Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 2/1/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastic Consumed by Fish Hooks Researchers to Probe Deeper
Feb 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Swallowing small pieces of plastic in water found in lakes, rivers and oceans may harm fish and other aquatic organisms. How harmful is a question that scientists say needs further research. -
(ACC Mentioned) 4 Chemical Stocks Poised to Notch Up Earnings Beat In Q4
Feb 1, 2017 | Zacks (In Nasdaq)
The chemical industry is clawing its way back from the trough of the Great Recession. Despite a spate of headwinds, the highly cyclical industry put up a decent performance last year, helped by continued strength across automotive and housing markets - two major end-use markets for chemicals. -
Pruitt Showdown Set As Democrats Intensify Logjam
Feb 1, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss and Hannah Hess
Senate Republicans may have enough votes to advance U.S. EPA administrator nominee Scott Pruitt in committee, but whether a vote happens today as planned depends on the Democratic minority. -
Trump's 'One For Two' Rule Order May Create Confusion Over EPA Agenda
Feb 1, 2017 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
President Donald Trump's executive order (EO) forcing EPA and other agencies to “identify” two existing rules for withdrawal for every new rule they issue might spur massive regulatory confusion, sources say, because it is likely to complicate development of new rules required by statute and may jeopardize some existing rules that industry groups support. -
Lawmaker To Propose Abolishing EPA
Jan 31, 2017 | The Hill- E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A House Republican is working on legislation that if passed would completely abolish the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). -
White House Looks to Ease Concerns of Rattled EPA Employees
Jan 31, 2017 | The Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder
A top White House adviser is seeking to calm concerns across the Environmental Protection Agency about what policies its leaders may pursue under President Donald Trump, according to a staff memo sent Monday and viewed by The Wall Street Journal. -
(ACC Mentioned) Practitioner Insights: The Peril and Imperative of TSCA Reform
Feb 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tracey Woodruff and Patrice Sutton
In June, former President Barack Obama signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act—an overhaul of the law responsible for regulating the tens of thousands of industrial chemicals in everyday products such as furniture, building materials, cleaning products and toys. -
(ACC Mentioned) Innovation Harmed by EPA's New Chemicals Practices: 3M, Dow
Feb 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA is considering too many potential uses of new chemicals before reaching a decision about whether to allow them onto the market, the Dow Chemical Co. recently told the agency. -
Importers Get More Time to File TSCA Certifications Online
Feb 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The effective date of a final Customs and Border Protection rule giving importers the option to file Toxic Substance Control Act certifications online has been delayed until March 21. -
(ACC Mentioned) Monsanto’s Mind-Meld; Spin Machine in High Gear
Jan 31, 2017 | Huffington Post
By Carey Gillam
Alternative facts, indeed. Less than two weeks into the presidency of Donald Trump it appears we are seeing the ushering in of a new era of twisted truths, fake news, and selective science. That should be good news to the corporate spin doctors who are deep into a campaign now to try to combat global concerns about the world’s favorite weed killer. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Companies: Reform WHO’s ‘Rogue’ IARC Cancer-Designating Agency
Jan 31, 2017 | Genetic Literacy Project
By Kate Kellard
Launching what it called a campaign for accuracy in public health research, the American Chemistry Council, which represents U.S. chemical companies, said the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) evaluations “have a significant impact on U.S. public policy” and should be based on “transparent, thorough assessment of the best available science”. -
(ACC Mentioned) Lanxess Takes World View Of Iron Oxide Pigment Production, Supply
Jan 31, 2017 | Concrete Products
Under a “Trusted partnerships for sustainable growth” theme, the third Lanxess Pigments Symposium took place in Las Vegas as a lead in to the World of Concrete 2017, and provided 100-plus affiliates from around the globe a platform to discuss industry challenges. -
NY Water Tests Find No Industrial Chemical Contamination
Jan 31, 2017 | AP (In The Wall Street Journal)
New York health and environmental regulators say statewide targeted sampling for two cancer-causing industrial chemicals found no new cases of drinking water contamination. -
Army Corps Ordered To Issue Final Dakota Access Pipeline Permit, Two Lawmakers Say
Jan 31, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin and Steven Mufson
The acting secretary of the Army has instructed the Army Corps of Engineers to provide the final permit needed to complete the Dakota Access pipeline, according to two North Dakota GOP lawmakers who support the project. -
House Bill Seeks To Exempt GHGs From Environmental Laws
Feb 1, 2017 | Inside EPA
House Republicans are sharpening their calls to block regulation of greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions with Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL) floating legislation that would explicitly exclude several gases from regulation under multiple environmental laws and scuttle EPA's GHG rules for existing power plants, as well as new and modified oil and gas facilities. -
Senate Energy Committee Advances Zinke, Perry Nominations
Jan 31, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
While Senate Democrats boycotted votes for some of President Trump's other cabinet picks, his nominees to lead the Department of Energy (DOE) and Interior (DOI) sailed through the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Tuesday with bipartisan support. -
News Of 'Imminent' Approval Triggers Tribe, Enviro Backlash
Feb 1, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey
The politics surrounding the Dakota Access pipeline racheted up last night after lawmakers signaled approval was imminent. -
House Passes Cybersecurity Bills
Feb 1, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
Legislation aimed at bolstering U.S. cybersecurity — including election materials — sailed through the House yesterday under suspension of the rules, which fast-tracks noncontroversial measures. -
Cybersecurity Improvements, Rescinding Rules Welcomed by Energy CEOs
Feb 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
Energy industry CEOs said industry-government partnerships to defend against cyber and physical attacks on the electric grid should continue in the new administration. -
Trump Scraps Signing Of Cybersecurity Executive Action
Jan 31, 2017 | The Hill
By Jordan Fabian
President Trump scrapped plans on Tuesday to sign an executive actionlaunching a government-wide cybersecurity overhaul. -
Chao Confirmed As Transportation Secretary
Feb 1, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Camille von Kaenel
Senators today overwhelmingly approved Elaine Chao to lead the Transportation Department. -
Trump Spokesman Skirts Specifics On Climate Actions
Jan 31, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Robin Bravender
White House spokesman Sean Spicer today declined to offer details about the Trump administration's plans to tackle Obama administration climate policies.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastic Consumed by Fish Hooks Researchers to Probe Deeper
Feb 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Swallowing small pieces of plastic in water found in lakes, rivers and oceans may harm fish and other aquatic organisms. How harmful is a question that scientists say needs further research.
The global production of plastics in 2014 was 311 million tons. In 2010 alone, between 4.8-12.7 million metric tons of plastic found their way into our oceans, according to a 2016 United Nations Environment Programme report.
“Plastics in the waterways are increasing. There is reason to believe that these tiny pieces of plastics could have a substantial impact on the natural environment and on the aquatic life,” said Sherri Mason, an environmental chemistry professor at the State University of New York at Fredonia whose research uncovered microplastics inside 25 species of Great Lakes fish including perch and trout.
Mason told Bloomberg BNA the risk of chemical exposure posed to fish by swallowing plastics that adsorb pollutants on their surface like a sponge is something that requires further examination, funding and attention at the national level.
The Environmental Protection Agency's white paper summarizing the latest research on the risks to aquatic life from ingesting plastics provides the national attention the issue warrants, Mason said.
The paper acknowledges the potential for plastics to be a source of contaminants, from both the chemical constituents of the manufactured plastic itself and contaminants sorbed onto the surface of plastics in the aquatic environment. Given this potential, the EPA said “there is growing concern about the toxicological impacts of chemicals associated with plastics on aquatic organisms, as well as, aquatic-dependent wildlife, such as seabirds.”
More Research on Harm
The EPA said the following questions need to be resolved to understand the extent of harm posed by plastic pollution in water:
• To better understand the fate of chemicals both sorbed to and in plastics under differing environment conditions and within an organism after ingestion;
• To research the relative role plastics play in chemical contaminant transfer to the tissues of organisms compared to other exposure pathways (aqueous dermal exposure and ingestion from natural prey);
• To understand the relative impacts of physical and chemical effects of ingested plastic particles on a wide range of organisms;
• To determine whether the relatively high surface area of nanoplastics compared to microplastics and their potential to permeate membranes with increased retention time may increase their toxicological risk to organisms.
“Yes, macroplastics are bad,” but “still missing is the answer to half of the ecological risk question: What is the exposure in the field?” said G. Allen Burton Jr., a professor with the Natural Resources and Environment and Earth and Environmental Sciences departments at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. He has questioned the rush of environmental scientists to correlate harm with ingestion of plastics, both smaller and larger than 5 millimeters in size.He pointed to the Baldwin study that documented the exposure concentration of microplastics in Great Lakes fish, but failed to mention that microplastics reported per cubic meter equates to 1,000 liters.
“This paper supports the numbers I came up with and means the exposure to microplastics in the worst areas cannot be an ecological risk,” Burton told Bloomberg BNA.
Mason, who was a co-author of the Baldwin paper, is a bit perplexed by Burton's critique of scientists who want to investigate the linkage between microplastics and chemical exposure. On the one hand, Burton said there's no evidence that microplastics are harmful, a conclusion that Mason said would require funding and studies to prove. On the other hand, Burton criticizes scientists for wanting to study whether there is a potential for harm, Mason said.
“If there isn't data to indicate there is an ecological consequence, there also isn't data to indicate there isn't,” Mason said. “We need funding and time to do those studies.”
The San Francisco Estuary Institute, an ecosystem and aquatic science nonprofit that helps implement the bay area's regional water quality monitoring program, plans to examine the extent of microplastic pollution problem in the Bay and surrounding ocean through a two-year grant they have just received, Rebecca Sutton, the institute's senior scientist, told Bloomberg BNA.
Not in a Marine Environment
The American Chemistry Council's Keith Christman agrees that plastics don't belong in a marine environment, though as marketing director for plastic products he is quick to point out to Bloomberg BNA the vital role plastics play in society.
Christman pointed to the 2016 Koelmans’ study, which the EPA paper also highlighted, that discusses the many exposure pathways to which marine animals are exposed to persistent organic pollutants. This study finds that bioaccumulation of chemical pollutants found on plastics inside aquatic life is one of many pathways by which exposure can occur. The other pathways include direct chemical exposure via water, sediment, or ingestion of contaminated prey.
The EPA maintains throughout the paper that the challenge with field studies, such as the Koelmans’ study is that it is difficult to definitively link bioaccumulation of chemicals to the ingestion of plastics versus other uptake pathways.
Limited Evidence
The UNEP too in its 2016 report on marine plastic debris and microplastics concluded from the limited evidence present that the microplastics in seafood do not currently represent a human health risk “although many uncertainties remain” about the potential risk that such products could pose.
The plastics industry is aware of the potential that bioaccumulation of chemicals could pose, and has taken steps both globally and domestically to reduce plastic pollution, according to Christman.
In 2011, the Plastics Industry Association as well as the American Chemistry Council joined 67 other plastics groups and allied industry associations in 35 countries in signing a global declaration to voluntarily take steps to reduce marine litter, including plastics. Christman said the American Chemistry Council has been involved in the international state-of-the-science report on microplastics.
“The industry itself is constantly involved in research around innovation, working to reduce impacts of plastics and improve their environmental performance, making them more recyclable,” Christman said.
The EPA made it very clear to Bloomberg BNA that it has no plans for attempting to regulate plastics, saying its voluntary Trash-Free Waters is working well in states. The program that works in concert with local officials and volunteers is designed to reduce the huge volumes of trash entering the nation's waters. The agency dispelled all questions about its intention, saying the paper's goal was to provide the latest research, and that's it.
The Center for Biological Diversity, which successfully advocated for a federal legislation in 2014 to phase out the use of plastic microbeads in face washes, toothpastes, said the key is to eliminate the use of plastic altogether because plastic pollution is turning the ocean into a “toxic mess.”
“It's horrible,” said Abel Valdivia, the center's ocean scientist, told Bloomberg BNA. “We agree with the EPA that more research into ocean plastic pollution is needed. But we also must attack this problem now by choosing tap water over plastic water bottles and taking steps to keep microplastics found in clothing and beauty products out of our oceans.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=104913298&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=499155000&searchid=29271826&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0
-
(ACC Mentioned) 4 Chemical Stocks Poised to Notch Up Earnings Beat In Q4
Feb 1, 2017 | Zacks (In Nasdaq)
The chemical industry is clawing its way back from the trough of the Great Recession. Despite a spate of headwinds, the highly cyclical industry put up a decent performance last year, helped by continued strength across automotive and housing markets - two major end-use markets for chemicals.
Chemical makers continue to shift their focus on attractive, growth markets in an effort to whittle down their exposure on businesses that are grappling with weak demand. The industry is also seeing a pick-up in consolidation activities as chemical makers are increasingly looking for cost synergy opportunities and enhanced operational scale in a still-difficult global economic environment. Moreover, cost-cutting measures and productivity improvement actions by chemical companies are expected to yield industry-wide margin improvements.
Within the Zacks Industry classification, the chemical industry falls under the broader Basic Materials sector. Looking at the overall results of this sector, earnings for 45% of the sector participants in the S&P 500 index reported so far are up 19.6% in fourth-quarter 2016, per the latest Earnings Preview . Overall earnings for the sector for the quarter are projected to move up 2.3%.
U.S. Chemical Industry on Course for Solid Growth
The outlook for the U.S. chemical industry paints an encouraging picture. The American chemical industry remains on course for strong growth this year and the next despite several challenges including a strong dollar, soft export markets and a low oil price environment. The American Chemistry Council ("ACC") envisions national chemical production to rise 3.6% in 2017, further accelerating to a 4.8% growth in 2018. The trade group also expects basic chemicals production to expand 4.2% in 2017 on the back of advances in manufacturing and exports.
Moreover, the shale gas bounty is expected to drive investment on plants and equipment in the U.S. Chemical makers are ratcheting up investment on shale gas-linked projects to take advantage of ample natural gas supplies.
Per the ACC, over 275 new chemical projects have been announced by chemical makers (worth more than $170 billion) since 2010, nearly half of which already complete or under construction. Such investments - many backed by Federal government support - are expected to boost capacity and export over the next several years.
Major End-Markets Showing Strength
The automotive sector - a major chemical end-use market - continues its healthy run. In particular, U.S. light vehicles market continued to show strength in 2016, supported by an improving job market, rising personal income, low fuel prices and attractive financing options, and the momentum is expected to continue this year.
A recovery across housing and commercial construction markets has been another tailwind for the chemical industry. The underlying demand trends in the housing space remain strong, supported by an improving employment levels, affordable interest/mortgage rates and a rise in income levels. This augurs well for chemical demand in this key market.
How to Pick the Winners?
Given the large number of players operating in the chemicals space, picking the right stocks is apparently not an easy task. But our proprietary methodology makes it fairly simple. Instead of boiling the ocean, one can trim down the list with the combination of a favorable Zacks Rank - Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy), #2 (Buy) or #3 (Hold) - and a positive Zacks Earnings ESP . You can uncover the best stocks to buy or sell before they're reported with our Earnings ESP Filter .Earnings ESP - the percentage difference between the Most Accurate Estimate and the Zacks Consensus Estimate - is our proprietary methodology for determining stocks that have high chances of notching up earnings surprises in their next announcements. Our research shows that for stocks with this combination, the chance of a positive earnings surprise is as much as 70%.
Below we list 4 chemical stocks having the right combination of elements to rack up positive surprises this earnings season:
Albemarle Corporation ( ALB ), which makes and markets engineered specialty chemicals, is scheduled to release its fourth-quarter results after the bell on Feb 27. This Zacks Rank #2 stock has an Earnings ESP of +2.67%. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for earnings for the fourth quarter stands at 75 cents. The company has delivered positive earnings surprises in each of the last 4 quarters, with an average beat of around 27.1%.
Kraton Corporation ( KRA ), which makes styrenic block copolymers and other engineered polymers, is expected to report fourth-quarter results around Feb 28. The stock has an Earnings ESP of +3.23% and carries a Zacks Rank #2. You can see the complete list of today's Zacks #1 Rank stocks here .Kraton has delivered an average positive earnings surprise of roughly 25.5% in the trailing 4 quarters. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for the fourth quarter is pegged at 31 cents.
Trinseo S.A. ( TSE ), which makes plastics, latex and synthetic rubber, is slated to report fourth-quarter results after the bell on Feb 22. The stock has an Earnings ESP of +4.65% and carries a Zacks Rank #3. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for the fourth quarter stands at $1.29. Trinseo has an impressive track record with respect to earnings, having outpaced the Zacks Consensus Estimate in each of the last 4 quarters.
American Vanguard Corporation ( AVD ), which makes chemicals for crops, human and animal health protection, is expected to report fourth-quarter results around Mar 7. This Zacks Rank #3 stock has an Earnings ESP of +23.08%. The company has delivered positive earnings surprises in 3 of the last 4 quarters, with an average beat of around 28.8%. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for the fourth quarter is pegged at 13 cents.
Bottom Line
While some industry-specific challenges, Eurozone's feeble recovery and concerns over China's future growth remain sources of near-term uncertainties, the chemical industry's recovery momentum is expected to continue in 2017, backed by continued strength in the light vehicles market, positive trends in the construction space and significant shale-linked capital investment.
Amid such a backdrop, a sneak peek at the space for some potential winners backed by a solid Zacks Rank and a positive Earnings ESP could be a great idea for investors looking to gain from this earnings season.http://www.nasdaq.com/article/4-chemical-stocks-poised-to-notch-up-earnings-beat-in-q4-cm741145
-
Pruitt Showdown Set As Democrats Intensify Logjam
Feb 1, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss and Hannah Hess
Senate Republicans may have enough votes to advance U.S. EPA administrator nominee Scott Pruitt in committee, but whether a vote happens today as planned depends on the Democratic minority.
Pruitt, Oklahoma's attorney general who repeatedly sued EPA throughout the Obama administration, is slated to receive a vote in the Environment and Public Works Committee at 10:45 a.m.
Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) yesterday rebuffed Democrats' call to delay the vote, accusing the minority of being "obstructive" in attempting to thwart a nominee environmentalists despise (Greenwire, Jan. 31).
"We're going to be there tomorrow, the Republicans will, and I'd encourage the Democrats to show up as well," Barrasso told reporters yesterday. "They have a responsibility."
Ranking member Tom Carper (D-Del.) said the responsibility falls on Pruitt. Carper said the nominee has failed to fully answer Democrats' questions.
"He has responded to some of those fully, to many of them not fully and, in some cases, not at all," Carper told reporters yesterday.
The senator was particularly irked that Pruitt told Democrats they would have to request emails from his tenure as Oklahoma's top law enforcement official under an open records process that has a nearly two-year backlog.
"We can't wait two years," Carper said. "He says he doesn't have access to the emails. Well they're his emails, he's the attorney general, it's his agency, why not? I think it's a reasonable request."
Democrats were scheduled to huddle yesterday afternoon to talk strategy for today's vote. Their most obvious tactic is to simply boycott the business meeting, which would deprive the committee of a necessary quorum.
Democrats did just that yesterday with Treasury secretary nominee Steve Mnuchin and Health and Human Services secretary nominee Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.).
Former EPW Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) noted yesterday that at least one Democrat must be present for the vote to occur.
"They can do that, they can boycott it," he told E&E News, adding that "there's some baggage that comes with that."
Republicans did the same thing to delay Gina McCarthy's nomination to lead EPA in 2013, although an Inhofe aide drew a distinction from the current situation.
At the time, the aide said, President Obama's EPA was already well-staffed and operational. Trump's EPA, on the other hand, remains in limbo, guided by temporary caretakers.
After the 2013 GOP boycott, then-EPW Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) threatened to change committee rules to allow the majority to approve the nomination (Greenwire, May 9, 2013).
Asked if he would consider doing the same, Barrasso yesterday appeared to leave the door open. "We're operating under the current rules right now," he said.
Separately, Democrats yesterday also delayed a planned Judiciary Committee vote on attorney general nominee Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) by giving lengthy speeches in opposition.
That pushed the vote past a rule that prevents committees from meeting for more than two hours past the chamber's start of the day. Lawmakers routinely waive the rule, but Democrats objected. A vote on Sessions is now set for today.
The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will also vote today on the nomination of Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) to lead the Office of Management and Budget. But the Budget Committee moved its vote to tomorrow.Partisan wrangling
Fueled by outrage over Trump's recent executive actions and pressure from outside liberal groups, Democrats made clear they plan to gum up the rest of the president's Cabinet picks as much as possible.
Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said ethics information on Trump's nominees is "still trickling in" and some of it is conflicting.
"Some of these people are very wealthy," he told reporters. "It takes longer to go through their financials. Some of them were late in filing their ethics-required documents. So it just takes longer in these circumstances. It's just the nature of what happens when your Cabinet is dominated by billionaires and bankers."
The endgame for Democrats, Durbin said, is "to make sure there's a complete record so at some point some Republicans will say, 'I can't support that person.'"
One casualty of the ethics focus is Labor secretary nominee Andrew Puzder, whose Feb. 7 hearing by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee was delayed again because paperwork had not been received.
Still, Republicans made some headway yesterday with HELP Committee approval of Trump's controversial Education secretary nominee Betsy DeVos along party lines.
Also, the Senate confirmed Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao 93-6, with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) voting "present." Chao is his wife.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) yesterday notched a pair of wins for Trump, shepherding the nominations of Interior secretary pick Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.) and Energy secretary nominee Rick Perry through the panel (Greenwire, Jan. 31).
Zinke and Perry were far less controversial than most of Trump's would-be Cabinet. Still, objections from ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), who opposed both, delayed the vote from last week.
Murkowski has been pressing McConnell to quickly bring the nominations to the floor to allow the pair to begin organizing their respective agencies but said it was unclear where in the queue they will land.
"I wish that I could tell you that I got a clear green light on either of the two, but at this point in time I think he is trying to navigate through the situation that we are dealing with our colleagues who are a little more than resistant to move expeditiously to get these nominations through," she told reporters.
Murkowski said she was concerned that Trump's Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, announced last night, would further complicate their prospects (see related story).
"My hope is that everything doesn't get stalled out because of that," she said.
One GOP aide said that given the current strain between the two parties, McConnell may have to file cloture on both Zinke and Perry to see them confirmed, a step that would burn up days of floor time.
McConnell slammed Democrats yesterday afternoon, telling reporters, "You know what's going on."
He said: "They are manufacturing issues on a daily basis to drag this process out and to treat this president's initial Cabinet appointments differently from the way we have treated presidents of the Democratic Party in similar circumstances."
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, one of a handful of Democrats to oppose Chao — a familiar presence in the Senate who is well-known from her tenure as Labor secretary during the George W. Bush administration — said he voted "no" because she had not answered a question from Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) on her views on Trump's immigration orders.
"Every nominee to the Cabinet should stake their position on this horrible executive order, and Secretary Chao was asked by Senator Nelson to do so publicly," he told reporters. "She has not, so I voted against her and I will vote against every nominee who does not."
While McConnell said that Democrats' delay tactics ultimately will not change the final outcome, Carper held out hope his side could still sink Pruitt.
"I don't know that that's a foregone conclusion," he said of Pruitt's confirmation. "What we hope to make clear is we expect nominees, whether it's for EPA or any other federal department, we expect the nominee to respond to reasonable questions."Tillerson
Lawmakers who prioritize climate action are also lining up against former Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Rex Tillerson, who is expected to be confirmed by the Senate today to head the State Department.
Tillerson's support for maintaining a "seat at the table" for the Paris Agreement and other international climate negotiations is undercut, critics argue, by his hedging on commitments to slash greenhouse gas emissions as part of the deal.
Tillerson will play a "key role in shaping our diplomacy towards impoverished nations," said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who joined fellow Foreign Relations Committee Democrats to speak out on the Senate floor last night.
Merkley spoke about the potential for a pro-oil bias in energy diplomacy and said that on global warming, Tillerson "certainly misses the size of this challenge to our planet."
Republicans will unanimously back the former energy executive's nomination with the support of a handful of Democrats.
Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) told E&E News that he is concerned by Tillerson's stance on climate policy but plans to support him after seeking advice from several former high-level national security and foreign affairs officials. King, an independent, caucuses with Democrats.
"I've decided it's more important to have somebody of his stature around the president. [Trump] needs all the maturity he can get," King said.
Democratic Sens. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, both "yes" votes, said their energy priorities, such as carbon capture utilization and storage technology, did not come up in their one-on-one meetings with Tillerson.
Manchin emphasized that Tillerson has no reason to have a preference toward fossil fuels or Exxon's interest, as other Democrats contest, because "he's severed all ties."
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said he differs with Exxon's stance on climate change but respects the fact that Tillerson has opted, after a 41-year career with the oil giant, to serve the nation.
Warner is backing Tillerson, whom he believes will bring "a more experienced, measured voice to an administration that has so far struggled to demonstrate any rational approach to foreign policy."
Warner's counterpart in Virginia, Sen. Tim Kaine (D), was one of the first to announce his opposition to the nomination. On the floor last night, he suggested Tillerson might have been a better fit for secretary of Energy or Commerce.
Former Secretary of State John Kerry played a "critical role" in forming a global consensus on climate action, Kaine said. His successor will determine "whether we continue to take seriously the promises we've made under the climate accord or whether we go backwards."
Reporter Amanda Reilly contributed.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/02/01/stories/1060049328
-
Trump's 'One For Two' Rule Order May Create Confusion Over EPA Agenda
Feb 1, 2017 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
President Donald Trump's executive order (EO) forcing EPA and other agencies to “identify” two existing rules for withdrawal for every new rule they issue might spur massive regulatory confusion, sources say, because it is likely to complicate development of new rules required by statute and may jeopardize some existing rules that industry groups support.
The rules EO is “headlines and platitudes without any actual understanding of the actual regulatory process,” an industry attorney says.
Industry and environmentalist attorneys alike say that the regulations order as written is unclear on whether it is meant to apply to rules EPA is required by law to issue, but that regardless of the order's intent, a statutory mandate would take precedence over the EO. “If it's required by Congress and would not otherwise fit into the cap that the administration is going to give each agency, then the order will yield,” says a second industry attorney.
Other observers say that the order's lack of clarity on that point is likely to spur delays and confusion on whether mandatory rulemakings can go forward, at least until the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) crafts guidance on which regulations are exempt from the EO or courts rule on its application.
That could stymie EPA's approval of Clean Water Act (CWA) permits, pesticide labels and states' Clean Air Act implementation plans -- all of which, among other duties, can be construed as rulemaking activity.
The order “is setting up this clash between statutory mandates and the regulatory preferences of a new administration,” the first industry attorney continues, saying that with regard to the need for EPA to issue rules that allow facilities to operate, “I haven't seen any consideration of that from this administration.”
Trump's Order
Trump's regulatory order, which he signed Jan. 30, says that, “Unless prohibited by law, whenever an executive department or agency (agency) publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it shall identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed.”
Both industry attorneys and one environmentalist agree that the “unless prohibited by law” clause will likely turn out to allow mandatory rulemakings to go forward unimpeded -- either because the White House will interpret it that way, or because courts will hold that an EO cannot set new hurdles for a legally required rule.
“If anything, this executive order enhances lawsuits against agencies when they try to carry it out, because it is so clearly an arbitrary and political overlay against the agency's obligation to enforce the law,” the environmentalist says.
Instead, the second industry attorney says, it will serve as a marker to agencies of the administration's opposition to new rules and its desire to repeal those policies it considers unnecessary.
“I think this is going to be hard to implement and it's ultimately going to rest with Donald Trump whether he enforces this or not. . . . But it is going to force EPA to dig deep and to look at its discretionary rulemakings to see which can be repealed,” the attorney says.
Similarly, Berkeley Law professor Dan Farber wrote in a Jan. 30 blog post at Legal Planet that the order's main value is as a symbol that the administration will not undertake discretionary rulemakings.
“It’s already clear that the Trump Administration wasn’t planning to issue any new rules protecting health, safety, or the environment if they could avoid it. . . . The Executive Order just underlines the point that they have no intention of ever starting this process,” Farber writes.
Regulatory Budget
Along with the “one in, two out” mandate, Trump's EO also creates a “budget” that limits the total new compliance costs agencies can impose through regulation each year, with a 2017 limit of $0. That means new EPA rules found to increase costs would have to be balanced by eliminating existing rules with equal or greater compliance burdens.
While congressional Republicans have long sought a mandate for EPA to eliminate existing regulations in order to enact new ones, and to require agencies to meet a regulatory budget that caps the costs of their mandates, implementing that proposal through an EO rather than statute means it, too, will arguably not apply to mandatory rules.
“[M]andates will cut through the zero regulatory budget level for 2017,” says one former OMB official.
However, similar to the mandate for cutting existing rules the budget could still delay EPA's regulatory process at least until the White House or courts issue clear guidance on how to proceed.
“This absurd and asinine zero-dollar budget in 2017 is a cacophanic message to the agency not to regulate. It's divorced from any obligation to enforce and uphold federal laws,” the environmentalist says.
And the first industry attorney says the budgeting requirement creates “a chicken-and-egg problem” for regulators because the projected costs of a rule can change dramatically between proposal and final action. Thus, even if EPA were to propose eliminating existing mandates alongside a new rule, changes from the proposed version could increase the costs of the new policy, meaning the budget would no longer balance.
The attorney says that like Trump's recent order barring immigration from some Muslim countries, which created confusion at airports and other travel sites around the country, the regulatory order “wasn't thought out, and here again we have 'oh, let me just issue my platitude of two for one, and zero net cost, and you all go figure it out.'”
Mandated Rules
Nonetheless, the former OMB official says supporters of a regulatory budget are still welcoming its inclusion in the EO, and even raising the possibility that it “negates the need for a number of other regulatory reform measures” that Congress might pass.
The former official says that is in part because other agencies undertake far fewer legally mandated rules that EPA. “[I]t should be noted EPA might well be the exception for the number of mandated rules. Take [the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] for example, very few of their rules are mandated they issue rules as problems arise and thus issue a large number of discretionary rules. I would imagine the same goes for [the Department of Health & Human Services].”
But the GOP could also renew its push to enact a budget by legislation so Congress, rather than the White House, would set the annual budget, rather than allowing Trump “absolute control over the rate of promulgation of discretionary rules,” the former official continues.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/trumps-one-two-rule-order-may-create-confusion-over-epa-agenda
-
Lawmaker To Propose Abolishing EPA
Jan 31, 2017 | The Hill- E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A House Republican is working on legislation that if passed would completely abolish the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Freshman Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) outlined his plan in a letter to colleagues obtain by The Hill and first reported by The Huffington Post.
“Today, the American people are drowning in rules and regulations promulgated by unelected bureaucrats; and the Environmental Protection Agency has become an extraordinary offender,” Gaetz wrote in the letter soliciting support from lawmakers.
“Our small businesses cannot afford to cover the costs associated with compliance, too often leading to closed doors and unemployed Americans,” he continued. “It is time to take back our legislative power from the EPA and abolish it permanently.”
It would be the first piece of legislation sponsored by Gaetz, who represents the tip of Florida’s panhandle and was previously a state lawmaker.
The EPA was created 46 years ago and has a budget of more than $8 billion. It is responsible for enforcing numerous landmark laws like the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Superfund Act.
President Trump once said on the campaign trail that he wanted to abolish the EPA, but later expressed support for at least some of its functions.
His nominee to lead the EPA, Scott Pruitt, has said that he supports the agency’s existence, but it has gone too far under former President Barack Obama.
Gaetz did not specify which federal authority would be responsible for enforcing the laws that currently fall within the EPA’s jurisdiction, or if the laws would also be repealed.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/317203-lawmaker-to-propose-abolishing-epa
-
White House Looks to Ease Concerns of Rattled EPA Employees
Jan 31, 2017 | The Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder
A top White House adviser is seeking to calm concerns across the Environmental Protection Agency about what policies its leaders may pursue under President Donald Trump, according to a staff memo sent Monday and viewed by The Wall Street Journal.
“Due to the important nature of the work that is done here at EPA, we are falling under a greater media microscope than most agencies,” said Don Benton, senior White House adviser for EPA’s transition team in an emailed memo. “I, like many of you, am surprised each morning by what I read in the newspaper and see on TV news shows, because much of what we see is just not accurate.”
Mr. Benton’s memo Monday is the first such agency-wide communication from the new Trump White House, according to people familiar with the EPA. While Mr. Benton doesn’t call out any specific people, people inside the agency say his memo was largely in response to comments that Myron Ebell, who led the agency’s transition team up until Mr. Trump’s inauguration, made at an event in London Monday.
Among other things, Mr. Ebell predicted that Mr. Trump will pull out of a global accord on climate change and also said EPA should work to unravel a scientific finding issued in 2009 that found carbon emissions endanger public health and welfare. The finding is the legal underpinning of former President Barack Obama’s climate regulations, most of which Mr. Trump has said he will repeal.
“I am not able to validate or reject the statements made by these individuals, since I am not directly working with them,” Mr. Benton said.
Mr. Benton says in the memo that news outlets are quoting people who are no longer serving on EPA’s transition team. Mr. Ebell is a top expert at the conservative advocacy group Competitive Enterprise Institute, and has long doubted the scientific consensus that human activity is a major contributor to climate change.
Mr. Benton continued: “I cannot tell you today what the final decisions from the White House, from our new Administrator, and from the Congress will be. I can tell you that despite what you read and see on TV, no final decisions have been made with regard to the EPA.”
Sentiments of concern and uncertainty are rampant among current and former staff employees about what the agency can communicate to the public right now, how the Trump administration will change the website, such as its emphasis on climate change, and how the new leadership will handle scientific studies and grants.
Mr. Trump has said climate change is a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese to gain an economic advantage over the U.S., and none of his senior advisers have publicly said climate change is a serious issue worthy of concern. Most scientists say climate change warrants significant global attention. On the campaign trail, Mr. Trump said he would withdraw from the climate deal.
Toward the end of Mr. Benton’s memo, he indicated changes are likely to come but emphasized a collaboration.
“Changes will likely come, and when they do, we will work together to implement them,” Mr. Benton wrote. “One thing I am certain of is that the transition team is committed to working with you to carry out the core mission of the EPA – To Protect Human Health and the Environment.”
Mr. Trump’s pick to head the EPA, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, is scheduled to get a confirmation vote in a Senate committee Wednesday, though Democrats have called to delay the vote to get more information from the nominee.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2017/01/31/white-house-looks-to-ease-concerns-of-rattled-epa-employees/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Practitioner Insights: The Peril and Imperative of TSCA Reform
Feb 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tracey Woodruff and Patrice Sutton
Tracey Woodruff is the Director of the Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment at the University of California-San Francisco.
Patrice Sutton is a researcher with the program.
In June, former President Barack Obama signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act—an overhaul of the law responsible for regulating the tens of thousands of industrial chemicals in everyday products such as furniture, building materials, cleaning products and toys. Some sort of overhaul was long overdue, given that the original 1976 legislation, the Toxics Substances Control Act, had not been amended in the 40 years since its passage. Although the original law was intended to protect the public from toxic chemical exposures, it was universally recognized as weak and ineffective—a state of affairs that Carl Cranor, a professor at the University of California, Riverside, characterized as allowing people to be “legally poisoned.”
It now falls to the Trump administration to determine how to interpret and implement the new law. From the perspective of the health of Americans, there is much at stake in how TSCA is implemented. Indicators of health and welfare for many Americans are declining. Life expectancy among the U.S. non-Hispanic white population is falling. The burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), exemplified by childhood conditions such as obesity, diabetes, autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), is rising. The science shows that exposures to the industrial chemicals that permeate our air, water, food, and everyday products impact the health of Americans today.
The volume of chemicals used in U.S. manufacturing grew more than tenfold in the past half-century. If current levels of exposure continue unabated, the consequences will be an even greater toxic legacy for future generations. The economic costs of non-communicable diseases, including health-care expenditures and lost productivity, are increasing. Incoming environmental officials need to take seriously the concerns expressed by passage—by a Republican-controlled Congress, it should be noted—of the bipartisan TSCA update.
We face formidable hurdles in implementing TSCA to make sure it actually does what it's supposed to—protect public health. In many important respects, the Lautenberg version does not mandate the reforms needed to address our ubiquitous chemical exposures with the most effective and advanced tools and approaches available rather than the flawed methods used in the past. Added to the law's inherent weaknesses, the head of the president-elect's EPA transition team is the head of a group that has a well-documented history of obfuscating the science to promote anti-regulatory policies. Yet the EPA's choices over the next several years will influence the level of toxic chemicals in our homes, communities and bodies for generations to come. Those concerned about the health consequences must push for policies that have real teeth and will require the agency to hold commercial interests to account. That means TSCA implementation is simply too important to be left in the hands of the regulated industry.
Historically—that is, under the original TSCA—a major obstacle to effective regulation was the requirement that the EPA consider the financial costs to industry of complying with agency regulations. This provision created so much opportunity for legal challenges that it became effectively impossible to regulate any chemicals at all, even with clear scientific evidence of danger. Asbestos, a known carcinogen, became the poster child for TSCA's inadequacies after the EPA tried to ban it in 1989—but was overruled by the courts after industry groups sued, arguing that the government's proposed approach was not the “least burdensome alternative.”
Given the regulatory stalemate, states, cities and other jurisdictions have often stepped into the breach, issuing their own laws and regulations to push environmental protections forward. The chemical industry and other vested interests never liked this development. With the public health, consumer and environmental communities pushing for a revised national law, business groups viewed the effort as an opportunity to preempt states and local communities from enacting their own robust and timely policies.
Now the Lautenberg law—the newly revised TSCA—is in place. Not surprisingly, as the legislation contains strong preemption provisions, the American Chemistry Council is celebrating its passage. And industry does not appear to be wasting time pushing back against the agency's effort to enforce it. According to a recent Environmental Defense Fund blog about the EPA's attempt to regulate the known carcinogen and developmental toxicant trichloroethylene (TCE), “industry representatives have asked OMB not to even allow EPA to issue its proposal [for TCE] for public comment, despite the fact that the industry and the rest of the public have yet to see it.”
The new law also codifies other principles and ideas proposed by industry, many of which directly conflict with approaches recommended by medical, public health and environmental groups and incorporated into Europe's 2007 revamping of its chemical regulatory framework, called REACH—an acronym for Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals.
The new TSCA does have some positive aspects. For the first time, the EPA is required to determine whether or not a chemical is likely “to “present an unreasonable risk” without taking into account economic costs to industry. The agency must also consider the impacts of exposure on vulnerable populations at greatest risk of exposure, such as pregnant women and workers. The new law also mandates the EPA to evaluate the health and environmental risks of the thousands of chemicals already found in industrial and consumer products, most of them with little or no safety data available. And, like REACH, it not only allows for, but actually requires, EPA to evaluate potential harms before a chemical can be introduced into the market, rather than waiting for evidence of negative impacts to appear afterwards.
But how will the agency get there? And what will be the rules of the game? While the mandate that health impacts should be the key decision-making factor is a welcome shift in approach and philosophy, there are some important, and concerning, obstacles to the goal of truly protecting the public's health.
First, lack of available data will hamper the agency's task. For the vast majority of high-use chemicals in commerce, there is insufficient toxicity data to assess their effects on health. Unlike other U.S. and European environmental laws, the new legislation does not require that industry provide a basic or minimum set of data for every chemical in use—data that would help establish whether the substance poses a risk in the first place. Instead, for chemicals currently registered for use, the EPA is supposed to create what the law calls a “prioritization” process. Chemicals for which there is little information available for making the determination could get assessed as having a low chance of generating risk and would therefore receive a low priority—essentially a “get-out-of-jail-free” card.
On top of that, the new law will make it more difficult to obtain the necessary data from studies using vertebrate animals—data that has formed the basis of most of EPA decision-making about chemical risks. While relying on in vitro screening and testing is a laudable goal, at the present time this approach is simply not up to the task of predicting health outcomes in humans, particularly for the wide range of susceptibilities in the population due to age, disease status and genetic variability. Recent EPA decisions on the screening of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, for which the Agency requires both in vitro and whole animal testing before making a final assessment, demonstrate that environmental officials recognize the shortcomings of relying solely on the former.
Once EPA actually receives the data, more complications arise, with the law's mandate that the agency “describe the weight of the scientific evidence.” The National Academy of Sciences, in a 2014 review of EPA's risk assessment process, declared the standard embodied in the phrase “weight of the scientific evidence” to be “too vague and…of little scientific use.” The NAS instead recommends systematic review methods, such as those that have been adopted by the National Toxicology Program. Case studies developed through use of our program's Navigation Guide, a comprehensive framework for conducting systematic reviews, have demonstrated the feasibility and improved scientific rigor of such methods for hazard and risk assessment. (The report accompanying the legislation, fortunately, supports the use of systematic review methods, but the inclusion of the “weight of scientific evidence” standard in the law itself remains troubling.)
Moreover, both the 1996 federal pesticide law and the European REACH framework require aggregate risk assessments—an evaluation of the impact of multiple exposures to the same chemical from different sources. Yet the new version of TSCA does not require assessment of aggregate risk. It only requires that the agency describe whether aggregate risk was considered and, if not, why not. The law also does not mention what is called cumulative risk, or simultaneous exposures to multiple chemicals that can have a greater impact on the same health outcome, such as brain development, than if a chemical is considered by itself. Evaluating both aggregate and cumulative risk is important to characterize—and not underestimate—the full potential risk of exposure to an individual chemical. Further, assessment of cumulative exposures and aggregate risk were codified in the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 and recommended by the NAS.
Finally, the time frame for undertaking evaluations of existing chemicals is exceedingly slow. The EPA is required to initiate reviews of 30 chemicals within the next three to five years, and will be required thereafter to be reviewing 20 at a time. The agency is unlikely to have the resources or political will to move faster. Even with specified deadlines, the process of evaluating a single chemical is likely to take years. With thousands of high-use chemicals needing to undergo evaluation, we will all continue to be “legally poisoned” well into the future.
Many of these flaws might be less worrisome if not for the dangerous new provisions that preempt the authority of states, cities and other jurisdictions to continue their own unilateral efforts to regulate toxic chemicals—a situation that will put more of a burden on the EPA to make the difficult decisions. The environmental and health communities have long recognized that such preemption is not in the best interest of the public, and the National Academy of Medicine has recommended against it.
The new law grandfathers in existing state and local regulations. However, after the EPA has declared a chemical to be a “high priority” for investigation, any new state or local action on the chemical is suspended during the agency's review, a period of up to three years. And once the EPA regulates a chemical, its decision is considered the final word; other jurisdictions are barred from issuing stronger standards or further protections. The law includes some wiggle room for states and local communities to regulate these chemicals under other federal and state legislation. But the chemical industry fought hard to retain the broadest exemptions possible, and the bill leaves huge gaps in the ability of states, cities and other jurisdictions to protect their residents.
In light of these strengths and weaknesses, public engagement in EPA's decision-making process as it develops regulations for the new version of TSCA will be critical. Leading clinical and scientific reports have already laid out a clear path for EPA to pursue in improving health risk assessments and the implementation of greater protections against industrial chemicals. But it is up to all of us to make sure the agency does not underestimate health risks and adopts the most health protective strategy using the best available science.
As EPA moves forward, individuals as well as professional and scientific organizations must make their voices heard through public comments and other means. That's the only way to ensure that science and the public's health are incorporated into the process. Regulating environmental chemical exposures at the state and local level will also remain critical to protecting public health and maintaining pressure on the EPA to act when needed. Given the current shift of our country's politics and priorities, ensuring a strong TSCA may seem like a luxury item for public action. But only strong action will start to reverse our legacy of being “legally poisoned” and help us protect the health of our families, communities, and country.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=104913297&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=499156000&searchid=29271826&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0
-
(ACC Mentioned) Innovation Harmed by EPA's New Chemicals Practices: 3M, Dow
Feb 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA is considering too many potential uses of new chemicals before reaching a decision about whether to allow them onto the market, the Dow Chemical Co. recently told the agency.
Indications that the Environmental Protection Agency intends to impose upfront testing on many new chemicals is further delaying the entry into the market of these compounds, 3M told the agency.
“EPA is not considering the potential advantages in environmental impact, toxicity, safety and performance of new products over existing materials in commerce,” said the Shepherd Color Co.
3M, Dow and Shepherd were among the companies and trade associations that submitted comments, due Jan. 14, on changes the EPA has made to its new chemicals program following the Toxic Substances Control Act amendments of 2016. Bloomberg BNA was unable to reach regulatory managers at 3M, Dow or Shepard Jan. 31 to elaborate on their comments.
Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) backed the EPA's interpretation of the law in comments they submitted. The agency is implementing the changes Congress mandated in a manner consistent with congressional intent, they wrote.
EPA nominee Scott Pruitt repeatedly has said he would support implementation of the amended chemicals law if his nomination to lead the agency is confirmed by the Senate. Pruitt, however, gave no hints as to how he would interpret the new law when he testified Jan. 18 before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
Disputed Scope of Uses
The amendments that overhauled TSCA last June (Pub. Law No 114-182) revised how the agency reviewed new chemicals that have never been made in or imported into the U.S. The agency typically reviews between 500 and 1,000 new chemicals each year.
The law required the EPA—for the first time—to make a decision about whether the new chemical would pose an unreasonable risk. The agency must make that decision before a new chemical can enter commerce. The agency also must affirmatively allow an existing chemical to be used or manufactured in a new way if that new process or use is regulated under a significant new use regulation.
The agency's review must consider the intended, known or reasonably foreseen conditions of use by which the new chemical would be manufactured, processed, distributed in commerce, used or disposed.
Dow said the EPA's interpretation of what constitutes reasonably foreseeable uses is too broad.
The agency is considering potential uses that the chemical manufacturer never intended and may, therefore, require the manufacturer to generate data to support uses it never envisioned, Dow said. Comments submitted by many trade associations, including the American Chemistry Council , echoed the company's view.
Markey, Merkley and Udall said: “Congress clearly intended for EPA to assess all conditions of use for new chemicals.” Doing otherwise would be antithetical to Congress’ goal of ensuring that new chemicals are unlikely to pose an unreasonable risk, they said.
Legislators considered—and rejected—language that would have limited the EPA's use consideration to the commercialization goals of the chemical manufacturer, the senators said. Washington state's Department of Ecology, environmental groups and health organizations voiced similar perspectives in their comments.
One solution, said the American Cleaning Institute, would be to require the company that proposed to make the new chemical to bind itself to certain manufacturing processes and uses.The agency could then limit other companies to those same manufacturing and use conditions through significant new use rules, the institute said.
Dow also encouraged the EPA to use new use rules, or other authorities, to limit new manufacturing processes or uses of a chemical that may pose health or ecological risks.
3M, Dow and trade associations said they supported the TSCA overhaul, but want the agency to return to its previous practices of timely completion of new chemical reviews.http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=104913296&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=499145000&searchid=29271826&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0
-
Importers Get More Time to File TSCA Certifications Online
Feb 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The effective date of a final Customs and Border Protection rule giving importers the option to file Toxic Substance Control Act certifications online has been delayed until March 21.
The extension results from a Jan. 20 White House memo, which directed federal agencies to delay by 60 days the effective date of recently issued final regulations. Customs announced the rule's electronic filing rule delay in a Jan. 27 notice (82 Fed. Reg. 8590).
Companies importing chemicals, mixtures or certain “articles,” finished goods containing chemicals, are required to provide one of two certifications to Customs, the Environmental Protection Agency says on its website.
The importer must certify the chemicals comply with TSCA, which is called a positive certification, or the importer must certify its chemicals are not subject to TSCA, a negative certification.
The final rule, developed with the Environmental Protection Agency and published Dec. 27, 2016, offered importers the option of filing both certifications electronically (RIN:1515-AE13; 81 Fed. Reg. 94,980). Paper documents can continue to be used.
The final rule eliminated one type of “blanket” certification that importers have submitted when bringing several shipments of the same chemical into one particular port over a one-year period.
Electronic Filing More Convenient
Most importers or their brokers will find the electronic filing more convenient, easier and quicker, Michael Chisholm, a vice president at Willson International, told Bloomberg BNA Jan. 31. Willson, based in Mississauga, Ontario, specializes in North American customs brokerage and other trade services.
The delayed effective date of the regulation will give importers and brokers more time to test the electronic system and work with Customs to fix problems that arise, he said by e-mail.
“The delay will create mixed feelings. Importers [and] brokers who are set up and ready to go will likely be annoyed,” Chisholm said.
Importers and brokers who aren't ready will be quite pleased, he said. “Either way, there is really no impact from the delay. Better to be fully functional than trying to fix the bugs when there is no other filing option,” he said.
Blanket Certifications Nixed
The rule eliminated one type of document called a “blanket certification.” Prior to the rule, importers and brokers could ask port directors to issue paper blanket certifications annually.
Customs decided the blanket certifications had limited utility because they applied to only one port, one chemical and only for a one-year period, the border protection agency said in its final rule.
Those limitations, combined with the document's “burdensome” data requirements, prompted Customs to eliminate that option, the agency said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=104913309&vname=dennotallissues&fn=104913309&jd=104913309
-
(ACC Mentioned) Monsanto’s Mind-Meld; Spin Machine in High Gear
Jan 31, 2017 | Huffington Post
By Carey Gillam
Alternative facts, indeed. Less than two weeks into the presidency of Donald Trump it appears we are seeing the ushering in of a new era of twisted truths, fake news, and selective science. That should be good news to the corporate spin doctors who are deep into a campaign now to try to combat global concerns about the world’s favorite weed killer.
Corporate spin is nothing new. Whether it’s cigarettes or sugar-laden sodas, the companies that make billions from such products employ a variety of strategies to promote the good and bury the bad. Some even outright lie while doing so. But the tactics being unveiled by Monsanto and surrogates over glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide and the lynchpin for the success of genetically engineered crops, are noteworthy for the depths of their deception.
The latest move, the formation of a group called “Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research”, (CAPHR) clearly promotes an agenda opposite to that which its name implies. Formed this month by the American Chemistry Council, whose membership includes Monsanto and other chemical industry titans, the group’s express purpose is to discredit the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a unit of the World Health Organization made up of independent scientists. An IARC scientific team declared in March 2015 that glyphosate was a probable human carcinogen after reviewing an extensive body of published research on the subject. Monsanto and friends have been harassing IARC ever since through a series of demands, threats and legal maneuvers, including lobbying the U.S. House of Representatives to cut funding for IARC.
The new campaign takes the assault further. On the group’s new twitter account, set up on Jan. 25, CAPHR has posted a string of insults against IARC scientists, accusing the experts from prestigious institutions around the world of “making sensational claims,” drawing conclusions “that can’t be trusted,” and using “questionable methodologies.”
If CAPHR is to be believed, the public, lawmakers and regulators should not trust the epidemiology experts, toxicologists and other scientists who made up the IARC working group, which was led by an award-winning cancer expert from the National Cancer Institute. No, they should look for unbiased information about the safety of the industry’s billion-dollar baby from the industry itself. The chemical industry campaigners insist that the people making money off chemical sales are more trustworthy than scientists who have made a career studying causes of cancer.
The rationale for the campaign is clear: It’s not about protecting public health, it’s about protecting corporate profits. Monsanto said as much last week in a California court as it tried to block the state’s decision to require a warning on Roundup. Monsanto attorney Trenton Norris argued in court Friday that warning labels would hurt the company’s finances because many people would stop buying Roundup. Fresno County Superior Court Judge Kristi Kapetan did not seem moved by the profits-over-people message. She still must issue a formal decision, but said that California can require Monsanto to label Roundup as a possible cancer threat.
Protecting glyphosate is critical for Monsanto and other chemical industry giants now. Not only are glyphosate herbicides big sellers around the world, but the industry is in the midst of rolling out new genetically engineered crops designed to be sprayed with combinations of glyphosate and companion weed killers. Monsanto has developed crops altered so that they tolerate being sprayed with glyphosate and dicamba, while Dow AgroSciences has developed crops tolerant of a new herbicide made of glyphosate and 2,4-D. The new biotech crops build on Monsanto’s glyphosate-tolerant portfolio of corn, soybeans, cotton, canola and other crops.
But even as the industry presses ahead with glyphosate-based technology, the chemical is under re-evaluation by both the European Union and the Environmental Protection Agency. And calls have been mounting for the chemical to be banned or severely restricted because of the cancer concerns and a range of other health and environmental concerns.
And there is also the not-so-small issue of the dozens of lawsuits filed against Monsanto alleging the company has long known Roundup could cause cancer but has hidden the facts from the public. Those cases, brought by people from across the United States who have cancer or lost a loved one to cancer, have been consolidated in federal court in San Francisco where discovery is underway. Monsanto has so far turned over more than seven million documents through that process.
Court records show that plaintiffs’ attorneys are building their cases around the IARC classification, while Monsanto is counting on the backing of the Environmental Protection Agency, which has stated that glyphosate is “not likely” to be carcinogenic for people. Just as Monsanto is trying to tear down IARC, plaintiffs are trying to discredit the EPA findings, saying Monsanto has unduly influenced the agency. On the same day that the chemical industry launched its anti-IARC campaign, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria ordered each side in the Roundup litigation to submit briefs on how the work by both IARC and EPA is or is not relevant to the cases. The briefings are due Feb. 8.
Clearly not content to allow a federal court to sort out who is right or wrong on glyphosate, the chemical industry’s championing of glyphosate includes a new promotional Twitter campaign #glyphosateisvital with postings proclaiming that the weed killer is essential to “maintain the production of safe, affordable food.” “Time is running out to lobby to save #glyphosate,” another posting asserts. The campaign is featured on the @glyphosate twitter account established immediately after the IARC glyphosate classification.
Embedded in the industry’s truth-twisting tactics is the characterization of anyone who gives credence to scientific research showing problems with glyphosate, or the GMOs that go with it, as “anti-science.” It’s an effort to reverse reality and detract from the fact that it is industry backers, not industry critics, who deplore the findings of independent, peer-reviewed scientific research.
“The pesticide industry recognizes it’s on the defensive,” said environmental lawyer Charlie Tebbutt. “It’s doing everything it can to transform reality.”
As the post-truth Trump team looks set to dismantle environmental regulations and the protections they bring to the public, it’s likely the chemical industry will only continue to elevate alternative facts. We all will need to work harder than ever to see through the spin.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carey-gillam/monsantos-mind-meld-spin_b_14528692.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Companies: Reform WHO’s ‘Rogue’ IARC Cancer-Designating Agency
Jan 31, 2017 | Genetic Literacy Project
By Kate Kellard
Launching what it called a campaign for accuracy in public health research, the American Chemistry Council, which represents U.S. chemical companies, said the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) evaluations “have a significant impact on U.S. public policy” and should be based on “transparent, thorough assessment of the best available science”.
…
As part of its work on cancer research, IARC publishes evaluations – known as monographs – on whether certain chemicals, lifestyles and activities may cause cancer … IARC has repeatedly defended its work as scientifically sound and says its monographs are “widely respected for their scientific rigor, standardized and transparent process and … freedom from conflicts of interest”.
…
The WHO agency is also embroiled in a row with Congress, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the European Food Safety Authority over its review of the weedkiller glyphosate.
IARC classifies glyphosate, a key ingredient of Monsanto Co’s herbicide Roundup, as “probably carcinogenic”, but that assessment is at odds with many government regulators, including those in the United States, Europe, Canada, Japan and New Zealand, who say it is unlikely to pose a cancer risk to humans.
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/01/31/chemical-companies-reform-whos-rogue-iarc-cancer-designating-agency/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Lanxess Takes World View Of Iron Oxide Pigment Production, Supply
Jan 31, 2017 | Concrete Products
Under a “Trusted partnerships for sustainable growth” theme, the third Lanxess Pigments Symposium took place in Las Vegas as a lead in to the World of Concrete 2017, and provided 100-plus affiliates from around the globe a platform to discuss industry challenges.
In his “Supplier Relationship: Global Strategy – Local Execution” presentation, Oldcastle Architectural Vice President, Operations Performance Improvement Todd Brogan stressed how quality and trust are key factors in purchasing decisions, and sacrificing them can prove costly.
The National Association of Manufacturers’ Dr. Chad Moutray weighed manufacturing dynamics and outlook from a macroeconomic view, noting that the U.S. continues to be an attractive place for business, especially chemical production. The American Chemistry Council’s Deborah Phillips assessed the significant role chemistry plays in green building, and noted how consumer interest in materials is shifting toward health and wellness awareness. “What is going to be critical for the chemical industry is the need to come forward with openness and the ability to do risk assessments and facilitate science-based approaches,” she affirmed.
SCS Global Services’ Steve Kooy noted that green building is widely adopted globally, and developing countries’ strong projected growth in such practice will be driven by client demand, environmental regulations and social triggers. Dr. Daniel Pedersen of Green Seal reinforced the symposium theme, observing, “To move from a supply to value chain, the key is in the personal relationships along the value chain—engaging all stakeholders in a partnership for sustainable development.”
“What makes supplier relationships is people,” concluded Lanxess Inorganic Pigments Global Head Joerg Hellwig. “In the end, it is about people buying from people, and therefore trust is the most important thing. We feel responsible for all stakeholders in this connected value chain.”
http://concreteproducts.com/news/10224-lanxess-takes-world-view-of-iron-oxide-pigment-production-supply.html#.WJGtxVN96M8
-
NY Water Tests Find No Industrial Chemical Contamination
Jan 31, 2017 | AP (In The Wall Street Journal)
ALBANY, N.Y. — New York health and environmental regulators say statewide targeted sampling for two cancer-causing industrial chemicals found no new cases of drinking water contamination.
Regulators say they mapped more than 250 facilities that reported using or storing PFOA, used in making non-stick products, or PFOS, used in firefighting foam. They reported Tuesday that 38 drinking water systems within a half-mile of those facilities were tested, and all were well below the Environmental Protection Agency's advisory level.
Regulators say one well at the Sullivan County Airport was above the advisory level but it wasn't a drinking water source and is no longer used.
Environmental groups urged statewide testing after a high level of PFOA was found in drinking water in Hoosick Falls and Petersburgh.
The state's Water Quality Rapid Response Team says monitoring will continue.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/AP2fe687cc7ba645be8b29d8c627398a13
-
Army Corps Ordered To Issue Final Dakota Access Pipeline Permit, Two Lawmakers Say
Jan 31, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin and Steven Mufson
The acting secretary of the Army has instructed the Army Corps of Engineers to provide the final permit needed to complete the Dakota Access pipeline, according to two North Dakota GOP lawmakers who support the project.
Sen. John Hoeven and Rep. Kevin Cramer both issued statements Tuesday night saying the acting secretary of the Army, Robert Speer, had ordered the Corps to grant an easement for the pipeline to run under Lake Oahe.
“This will enable the company to complete the project,” Hoeven said, “which can and will be built with the necessary safety features to protect the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and others downstream.”
Neither the White House nor the secretary of the Army could be immediately reached for comment. Kamil Sztalkoper, deputy director of public affairs for the Army Corps of Engineers, referred comments to the Army secretary’s chief spokesman and said he “can’t confirm or deny whether that’s accurate.” A representative of the pipeline company, Energy Transfer Partners, said the company did not know anything beyond what it saw on Cramer and Hoeven’s websites.
The apparent move came a week after President Trump issued a presidential memorandum instructing the agency to “review and approve in an expedited manner, to the extent permitted by law and as warranted… for approvals to construct and operate” the pipeline.
The Dakota Access pipeline has become a central battle point for environmentalists who are trying to stop pipelines in general as part of a campaign to keep fossil fuels in the ground. And it became a heavily symbolic battle for Native Americans as the Standing Rock Sioux tribe sought to prevent the pipeline company from disturbing sacred burial grounds and archaeological sites.
The 1,170-mile pipeline crosses four states, and would carry crude oil from the rich shale oil basins of western North Dakota to the pipeline networks and refineries in Illinois. The pipeline is virtually complete, with the 1,100-foot stretch crossing underneath Lake Oahe being one of the final pieces.
The Standing Rock Sioux have also argued that the pipeline puts their drinking water in danger. The final stretch of pipeline crosses under Lake Oahe, a reservoir created when Army Corps built dams further south on the Missouri River. The company plans to drill horizontally below the river bottom and it argues that the pipeline will be safer than trains and trucks that carry some of the crude oil currently being produced.
But opponents of the pipeline say it could still leak and contaminate the water.
President Obama, as weeks of protests added to political pressures, instructed the Army Corps to look at different route options for the pipeline. The company building the pipeline, Energy Transfer Partners, had considered laying the pipeline in the Bismarck suburbs, about 25 miles north of the current site. The Standing Rock Sioux officials have accused the company of racism for shunning largely white areas of Bismarck and digging in area close to the Native Americans.
A statement by the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, provided by its policy adviser Jodi Gillette Tuesday night, said that while a final easement had not yet been granted, tribal members planned to challenge any such action in court.
“The Army Corps lacks statutory authority to simply stop the [Environmental Impact Statement] and issue the easement. The Corps must review the Presidential Memorandum, notify Congress, and actually grant the easement. We have not received formal notice that the EIS has been suspended or withdrawn.”
“To abandon the EIS would amount to a wholly unexplained and arbitrary change based on the president’s personal views and, potentially, personal investments,” the statement added. “We stand ready to fight this battle against corporate interest superseding government procedure and the health and well-being of millions of Americans.”
Jan Hasselman, a lawyer with the environmental group Earth Justice, said the pipeline obstacles were still not settled. “The easement wasn’t issued,” he said. “We assume it’s coming soon, and are ready to litigate. But we’re still waiting for the shoe to drop.”
But Trump made it clear during the presidential campaign he backed the development of both the Dakota Access pipeline and Keystone XL, a project that spanned the U.S.-Canada border that Obama vetoed after a seven-year federal review process. Trump issued a separate directive inviting the company behind Keystone XL, TransCanada, to reapply for a presidential permit, but that process will take much longer.
Midwest Alliance for Infrastructure Now, a coalition of business, agriculture and labor groups, issued a statement praising the move.
“We appreciate that President Trump is keeping his word to move lawful, carefully sited energy projects forward,” the group said. “This is a positive development for the pipeline, construction workers across the country, and those who seek to invest in our nation’s infrastructure.”
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) also issued a statement welcoming the move, saying “we know construction will move forward – though we are waiting on more information in regards to a timeline for when construction can begin.”
Given the likely court challenge, it is unclear when work on the pipeline would restart. The tribal council has asked the few hundred protesters who remain on site to leave, in part because of harsh weather conditions.
Last fall, hundreds of law enforcement officers from different states and counties confronted protesters with water cannon, tear gas and pepper spray. Arrests reached a peak of more than 140 protesters. On Sunday, according to Hoeven, another 20 additional Bureau of Indian Affairs law enforcement officers arrived at Standing Rock to help local authorities.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/01/31/army-corps-ordered-to-issue-final-dakota-access-pipeline-permit-two-lawmakers-say/?utm_term=.945bc2b822ab
-
House Bill Seeks To Exempt GHGs From Environmental Laws
Feb 1, 2017 | Inside EPA
House Republicans are sharpening their calls to block regulation of greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions with Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL) floating legislation that would explicitly exclude several gases from regulation under multiple environmental laws and scuttle EPA's GHG rules for existing power plants, as well as new and modified oil and gas facilities.
The measure underscores the continuing drive by Republicans to reverse Obama administration climate programs. Some lawmakers are also moving beyond persistent attacks on EPA's GHG authority to question federal support for carbon capture and sequestration technology, often touted as an area of bipartisan compromise on climate policy.
But Palmer's frontal attack on several environmental statutes is a strategy that many observers have suggested would not survive a likely Senate filibuster.
The legislation, H.R. 637, is dubbed the “Stopping EPA Overreach Act of 2017” and includes a frequent Republican call for analyzing the jobs impact of EPA regulations.
The bill also specifically excludes carbon dioxide , water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride from the Clean Air Act definition of an air pollutant, effectively reversing the Supreme Court's holding in Massachusetts v. EPA that the gases are “pollutants” subject to regulation.
The bill also also precludes regulation of the gases under several other environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
The legislation also declares that both EPA' GHG limits for existing power plants and the agency's new source performance standards for new and modified oil and gas sources “shall be void and have no force or effect.”
The legislation attacking multiple climate-related authorities comes with Republican critics of EPA newly emboldened by unified Republican control of the White House and Congress.
But many lawmakers and outside observers have expressed doubt that Congress -- and specifically the Senate -- would go as far as to fully repeal EPA's GHG authority. These observers cite both the prospect of a Senate filibuster and concerns that full deregulation would open the way to a wave of renewed tort litigation in the courts' including climate nuisance suits.
That concern, however, does not surface in recent remarks by House freshman Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) who in recent remarks to the Casper Star-Tribune expressed opposition to multiple environmental requirements and also questioned federal supports for clean coal technology.
“I think what we ought to do first of all is say what technology is really necessary,” Cheney told the paper, expressing doubt about climate science and federal GHG regulation.
Cheney blamed GHG and other regulations on the utility sector as the reason for the coal sector's current economic troubles.
But her position on subsidies differs sharply from many clean coal proponents who argue that continued federal clean coal supports are necessary to give the coal sector any prospect of competing with cheap natural gas. And many analysts have said cheap natural gas is a far more significant factor than environmental rules in causing a domestic drop in coal demand.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/climate-house-bill-seeks-exempt-ghgs-environmental-laws
-
Senate Energy Committee Advances Zinke, Perry Nominations
Jan 31, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
While Senate Democrats boycotted votes for some of President Trump's other cabinet picks, his nominees to lead the Department of Energy (DOE) and Interior (DOI) sailed through the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Tuesday with bipartisan support.
The panel voted 16-6 in favor of Rep. Ryan Zinke's (R-MT) nomination to lead the DOI, and 16-7 in favor of former Texas Gov. Rick Perry's nomination to head the DOE. Both nominations will now move to the Senate floor for a final vote.
"I look forward to partnering with Congressman Zinke and Gov. Perry, who will lead departments that contribute significantly to our nation's economic prosperity and national security," Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the committee's chairman, said in a statement. "Given the bipartisan support that both nominees received today, I am hopeful that their nominations will be taken up and confirmed quickly by the full Senate."
Murkowski said she hoped for a "speedy" confirmation of both nominees on the Senate floor.
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), the committee's ranking member, said she had serious concerns not only with the nominees, but with the actions taken by the Trump administration during its first days in office. Among her concerns was an executive order that removed the DOE secretary from the list of regular members on the National Security Council.
"I would say with everything that's happening on cyber, and the threats that this nation is facing to our electricity grid on cybersecurity, now is not the time to remove somebody from that post," Cantwell said.
Cantwell also took issue with an executive order barring citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States.
"Many of our national laboratories are supported in key scientific missions with postdoctoral fellows and scientists that come to us from all over the world," Cantwell said. "Have we forgotten that Albert Einstein was an immigrant who fled Europe? Or that Enrico Fermi's wife was Jewish, and he and his family came to the United States after the Nobel Prize ceremony in 1938?"
She later added, "I hope that, as we move forward, my colleagues will work very hard to speak out against the policies of this administration that are coming into conflict with science."
Turning to Perry's nomination, Cantwell said he had been given "many opportunities to clarify, for the record, the lack of enthusiasm to refute what the Trump administration was pursuing" over its plans to scuttle the DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, and the Office of Fossil Energy.
"This is especially important since President Trump had said, prior to being sworn in, 'my cabinet officials speak for themselves -- they're free to say whatever what they want,'" Cantwell said. "So I see no reason why he could not have spoken in more urgent terms on something that has been supported by both Democrat and Republican administrations that is key to the job structure of our future and supported enthusiastically."
She later told Zinke, who attended the meeting, "I know you want to be a Teddy Roosevelt kind of [DOI secretary], but right now you're working with an administration who, in their own infrastructure bill, says that they are going to pay for it by oil and gas infrastructure by oil and gas on federal lands -- all over federal lands. I don't know where that stops."
Although all 12 Republicans on the committee voted for both nominees, the picture was muddled on the Democratic side.
Two Democrats, Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), voted for both men, as did Sen. Angus King (I-ME), who caucuses with the Democrats. Cantwell and Sens. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Al Franken (D-MN) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI) voted against the nominees, as did Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who also caucuses with the Democrats.
Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) voted for Zinke but against Perry, while Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) voted for Perry but was against Zinke. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) did not cast a vote on Zinke and opposed Perry.
According to reports, Democratic lawmakers on the Senate Finance Committee boycotted votes to advance the nominations of Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) to head the Department of Health and Human Services, and Steve Mnuchin to lead the Department of the Treasury.
"I think it's fair to say that things on the Hill right now, certainly things in the Senate as we are trying to deal with these confirmations, have been testy," Murkowski said. She thanked Cantwell "for working with me to make sure that we could have a committee meeting that was smooth and expeditious, [and] without fireworks...
"It's just another chapter moving forward in some interesting times that will challenge us both."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109247-senate-energy-committee-advances-zinke-perry-nominations
-
News Of 'Imminent' Approval Triggers Tribe, Enviro Backlash
Feb 1, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey
The politics surrounding the Dakota Access pipeline racheted up last night after lawmakers signaled approval was imminent.
Republican Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota issued a statement last night saying he had received word the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would grant the final federal approval needed to complete the oil pipeline "within days."
Acting Secretary of the Army Robert Speer, Hoeven said, had directed the Army Corps to "proceed with the easement" that Energy Transfer Partners needs to build the oil pipeline under Lake Oahe, a dammed section of the Missouri River.
Hoeven also said he's working to secure federal support for local law enforcement in North Dakota, noting that 20 additional Bureau of Indian Affairs law enforcement officers arrived Sunday at Standing Rock.
Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota also issued a statement, which echoed that the Army Corps has been directed to proceed with the final easement. So did Republican Rep. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, a former adviser for President Trump on energy issues, who said approval was "imminent."
Heitkamp said that while it is clear construction can move forward, timing is uncertain. "We are waiting on more information in regards to a timeline for when construction can begin," she said. "We also know that with tensions high, our families, workers, and tribal communities deserve the protective resources they need to stay safe."
The pipeline, a lightning rod on the issues of climate change and tribal sovereignty, has also become a talking point for the Trump administration. Trump last week inked an executive memo calling on the corps to fast-track the review and approval of the oil pipeline and reconsider whether an environmental impact statement — a deeper environmental review — was indeed needed.
The project is slated to run from the Bakken Shale play, which straddles the U.S.-Canada border, to Illinois.
North Dakota has become the battleground for protesters because it's there that Energy Transfer Partners needs a federal easement to cross the river and build the pipeline near the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's reservation. The tribe has raised concerns in and out of court that a pipeline spill could contaminate drinking water or desecrate sacred lands, and they have argued the project violates their treaty rights.
And shortly after Hoeven's statement was released, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe shot back that the senator's assertion was "premature" and the corps did not have the authority to grant the final approval for Dakota Access with an environmental impact statement underway.
"The Army Corps lacks statutory authority to simply stop the EIS and issue the easement," the tribe said in a statement. "The corps must review the Presidential Memorandum, notify Congress, and actually grant the easement. We have not received formal notice that the EIS has been suspended or withdrawn."
Abandoning the EIS, the tribe claimed, would amount to a "wholly unexplained and arbitrary change based on" Trump's personal views and possibly his personal investments.
News of an impending approval also drew sharp backlash from activists opposed to both the Dakota Access and Keystone XL pipelines, which Trump has said he intends to see built.
"It is sickening that Republicans are championing a risky pipeline to be shoved through the main drinking water source for the Standing Rock and Cheyenne River Nations," said Jane Kleeb, president of the Bold Alliance. "At some point our country has to ask when will Big Oil's overreach end? When do we have enough pipe lines to satisfy the Big Oil Corporation's greed?"
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/02/01/stories/1060049334
-
House Passes Cybersecurity Bills
Feb 1, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
Legislation aimed at bolstering U.S. cybersecurity — including election materials — sailed through the House yesterday under suspension of the rules, which fast-tracks noncontroversial measures.
H.R. 584, the "Cyber Preparedness Act of 2017," would change language in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to improve preparation and response to cyberattacks.
"Even with the heightened awareness on security, it appears the U.S. isn't adequately prepared to prevent and respond to cyberattacks," said Rep. Dan Donovan (R-N.Y.), the bill's sponsor.
Donovan's measure passed the House last Congress but was held up in the Senate. Donovan noted a Federal Emergency Management Agency preparedness survey in which several states listed cybersecurity as an area where they had little confidence.
The bill would direct the Department of Homeland Security to enhance information sharing on cyberthreats to election equipment and technology, Rep. Donald Payne (D-N.J.) said.
"Last fall, the range of cyberthreats we face came into focus when a foreign government attempted to interfere and undermine the integrity of our presidential election by hacking into the campaign and political party's databases," Payne said.
Also passed by voice vote was a bill to promote cybersecurity research between the U.S. and Israel, H.R. 612.
The measure includes a research grant program aimed at addressing "one of the key national challenges of the 21st century," said Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.), who introduced the bill.
H.R. 549, another Donovan-sponsored bill, also passed by voice vote. The measure would create a transit security grant program under the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007. The New York Republican called for "flexible" solutions to battle "evolving and complex" security threats.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/02/01/stories/1060049335
-
Cybersecurity Improvements, Rescinding Rules Welcomed by Energy CEOs
Feb 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
Energy industry CEOs said industry-government partnerships to defend against cyber and physical attacks on the electric grid should continue in the new administration.
“The key to cybersecurity and physical security is a government-industry partnership, and it's really got to be one that works,” Thomas Kuhn, president of the Edison Electric Institute, which represents investor-owned utilities, said at the Jan. 31 United States Energy Association's annual State of the Energy Industry forum in Washington.
The industry comments came as President Donald Trump met with cybersecurity experts at the White House Jan. 31 to discuss an upcoming executive order that would direct each federal agency to be accountable for cybersecurity risks, according to White House pool reports.
Kuhn said it's important for the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council to continue to operate under the Trump administration. The council is made up of electric power industry executives and serves to coordinate between the industry and federal government to protect the electricity grid from cyber and physical threats.
“For us, we want to continue to improve and maintain this partnership, and to build upon it,” he said.
Dave McCurdy, the president and CEO of the American Gas Association, which represents natural gas companies, said that the new administration will have to work with the private industry, since the latter owns 96 percent of the energy infrastructure.
“So government policy does have an impact there, and we need to be a part of that process, working with [National Institute of Standards and Technology], and others,” McCurdy said.
Likewise, both Jim Matheson, CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and Susan Kelly, president and CEO of the American Public Power Association, which represent rural electric cooperatives and community-owned utilities, both supported the continuation of the industry/federal council.
Regulatory Overhaul
Separately, CEOs seemed generally receptive to an executive order Trump signed Jan. 30 intended to zero-out regulatory costs by eliminating two regulations for every new regulation issued.
Hal Quinn, president and CEO of the National Mining Association, which represents the mining industry, said he was supportive of the order but noted its success is dependent upon how well the administration implements it.
“I think the ‘two-for-one'—while there are questions about how it gets implemented—is important because it puts some accountability in the system,” Quinn said. “It makes them go back through and do a retrospective review.”
AGA's McCurdy also backed a review of past regulations before issuing more new regulations on industry.
“I have long thought we should have sunsetting provisions and a way to evaluate existing regulations,” he told Bloomberg BNA after the forum.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=104913311&vname=dennotallissues&fn=104913311&jd=104913311
-
Trump Scraps Signing Of Cybersecurity Executive Action
Jan 31, 2017 | The Hill
By Jordan Fabian
President Trump scrapped plans on Tuesday to sign an executive actionlaunching a government-wide cybersecurity overhaul.
The White House did not immediately provide an explanation for the cancellation.
It was an abrupt about face after the White House spent all day Tuesday plugging its plans to boost the nation's offensive and defensive cyber capabilities.
Officials told reporters earlier in the day that Trump planned to order Cabinet officials to enhance their agencies’ cyber defenses and commission an administration-wide review to assess hacking risks.
Hours later, Trump convened a “listening session” with top White House, Cabinet and cybersecurity experts in the Roosevelt Room.
“I will hold my Cabinet secretaries and agency heads accountable, totally accountable for the cybersecurity of their organizations which we probably don’t have as much, certainly not as much as we need,” he said. “We must protect federal networks and data.”
Trump has set a frantic pace with executive action signings during his first days in power. But Tuesday marks the second time in less than a week the White House has scrapped the signing of an order.
The president was set to approve an order last Thursday moving ahead with a probe into his unsubstantiated voter fraud claims. That signing has not yet been rescheduled.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/317165-trump-scraps-signing-of-cybersecurity-executive-action
-
Chao Confirmed As Transportation Secretary
Feb 1, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Camille von Kaenel
Senators today overwhelmingly approved Elaine Chao to lead the Transportation Department.
Chao has sailed through her confirmation with warm wishes from both sides. She has extensive experience in Washington, having previously served as President George W. Bush's Labor secretary and as President Reagan's deputy Transportation secretary. She is married to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
Chao will be sworn in at 5 p.m., said Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary.
Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) voted against her. Ninety-three senators voted "yes," and McConnell voted "present."
Schumer said he voted "no" because Chao had not taken a position on President Trump's executive order on immigration.
Chao will be in charge of funneling federal dollars to highway and other infrastructure projects — Trump has pledged to spend $1 trillion to fix and build the country's roads, bridges and ports. She will also oversee any changes to fuel economy standards, which automakers have lobbied for.
Chao has remained mostly tight-lipped on her or Trump's transportation agenda. She dodged questions on air traffic control, autonomous vehicles, drones and greenhouse gas emissions at her confirmation hearing but has found widespread support for her nomination (E&E Daily, Jan. 12). Her family owns a shipping business, which critics have pointed to as a possible conflict of interest.
"It would be hard to come up with a more qualified candidate than Elaine Chao to serve in this role," said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.
The committee referred her favorably to the floor last week with a voice vote and gave her little trouble at her confirmation hearing.
"She is a part of the Senate family, and we already know her well," Florida Sen. Bill Nelson, the leading Democrat on the committee, said during her confirmation vote today.
Right before the vote, Nelson raised concerns that Chao was not consulted in the implementation of Trump's executive order on immigrants. As the pick for Transportation secretary, he said, she "would have to be concerned" about the organized rollout of the order in airports, including refunds of plane tickets.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/01/31/stories/1060049307
-
Trump Spokesman Skirts Specifics On Climate Actions
Jan 31, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Robin Bravender
White House spokesman Sean Spicer today declined to offer details about the Trump administration's plans to tackle Obama administration climate policies.
President Trump has said he'll eliminate the Clean Power Plan, an Obama rule to slash greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Some of his supporters are hoping Trump's team will go even further by eliminating the so-called endangerment finding that underpins U.S. EPA's authority to crack down on greenhouse gases using the Clean Air Act.
Asked today at a press briefing whether Trump plans to revoke the Clean Power Plan or the endangerment finding, Spicer said broadly, "We're in the process of reviewing all of our energy policies."
Trump, Spicer added, "has been very clear with respect to energy policy that he wants to review all of the options that we have to use our natural resources to better the country in terms of wind power, solar, clean coal."
And he took the opportunity to criticize Senate Democrats for slowing down confirmations of Trump's nominees.
"I'd go back to note that we don't have an Energy secretary confirmed right now because the Senate hasn't yet moved forward," Spicer said. "I hope that once that's done, we will have further updates on energy."
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee today advanced the nomination of former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) to lead the Energy Department, with a few Democrats voting to approve Perry for the job (Greenwire, Jan. 31).
However, the Clean Power Plan and the endangerment finding will fall under the purview of EPA, not DOE.
Trump has picked Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) to serve as the next EPA administrator. Senate Democrats have made Pruitt one of their top targets and are attempting to slow down his confirmation, although he's expected to ultimately win approval for the job.
As attorney general, Pruitt sued the Obama administration over the Clean Power Plan, and Trump has repeatedly vowed to kill that regulation.
As for the endangerment finding itself, Pruitt said during his confirmation hearing, "The endangerment finding is there and needs to be enforced and respected" (E&E Daily, Jan. 19).
Transition officials have debated internally about whether the Trump administration should seek a reversal of that finding, and a future determination is expected to be made jointly by Pruitt and White House officials (Climatewire, Jan. 31).
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/01/31/stories/1060049302
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested