Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 1/27/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) Ending 2016 With PP And PE Price Drops
Jan 27, 2017 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
The end of 2016 came with more North American price drops for polyethylene and polypropylene and a surprising price hike for PET bottle resin. -
Trump Sets U.S. On New Path
Jan 27, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jessica Morrison; Alex Tullo; & Glenn Hess
During his first week in office, U.S. President Donald J. Trump issued a series of executive directives that will affect the chemistry enterprise in a variety of ways. -
Pruitt Vows To Defer To Congress But Democrats Fault His Responses
Jan 26, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo & David LaRoss
EPA administrator-nominee Scott Pruitt appears to be deflecting questions from Senate Democrats on actions he would take as head of the agency by saying he plans to defer to congressional intent and work to increase compliance with existing laws rather than crafting new regulations, as well as praising some non-binding Obama-era policies. -
Ebell: Shrinking EPA Workforce To 5,000 An 'Aspirational Goal'
Jan 27, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillén
Myron Ebell, the think tank expert who headed President Donald Trump’s EPA transition team, says his recommendation to slash the agency’s staff by two-thirds is an “aspirational goal” rather than a firm plan. -
SBA Urges EPA To Weigh Broader Scope In Defining ‘Small’ TSCA Entities
Jan 26, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is urging EPA to broaden the factors it is weighing for its upcoming revisions to defining which entities are considered “small” and subject to less-stringent Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) recordkeeping and reporting mandates, suggesting a small business review panel for the issue. -
(ACC Mentioned) Pruitt Avoids Specifics on Chemical Security Issues as CRA Action Urged
Jan 27, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
EPA Administrator nominee Scott Pruitt avoided specific answers to questions about tougher regulatory policies for high-risk chemical facilities, according to documents released by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's top Democrat Jan. 25. -
Court Set to Dismiss Monsanto Suit to Block Prop. 65 Listing of Glyphosate
Jan 27, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
A California court is set to dismiss Monsanto Co.'s lawsuit to block the state from listing glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, as a carcinogen under Proposition 65 Monsanto Co. v. OEHHA, Cal. Super. Ct., No. 16CECG00183, tentative ruling 1/26/17. -
US Retailer Target To Eliminate PFCs, Phthalates, Parabens
Jan 27, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
US retailer Target plans to phase out phthalates, flame retardants, perfluorinated chemicals and parabens from a variety of product categories in both its own brands and the products it sells. The announcement is part of the company's new chemicals policy that will also require its suppliers to provide full ingredient disclosure for some product categories. -
Company’s Efforts To Move Away From Harmful Chemicals Must Improve, Say Advocates At Annual Shareholder Meeting
Jan 27, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.
Today, investors and consumers will ask Costco at its annual shareholder meeting to improve its efforts to tackle toxic chemicals. -
Legality of Electronic Products Addressed by EU Proposal
Jan 27, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Commission Jan. 26 proposed to amend the European Union's Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive to remove provisions that could result in certain electrical and electronic products, and product spare parts, becoming illegal on the EU market. -
PA-Commissioned Study Finds Appalachian Basin Has Room For Four More Crackers
Jan 26, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Pennsylvania will soon release a study it commissioned that shows the Appalachian Basin is uniquely positioned to compete in the global petrochemicals market, with enough ethane available to support up to four more ethane crackers in addition to Shell Chemical Appalachia LLC's planned facility. -
Atlantic Coast Pipeline Reportedly Eyed by Trump Team as High-Priority Infrastructure
Jan 26, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jeremiah Shelor
After signaling its support for the controversial Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, the Trump administration may be looking to fast track the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) as well. -
Battle Building Around Portland, Ore., Oil Terminal Ban
Jan 27, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky
Conservation groups intervened Jan. 25 in support of a Portland, Ore., ordinance prohibiting new bulk fossil fuel terminals over 2 million gallons and the expansion of existing ones after a coalition of oil companies, labor unions and business groups moved to invalidate it (Columbia Pac. Bldg. Trades Council v. City of Portland, Or. LUBA, No. 2017-001, motion filed 1/6/17). -
Keystone and Dakota Access Face Hurdles Despite Trump's Blessing
Jan 27, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Meenal Vamburkar
President Donald Trump may have revived prospects for the controversial Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, but the path to their completion still faces hurdles. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Makes 11th-Hour Push For Congress To Kill RMP Rule Under CRA
Jan 26, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
A host of industry groups are making an 11th-hour push for lawmakers to pursue a Congressional Review Act (CRA) disapproval resolution to undo EPA's rule overhauling its Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility safety regulation, vying to push the rule onto a short-list of Obama-era rules lawmakers will target with the rarely-used step. -
(ACC Mentioned) The EPA’s Latest Chemical Plant Safety Rules: They Sound Good, But…
Jan 27, 2017 | Chem.Info
By Meagan Parrish
Improving safety is always a top priority for chemical manufacturers. But the latest set of chemical plant safety regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency have nonetheless left many wondering if they’ll truly decrease the risk of accidents. -
REMSA Unveils 2017 Advocacy Agenda
Jan 26, 2017 | Progressive Railroading
The Railway Engineering-Maintenance Suppliers Association(REMSA) on Tuesday released its three advocacy priorities for 2017. -
What Trump Can and Can’t Do to Dismantle Obama’s Climate Rules
Jan 26, 2017 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport
President Trump campaigned on sweeping promises to eliminate former President Barack Obama’s major environmental regulations and “get rid of” the Environmental Protection Agency. -
Climate Change a ‘Non-Problem,’ Trump EPA Appointee Says
Jan 27, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
A Trump administration appointee to the EPA called climate change a “non-problem” and got into a testy exchange with the audience at a conservative think tank's Jan. 26 panel discussion. -
Senate Democrats Challenge Pruitt’s Environmental Enforcement Record
Jan 26, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Senate Democrats on the Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW) are strengthening their challenge to Scott Pruitt, President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead EPA, seeking to highlight flaws in his record on environmental enforcement. -
Trump Climate Pivot Takes Shape in Overhaul of Federal Websites
Jan 27, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy and Ari Natter
The White House website no longer has a section on climate change. An EPA page that answered “common questions” about global warming is gone. And reports on greenhouse gas emissions have vanished from the State Department's Internet site.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Ending 2016 With PP And PE Price Drops
Jan 27, 2017 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
The end of 2016 came with more North American price drops for polyethylene and polypropylene and a surprising price hike for PET bottle resin.
Regional prices for all grades of high, low and linear low density PE fell an average of 2 cents per pound in December. Softer demand played a role in the decline, as did momentum from a 3-cent drop that hit the market in November.
Prior to the two year-end price declines, regional PE prices had been flat in five of the previous six months. The only price movement for the market came in September, when prices jumped 5 cents per pound on short-term inventory tightness.
U.S./Canadian PE demand growth was mixed in the first 11 months of 2016, according to the American Chemistry Council. Regional sales of HDPE were up more than 2 percent, while sales of LLDPE essentially were flat and those of LDPE declined more than 2 percent.
Domestic HDPE sales growth of more than 1 percent was boosted by a gain of more than 5 percent in export sales for the 11-month period. The LDPE market saw domestic sales growth of almost 2 percent wiped out by a plunge of more than 14 percent in export sales. In LLDPE, domestic sales growth of almost 1 percent was balanced out by an export sales drop of more than 1 percent.
The PE price drop ran counter to changes in price for crude oil, which affect PE pricing on a macro level. West Texas Intermediate crude prices began December around $52 per barrel, but were near $52.50 by the end of the month.PP drops for third month
Regional PP prices slumped an average of 4 cents per pound for December, as a result of lower demand, lower feedstock costs and ample supplies of propylene monomer. It was the third consecutive month that PP prices fell in the region, following drops totaling 7.5 cents in October-November.
The 11.5 cents in combined PP price declines for the final three months of 2016 followed total increases of 9.5 cents per pound in August-September. PP pricing was the most volatile of any North American commodity resin once again in 2016.
Through November, North American PP sales essentially were flat vs. the same period in 2015, according to ACC. A drop of almost 2 percent in domestic sales was negated by a jump of almost 74 percent for sales into the export market.
Regional sales of PP into the sheet market grew more than 3 percent in the first 11 months of 2016, but sales of the material into injection molded housewares slumped more than 8 percent and fell almost 11 percent into oriented film.Surprising rise for PET
PET continued its surprising pricing run in late 2016, with prices moving up an average of 2 cents per pound in December. That marked the fourth consecutive monthly price hike for the material, following identical increases of 1 cent per pound in the previous three months.
The moves were tied into higher feedstock costs. Late-year price increases in PET are uncommon, since demand for the material is tied into carbonated soft drinks and bottled water, which post higher sales in warm summer months.
For the year, North American PE prices finished up a net of 4 cents per pound, with regional PET prices up a net of 5 cents. Regional PP prices went in the other direction, finishing the year down a net of 8 cents per pound.
Regional prices for solid polystyrene and for PVC resins were flat in December. PS prices were unmoved in spite of higher prices for benzene feedstock. Market watchers as a result expect PS prices to increase in January.
PS prices in the region had fallen 2 cents per pound in November after being flat in October. Prices had climbed a total of 5 cents in August-September.
North American PS sales through November were down 0.5 percent compared to the same period in 2015, according to ACC. Domestic PS demand growth was led by food packaging and food service — its largest end market — where 10-month sales were up almost 1 percent to more than 2.5 billion pounds.
Regional PVC prices were flat in December, as colder weather slowed construction activity. PVC makers in November gave back a 2 cent increase they had won in October. Lower ethylene feedstock prices played a role in that move. Prior to that October increase, PVC prices had been flat for four consecutive months.
Through November, U.S./Canadian PVC sales were up 5 percent, according to ACC. PVC’s flagship rigid pipe and tubing segment also was its largest domestic growth market for the 11 months, surging more than 6 percent to more than 4.4 billion pounds.
Net price changes for full-year 2016 showed North American PVC prices up an average of 7 cents per pound and PS up 4 cents per pound.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20170127/NEWS/170129933/ending-2016-with-pp-and-pe-price-drops
-
Jan 27, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jessica Morrison; Alex Tullo; & Glenn Hess
During his first week in office, U.S. President Donald J. Trump issued a series of executive directives that will affect the chemistry enterprise in a variety of ways.
Trump issued a presidential memorandum formally withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, a trade deal strongly supported by the chemical industry and many other U.S. businesses. The Jan. 23 action fulfills Trump’s campaign promise to abandon the Pacific Rim trade pact early in his Administration.
Chemical manufacturers backed TPP, which was negotiated by former president Barack Obama’s Administration, saying it had the potential to eliminate punitive tariffs and taxes and provide new market opportunities for U.S. chemical exports.
The Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates (SOCMA), an association representing the specialty chemical industry, urged the Administration to pursue trade agreements in Asia and elsewhere.
The pharmaceutical industry, which had criticized the TPP agreement for failing to deliver sufficient market exclusivity for pioneering biological drugs, says it will support trade agreements that include strong intellectual property protections and enhance market access.
On the same day he issued the TPP directive, Trump met with leaders from some of the country’s largest manufacturers, including Dow Chemical CEO Andrew N. Liveris.
There, Trump outlined policy proposals that he believes will boost U.S. manufacturing competitiveness. These include cutting corporate taxes, slashing regulations, and imposing tariffs on companies that close factories in the U.S. and build plants overseas.
Last month Trump named Liveris the head of the American Manufacturing Council, a panel convened to suggest ways to make U.S. manufacturing more competitive. Last week Liveris said, “He’s not going to do anything to harm competitiveness; he’s actually going to make us all more competitive.”
Details of the Administration’s energy agenda were unveiled online just after Trump took the oath of office on Jan. 20.
In his “An America First Energy Plan,” the President called for eliminating the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well as a rule to define which waterways are regulated under the Clean Water Act. He also called for reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil and reviving the domestic coal industry.
The Administration intends to “embrace the shale oil and gas revolution” and take advantage of domestic oil and natural gas reserves, “especially those on federal lands that the American people own,” according to the energy plan. The boom in recent years of U.S. natural gas, a key feedstock, has boosted U.S. chemical manufacturing.
A Jan. 20 White House memorandum ordered all federal agencies to delay implementation of final regulations published since late October 2016.
In response, EPA is putting the brakes on 30 regulations, including a revised rule on chemical facility safety that calls for independent, third-party audits of companies after accidents and consideration of safer manufacturing approaches. Another rule put on hold is biofuel blend requirements for renewable fuels in 2017.
The Administration also took other actions that alarmed many scientists (see page 15)
https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i5/Trump-sets-US-new-path.html
-
Pruitt Vows To Defer To Congress But Democrats Fault His Responses
Jan 26, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo & David LaRoss
EPA administrator-nominee Scott Pruitt appears to be deflecting questions from Senate Democrats on actions he would take as head of the agency by saying he plans to defer to congressional intent and work to increase compliance with existing laws rather than crafting new regulations, as well as praising some non-binding Obama-era policies.
He also appears to contradict himself on some controversial issues, including whether the Clean Water Act (CWA) allows EPA to regulate tributaries and other non-navigable waters, and the circumstances in which he would recuse himself from agency proceedings thanks to his many suits against the Obama EPA -- further muddying what legal interpretations he would apply as agency administrator.
But one observer says that the nominee's rhetoric of deference to legislators' intent is flawed, because agency officials must apply their own interpretations and judgment to execute their duties.
And Democratic senators are strongly criticizing Pruitt's responses to their queries, saying he is evasive and inadeqate.
“If Mr. Pruitt is willing to sidestep the Senators performing their role of providing advice and consent on his nomination, I can hardly imagine how contemptuous he will be when Congress asks for information about changes he makes to the Renewable Fuel Standard, clean air and water protections, or toxics regulations,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) said in a Jan. 26 statement.
In a 242-page written response to questions submitted by Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW) Democrats following a Jan. 18 full EPW hearing, Pruitt largely says that as EPA's administrator he would see to it that the agency adheres closely to congressional intent of its governing environmental statutes, but avoids saying what he sees as the true intent of Congress on many high-profile issues.
For example, Pruitt writes in response to a question from Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) on whether the position Pruitt takes as Oklahoma attorney general in ongoing litigation against EPA on the agency's Clean Power Plan, CWA jurisdiction rule and other policies that “EPA’s mission is defined by the laws passed by Congress granting it the authority to act.”
Despite the refrain of deferring to Congress, Pruitt does at points note that he backs some specific policies initiated under the Obama administration, including nutrient-reduction strategies under the CWA and “integrated planning” that unifies municipalities' wastewater and stormwater compliance goals. However, the policies he names are all expressed in non-binding guidance rather than formal rulemakings that impose mandates on states or industry.
Agency 'Deference'
Pruitt writes that any EPA action that exceeds the authority granted to the agency by Congress, by definition, cannot be consistent with the agency’s mission and that he intends to work to increase compliance with the law, such as with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). “I believe that persistent drinking water problems largely stem from a failure to comply with current laws and regulations,” he writes.
Also in response to a Cardin question on how to square Pruitt's position that air regulation is a matter for the states with the Supreme Court's finding that the agency may has exclusive authority to regulate greenhouse gases, Pruitt says that cooperative federalism is a “bedrock principle of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and other EPA-administered laws.”
Pruitt writes, “If confirmed, I will respect the intention of Congress and relative statutory framework, adding that he believes “EPA plays an important role, especially as it relates to cross-state air and water pollution, but EPA must do so within the bounds of its legal authority as provided by Congress.”
But RFF's Krupnik says that “writing legislation is, as often said, like making salami” and that as a result congressional intent is often difficult to discern. Moreover, he argues, Congress cannot write legislation “detailed enough to leave no discretion to EPA -- which is why regulations written by EPA (not just legislation) are needed.”
For example, Krupnik writes, EPA is perfectly within its authority to depart from congressionally-set Renewable Fuel Standard targets if in its judgment they cannot be met due to market conditions or other factors.
“Thus, interpretation and judgment is always necessary, and is in fact the role of the EPA -- Congress simply does not have the bandwidth to conduct the extensive stakeholder and scientific engagement, risk analyses, and cost-benefit analyses to be able to write credible and workable regulations,” the blog post says.
Contradictory Claims
Beyond his refrain of deference to Congress, some of Pruitt's substantive answers on related or identical topics appear to contradict each other. Most prominently, when the nominee responds to questions on the CWA jurisdiction rule -- which, as Oklahoma's attorney general, he has sued to overturn -- Pruitt gives conflicting interpretations on which waters should be subject to EPA regulation.
In response to a question from Cardin referencing states' legal position in the litigation over the CWA rule, Pruitt says “states have exclusive, not additional, authority over all land and non-navigable, wholly intrastate waters.” That interpretation would appear to exclude all tributaries from coverage under the federal water law.
Yet in response to a separate Cardin question on whether there are waters that should not be protected under the CWA, Pruitt writes, “As I stated in my testimony before the Committee, I believe that the Clean Water Act regulates more than navigable waters. But, it does not regulate all waters. How much more would best be answered by Congress” -- a seeming conflict with the earlier statement that federal authority only extends to navigable and interstate waterbodies.
And later still, in response to a question from Whitehouse, Pruitt says he would withdraw the CWA rule and “replace it with a rule that is within the authority granted to EPA and the Corps under the Clean Water Act,” rather than leaving it to Congress to resolve ambiguities in the law's reach as he told Cardin would be the best path.
On recusal, Pruitt appears to waver on whether he would remove himself from decision-making around issues where he has been involved with litigation as a matter of course, with exceptions determined by federal ethics officials, or whether he would only take that step when there are specific concerns raised over ethical conflicts.
Responding to a question from Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) on the subject, he says, "As EPA Administrator I will recuse from participation in litigation in matters in which I represented the State of Oklahoma, unless I receive informed consent from the State of Oklahoma and the permission of relevant federal ethics officials.”
But later, answering a question from Whitehouse, he says recusal would be a special case instead of the default option.
"The standards that would apply to me as EPA Administrator are different as I would not be representing the EPA as a lawyer. Nonetheless, in any matters involving specific parties where I believe that my impartiality may be questioned, I will consult with relevant federal ethics officials to determine whether to participate in a particular matter and provide them with all relevant facts,” Pruitt writes.
Hydraulic Fracturing
Elsewhere in the response document, Pruitt's responses appear to be somewhat non-sequiturs, citing environmental statutes broadly rather than responding to lawmakers' specific questions.
For instance, answering a question from Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) on how Pruitt would prevent toxic chemicals in hydraulic fracturing fluid from leaching into waterways -- typically addressed through the CWA or SDWA, he references the recently revised Toxic Substances Control Act, saying, “As was affirmed by Congress in drafting the [TSCA reform] Act, hazard is only one characteristic of risk and simply stating a chemical substance has toxicity does not mean there is exposure.” Pruitt goes on to write that he plans to apply the authorities vested in EPA to protect drinking water under SDWA.
And on the TSCA reform law, Pruitt noted his support for the Senate bill that law became the law, which took effect in June, and says, he would adhere to the deadlines in the law for EPA action and work to ensure all provisions were executed. On the subject of the known carcinogen asbestos, however, which EPA listed among the first 10 chemicals for which it plans to conduct risk evaluations under the new law, however, Pruitt appears to punt.
Asked by Markey on whether he agrees with statements attributed to Trump that “asbestos is 100 percent safe once applied or that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob,” Pruitt answered that “prejudicing the outcome of that risk evaluation process would not be appropriate.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/pruitt-vows-defer-congress-democrats-fault-his-responses
-
Ebell: Shrinking EPA Workforce To 5,000 An 'Aspirational Goal'
Jan 27, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillén
Myron Ebell, the think tank expert who headed President Donald Trump’s EPA transition team, says his recommendation to slash the agency’s staff by two-thirds is an “aspirational goal” rather than a firm plan.
“I threw out a number as an aspirational goal, I don’t know how things will shake out,” Ebell, a longtime critic of the agency, told POLITICO in an interview.
As part of an action plan he prepared for the Trump administration, Ebell recommended shrinking EPA from its current 15,000 jobs nationwide down to 5,000 jobs through a long-term hiring freeze, retirements and firings.
Ebell, who has returned to his job at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said he took inspiration to be bold and shocking from Trump.
“It seems to me, when you’re up against an entrenched bureaucracy who have entrenched supporters in the congressional appropriations process, you have to negotiate in the way that President Trump negotiated in his business career: You ask for everything and you settle for something less,” he said.
EPA’s total appropriation is currently about $8 billion, but that is likely to be see a major cut soon.
About half of that money goes to states to implement and enforce environmental laws, or is granted for water projects or other research.
Ebell, a self-described small government proponent, admitted that the grant half of EPA’s budget is probably relatively safe, because it enjoys bipartisan support and has the backing of the new president, who said on the campaign trail that he wants to see the states take a stronger, leading role in environmental policy.
“I want to shrink the size and scope of government wherever possible, but I recognize that there are practical limits, and one of them is probably [that] you’re not going to lower the level of payments and grants to the states when they’re doing the work,” Ebell said.
Reducing the EPA workforce — a little more than half of which is based in Washington — to 5,000 people would save the agency around $2 billion of its annual $8 billion appropriation, or about half of the money that stays at EPA, Ebell said. But he admitted that figure is a “very rough” estimate that could change depending on how many people would actually be let go and how much they are paid.
Ebell declined to identify any specific offices or programs he thinks should be targeted, saying most of the details of his action plan for the Trump administration are confidential.
But he did note an obvious and likely target is EPA’s climate program, which existed under George W. Bush but grew over the past eight years under President Barack Obama.
Environmentalists question whether Trump can completely kill EPA’s climate change work. They note the Supreme Court in 2007 said EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, and the agency has an eight-year-old endangerment finding that triggered a legal obligation to address carbon dioxide in some manner.
Last year, Trump promised to review that finding, drawing scoffs from green advocates who note the strong scientific evidence underpinning it and the courts’ acceptance of the finding.At his confirmation hearing last week, Scott Pruitt, Trump’s pick to run EPA, told lawmakers he sees no reason to review it “at this point.”
Ebell, who said he does not speak for the administration but personally supports revisiting the finding, said there is a “wide scope” to shutter the climate program.
“Does that mean that the Trump administration will be obliged or feel compelled to reopen the endangerment finding? I don’t know,” he said.
He also hinted that he might push for a sharper drop in the EPA employment levels if Trump is successful in drastically shrinking the agency and wins a second term.
“I don’t think it’s going to be an easy thing to downsize the EPA, but I think President Trump said he wanted to abolish it or leave a little bit, so I think as a first-term goal, 5,000 is a good target to start with,” Ebell said.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/01/ebell-epa-workforce-of-5-000-was-just-aspirational-goal-145484
-
SBA Urges EPA To Weigh Broader Scope In Defining ‘Small’ TSCA Entities
Jan 26, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is urging EPA to broaden the factors it is weighing for its upcoming revisions to defining which entities are considered “small” and subject to less-stringent Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) recordkeeping and reporting mandates, suggesting a small business review panel for the issue.
Under the revised TSCA signed into law last June, EPA must review the adequacy of the so-called size standards, which determine which chemical manufacturers and processors are subject to certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements under section 8(a), and the law requires EPA to consult with SBA on this.
The agency missed a Dec. 19 deadline for deciding whether to revise the standards, but said in a Dec. 15 Federal Register notice that it would take comment on a preliminary determination that revisions would be necessary.
Specifically, EPA is requesting public comment through Jan. 17 on the adequacy of the current standards and whether revision of the standards is warranted, and not on what a revised standard should be, a decision EPA would make in a future rulemaking if it opts to issue revisions.
SBA’s Office of Advocacy chief counsel Darryl DePriest writes in a Jan. 11 letter to EPA that while SBA agrees that revisions to the size standards are warranted, it does not believe the agency has fully examined all relevant factors in setting an appropriate standard.
“Advocacy recommends EPA consider a significantly broader set of factors in its development of size standards under TSCA and recommends that EPA engage in a robust consultation with affected small entities,” along with conducting a review panel, the letter says.
EPA’s current approach defines a “small” manufacturer or importer as one whose total annual sales are less than $40 million, or which produces or imports a particular substance at a volume of more than 100,000 pounds; and manufacturers or importers whose total earnings are less than $4 million per year regardless of volume produced or imported. Analogous standards for “small” processors are established under TSCA section 8(a).
Existing Standard
EPA as an early step in the process reviewed the changes in the Producer Price Index (PPI) for Chemicals and Allied Products, in the years between 1988, when EPA issued its definitions, and 2015, finding it has changed by 129 percent, and that among the more than 500 revenue-based size standards set by the Small Business Administration (SBA), the lowest is $5.5 million, and more than 75% of those standards are in excess of $7.5 million. “Thus, EPA’s existing $4 million annual sales standard is an outlier at the low end of this range,” the agency said in the Register notice.
Because of the magnitude of the increase in the PPI since the last revision of the size standards and the current annual sales standard is comparatively low given current revenue-based size standards developed by SBA, EPA has “preliminarily determined” that a revision to the definition is necessary, but is in the process of consulting with SBA on the issue, which the new law requires.
In the Jan. 11 letter, SBA argues that the reliance in the notice on inflation implies that the 1988 size standard is an appropriate baseline, but that EPA should instead be considering whether the existing size standard is structured appropriately, not just whether an inflation adjustment is warranted. For example, SBA sets size standards for different industrial sectors rather than a single one-size-fits-all-industries standard as in EPA’s existing regulations.
“EPA should be considering whether a revision is warranted based on the need to have different standards based on the industry,” the letter says. Instead, SBA recommends EPA use a number of factors in developing the standard, including barriers to entry; start-up and expansion costs; extent to which covered businesses are capital-intensive versus labor-intensive; average firm size; growth trends; industry competition and concentration and technological changes.
SBA also points out that EPA should consider whether it is using the appropriate metric in the definition, pointing out that SBA’s own size standards for manufacturing and wholesale industries are based on the number of employees, not revenue or a measure of inventory volume.
Moreover, comparing SBA’s revenue based size standards is inappropriate, SBA says, because it generally uses its revenue-based standards for service industries and employee-based size standards for manufacturing or wholesale sectors. “A comparison of EPA’s revenue-based size standard for industries subject to TSCA with SBA’s revenue-based size standards for services industries is misleading because it conflates major industrial sectors with significantly different characteristics,” SBA says.
The letter urges EPA to use metrics based on the available data, to propose and take comment on a quantitative methodology for setting the standard and to develop a standard that makes it easy for regulated parties to be able to easily calculate whether they are subject to the definition. -
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/sba-urges-epa-weigh-broader-scope-defining-%E2%80%98small%E2%80%99-tsca-entities
-
(ACC Mentioned) Pruitt Avoids Specifics on Chemical Security Issues as CRA Action Urged
Jan 27, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
EPA Administrator nominee Scott Pruitt avoided specific answers to questions about tougher regulatory policies for high-risk chemical facilities, according to documents released by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's top Democrat Jan. 25.
But industry groups continue to battle against a pending Environmental Protection Agency rule for safety information sharing.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the panel's ranking member, asked Pruitt if “the burden should be on a chemical facility operator to show that the design and operation of the facility is as safe as possible to protect workers and the public from explosions, fires and other releases of toxic chemicals.”
A related EPA rulemaking to place new information sharing and safety auditing requirements on certain chemical facilities (RIN:2050-AG82) has drawn sharp opposition from Pruitt, industry groups and Republican lawmakers, who have called for its withdrawal.
Carper's question appeared to be referring to an inherently-safer technology mandate, a proposal favored by some advocacy groups that would require high-risk facilities to evaluate their processes, identify ways to improve safety and shift to those methods if possible.
Pruitt responded, “I believe that every American should be provided safe home and work environments and people who live or work in and around chemical facilities are no exception to that.”
Asked if chemical companies should take actions to prevent explosions and fires when feasible measures exist, Pruitt said companies “should take actions to prevent explosions and fires as well as other safety incidents.” But he declined to specify what actions companies should take under under what circumstances they should do so.
Even for safer technologies or chemicals that are feasible for plants to switch to, Pruitt wrote, companies should consider if the changes “improve safety in one area but shift risks to create new and potentially more serious concerns,” Pruitt wrote.
Letter Targets RMP Rule
Industry groups—with Pruitt's support—are also pressuring congressional leaders to rescind the EPA regulation through the Congressional Review Act. In a letter Jan. 25, 21 industry groups including the Agricultural Retailers Association, American Chemistry Council, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute and others urged lawmakers to cancel the rule.
The rule “not only imposes significant new costs without identifying or quantifying the safety benefits that will be achieved through these new requirements, it may actually compromise the security of our facilities, emergency responders and our communities,” said the letter, which was sent to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
The regulation has already been targeted on a list released by the conservative House Freedom Caucus, and Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) has said he expects it to be blocked.
The letter added the current regulations already promote safety “and will continue to drive continuous safety improvements.”
In proposing the rule last month, Mathy Stanislaus, then the EPA's assistant administrator for land and emergency management, noted that more than 1,500 accidents were reported at facilities in the program in the past 10 years, “causing nearly 60 deaths.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=104711518&vname=dennotallissues&fn=104711518&jd=104711518
-
Court Set to Dismiss Monsanto Suit to Block Prop. 65 Listing of Glyphosate
Jan 27, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
A California court is set to dismiss Monsanto Co.'s lawsuit to block the state from listing glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, as a carcinogen under Proposition 65 Monsanto Co. v. OEHHA, Cal. Super. Ct., No. 16CECG00183, tentative ruling 1/26/17.
California Superior Court Judge Kristi Culver Kapetan intends to grant OEHHA's motion to dismiss the complaint at Jan. 27 hearing in Fresno.
Filed a year ago, the complaint is the first constitutional challenge to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment regulations for implementing the “labor code” listing process under Proposition 65, officially called the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. The administrative process allows OEHHA to add chemicals to the list, by reference, hazardous chemicals identified in Labor Code Section 6582 and, also by reference, any substances the International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified as human or animal carcinogens.
Monsanto and intervenor plaintiff California Citrus Mutual failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, the judge said in a July 26 tentative ruling.
“The court also intends to deny leave to amend the pleadings, as there does not appear to be any chance that Monsanto or California Citrus can amend their complaints to state valid claims under any of the theories they rely on,” Culver Kapetan said in the tentative ruling.
Monsanto to Fight Decision
“We disagree with the Court's tentative ruling, which is not final, and we will continue to fight the decision on the basis of sound science and the law,” Monsanto told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.
“Regulators around the world, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the State of California itself, have determined that glyphosate does not cause cancer,” the company said. “The agency's flawed and baseless proposal to list glyphosate under Proposition 65 not only contradicts California's own scientific assessment, but it also violates the California and U.S. Constitutions.”
OEHHA launched the effort to administratively list glyphosate in September 2015. The listing process restricts comments to only whether the chemical meets the requirements for the labor code mechanism.
Protection Under Proposition 65
If it becomes final, the ruling “will protect consumers, farm workers and the environment the way Proposition 65 was intended to do,” Ryan Berghoff, a legal fellow with the Center for Food Safety, told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail. The center joined the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council in intervening on behalf of OEHHA.
“The court's tentative ruling states that it is not unconstitutional for a state agency with limited resources to refer to independent scientific experts to help guide policy decisions that protect Californians and the environment,” Berghoff said.
While a state appellate court has already upheld the “labor code” mechanism to update the Proposition 65 list, it didn't consider the constitutional concerns, Monsanto said in the complaint.
OEHHA unconstitutionally delegated its authority by allowing the International Agency for Research on Cancer to determine which chemicals are added to the list, the company alleged. The labor code process also violates due process clauses of the California and U.S. constitutions because it lacks procedural safeguards to guard against an arbitrary decision by the international organization, Monsanto said.
Other constitutional claims alleged unlawful amendment of the California constitution and that the listing would violate the company's right to free speech because it would require Proposition 65 warnings.
The court also intends to grant demurrers the intervening defendants filed to Monsanto's complaint.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=104711512&vname=dennotallissues&fn=104711512&jd=104711512
-
US Retailer Target To Eliminate PFCs, Phthalates, Parabens
Jan 27, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
US retailer Target plans to phase out phthalates, flame retardants, perfluorinated chemicals and parabens from a variety of product categories in both its own brands and the products it sells. The announcement is part of the company's new chemicals policy that will also require its suppliers to provide full ingredient disclosure for some product categories.
The policy comes shortly after it named removing 'unwanted chemicals' from products among its 2020 responsible sourcing aspirations.
Its first goals under the programme are:chemical management: removing perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) and potentially carcinogenic or harmful flame retardants from textiles – including such products as clothing, carpets and upholstered furniture – by 2022. And, eliminating phthalates, NPEs, propyl-paraben, butyl-paraben, formaldehyde and formaldehyde-donors from all beauty, baby care, personal care and cleaning products by 2020. The initial goal covers only the latter products' formulations, but may be extended to their packaging;transparency: for suppliers to disclose all chemical ingredients to Target – including fragrances – in beauty, baby care, personal care, and cleaning products by 2020; andinnovation: investing up to $5m in green chemistry innovation by 2022.
Jennifer Silberman, chief sustainability officer, described the strategy as "one of the most comprehensive in the US retail industry, including all Target-owned and national brand products and operations, not just formulated products." And by using its "size, scale and expertise" it expects to make significant progress.Chemicals policy
The company says it set its chemical management goals around addressing unwanted chemicals with the biggest potential health impact. This included consideration of how prevalent they are in products, and which product categories are priorities to consumers.
Beyond specific substance phase-outs, Target's broader chemicals management policy calls for working with business partners to implement policies and practices that "facilitate the management of chemicals through the supply chain and across our operations."
This will include using hazard profiles to prioritise substances for restriction in products and processes, with an emphasis on identifying which have the greatest impact on workers and customers.
Full transparency of ingredients between Target and its brands, said Ms Silberman, is an essential part of the process in order to identify where substances of concern occur. A long-term goal is full material disclosure across all products and processes across its operations.Changes and innovation
Target also recognises that safer alternatives may not be readily available for all necessary applications, which is why it included the 'innovation' investment of up to $5m.
"Safer alternatives may not exist today, so therefore we are absolutely committed to pursuing new approaches to chemical development," Ms Silberman told Chemical Watch.
While the company is continuing to explore projects and partners to work with, it has already begun this work with the Green Chemistry and Commerce Council's (GC3) Preservatives Challenge, and has been having productive conversations with possible partners, said Ms Silberman.
"Innovation in this space needs a lot of resources and needs a lot of vested interest, and it's our commitment to ensure that we're looking at the full value chain of how safer alternatives can be created" in developing a green chemistry approach.
"Ultimately it's in the best interest for all of our stakeholders to have the greatest amount of alternatives", added Ms Silberman, "which is part of the reason why we felt the innovation goal was essential to expedite and catalyse that investment".
Mike Schade, Mind the Store campaign manager at NGO Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, told Chemical Watch that Target's new commitments have made "important improvements that up the ante for the entire retail sector”. He hopes its efforts will "help drive a race to the top among the nation's largest retailers".
He added that retailers investing in green chemistry "can help accelerate the transition" to healthier products.
https://chemicalwatch.com/52447/us-retailer-target-to-eliminate-pfcs-phthalates-parabens
-
Jan 27, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.
Bellevue, WA – Today, investors and consumers will ask Costco at its annual shareholder meeting to improve its efforts to tackle toxic chemicals. The group will deliver over 35,000 signed petitions from Costco members and consumers across the country who are concerned about the company’s lack of a comprehensive safer chemicals policy. Both investors and consumers want the Issaquah-based company to develop a robust safer chemicals policy and to provide specific details on the company’s recently announced initiative to address toxic chemicals in its products.
Costco recently received an “F” in a ranking of big retailers’ efforts to address toxic chemicals in consumer products. The report, “Who’s Minding the Store? — A Report Card on Retailer Actions to Eliminate Toxic Chemicals,” assigned grades based on publicly available information about retailer chemical policies and self-reported information concerning retailer practices. Costco competitors Walmart (and Sam’s Club) and Target received the highest grades with “B’s”.
After publication of the report card, Costco for the first time publicly disclosed that the company has developed a Costco Restricted Chemical List and “Chemical Screening Program”. However, the company has offered few details on the chemicals or products it addresses. In contrast, yesterday Target announced a new chemical policy and specific goals to remove chemicals, including phthalates, perfluorinated chemicals, and toxic flame retardants, from products.
Karen Bowman, a concerned nurse will attend the company’s annual meeting on behalf of Harrington Investments to ask Costco management to improve its practices. Bowman said “Costco is a company with a reputation for great prices and customer loyalty. It’s enjoyed huge growth over the last decade. That’s why it is disappointing Costco is failing to meet the rising consumer demand for safer products and lagging behind Walmart and other competitors.”
Bowman continued, “As a nurse, I know the price we pay in health care costs for diseases linked to toxic chemicals like toxic flame retardants, phthalates, and bisphenol A. Costco has enormous purchasing power to give consumers lower prices. It should also use this power to give consumers protection from toxic chemicals in furniture, apparel, and other products. It’s our hope that Costco will develop a safer chemicals policy, publicly disclose the chemicals on its restricted substances list, and set public quantifiable goals to reduce and eliminate chemicals of concern.”
John Harrington, President of Harrington Investments, said, “Companies should switch from toxic to safer chemicals just as they’re switching from fossil fuels to renewables – it’s good for business. As an industry leader, Costco should extend that leadership by setting an example through the adoption of a safer chemicals policy.”
http://saferchemicals.org/newsroom/investors-and-consumers-demand-action-from-costco-on-toxic-chemicals/
-
Legality of Electronic Products Addressed by EU Proposal
Jan 27, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Commission Jan. 26 proposed to amend the European Union's Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive to remove provisions that could result in certain electrical and electronic products, and product spare parts, becoming illegal on the EU market.
The commission, the EU's executive arm, said that without the amendments, certain medical devices and monitoring and control equipment would no longer be permitted on the EU market after July 22, 2019. After the same date, some spare parts could also be considered illegal unless action is taken, the commission said.
The Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS Directive, 2011/65/EU) prohibits cadmium, hexavalent chromium, lead, mercury and some brominated flame retardants from 11 categories of electrical and electronic products, including household appliances, consumer electronics, tools, lighting equipment and medical devices.
The directive's objective is to make it easier to recycle or reuse electrical and electronic equipment by ensuring that the hazardous substances do not have to be extracted at the waste stage.
’Unintended Effects’
The EU adopted the first RoHS Directive in 2002. It was revised in 2011 and its scope was extended to new categories of product, including medical devices and monitoring and control equipment.
The commission said devices in these categories, which were put onto the market under the first RoHS directive, but which do not comply with the 2011 revision of the directive, are subject to the July 22, 2019, cutoff date, after which the products would be illegal in the EU.
These were “unintended effects” that would prevent resale and continued use of certain products, the commission said.
A lack of precision in the RoHS Directive would also mean that after July 22, 2019, an exemption from the substance restrictions for spare parts for some categories of electrical and electronic goods would come to an end, the commission said.
This would lead to an “unjustified difference in treatment” compared to spare parts that RoHS does specify as being subject to a continuing exemption, the commission said.
Loopholes Closed
The commission said its proposed revision would also close a loophole under which “non-road mobile machinery made available exclusively for professional use” is exempted from RoHS if it has an “on-board power source,” but is not exempted if it has to be connected to an external power supply. The revision would extend the exemption to all types of professional non-road mobile machinery.
The revision would also create an exemption from RoHS for pipe organs.
The commission said the changes to the RoHS Directive to ensure continued use and re-use of certain equipment and spare parts would prevent more than 3,000 metric tons of hazardous waste per year, while EU hospitals would save 170 million euros ($182 million) after 2019 because they would be able to continue to buy and sell used equipment.
The changes to the RoHS Directive must be accepted by the European Parliament and EU member countries before they can take effect.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=104711495&vname=dennotallissues&fn=104711495&jd=104711495
-
PA-Commissioned Study Finds Appalachian Basin Has Room For Four More Crackers
Jan 26, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Pennsylvania will soon release a study it commissioned that shows the Appalachian Basin is uniquely positioned to compete in the global petrochemicals market, with enough ethane available to support up to four more ethane crackers in addition to Shell Chemical Appalachia LLC's planned facility.
While enthusiasm and optimism has surrounded Shell's plans for a world-scale cracker in Western Pennsylvania, Gov. Tom Wolf's administration wanted hard facts about the true potential of the facility and data to support a long-term development strategy for the opportunities it might create, said Denise Brinley, special assistant to the secretary of the Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED). The state commissioned IHS Markit to conduct a study examining how competitive the region can be in petrochemicals manufacturing, she told a crowd on Thursday at Hart Energy’s Marcellus-Utica Midstream conference in Pittsburgh.
"Our conclusion to all this data is we're sitting in a premiere spot right now, and we can produce products cheaper and transport them cheaper than pretty much anyone else in the world," Brinley said, referring to leading markets for polyethylene in the Midwest, East Coast, Western Europe and Eastern China.
Shell announced last year its intent to move forward with a multi-billion dollar ethane cracker in Beaver County that would be capable of producing 1.5 million metric tons/year (mmty) of ethylene and 1.6 mmty of polyethylene. The region, Shell has said, is within 700 miles of about 70% of the nation’s targeted plastics manufacturers.
Pennsylvania’s study must be finalized, and the state expects to release it in the coming weeks. But Brinley shared some key findings during her presentation at the conference.
Brinley said the study found that there is more than enough ethane to support other crackers in the basin. Those could compete for overseas market share with foreign companies, some of which operate costlier facilities that use other petroleum-based products such as naphtha to produce olefins.
"IHS Markit is projecting that there is room for two more crackers in the Marcellus, this does not include the Utica," she told the audience. "I don't have the Utica graphic for you today, but we're looking at an additional two in the Utica. So we have enough ethane to support up to four additional world-scale crackers in this region. We need to pay attention to that."
When it comes to infrastructure, however, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia need more of it, according to the study. While the region has adequate processing capacity to separate natural gas liquids (NGL) and natural gas, it needs more fractionation capacity to separate those liquids further. Underground storage is grossly insufficient in the basin, especially if a growing petrochemical industry and the midstream expect to operate stably. The study estimates that the region needs 3.5-7.5 million bbl of liquids storage to foster more development. Currently, there is no underground liquids storage in the region.
Only one storage project has been announced. Mountaineer NGL Storage LLC said last year that it received requests for more than three times its initial planned capacity in Ohio during a nonbinding open season. Mountaineer now plans to offer up to 2 million bbl of initial storage capacity with more than 40,000 b/d of load-in and load-out capacity.
The study also found that de-ethanization capacity is lacking and more y-grade pipelines are needed to get products to market. Once it’s published, Brinley said the DCED plans to develop an internal strategy to support resource development. It would then work on spreading a message about the region's viability as a petrochemical hub.
Ethane is a major part of the gas stream in Appalachia, accounting for more than 50% of the typical NGL barrel there. Speakers at the conference said producers nationwide are currently rejecting 500,000-600,000 b/d of ethane into the gas stream. But that's expected to change in short order.
The Energy Information Administration said earlier this month that ethane production could rise from 1.25 million b/d in 2016 to 1.7 million b/d in 2018 as more petrochemical facilities consume it and new export facilities in Texas and Pennsylvania increase their overseas shipments. Global chemicals demand is expected to increase as well.
"Part of the growth in ethane will simply be recovering what's already being rejected and putting it to beneficial use in crackers that are being built in the Gulf Coast region and crackers being built here in Pennsylvania, as well as exports," said Stuart Nance, vice president of marketing for Reliance Holding USA Inc., a subsidiary of the India-based conglomerate Reliance Industries Ltd.Reliance operates the world's largest refinery in India and has a significant integrated petrochemicals business. It has committed to source ethane from the Gulf Coast for use in three crackers in India.
Four other crackers have been proposed for Ohio and West Virginia. Braskem SA, the petrochemical affiliate of Brazilian construction firm Odebrecht SA, has proposed a facility similar to Shell's for West Virginia, but the company put plans on hold during the commodities downturn in 2015. Thailand state-owned petrochemical and refining company PTT Global Chemical pcl is expected to make a final investment decision this year about a world-scale cracker in Belmont County, OH. Two smaller-sized facilities proposed by Appalachian Resins Inc. in Ohio and Aither Chemicals LLC in West Virginia have been suspended indefinitely.
The Gulf Coast accounts for two-thirds of North America's ethylene output, or 28 mmty, said Director of Integrated Oil and Gas Research at Stratas Advisors Greg Haas. While the Gulf Coast retains an advantage with its supply, customer base, skilled labor and lower construction costs, the abundance of ethane bodes well for the nascent Appalachian petrochemicals industry.
It wasn't always the case, but at about 17 cents/gallon, ethane currently costs a fraction of the naphtha benchmark, which typically follows oil prices.
"We've built in optionality and flexibility to use ethane as a feedstock and import it from the United States," Nance said. "Right now, the cost advantage is significant versus naphtha. We feel like it's going to be a great advantage for our existing petrochemical business."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109192-pa-commissioned-study-finds-appalachian-basin-has-room-for-four-more-crackers
-
Atlantic Coast Pipeline Reportedly Eyed by Trump Team as High-Priority Infrastructure
Jan 26, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jeremiah Shelor
After signaling its support for the controversial Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, the Trump administration may be looking to fast track the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) as well.
ACP has showed up on the Trump team's working list of the nation's high priority infrastructure projects, according to a document obtained by the McClatchy network of news organizations. The unofficial list, reportedly part of an information-gathering process for a potential infrastructure investment program, is made up primarily of transportation projects, with ACP and the Alaska Pipeline and LNG Project being the only oil and gas items.
The report of the infrastructure list comes as the Trump administration announced an executive order Tuesday to "[expedite] environmental reviews and approvals for high priority infrastructure projects."
"...Too often, infrastructure projects in the United States have been routinely and excessively delayed by agency processes and procedures," the order says. "These delays have increased project costs and blocked the American people from the full benefits of increased infrastructure investments, which are important to allowing Americans to compete and win on the world economic stage."
ACP spokesman Aaron Ruby told NGIThursday that the pipeline and its lead developer Dominion can't comment on the reported infrastructure list since it's unverified. Ruby did, however, say that ACP is "encouraged" by signs that the Trump administration is making energy infrastructure a priority.
"The administration has very clearly and powerfully expressed a sense of urgency to rebuild the nation's energy infrastructure, and the Atlantic Coast Pipeline plays a major role in that. So we welcome the administration's commitment," Ruby said. "We're very encouraged by the executive actions taken in recent days, and now we're going to work with the administration on the next important steps."
Whether ACP's review process will be expedited as a result of recent executive actions remains to be seen. Dominion already pushed back the target in-service date for the 600-mile, 1.5 Bcf/d pipeline from 4Q2018 to sometime in 2019 as it awaits a FERC decision on its certificate application.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission released the project's draft environmental impact statement on the last business day of 2016 and will be accepting comments on that document through April 6.
ACP, which would run through West Virginia, Virginia and North Carolina to connect Appalachian Basin natural gas to heating and electric generation demand in the Southeast, is a joint venture of Dominion, Duke Energy and Southern Company Gas.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109189-atlantic-coast-pipeline-reportedly-eyed-by-trump-team-as-high-priority-infrastructure
-
Battle Building Around Portland, Ore., Oil Terminal Ban
Jan 27, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky
Conservation groups intervened Jan. 25 in support of a Portland, Ore., ordinance prohibiting new bulk fossil fuel terminals over 2 million gallons and the expansion of existing ones after a coalition of oil companies, labor unions and business groups moved to invalidate it (Columbia Pac. Bldg. Trades Council v. City of Portland, Or. LUBA, No. 2017-001, motion filed 1/6/17).
The ordinance declares that fossil fuels are “major contributors to climate change and pollution.” Its passage in December likely forecloses Oregon's largest seaport as a gateway for the export to Asia of Bakken crude oil and any moves to increase capacity at existing petroleum terminals in the city, including BP West Coast, Chevron, Phillips 66, Equilon/Shell and Kinder Morgan, according to a Portland planning bureau map.
The legal battle to overturn the ordinance takes on added significance as progressive local governments and activists seeking to fight anticipated Trump administration de-regulation turn to authorities such as zoning codes and state statutes to stop the development of fossil-fuel infrastructure.
The coalition fighting the ordinance—which includes the Western States Petroleum Association, the nation's oldest oil industry trade group—filed a notice of intent to appeal Jan. 4. A substantive brief making arguments on the coalition's legal theory and citing authorities is not expected before mid-March at the earliest. That's when the coalition will file a petition for review to the state Land Use Board of Appeals.
‘Beyond the Reach of Trump’
Steven G. Liday of Miller Nash Graham & Dunn's Portland office, counsel for the coalition, declined to comment Jan. 25 on his legal strategy such as whether arguments would include federal preemption, constitutional claims such as a Commerce Clause grounding or state statute provisions.
“Portland took a very measured approach to this ordinance,” Lauren Goldberg, staff attorney for intervenor Columbia Riverkeeper, told Bloomberg BNA in a Jan. 26 telephone interview. Portland, after conducting extensive analysis and listening sessions with stakeholders including the petitioners, “heard overwhelmingly from constituents that there are significant concerns around climate, public safety and environmental impacts from fossil fuel projects,” Goldberg said.
Riverkeeper Conservation Director Dan Serres said the groups didn't think the fossil fuel industry would allow such ordinances to proceed without a fight.
“The appeal shows that this is the type of action that matters to the fossil fuel industry,” Serres said. “Other cities that are concerned about climate change should seriously consider something similar. This is an example of one of the many realms of action that should be beyond the reach of the Trump administration.”
‘No Caution Flags’
The petroleum association declined comment referring Bloomberg BNA to the Columbia Pacific Building Trades Council, which did not return a call for comment.
Portland Deputy City Attorney Lauren King said Jan. 26 that she could not comment on pending litigation.
Portland Mayor Charlie Hales told Bloomberg BNA in December that there were “no caution flags from our city attorneys about this. One of the fundamental authorities of cities is our zoning codes. It's a bedrock power of local government to zone.”
Hales sponsored the ordinance before he left office at the end of the year.
The vote was intended to map the path for other cities to take action on climate change “in ways that are completely within the authorities of local government. Everybody has got a zoning code,” Hales said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=104711508&vname=dennotallissues&fn=104711508&jd=104711508
-
Keystone and Dakota Access Face Hurdles Despite Trump's Blessing
Jan 27, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Meenal Vamburkar
President Donald Trump may have revived prospects for the controversial Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, but the path to their completion still faces hurdles.
While Trump moved to reverse former President Barack Obama's measures that stalled the projects, the companies still have court battles ahead and, for Keystone, an application process that invited litigation and fierce opposition the first time around.
On Jan. 24, Trump invited TransCanada Corp. to reapply for its Keystone XL project and advocated for a swift review of Dakota Access. TransCanada has said it intends to submit an application while Energy Transfer Partners LP, the developer for the Dakota line, has declined to comment publicly since Trump's executive actions.
For the $3.8 billion Dakota Access line, the end may be near, though the timing remains unclear. The case in court, between Energy Transfer and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, will continue. It's likely a hearing could come in the first half of February and a decision in early March, said Brandon Barnes, an analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence.
The presidential memo indicates that the new Secretary of the Army, once appointed, will likely fully reverse the Environmental Impact Statement process the Obama administration began. If that occurs before the court reaches a ruling, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe will likely seek an injunction—which is unlikely to be granted, Barnes said. With nothing stopping Energy Transfer from resuming construction, the project will be completed while the parties continue litigating the case.
Vicki Granado, a spokeswoman for Energy Transfer, didn't immediately respond to phone and e-mail requests for comment.
Nebraska Review
Keystone, however, faces a longer process. The company will reapply for the project, and Trump's memo says the Secretary of State —who has authority over presidential permits for cross-border pipelines—should reach a permitting decision within 60 days.
The $8 billion line that would take crude from Canada's oil sands to Gulf of Mexico refineries encountered hurdles along the way before being denied by Obama, particularly in Nebraska. Landowners in the pipeline's path sued TransCanada, challenging the underlying laws leading to the selection of the route. Eventually, the company surrendered to a review by Nebraska's Public Service Commission instead of waging further court battles—shortly before Obama's rejection.
TransCanada will encounter landowner resistance this time too, said Jane Kleeb, president of Bold Alliance, which was previously Bold Nebraska. Kleeb, who was a prominent opponent of Keystone, said the group is ready to fight it again.
Prepared for Trump
“We were prepared for Donald Trump to make this move,” she said. “It doesn't catch us off guard.“
Trump's actions only affect the presidential permit, said Jim Rubin, a partner at law firm Dorsey & Whitney LLP in Washington. Crossing public and private land and waterways all require permitting and may be subject to judicial review, he said.
“You can be sure that the folks that don't like the pipeline are going to challenge it through local means,” Rubin said.
TransCanada spokesman Terry Cunha said the company will need to submit a new application to Nebraska's PSC. And going through this normal approval process—while it's slightly longer and open to public comment—will likely be easier for the company, said Bloomberg Intelligence's Barnes.
“What tripped them up is they were trying a little bit of a shortcut,” he said. But nonetheless, “they have plenty of process left in front of them.”
—With assistance from Dave Merrill.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=104711503&vname=dennotallissues&fn=104711503&jd=104711503
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Makes 11th-Hour Push For Congress To Kill RMP Rule Under CRA
Jan 26, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
A host of industry groups are making an 11th-hour push for lawmakers to pursue a Congressional Review Act (CRA) disapproval resolution to undo EPA's rule overhauling its Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility safety regulation, vying to push the rule onto a short-list of Obama-era rules lawmakers will target with the rarely-used step.
In a Jan. 25 letter to congressional leaders, 21 trade associations including the American Chemistry Council, the American Petroleum Institute and the National Association of Manufacturers charge EPA's final rule fails to improve safety and increases risks that facilities will become a target for terrorists.
“The final RMP rule not only imposes significant new costs without identifying or quantifying the safety benefits that will be achieved through these new requirements, it may actually compromise the security of our facilities, emergency responders, and our communities,” the industry letter says. “For these reasons, we believe it is appropriate that Congress disapprove the final RMP rule under the Congressional Review Act.”
The letter comes after a top House Republican indicated that the rule may not have made it onto the shortlist of Obama era-rules that Congress will seek to repeal under the law.
The CRA, enacted during the Clinton administration, allows Congress to pass disapproval resolutions on simple majority votes in the House and Senate to reverse discretionary rules promulgated within 60 legislative days of their actions, allowing lawmakers to bypass the Senate filibuster. For the rules to be repealed, the disapproval resolutions must be signed by the president.
The law, which has only been used successfully once, bars agencies from pursuing rules substantially similar to regulations scrapped by the CRA.
Industry officials have long faulted EPA's plans for overhauling RMP as costly, unnecessary and potentially dangerous. While the letter formalizes the groups' push for a CRA resolution against the rule, industry sources have acknowledged the Republican Congress may bypass RMP given competing priorities for a CRA resolutions.
In a Jan. 24 Wall Street Journal op-ed, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) described several non-EPA rules as topping the list of CRA targets: the Labor Department's blacklisting rule, the Interior Department's stream protection rule and methane emissions rule, a disclosure rule from the Securities and Exchange Commission and a gun regulation from the Social Security Administration.
But McCarthy also said, “In the weeks to come, the House and Senate will use the Congressional Review Act to repeal as many job-killing and ill-conceived regulations as possible.”
Press reports indicate that Congress could begin consideration of disapproval resolutions as soon as next week.
Litigation Option
If lawmakers do not undo the rule via a CRA disapproval resolution, it will be up to the Trump administration to eliminate or revise it.
Industry sources have already said that groups will likely challenge the rule in federal court if their push for a CRA resolution fails, though that would have to wait until the rule takes effect.
The RMP rule is one of 30 rules for which EPA has delayed implementation until at least March 21 to allow the Trump administration time for review.
The Obama EPA Jan. 13 issued its final rule updating its RMP facility safety program, as part of a broad federal effort to implement President Obama's August 2013 Executive Order 13650 on improving the safety and security of industrial plants issued in the wake of a fertilizer facility explosion in West, TX, that killed 15 people, including first responders.
Industry trade groups representing the chemical and other sectors submitted critical comments on EPA's March proposed version of the rule, arguing new provisions requiring third-party audits, safer alternatives analysis and public release of facility data, increased regulatory burdens without improving safety.
EPA's final rule, however, codified many of the proposed changes, though the agency did scale back some requirements for sharing data with the public after state officials raised security concerns, including Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R), President Donald Trump's nominee to head the agency.
In the letter to Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Charles Schumer (D-NY), and Reps. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), the industry groups argue that the existing RMP regulation is adequate and that new requirements discount security concerns raised by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and encroach on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's jurisdiction over risks to workers.
The letter says that DHS “repeatedly raised security concerns” during the White House Office of Management and Budget's review of the RMP rule. And the groups argue that the Department of Justice has found “that terrorists have considered using chemical releases from facilities as a weapon.”
The industry groups specifically target new requirements for certain facilities to conduct third-party audits and analyze whether alternative chemicals or processes would make facilities safer as costly changes that have not been shown to make facilities safer.
“Our companies routinely go above and beyond regulatory requirements for safety programs, demonstrating a commitment to safety and expending the resources necessary to continually improve safety performance,” the letter says. “The current RMP regulations include requirements that have produced and will continue to drive continuous safety improvements, provide robust protection for our employees and the public, and are not in need of revision.”
The letter comes after industry trade groups Jan. 5 held a conference call weighing options for blocking the rule that was announced Dec. 21. A source who participated on the call has said industry officials acknowledged that RMP faces competing priorities for CRA review, and also discussed a possible legal challenge, though that could not be filed until after the law takes effect.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/industry-makes-11th-hour-push-congress-kill-rmp-rule-under-cra
-
(ACC Mentioned) The EPA’s Latest Chemical Plant Safety Rules: They Sound Good, But…
Jan 27, 2017 | Chem.Info
By Meagan Parrish
Improving safety is always a top priority for chemical manufacturers. But the latest set of chemical plant safety regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency have nonetheless left many wondering if they’ll truly decrease the risk of accidents.
The rules — which were issued in late December and entered into the Federal Registry earlier this month — are part of the Risk Management Program (RMP), and were reportedly inspired by the West Fertilizer Plant explosion in 2013 that killed 15.
However, as Judah Prero, a counsel at Sidley Austin LLP and a former Assistant General Counsel with American Chemistry Council, points out, it’s not clear that these rules would have prevented the West, Texas accident (which was caused by a mix of poor chemical storage practices and arson, according to an investigation by the U.S. Chemical Safety Board).
According to the EPA, the rules aim to:Prevent catastrophic accidents by improving accident prevention program requirements.Enhance emergency preparedness to ensure coordination between facilities and local communities.Improve information access to help the public understand the risks at the facilities.Improve third-party audits at such facilities.
Here are some of the issues with the law that Prero says the EPA may need to more clearly define:Third-Party Audits
This particular piece of the RMP is new. According to Prero, there are two triggers for requiring a third-party audit: Either your plant has had an accident, or you’ve been hit with a non-compliance penalty from a state agency.Sounds good! But…
Outside-the-industry auditors may not know what to look for.
“The difficulty is that facilities under RMP are very diverse,” Prero says. “It’s not realistic to expect an auditor is going to be familiar with that range of facilities.”
That said, Prero admits that an independent set of eyes can sometimes help catch problems someone intimately familiar with the facility might miss.Safety Technology Analysis
To help prevent accidents, the rule now requires that manufacturers be on the lookout for safer technologies that could be employed in their facility.Sounds good! But…
The law doesn’t require that companies buy anything, which takes the teeth out of the rule.
Prero also points out that the definition of “safety” in this context is still vague. For example, if a company decreases the risk of an explosion at their facility by limiting the amount of a certain chemical they’ll hold on site, that then means they have to import more of that dangerous chemical, which in turn shifts the risks to transportation companies. In this case, has that company truly decreased the risk for the public?
As an attorney, Prero also sees the negative impact this provision could have on chemical manufacturers facing lawsuits for safety related issues. Now that the mandate is out there, chemical companies could face negative judgements in litigation situations if they haven’t conducted the required safer technologies assessments. On the other hand, if they did conduct the analysis but didn’t purchase any new technologies — which is not mandated by the law — they could also be judged negatively. It’s a sort of damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation.
Prero says that companies are already frequently on the lookout for safer technologies — either for insurance reasons, industry best practices programs and/or as a company policy.
Enhancing Emergency Preparedness
Prero says that under the new rules, certain facilities will have to communicate and do safety drills with local first responders about once a year.
Sounds good! But…
Results for a regulation like this will obviously vary depending on each community’s economic situation.
“The caveat is that you can provide all the information in the world to local first responders, but if they don’t have support from local governments to respond — such as training, staffing, equipment — what is this going to accomplish in the end?” Prero says.
Bottom line?
Despite the various concerns with the EPA’s new rule, which could prompt changes from the incoming administration or even lawsuits from the industry, Prero advises that company executives get ready to roll up their sleeves and start documenting their compliance measures.
“There’s going to be a general learning curve with the new obligations,” he says. “I think the routine part of it is going to be documenting that you’ve done everything you’re supposed to.”
http://www.chem.info/article/2017/01/epas-latest-chemical-plant-safety-rules-they-sound-good
-
REMSA Unveils 2017 Advocacy Agenda
Jan 26, 2017 | Progressive Railroading
The Railway Engineering-Maintenance Suppliers Association(REMSA) on Tuesday released its three advocacy priorities for 2017.
As part of its agenda for the year, the association will focus on preventing "misguided regulations" from the Surface Transportation Board (STB), REMSA officials said in a press release.
In particular, the association is concerned about the STB's notice of proposed rulemaking on forced access, which would require railroads to give competitors access to their lines. The competing railroad then may choose to operate at below-market rates, REMSA officials said.
"Most alarmingly, this forced access proposal would disrupt network efficiencies, which would limit revenues and discourage sustained investments and maintenance of the rail system," they added.
REMSA also will champion tax reform, including the 45G short-line tax credit. In addition, the association has called for President Donald Trump to nominate "fair-minded" individuals to the STB.
"These individuals should understand the economic principles that shaped the 1980 Staggers Act and still help ensure railroads can earn necessary revenues today," REMSA officials said.http://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_regulation/news/REMSA-unveils-2017-advocacy-agenda--50695
-
What Trump Can and Can’t Do to Dismantle Obama’s Climate Rules
Jan 26, 2017 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport
WASHINGTON — President Trump campaigned on sweeping promises to eliminate former President Barack Obama’s major environmental regulations and “get rid of” the Environmental Protection Agency. On Tuesday, Mr. Trump offered a down payment on those promises, with memorandums clearing the path to construction of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access oil pipelines. He is expected to roll back a few more rules, including some on coal production, in the next few weeks.
Although dismantling Mr. Obama’s most far-reaching climate regulations can be done, it will take legal acumen and a lot of time – perhaps longer than a single presidential term. Here’s a look at what Mr. Trump can and can’t do, and how quickly, to roll back environmental regulations.Coal mining on federal lands
A year ago, Mr. Obama incited the coal industry’s rage with a stroke-of-the-pen executive action banning new leasing of coal mines on public lands. Mr. Trump has the same authority to undo the ban.
“That was Obama hitting the pause button, and Trump can unpause it,” said Richard J. Lazarus, a professor of environmental law at Harvard University. “Anything that was done without a lot of process up front can be undone without much process.”Continue reading the main storyThe Trump White HouseStories on the presidential transition and the forthcoming Trump administration.Affordable Care Act Enrollment Ads Yanked in Sign Trump Wants Law CrippledJAN 27Trump Called National Park Chief Over Twitter Post on Inaugural CrowdJAN 26Trump’s Immigration Order Expands the Definition of ‘Criminal’JAN 26Trump Will Call for a Pentagon Plan to Hit ISIS Harder, Officials SayJAN 26Trump on Their Side, Conservatives See Hope in Lengthy Abortion FightJAN 26
See More »
However, it’s not clear how much impact this move would have on jobs or the environment. It affects only mines in Wyoming and Montana, where coal companies had for years shed jobs because of increased automation and declining coal demand.Limits on mountaintop-removal coal mining
“This one is low-hanging fruit,” said Mr. Lazarus of a new coal mining regulation. On Jan. 19, the day before Mr. Trump took office, the Obama administration completed a rule to reduce mountaintop-removal coal mining, which uses explosives to blast off the tops of coal-seamed mountains. Coal companies oppose the rule, which prohibits them from using the technique near streams that could be polluted by the resulting rubble.
The rule will probably be undone quickly. Under the 1996 Congressional Review Act, Congress can scrap new regulations within 60 legislative days of being completed, by a simple 51-vote majority in the Senate. While the law has been used successfully only once in its 20-year history, it is expected to enjoy a newfound prominence soon. The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell of coal-rich Kentucky, has already vowed to use the act to undo what he calls “this regulatory assault on coal country.” With the support of all 52 Republicans and probably Senator Joe Manchin III, a West Virginia Democrat, as well, the rollback of this rule is expected to be on Mr. Trump’s desk within weeks.Regulation on methane emissions
In November, the Interior Department completed a rule reining in the venting of methane, a potent planet-warming greenhouse gas, from oil and gas drilling facilities. Oil and gas companies called the rule expensive and burdensome. Like the mountaintop-mining rule, this one falls into the 60-day window allowing Congress to quickly overturn it with a 51-vote majority It is expected that the fossil fuel industry’s allies in the Senate will quickly push to do so.Rolling back vehicle fuel economy standards
While it can’t be done quickly, there is a clear legal path for the Trump administration to undo one of the hallmarks of Mr. Obama’s climate change policies: a 2011 regulation requiring automakers to build fleets of cars by 2025 that achieve an average fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon. The rule, jointly issued by the E.P.A. and the Transportation Department, would force manufacturers to build next-generation electric cars. It could reduce carbon emissions by about six billion tons, equivalent to removing a little more than the United States’ emissions of carbon pollution for an entire year.
But the rule came with a loophole: a provision inserted by automakers to revisit it in 2017 if they found it too onerous. Just before Mr. Obama left office, the E.P.A. released a finding that the rule was not too costly for automakers to meet. But it did not do so jointly with the Transportation Department, leaving a legal avenue for the Trump administration to loosen the standards through that agency.
The chief executives of the biggest auto companies have already asked Mr. Trump to do just that, in a meeting with him this week. While Mr. Trump did not offer specifics, he did tell the automakers that he plans to ease their regulatory burden.
“It’s not something that can be done with the stroke of a pen,” said Jeffrey Holmstead, a former senior E.P.A. official in President George W. Bush’s administration who has been mentioned as a possible deputy E.P.A. administrator in Mr. Trump’s presidency. “It would likely take a year or 18 months. But it’s not a heavy lift, from a legal perspective.”Rewriting regulations on climate change
The centerpiece of Mr. Obama’s climate change policy is a 2015 E.P.A. rule curbing greenhouse gas emissions from electric utilities. It could shutter and replace hundreds of coal plants with wind and solar plants. Mr. Trump has vowed to eliminate the rule, but doing so could require years of court battles. He would also be required by law to come up with an alternate regulation.
Mr. Obama’s climate rule has already been challenged in a federal court, where it is awaiting a verdict. It is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Trump administration could refuse to defend the Obama rule in court, but environmental groups could continue to argue in its favor. Meanwhile, the Trump E.P.A. would have to create its own presumably more industry-friendly regulation, which could take about 18 months. But that rule would then assuredly be subject to a federal lawsuit, which itself would probably be appealed to the Supreme Court. In one possible but bizarre outcome, both the Obama climate rule and the Trump climate rule could spend years wending their way through the same courts.
“There are a number of ways this could play out as it goes through the courts, and it could take at least four to five years,” said Richard Revesz, director of the American Law Institute at New York University. “Ultimately, what happens to it will likely be determined by the results of the 2020 presidential election.”Social cost of carbon
This obscure but powerful metric was created by Mr. Obama’s economists to put a measurable price, $36 per ton, on damage inflicted by carbon pollution. Mr. Obama’s E.P.A. plugged the social cost of carbon into formulas to create an economic justification for regulations that impose a measurable cost on polluters. By reducing or eliminating this metric, Mr. Trump’s regulators could create an economic rationale to undo those rules and replace them with relaxed, industry-friendly ones.Waters of the United States
Mr. Obama received angry resistance from rural America over his controversial “Waters of the United States” regulation. It was released in 2015 under the authority of the 1972 Clean Water Act, which gave the federal government broad latitude to limit pollution in major water bodies, like the Chesapeake Bay, the Mississippi River and Puget Sound, as well as small streams and wetlands that drain into those larger waters. But groups like the American Farm Bureau Federation called the rule a land grab, and Mr. Trump has vowed to get rid of it.
Mr. Trump’s E.P.A. could revoke the rule. But it would be required to create a new one, venturing into complex legal territory as it tries to redefine the terms of federal waterways and wetlands. “That’s not going to be easy,” Mr. Holmstead said. “I believe they can do it, but it’s likely to take several years.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/us/politics/donald-trump-climate-epa.html
-
Climate Change a ‘Non-Problem,’ Trump EPA Appointee Says
Jan 27, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
A Trump administration appointee to the EPA called climate change a “non-problem” and got into a testy exchange with the audience at a conservative think tank's Jan. 26 panel discussion.
David Kreutzer, a Heritage Foundation economist who is a part of the Trump transition team, said he opposes any government regulation of carbon dioxide because he believes “we're not headed toward a catastrophe” as a result of climate change.
Kreutzer joined Trump's transition team in December and is staying on temporarily at the Environmental Protection Agency as a special assistant to the administrator. At the start of the discussion, organized by the American Enterprise Institute, he said he was not speaking on behalf of the EPA or the new administration.
Carbon Tax
The panel discussion focused on the question of instituting a tax on carbon dioxide emissions. With Republicans now in control of Congress and the White House, there has been talk of implementing a new tax on carbon in exchange for reducing other taxes and eliminating climate regulations, thus keeping government revenues unchanged.
Though some on the panel said this free-market solution to climate change would be preferable to the government's current approach, others dismissed it as unrealistic. Jeff Holmstead, an attorney at the firm Bracewell who was the top EPA climate official in the George W. Bush administration, said a carbon tax won't work because there is no viable technology yet that would give businesses an alternative to emitting carbon.
Kreutzer disliked the idea of a carbon tax for different reasons, calling it “a costly solution to a non-problem.” He added that no politician of either party would ever vote to reduce other taxes enough to make a carbon tax truly revenue-neutral.
“This is a revenue source and that's why it has legs in Washington,” he said. “I'm not in favor of a revenue-neutral tax because I don't believe it will be revenue neutral. ... If you walk up and down K Street, everyone will want to get their fingers in it.”
‘You're Ignorant’
Some of Kreutzer's comments on the science behind climate change appeared to shock the audience at the Washington headquarters of AEI, an industry-led think tank.
When he said carbon dioxide levels during prehistoric times were higher than they are today, another panelist responded that this predates the emergence of humanity on the planet.
“No humans? So what,” Kreutzer replied.
This comment elicited shocked laughs from the audience, which unsettled Kreutzer.
“You're laughing because you're ignorant,” he said to the crowd.
‘Rewind Button’
After the discussion, Kreutzer told Bloomberg BNA he regretted lashing out.
“If I had a rewind button, I wouldn't have said ‘You're ignorant,’” he said.
But Kreutzer said his opinion on prehistoric carbon levels did not deserve to be derided. “I don't know why that was laughable,” he said.
He refused to answer questions from reporters about his role on the Trump transition team or about upcoming policy decisions at the EPA.
Trump's nominee to lead the agency, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, told Senators he believes the EPA “has an important role when it comes to the regulation of carbon dioxide” and that he would abide by a landmark 2007 Supreme Court decision that found greenhouse gasses can be classified as an air pollutant.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=104711504&vname=dennotallissues&fn=104711504&jd=104711504
-
Senate Democrats Challenge Pruitt’s Environmental Enforcement Record
Jan 26, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Senate Democrats on the Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW) are strengthening their challenge to Scott Pruitt, President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead EPA, seeking to highlight flaws in his record on environmental enforcement.
During a Jan. 24 hearing held by EPW minority leaders, senators asked witnesses to verify examples provided by Pruitt of his environmental enforcement activities during his tenure at the Oklahoma attorney general’s (AG) office, using the witnesses’ responses to argue that Pruitt took credit for several cases initiated by his predecessor in the AG’s office, Drew Edmonson, and in other cases mischaracterized fraud cases as environmental ones.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) said during the hearing that the cases provided by Pruitt largely fell into three categories: cases that were brought by Edmonson and carried over into Pruitt’s tenure; cases of a mechanical, procedural nature such as fish kills; and cases that involved fossil fuel companies but did not have environmental implications and largely centered around fraud or other claims.
“So it’s upside down world for this attorney general who takes credit” for environmental initiatives already underway when he took office following the 2010 election, Whitehouse said in response to testimony from Kelly Foster, the former chief of the environmental protection unit in the Oklahoma AG’s office who is now a senior attorney at the Waterkeeper Alliance. Pruitt drew criticism during his Jan. 18 confirmation hearing for sidelining the unit even while he significantly expanded his office.
Foster testified that Pruitt’s actions on Oklahoma’s efforts to adopt a numeric phosphorus limit for Oklahoma Scenic Rivers, a limit set in 2002 at 0.037 milligrams per liter of total phosphorus, which was approved by EPA and which municipalities had begun incorporating into permits when Pruitt took office, were limited to commissioning an additional study that ultimately delayed implementation of the standard.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) during the hearing asked Foster how many of the cases provided by Pruitt as examples of his environmental record were actually initiated by Edmonson, and Foster cited three so-called fish kill actions.
Lawmakers' Concerns
The hearing coincides with a Jan. 24 letter to Pruitt signed by several Senate Democrats that highlights their concerns following the Jan. 18 hearing, including a lack of environmental policy and enforcement efforts, a failure to fully disclose fundraising from companies and industry groups regulated by EPA, ongoing Open Records Act requests at the AG’s office and an “apparent embrace of ‘alternative facts’ on well-established science.”
The letter charges that the list Pruitt provided of environmental cases and other details about the AG’s environmentally-related budget and workload calculations is “incomplete and misleading,” saying it fails to include all of the cases in which Pruitt has challenged EPA regulations, “took credit for several cases initiated by your predecessor, and claimed that fraud cases against fossil-fuel companies were cases to improve the environmental quality of your state.” The letter is signed by Sens. Whitehouse, Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Edward Markey (D-MA) and Tammy Duckworth (D-IL).
The senators also argue that Pruitt has not yet provided “any evidence that you accomplished anything other than undermining environmental protections that had been in place before you arrived, including a failure to act to protect victims of asthma, water pollution and earthquakes caused by fracking wastewater injection.”
The letter also refreshes concerns raised at the Jan. 18 hearing that are aimed at examining Pruitt’s history with the Republican Attorney Generals’ Association and the Rule of Law Defense Fund, both of which have received donations from companies and industry groups regulated by EPA. The letter seeks a response to the Democrats’ questions for the record submitted to Pruitt following the hearing.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/senate-democrats-challenge-pruitt%E2%80%99s-environmental-enforcement-record
-
Trump Climate Pivot Takes Shape in Overhaul of Federal Websites
Jan 27, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy and Ari Natter
The White House website no longer has a section on climate change. An EPA page that answered “common questions” about global warming is gone. And reports on greenhouse gas emissions have vanished from the State Department's Internet site.
But, six days into the administration of President Donald Trump, most references to climate change and carbon emissions remain on government web pages. And, after a backlash from federal bureaucrats and outside scientists, the administration has softened initial attempts to curtail communications from scientific departments.
“It's natural for new political leadership to want to review anything before it goes out the door,” said Chris Lu, the director of the Obama administration's transition and now a senior fellow at the University of Virginia Miller Center. “But what seems to be happening here may be more pernicious.”
Trump was elected vowing to rescind his predecessor's climate change policies and refocus the Environmental Protection Agency on what the new president described as its core mission of protecting the air and water.
His political staff moved quickly to make changes, both at the EPA and elsewhere: They put a temporary freeze on grant and contract activity at the EPA and clamped down on communications between employees and the press. Post-election climate tweets and posts by federal bureaucrats—which were widely shared on social media—were subsequently removed from the web. Despite reports it would be axed, Trump administration officials have so far maintained a climate change page on the EPA website, while removing other documents, such as the Q&A describing the scientific consensus that humans are contributing to the phenomenon.
The Federal Records Act requires government employees to preserve documents on agency's functions, policies and decisions, but administration officials have wide latitude in how they build and maintain their websites.
Doug Ericksen, a spokesman for Trump's EPA, said the decision to temporarily halt the agency's use of blogs, Twitter and other media was routine.
“We are simply trying to get a handle on everything that is out there,” he said in an interview, noting that the agency has nine blogs, 34 Facebook pages and 37 Twitter accounts. The agency is still putting out press releases in the meantime, but “they are coming out of this office first,” he said.
New Sheriff
To some degree, the Trump changes reflect the changing of the guard in Washington—and illustrate that a new sheriff is in town. The minute Trump was sworn in on Jan. 20, a lean new White House website went up, replacing the Obama-era site built up over eight years. Gone were pages dedicated to climate; in their place came a new “America First Energy Plan.”
Climate change wasn't deleted from the websites, as some claimed; the administration of Barack Obama was. Or, more accurately, moved to ObamaWhiteHouse.archives.gov.
After that, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus issued a halt to pending regulations, and federal employees were counseled to keep quiet.
White House spokesman Sean Spicer said the EPA and Interior Department are taking steps “to address inappropriate use of social media.” But he denied there was any broader mandate from the White House muzzling federal agencies. “There's nothing that's come from the White House—absolutely not,” he said.
The clampdown may reflect that just a few of Trump's cabinet-level appointees have been confirmed and installed at the agencies where they can closely control messaging and strategy. By contrast, seven of Obama's cabinet nominees had been confirmed by the time he was sworn in eight years ago.
A Vacuum
It also reflects the changing use of social media over the past eight years. Twitter was launched in 2006.
“There's a vacuum at these agencies,” said Frank Maisano, a veteran public relations operative at Bracewell in Washington. “And all the new Twitter accounts are a factor we've never dealt with before.”
This is the third digital transition. Former President Bill Clinton launched the first White House website in 1994, and the extent of government information shared online and through social media has exploded since then.
And it can't always be controlled. The Twitter account of Badlands National Park in South Dakota went rogue Jan. 24, publishing a series of climate-related messages that have since been deleted. “Today, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is higher than at any time in the last 650,000 years,” said one.
A National Park Service spokesman said the posts were made by a former employee who still had access to the account.
Wisdom Wednesday
NOAA published a “Wisdom Wednesday” post on its Facebook page, complete with facts about climate change. Later that day, it was deleted.
Some EPA staff members spent the days before Trump's inauguration downloading information from the EPA's climate change pages so that it would be preserved no matter what happened, an agency employee told the Washington Post.
There are statutory limits on what the Trump administration can do—and how quickly it can do it. For instance, regulations compel companies to send data on carbon dioxide emissions to the government's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. The EPA can change those mandates, but that could take years. And the U.S. is obligated to report national emissions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Climate ‘Hoax’
Researchers have been spooked by the president's past description of climate change as a “hoax” and the environmental views of his cabinet nominees. Even before Trump was sworn in, scientists fearing a massive data purge were frantically copying climate data to private servers, in a bid to preserve it. The Sierra Club filed Freedom of Information Act requests seeking a slew of records as a way to protect them.
Researchers are planning to take to the streets, with a “March for Science” in the nation's capital and other U.S. cities to protest Trump. “It is time for scientists, science enthusiasts, and concerned citizens to come together to make ourselves heard!,” according to the march's Facebook page, which has over 115,000 members.
Ultimately, “science will prevail,” said Antonio Busalacchi, president of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research and a veteran of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center.
It “is a very slippery slope,” Busalacchi said in an interview at the American Meteorological Society's annual meeting in Seattle. “Is it temporary? Is it policy? It is too soon to say.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=104711494&vname=dennotallissues&fn=104711494&jd=104711494
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested