cents/gal, or 11%, when Brent is $50/b, based on a step-by-step analysis taking into account the various rates involved.
“The perception that you’re going to increase gasoline prices is so politically powerful that it can be very difficult to work backward to the economic currency-adjusted and present-value-adjusted results,” said Kevin Book, a managing director of ClearView Energy Partners.
Book said a lot will depend on the legislative text, but he is in the economic camp that the currency effects would offset higher prices. “If I buy the same barrel with a stronger dollar, the impact should be the same,” he said.
Even with potential blowback from higher gasoline prices, you can’t help but wonder if the US would have even considered a destination-based tax overhaul if its petroleum import dependence was still 50% and higher, compared with 24% projected by Energy Information Administration for this year — and falling.
Gregory Jenner, a partner at Stoel Rives who helped write a 1986 tax reform package signed by President Ronald Reagan, said the GOP’s proposal could have sweeping effects.
“We are talking about a tax system that has been in place for approximately 100 years now, and we have an economy that has grown up around it,” Jenner said. “What this new tax provision would do would be to completely upend that arrangement. That could be for the good, it could be for the bad. We just don’t know.
“What we’re going to see if this gets enacted is a complete realignment of the economy. It’s not just oil and it’s not just Nike sneakers. It’s everything that is now produced offshore.”
This blog post was written in collaboration with John Kingston, the Director of Global Market Insights for S&P Global.
http://blogs.platts.com/2017/01/19/gop-tax-reform-oil-industry/
-
FERC Locks Out Protesters, Approves Gas Pipelines
Jan 19, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey and Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
Clarification appended.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission today approved two contentious East Coast gas pipelines proposed by TransCanada Corp., developer of the stalled Keystone XL oil project.
FERC Chairman Norman Bay and Commissioners Cheryl LaFleur and Colette Honorable announced the approval of the $1.8 billion Leach XPress and Rayne XPress pipelines after a meeting that was webcast but otherwise closed for what the commission said were "public safety" concerns.
Stan Chapman, TransCanada's senior vice president, said in a statement the approval followed a "very thorough review."
U.S. EPA had faulted FERC's work on the Leach Xpress, calling its assessment of downstream greenhouse gas emissions "insufficient" and suggesting that the agency look at alternative routes and further environmental protections (Greenwire, Oct. 13, 2016).
Today's meeting, the last before President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration, could end that dispute as EPA isn't expected to push for deeper reviews of gas projects.
TransCanada said it plans to begin construction on both projects in February after it secures remaining regulatory approvals.
In a separate vote, FERC approved a report tied to the Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline transmission project, originally slated to run from West Virginia to Frederick, Md.
FERC also approved in a split vote a policy statement on electric storage resources seeking to recover investments through cost- and market-based rates. LaFleur was the lone dissenter on the policy statement, which says allowing electric storage resources to receive cost-based rate recovery concurrently with revenue from market-based services shouldn't hurt its competitors.
LaFleur said she's "very open" to compensating storage through cost-based rates, but she disagreed with how the policy is written.
"I'm concerned about the broad rationale in the policy statement, which I believe is both flawed in its conclusion and premature in its timing," she said.
The commission at the meeting also opened investigations into how much two pipeline companies — Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC and Wyoming Interstate Co. LLC — are recouping from their customers. The agency wants to ensure rates charged to customers are fair under the Natural Gas Act.
FERC economist Seong-Kook Berry said the calculated return rates for the two companies suggests "the pipelines may be charging rates" that are no longer just and reasonable.
"We do not prejudge, and we look forward to reviewing the findings," Honorable said.Protests
FERC's decision to close the meeting to public participation and provide a live stream happened once before.
In May, the commission closed its public meeting over fears of having its work obstructed by demonstrators. Bay then defended his decision to keep the public out, saying it wasn't "made lightly" and was based on recommendations from law enforcement and FERC security staff (Greenwire, May 19, 2016).
"The primary concern was preserving the safety of the public and staff," Bay told about 50 agency employees and reporters.
FERC spokeswoman Mary O'Driscoll said the decision on today's meeting was "based on public safety consultation with the Federal Protective Service."
Protesters opposed to hydraulic fracturing and the commission's approval of gas pipelines, compressor stations, export terminals and other infrastructure broadcast protests outside FERC headquarters on Facebook.
Margaret Flowers, a Maryland physician who has fought FERC's approval of a gas export terminal in her state, said the agency's decision to close the meeting to the public shows its "fear and lack of interest in hearing the views of people whose communities FERC threatens."
Clarification: An earlier version of this story stated that FERC approved a transmission line, when in fact the agency approved a report tied to the project.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/01/19/stories/1060048673
-
EPA Defends Revised Utility MACT Cost Finding from Industry's Criticisms
Jan 19, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA in a new legal brief is defending its revised cost assessment for its contested utility air toxics rule from the power sector's attacks, defending its freedom under the Clean Air Act to determine whether the costs are reasonable from industry's criticisms that the assessment has major flaws including relying on “co-benefit” emissions cuts.
The counter-arguments, detailed in a Jan. 19 brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on EPA's behalf, mark just the latest step in long-running litigation over the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) rule that the agency originally issued in 2011. Another suit is pending over EPA's rejection over petitions for reconsideration of certain provisions of the rule.
In the cost review case, known as Murray Energy Corp., et al. v. EPA, coal firm Murray and others are challenging the agency's April 14 assessment that said the rule was still reasonable even after considering costs.
The assessment was the result of earlier litigation in which industry faulted EPA for not weighing costs in its initial finding that the rule was “appropriate and necessary” under the air law. The Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling forced EPA to issue a cost review, remanding litigation over the utility MACT to the D.C. Circuit. The appellate court kept the MACT in place while the agency worked on the cost review, on which it took notice and comment.
The final cost review hewed closely to the proposed version by finding the rule was still justifiable, and industry groups then filed suit over the assessment in the D.C. Circuit, saying it is based on flawed logic, including by relying in part on the value of co-benefits achieved by emissions cuts from pollutants not regulated by the rule. Critics say that these errors undermine the overall cost review and therefore also the MACT.
But DOJ counters in the new brief that EPA permissibly interpreted the Clean Air Act's “ambiguous language as allowing the Administrator to exercise her discretion and expert judgment in weighing factors relevant to the appropriate and necessary determination, and to consider cost as one relevant factor to be weighed with important public health and environmental factors.”
EPA’s interpretation is supported by the findings in the Supreme Court utility MACT case Michigan v. EPA “and black letter administrative law, which confer broad discretion on an agency to weigh relevant statutory factors when, as here, the statutory language does not specify how the agency is to weigh such factors,” DOJ says.
The late Justice Antonin Scalia, in his opinion for the high court in Michigan, wrote that, “[w]e need not and do not hold that the law unambiguously required the Agency, when making this preliminary estimate, to conduct a formal cost-benefit analysis in which each advantage and disadvantage is assigned a monetary value.”
Scalia found that, “Read naturally in the present context, the phrase ‘appropriate and necessary’ requires at least some attention to cost.” The high court “explicitly left it to 'the Agency to decide (as always, within the limits of reasonable interpretation) how to account for cost,'” DOJ notes.
EPA's Deference
“Indeed, the statute is utterly silent with respect to how EPA must consider cost when making the appropriate and necessary determination,” DOJ says.
In such a situation, and given the high court's ruling, EPA is due deference under the Chevron doctrine for its reasonable construction of the statute, DOJ says.
Chevron holds that where statutes are ambiguous, federal agencies' interpretations of the law are due deference, provided they are a reasonable interpretation of the statute in question.
DOJ in the brief also defends the use of “co-benefits” in EPA's original cost-benefit analysis developed to support the MACT rule itself.
EPA in its revised cost finding offered two approaches to justify its conclusion -- a preferred method based on estimating what costs are reasonable for the power sector to bear, and a second method that relies on the original cost-benefit analysis.
The agency's cost-benefit work took into account the “co-benefits” of limiting particulate matter (PM) in addition to the air toxics such as mercury that are the explicit targets of MACT regulation. The vast majority of the monetized benefits are provided by PM reductions, prompting industry criticism that EPA cannot justify the MACT based on non-target pollutants such as PM regulated by other programs. EPA also argued that some of the benefits of the MACT, though real, cannot be quantified.
EPA's approach to co-benefits is “supported by the statute and legislative history,” DOJ says, and further cites a recent 2016 ruling by the D.C. Circuit over MACT standards for industrial boilers to support its case.
DOJ says, in “United States Sugar Corporation v. EPA, this Court recently upheld EPA’s consideration of co-benefits under a similarly ambiguous provision” in the air law's air toxics provisions.
The court in that case held that the air law “does not foreclose the Agency from considering co-benefits and doing so is consistent with the [law's] purpose -- to reduce the health and environmental impacts of hazardous air pollutants.”
Reconsideration Lawsuit
Meanwhile, in a Jan. 18 filing in the related D.C. Circuit case ARIPPA, et al. v. EPA, et al., DOJ defends a reconsideration rule EPA finalized April 30, 2015, on certain aspects of the MACT rule.
EPA in the rule rejected petitions for reconsideration by the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG), representing power generators, the Pennsylvania coal waste-burning ARIPPA, and environmental groups including Clean Air Council and Environmental Integrity Project.
All petitioners are raising different issues in the pending suit. For example, UARG alleges that data underlying the MACT rule was contaminated and innacurate. DOJ replies in the brief that UARG's claims have already been litigated and rejected by the court in 2014 in White Stallion Energy Center v. EPA, the original case against the MACT rule where the court upheld the rule in its entirety prior to high court review.
DOJ adds that there is “no real evidence” of UARG's hypothesis of contaminated test results, and doubts the value of uncertified data the group provided to EPA to make its case after the MACT rule was already issued in final form.
DOJ says that ARIPPA's claims, based on EPA's refusal to grant special treatment regarding certain emissions limits for coal waste-burning utilities operated by the group in Pennsylvania, are also unfounded.
DOJ again says ARIPPA litigated this issue, and the court rejected it, in White Stallion. DOJ says ARIPPA's “petition does not present any new information that would support a change in EPA’s determination that subcategorization for purposes of the hydrogen chloride standard is not appropriate.”
Environmentalists' petition fares no better, according to DOJ's brief. In the case, environmental petitioners argue that EPA erred in refusing to set standards “beyond the MACT floor,” or tougher than the minimum emission limit required under MACT regulation, for hazardous metals other than mercury.
“EPA reasonably denied the Environmental Petitioners’ petition for reconsideration because they had ample opportunity to comment on EPA’s determination that no beyond-the-floor standard was appropriate for non-mercury hazardous metals, and the petition does not provide substantial support for EPA to revisit that determination,” DOJ says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-defends-revised-utility-mact-cost-finding-industrys-criticisms
-
PHMSA Tightens Pipeline Oil and Gas Leak Notification Rule
Jan 19, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Esther Whieldon
DOT's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration today issued a final rule that requires pipelines to provide faster notifications of oil and gas leaks.
Under the rule, pipeline operators must report confirmed leaks by email or phone within an hour, report if they change what products their pipelines carry or if they reverse flows on the pipes for more than 30 days, electronically report employee drug and alcohol testing, and keep records for at least three years if companies do not perform post-accident testing.
The rule also creates a method for PHMSA to recover the costs of reviewing the design of new gas and hazardous liquid pipelines, addresses the National Transportation Safety Board’s recommendation on training requirements for control room staff, creates renewal procedures for expiring special permits and the rule incorporates consensus standards by reference for in-line inspection and stress corrosion cracking assessments.
But the rule does not include operator qualification requirements for national gas or hazardous liquid pipelines. PHMSA promised to take up a final rule based on the recommendations of Pipeline Advisory Committees “in the near future.”
The rule is slated to be published in the Federal Register on Jan. 23 and will take effect 60 days later.
In addition to fulfilling a leak-notification mandate Congress first issued in 2011, the PHMSA proposal makes good on a 2012 recommendation from NTSB to clarify techniques to detect cracks that were linked to the massive oil spill into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River more than six years ago.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
The Way to Clean Energy-for-All in a Trump Administration, In California and Beyond
Jan 19, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jayant Kairam
The late California historian Kevin Starr once wrote, “California had long since become one of the prisms through which the American people, for better and for worse, could glimpse their future.” These words have never felt truer.
Over the course of President Obama’s administration, California has shown that ambitious climate and energy policy does not inhibit growth. It’s a trend we’ll continue in the years ahead, with or without the Trump Administration. There’s too much at stake.
We’ve proved that clean energy creates far more jobs than fossil fuels – nationwide, more than 400,000, compared with 50,000 coal mining jobs – while protecting the natural world for all people.
California is a multi-faceted economy, built on a diversity of people, politics, and industries, defined by wealth and poverty, and millions of hardworking Americans – just like the rest of the country. We are facing many of the issues the rest of the country is, or will be, facing. Given new federal leadership, state-level efforts like those underway in California are more important than ever. A coast-to-coast clean energy economy
Business and economic growth relies, in part, on certainty and a long-term view. Silicon Valley titans like Google, Apple, and Facebook are all well on their way to meeting internal commitments to 100 percent renewable energy. And California was recently ranked among the top five states, along with Iowa, Illinois, New Jersey, and Texas, for corporations that seek to buy or build renewable energy generation – attracting job-creating enterprises.China is going all in on clean energy while Trump waffles. How is that making America great again?
Illinois is also noteworthy for the bipartisan Future Energy Jobs Bill, passed into law in December. As my colleague Dick Munson notes, Illinois will see an additional $12 billion to $15 billion in new private investment as a result of the new clean energy priorities in the bill.
Importantly, clean energy is sparking businesses of all sizes. A new report [PDF] highlights how California’s long-standing energy efficiency requirements have helped create 300,000 jobs in energy efficiency – most coming from small firms. This can happen nationwide.Clean power to the people
It’s apparent that progress is catching on, as more states make clean energy growth critical to economic and social progress, including the success of wind power in Texas, the legislative victory in Illinois noted above, and New York’s overhaul of their energy sector.
Forward-thinking policies, like California’s 2030 climate targets and 50 percent renewable portfolio standard, are shaping markets, creating jobs, and stimulating economic growth. Citizens across the country are demanding strong policy as clean energy technologies from LEDs, to smart thermostats, to rooftop solar continue to fall in costs.
In the years ahead California will focus on effectively integrating cheap renewables, capitalizing on the potential of distributed energy resources, and making sure those advancements are accessible to all Californians. The progress we protect and defend here echoes battles being waged from the Pacific to the Atlantic and everywhere in between.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2017/01/19/way-clean-energy-all-trump-administration-california-and-beyond
-
Report Shows 1,500 Oil Train Cars Per Week Through Washington
Jan 19, 2017 | OPB
By Tony Schick
In the final three months of 2016, railroads hauled 618 million gallons of oil through Washington. That means more than 1,500 rail cars every week hauling flammable crude through the state.
Those numbers come from new reports from the Washington Department of Ecology, which for the first time detail what kinds of oil are moving through which communities in the state, and in what amounts.
The new quarterly reports are the first of their kind. In 2015, Washington passed the Oil Transportation Safety Act, which greatly expanded the state’s oversight of oil trains. Previously, railroads were required under an emergency order to inform states only of Bakken crude shipments larger than one million gallons. The new state rule gathers data not from railroads themselves but from refineries and terminals that accept oil shipments.
Communities along rail lines now know better what they should prepare for, said Jase Brooks, who wrote the rule for the Washington Department of Ecology.
“This is the most detailed and complete information that we have about the picture of oil movement and the risk picture associated with that. So this is a really wonderful, wonderful dat for Washington,” Brooks said.
These and future reports will be used in determining what equipment and training are most needed and where, Brook said.
The new reports also detail for the first time that about six percent of all oil shipments through Washington are Canadian crude oil. The rest are lighter crude from North Dakota.
Rebecca Ponzio of the Washington Environmental Council said she and other environmentalists had long been concerned about shipments of Canadian crude, which the state’s oil spill response planners say is heavy and difficult to contain and clean when it spills.
“Having this information starts to empower us as community members as well as the elected officials and emergency responders to better understand what the threat is and start seeing trends,” Ponzio said.
Ponzio also said the new details would show whether any facilities in Washington will begin exporting crude oil, after Congress lifted a ban on such exports in late 2015.
Railroads previously resisted the release of the information contained in Ecology’s new reports, citing security reasons and trade secrets. A spokesman for BNSF Railway, the largest carrier of oil by rail in Washington, said the railroad provides information on hazardous materials to first responders, such as fire departments along rail lines.
“We continue to provide information to first responders to help them prepare and respond, this includes training that is specific to crude by rail,” BNSF spokesman Gus Melonas said. We have long provided information to first responders. This has been our long-standing approach to all hazardous materials that we move.”
Oregon lawmakers, after rejecting a bill to increase oil train oversight in 2015, are considering a similar bill to increase the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s regulatory authority over oil train spill response.
http://www.opb.org/news/article/new-reports-show-1500-oil-train-cars-per-week-through-washington/
-
Citing Trump, N.Y. and Others Wade into Cross-State Fight
Jan 19, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
A half-dozen Northeast states are siding with U.S. EPA in the legal free-for-all over the agency's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule update.
In an unopposed intervention motion, New York, Maryland and the other four states today said they have "a direct and substantial interest" in upholding the rule, which was published late last year to curb power plant pollution that contributes to compliance with ozone standards in downwind states.
While New York has already put in stringent standards on emissions sources within its borders, "we have no control over dirty air that pours in from other states," Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) said in a news release announcing the motion, which is also backed by Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont.
The incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump, who takes office tomorrow, "has signaled its desire to roll back federal environmental protections, including those that protect states from out-of-state polluters," Schneiderman said. "This is why defending this sensible, fair and crucial rule is so important."
Last week, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy rejected a separate administrative petition by the same states and several others seeking to expand the size of the Ozone Transport Region, a step that could have forced states as far west as Michigan and Illinois to adopt new steps to control the drift of ozone and the chemicals that contribute to its formation (E&E News PM, Jan. 13). As one basis for her decision, McCarthy cited other remedies, such as the updated Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, often known as CSAPR.
Ozone, an irritant linked to asthma attacks and aggravated emphysema symptoms, is formed by the reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in sunlight. Under CSAPR, power plants in 22 states, mostly in the eastern United States and including New York and Maryland, must join in an allowance trading system to curb NOx emissions that make it harder for downwind neighbors to meet the 2008 ambient air quality standard for ozone of 75 parts per billion.
Sixteen separate lawsuits against the rule have been filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The plaintiffs range from utilities and a half-dozen states to the city of Ames, Iowa.
While Oklahoma is among the 22 states covered by the CSAPR update, the state — whose attorney general, Scott Pruitt (R), is Trump's choice to head EPA — is not among those challenging the rule in court.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/01/19/stories/1060048677
-
Texas Seeks Review of EPA Visibility Rule
Jan 20, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
EPA's new visibility rule gives federal land managers authority to make Clean Air Act certifications of visibility impairment although the act doesn't grant them that authority, Ken Paxton, Texas attorney general (R), said in announcing a lawsuit filed against the agency (Texas v. EPA, D.C. Cir. App., 1/18/17).
Texas and the state's commission on environmental quality filed a petition to review the Environmental Protection Agency's final rule, “Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirement for State Plans.” The final rule is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law, the lawsuit, filed Jan. 18 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, said.
The final rule gives states an extra three years to submit the next round of plans for improving visibility in national parks and other protected areas. The plans, due July 2021, would cover state obligations under the second planning period under the regional haze program, which runs from 2018 through 2028.
“This rule is both out of compliance with the law and a clear abuse of discretion by the Obama administration,” Paxton said in a statement. “This is yet another midnight attempt by the Obama administration to grab power that Congress has not given to it.”
Paxton cited the state's success, aligning with energy companies, in a previous lawsuit targeting the regional haze plan. In that suit, a federal court granted a stay of the EPA's regional haze plan for Texas (Texas v. EPA, 5th Cir., No. 16-60118, motion 12/19/16).
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103876499&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103876499&jd=103876499
-
6 Unanswered Questions from the Perry Hearing
Jan 20, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Christa Marshall
There were many certainties in yesterday's hearing on the nomination of Rick Perry to lead the Energy Department.
The former Texas governor now believes that climate change is partly man-made. He no longer believes in eliminating the department he once pledged to kill. He's vowing to protect DOE funding for research and climate scientists.
He doesn't believe in a national renewable energy standard.
"You know my position on federalism and that one size fits all except in gym socks ... it doesn't work that well," he said about the idea before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
And a questionnaire from the Trump transition team — which asked a series of questions about climate officials, the national labs and other issues — was distributed before he was chosen as a nominee (Greenwire, Jan. 19).
"I didn't approve it. I don't approve of it. I don't need that information. I don't want that information. That is not how I manage," he said.
But Perry and the committee did not address a range of issues, from global climate negotiations to fusion projects, that could influence the department's budget, create rifts with the rest of the Trump administration and affect the direction of the energy sector.
Here are six questions left unanswered:
Would Perry differ from Trump on climate change?
The international climate agreement forged in Paris in 2015 was not considered in the hearing, even though it was a focus of outgoing Secretary Ernest Moniz. President-elect Donald Trump pledged during the campaign to withdraw from the agreement, before later telling The New York Times he had an "open mind."
Perry was asked repeatedly about climate but more about whether he would protect research and his degree of belief. Under questioning from Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), for example, he said, "I don't claim to be a climate scientist," when asked about the degree of his belief in man-made warning.
The closest Perry got to discussing international climate negotiations came during a heated exchange with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who pressed him to "get beyond the rhetoric."
"I'm asking you if you agree with the scientific community that climate change is a crisis and that we need to transform our energy system to protect future generations?" Sanders asked.
Perry said "having an academic discussion" is an interesting exercise but then pointed to his record in Texas, which witnessed a decline in emissions despite energy development. "Don't you think that's a good thing?" Perry said to Sanders.
"I think what would be a better thing is for you to say right now that you recognize that we have a global crisis and that the United States of America should help lead the world," Sanders said, before changing the subject.
What are Perry's views on Mission Innovation?
At the Paris climate talks, the United States joined 19 countries in pledging to double clean energy research over five years. Trump is not expected to support much of the initiative, but it remains unclear what Perry's views are on the idea of large increases in research funding, at least in theory. His position could be important partly if there's a push for budget cuts, and he chooses to push for some programs and not others. Some lawmakers, like Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), have supported the idea of doubling DOE research, even if they didn't support Obama's overall Mission Innovation plan.
Perry offered praise repeatedly yesterday for the work of the national labs and vowed to defend the department against large budget cuts, but didn't specify whether he'd like to see a spending ramp up in programs central to Mission Innovation, like the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy.
One clue he did provide is that he strongly supports applied energy research aiming to commercialize projects, and not just basic research.
"The technologies that come out of DOE are going to be very important. ... I will be an advocate for that. I will be in the room advocating for these types of things," he said.
What specific actions would he take on efficiency?
Perry made several statements in support of efficiency, including support for smart meters and a promise to Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) that he would help him get energy efficiency legislation passed.
"Yes, sir, use me as you see fit," Perry said to Portman.
But Perry wasn't pressed about a central plank of the Obama administration's efficiency and climate strategy — mandatory efficiency standards on appliances and buildings. The Obama administration finalized more of the standards than the previous two administrations combined, and it's uncertain whether the Trump administration would slow down the rulemaking pace and, if so, by how much.
An early test is whether several efficiency rules released before the new year, and subject to a mandatory 45-day-review period, will be acted on by the Trump administration and the Energy Department.
What level of renewable funding would Perry support?
The fate of renewable funding in DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy is one of the key unknowns about Trump, who has pledged support for an all-of-the-above energy strategy but has been critical of wind energy. Senators yesterday criticized reports that the Trump administration may be considering deep budget cuts (see related story).
Perry said he strongly supported the work of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, saying that much of the research there should be commercialized.
"I think the role for the DOE as we go forward ... [is] continuing to find the technological advances, whether it's on turbines or blade designs," he said when asked of his view on DOE's wind programs. He reiterated his record in supporting wind development in Texas, despite being a fiscal conservative.
But he gave a cooler reception to other senators pressing him on other DOE renewable programs. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) asked him if he would pledge to back adequate funding for the geothermal office.
"All of the above means all of the above," he said. When she asked whether that meant "yes," Perry said, "Where you and I will probably have a more pointed conversation is 'adequate,' [on] the word 'adequate,'" he said.
"Prioritization and good management of budgets can go a long way," he added.
Will he change Obama's policies on carbon capture and sequestration technology?
Perry emphasized carbon capture and sequestration in his opening remarks, citing the recent opening of NRG Energy Inc.'s Petra Nova project in Texas, the world's largest retrofit of an existing coal plant with CCS.
"I'm going to do everything I can to push the envelope, to think outside the box," he said when asked about CCS technology.
But he didn't address a range of outstanding issues, such as whether the department should fund large or small projects, which capture technologies should be focused on, and whether and how CCS funding should be changed.
Perry did give a thumbs up to DOE's loan office when asked about the agency's recent $2 billion commitment to build the world's first methanol facility using carbon capture technology (Greenwire, Dec. 21, 2016).
Perry said that he didn't know the specifics of the project but added that "my instinct is that that's the type of program that the Department of Energy should be engaged with."
What should the United States do about the ITER fusion project?
The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, or ITER, was not examined at the hearing, even though it is slated to take up a growing portion of DOE's budget and eventually cost the United States more than $4 billion in construction costs. The project, under construction in France, is a multinational attempt to demonstrate fusion energy at scale. It has also been a source of friction on Capitol Hill, with some key appropriators calling for the United States to abandon it.
Last year, Moniz recommended ongoing support for the project (Greenwire, May 26, 2016).
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/01/20/stories/1060048697
-
Trump Nominees Share a Less Urgent Climate-Change Line
Jan 20, 2017 | Washington Post
By Brady Dennis and Chris Mooney
No so long ago, Rick Perry described the science behind human-caused climate change as a “contrived phony mess.” On Thursday, during his confirmation hearing to become the next head of the Energy Department, the former Texas governor expressed a markedly different view — one that has begun to sound very familiar in recent days.
“I believe the climate is changing,” he told lawmakers. “I believe some of it is naturally occurring, but some of it is caused by man-made activity. The question is how we address it in a thoughtful way that doesn’t compromise economic growth.”
Almost to a person, the people whom President-elect Donald Trump has picked to run key federal agencies have echoed strikingly similar views about the warming planet and what to do, or not do, about it. Their position, which has proven maddening to many climate scientists, acknowledges three points: Yes, the climate is changing. Humans probably have some role. But it’s likely not the country’s most urgent problem.
Interior secretary nominee Ryan Zinke: “I do not believe it is a hoax. . . . I think where there’s debate on it is what [the human] influence is, what can we do about it.”
Attorney general nominee Jeff Sessions: “I don’t deny that we have global warming. . . . It’s the question of how much is happening and what the reaction would be to it.”
Environmental Protection Agency administrator nominee Scott Pruitt: “Science tells us that the climate is changing, and human activity in some matter impacts that change. The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of that impact and what to do about it are subject to continuing debate and dialogue, and well it should be.”
Trump transition official said Thursday that there had been no coordination with appointees on their message around the issue. “This is an accurate reflection of what they believe, and Cabinet nominees are encouraged to give their opinion on questions when they’re asked,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to be more open about internal matters.
Frank Maisano, a public affairs specialist at the law firm Bracewell, whose clients include both renewable energy companies and oil and gas firms, argued that the position staked out mirrors that of many Republicans during the George W. Bush administration.
“It’s a position that allows you to have a framework for a policy discussion. You can’t get over the hurdle and into a policy discussion if you’re where we were over the last four years,” Maisano said.
But the views of those potential Trump Cabinet members have exasperated some scientists, who fear that their comments in confirmation hearings over the past week have sown doubt about the extent of the human factor in climate change despite the empirical evidence. In the scientific community, they say, there is little question that humans are the driving force behind the trends that made 2016 the hottest year in recorded history and that climate change is one of the most consequential problems facing the United States and other countries.
“It sounds like an orchestrated campaign of head-in-the-sand,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University. “The scientific consensus is clear: Most of the warming since 1950 is the result of the buildup of the human-made greenhouse gases.”
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international body set up under the United Nations that distills the scientific consensus on the subject, has said much the same for years.
“It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,” the IPCC wrote in 2013, adding that “human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes.”
As for predictions, scientists don’t have a crystal ball, and their climate change “model” projections aren’t perfect. But what they’re fundamentally doing is applying what is known about the climate system, which is that carbon dioxide warms it on a grand scale and will continue to do so in the future.
The climate views expressed by Trump’s nominees aren’t necessarily surprising, given the number of climate-science skeptics on the transition team. For instance, Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who has long questioned the issue’s urgency, is leading the EPA transition.
Other transition officials include George Sugiyama, an attorney who worked for Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, perhaps the biggest climate-change doubter in Congress, and David Kreutzer, a Heritage Foundation economist and fellow who has argued at length that President Obama’s climate policies can’t be justified — in part because of the lack of a scientific consensus about climate change.
But while Trump has called climate change a hoax, his nominees have been unwilling to go there. Still, the new administration’s response could resemble what happened under Bush: The issue of climate change might be acknowledged at times but rarely treated with much urgency.
Yet even 15 years ago, said James McCarthy, a professor at the Harvard University Center for the Environment, there was already widespread agreement among climate scientists that the majority of the planet’s warming during the prior half-century was caused by the production and burning of fossil fuels.
“Since then, greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere have increased every successive year, and we have experienced nine of the 10 warmest years in recorded climate history. Sea level is rising faster, and Arctic sea ice is retreating further each year,” McCarthy noted Thursday.
The fact that the people who would lead key agencies under Trump appear to have little interest in taking aggressive counter-efforts could mean missed economic opportunities, as well, McCarthy said.
“Major economies around the globe are preparing to transition from polluting to clean fuels,” he said. “The U.S. has led many of the developments that have reduced costs of solar and wind energy to where they are now competitive with other fuels. What a pity it would be if Mr. Trump’s Cabinet secretaries let the opportunity for our nation to fully benefit from these advances slip through our fingers.”
Environmental advocates worry that a lack of urgency within the new administration will translate into efforts to slow down or halt efforts by the Obama administration to tackle the problem, which Obama called “one of the most urgent challenges of our time.” They fear a rollback of regulations aimed at reducing the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, slashed funding for clean energy technologies and an indifference or hostility toward government climate research.
Maisano said some of those fears are unfounded, adding that even if the core debate is over, the fight over how serious a problem climate change is and what to do about it is a fair one to have.
“The question is, again, not how much are you aware, but what can we do about it that is reasonable and politically viable. And that’s a question that’s going to change depending on who is in office.”
John Wagner contributed to this report.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-nominees-share-a-climate-change-line-humans-contribute-but-we-dont-know-how-much/2017/01/19/647c69f2-de9c-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html?utm_term=.60972bff725a
-
Keeping Cool About Hot Temperatures
Jan 19, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Editorial Board
By now you’ve seen the headline: 2016 was the hottest year on record. The news has been paired with predictions of civilization’s imminent demise. But a closer look at the evidence reveals that the political heat is overwrought—and there’s still no reason to re-engineer the global economy to mitigate small climate fluctuations.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced this week that last year was the warmest in the agency’s 137-year series, and that 2016 broke the previous record for the third consecutive year. This sounds alarming, until you read that 2016 edged out 2015 by a mere 0.04 degrees Celsius. That’s a fraction of the margin of error. Atmospheric data from satellites detected similarly small warming over previous years. In other words, no one really knows if last year was a record.
Here’s what we do know: 2015 and 2016 were major years for El Niño, a Pacific trade winds phenomenon known to produce temperature spikes. The Cato Institute’s Patrick Michaels has detailed in these pages how in 1998, another big El Niño year, average surface temperatures increased about a quarter-degree Fahrenheit and then dropped in the following years. That is similar to the increase in 2015—and by the end of 2016 temperatures were falling back toward 2014 levels. Even NOAA admits El Niño’s role.
The underreported news here is that the warming is not nearly as great as the climate-change computer models have predicted. As climatologist Judith Curry testified to Congress in 2014, U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change simulations forecast surface temperatures to increase on average 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade in the early 21st century. The warming over the first 15 years was closer to 0.05 degrees Celsius. The models also can’t explain why more than 40% of the temperature increase since 1900 happened between 1910 and 1945, which accounts for only 10% of the increase in carbon emissions.
These nuances are important because phrases such as “hottest year ever” are waved around as a pretext for political action that usually involves giving more control over the economy to governments. This is inevitably sold as urgently required to save the planet.
But even these regulations, taxes and subsidies would do little to reverse global temperature trends, though they could reduce the economic growth and wealth creation needed to cope with the consequences of higher temperatures. That is true of all President Obama’s ministrations—from the Clean Power Plan to the Paris climate accord to subsidies for Al Gore’s green-energy portfolio.
The most inconvenient truth during the Obama years has been that the biggest cause of lower U.S. CO 2 emissions has been the energy shift to natural gas from coal. Yet the climate-change lobby opposes fracking.
The Earth’s surface has warmed over the last century by close to a degree Celsius, and the trend bears watching. But the additional questions to consider are about future magnitudes and impact, and what if any policies would make a difference without doing serious economic harm. The best insurance against the risks of climate change is economic growth and innovation—more efficient batteries, for example.
But adding to human knowledge on climate requires a thorough airing and debate over the evidence. That won’t happen as long as alarmists continue to try to shut down debate by spinning doomsday tales about sizzling temperatures.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/keeping-cool-about-hot-temperatures-1484871286
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested