Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 2/2/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Trade Groups Press Donald Trump To Better Economic Ties With Modi's India
Feb 2, 2017 | International Business Times, India Edition
By Deependra Jha
After US President Donald Trump spoke to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi last week and extended an invite to visit Washington later this year, a delegation of 20 business groups on Wednesday called on US Congress and the White House to improve the country's economic relationship with India. -
(ACC Mentioned) US Companies Seek 'Fair Play' In India
Feb 2, 2017 | PTI ( In The Times of India)
Asserting that US businesses continue to face an "evolving array" of tariff and non-tariff barriers in India, a group of 20 eminent American business organisations and industry groups in a letter to Congressional leadership have sought a "fair play" for them in the huge Indian market. -
Senate Democrats Dig in on Pruitt Obstruction
Feb 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
The Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee will meet for another vote Feb. 2 on Scott Pruitt's nomination for EPA administrator, and Democrats appear poised to again boycott. -
Republicans Reschedule Pruitt Vote After Democrats' Boycott
Feb 2, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Kevin Bogardus
Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee have rescheduled for today a panel vote on the nomination of Scott Pruitt to be U.S. EPA administrator. -
Battle Over EPA Pick Is Big Business
Feb 2, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Outside groups are spending millions in the Senate battle over confirming Scott Pruitt, President Trump’s nominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). -
(ACC Mentioned) Study: Fast Food Wrappers Contain Cancer-Causing Chemicals
Feb 1, 2017 | CBS Local
You already knew fast food wasn’t the healthiest option, but a new study is revealing a new health concern, in the packaging. -
(ACC Mentioned) Potentially Dangerous Chemicals Found In Fast-Food Wrappers, Researchers Say
Feb 2, 2017 | Tribune News Service (In South China Morning Post)
For more than three decades, fast-food chains have relied on the chemical industry to keep grease and oil from soaking through burger wrappers, french fry cartons and pizza boxes. -
EPA Names Thayer to Head Chemical Risk Information Agency
Feb 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
An EPA program that provides chemical risk information that underlies agency and state regulatory decisions has a new director. -
Killing Clean Power Plan Won't Be Easy — McCarthy
Feb 2, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Robin Bravender
Former U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy thinks the Trump administration faces a heavy lift in eliminating the Obama administration's signature climate change rule. -
Trump's Mexico Feud May Send Natural Gas to $2 If Exports End
Feb 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Naureen S. Malik
Natural gas prices in the U.S. may tumble about 40 percent if President Donald Trump's feud with Mexico turns into an all-out trade war. -
Dakota Access Oil Pipeline Nears Final Permit, Lawmakers Say
Feb 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Energy Transfer Partners LP may be close to getting the permit it needs to finish the Dakota Access oil pipeline, a project that became a flash point for environmentalists but a symbol of President Donald Trump's pledge to jump start energy infrastructure. -
Despite Rumors, Pipeline Approval Remains Elusive
Feb 2, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey and Ellen M. Gilmer
The Army Corps of Engineers is following through with President Trump's executive memo to quickly decide whether a deep environmental review of the contested Dakota Access oil pipeline is necessary. -
Utility Mercury Rule Settlement Possible Under Trump
Feb 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
New leadership at the EPA could lead to a settlement in litigation over an Obama-era finding on the need to regulate mercury emissions from the power sector, states and industry organizations suggested in a court filing. -
(ACC Mentioned) Pruitt Testimony Criticized as Industry Seeks EPA Rule Changes
Feb 1, 2017 | Chem.Info
By Andy Szal
As industry groups call on Congress to reject an EPA proposal regarding chemical plant risk management, Senate Democrats criticized President Donald Trump's nominee to lead the agency for his answers to their questions during the confirmation process. -
Congress' Inquiry Into Grid Threat Turns Up Human Error
Feb 2, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Blake Sobczak
The cyberthreat facing the power grid is at an "all-time high," a leading electric sector official told lawmakers yesterday, although hackers have not yet caused any blackouts in the United States. -
EU Specifies Worker Exposure Limits for 31 Substances
Feb 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
European Union countries must specify new occupational exposure limits for 25 hazardous substances and review their limits for six substances for which workplace exposure thresholds have already been specified as part of a European Commission published a directive Feb. 1 -
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Memo Spurs New Industry Push for EPA Permitting Changes
Feb 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Manufacturers hope President Donald Trump's call to expedite permitting for new projects will galvanize the EPA and state environmental regulators to speed up their permit review processes and pursue broader revisions to underlying regulations. -
(ACC Mentioned) ‘Making EPA Great Again’ Is Stated Aim of House Science Panel
Feb 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The social cost of carbon—the economic costs of carbon emissions—and “secret science” are among the top issues the House Science, Space and Technology Committee intends to examine in the 115th Congress, the committee announced Feb. 1. -
(ACC Mentioned) Rep. Lamar Smith, Emboldened In A New Washington, Seeks to Reshape EPA
Feb 1, 2017 | MyStatesman.com
By Asher Price
For years, U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, who represents parts of Central and South Austin, wandered in a kind of policy desert, his proposals to box in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency often failing in fights with the Obama administration. -
Gorsuch Could (But Might Not) Spell Trouble for Environmental Rules
Feb 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Wilhelm
U.S. Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch has opposed giving broad deference to the EPA and other federal agencies during a decade on the federal bench, but his track record also indicates a reluctance to support “heavy-handed rollbacks” of Obama-era environmental rules, legal experts told Bloomberg BNA. -
Dems Fret Trump Pick Could Undermine Environmental Rules
Feb 2, 2017 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink and Geof Koss
Senate Democrats are already raising concerns that Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch could reverse long-standing environmental law as they prepare for a highly partisan fight over confirming President Trump's first high court pick. -
Bipartisan Bills Aim To Delay Ozone Standard To 2025
Feb 2, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly,
A bipartisan and bicameral team is again seeking to roll back implementation of U.S. EPA's latest ozone standard well into the next decade, accompanied by broader changes to the Clean Air Act's apparatus for setting ambient air quality limits for key pollutants. -
Southern California Could Swap Air Pollution Trading for Rules
Feb 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Southern California could scrap its longstanding air pollution trading program in favor of direct regulations, irking industries, as it seeks to bring the worst regional air quality in the nation in line with federal requirements. -
Arguments In Air Toxics Suit Pose Early Test For Trump EPA Legal Policy
Feb 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
A federal appeals court is poised to hear oral arguments next week in what appears to be the first major lawsuit in which Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys will defend an EPA policy from environmentalists' attacks, posing an early test for how the new administration will respond to lawsuits that claim Obama-era rules are too weak. -
EU Ready to Lead on Climate if U.S. Backtracks: Official
Feb 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Union is on track to meet its 2020 decarbonization goals and is ready to “assume global leadership” in case the U.S. under President Donald Trump backtracks on its emissions-reduction commitments, the EU's top energy official said Feb. 1.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Trade Groups Press Donald Trump To Better Economic Ties With Modi's India
Feb 2, 2017 | International Business Times, India Edition
By Deependra Jha
After US President Donald Trump spoke to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi last week and extended an invite to visit Washington later this year, a delegation of 20 business groups on Wednesday called on US Congress and the White House to improve the country's economic relationship with India.
US Senate confirms Rex Tillerson as secretary of state in Trump administration
Highlighting that economic relationship between the two nations remains "unbalanced and significantly underperforming its potential," the groups, in a letter to congressional leaders, wrote that policy reforms are still needed to ensure fair competition between the US and India.
"The strengthening U.S.-India relationship would be enhanced by improving economic ties across a broad range of areas to ensure fair competition for foreign and domestic companies, support innovation and intellectual property rights, and promote foreign direct investment," the groups wrote.
The groups - including US Chamber of Commerce and US Council for International Business - though noted that improvements have been made under Prime Minister Narendra Modi in areas such as foreign investment, fossil fuel and infrastructure project permitting, the letter said "concrete and lasting policy changes to address a number of other longstanding issues comprehensively remain elusive."
For several years, businesses worldwide have been asking India to make changes to its foreign trade policies.
In the letter, business leaders from across the US argued that the relationship could be strengthened by ensuring similar rules for foreign and domestic companies and more support for intellectual property rights, among others.
India remains on US Trade Representative's Special 301 priority watch list based on its record of intellectual property rights protection.
"The US government, including Congress, should use all available channels to ensure fair play for businesses, investors and entrepreneurs across the United States, and to support Indian efforts that align with these goals," the letter said.
Business organisations signing the letter include: American Chemistry Council, Biotechnology Innovation Organisation, CropLife America, Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, Motion Picture Association of America, National Association of Manufacturers, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
http://www.ibtimes.co.in/us-trade-groups-press-donald-trump-better-economic-ties-modis-india-714535
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Companies Seek 'Fair Play' In India
Feb 2, 2017 | PTI ( In The Times of India)
WASHINGTON: Asserting that US businesses continue to face an "evolving array" of tariff and non-tariff barriers in India, a group of 20 eminent American business organisations and industry groups in a letter to Congressional leadership have sought a "fair play" for them in the huge Indian market.
"The US government, including Congress, should use all available channels to ensure fair play for businesses, investors, and entrepreneurs across the US, and to support Indian efforts that align with these goals," the group said in a letter to top Congressional leadership including the House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, days after the inauguration of the Donald Trump administration."In particular, it is critical for the US to use actively both existing and new platforms and tools to raise and resolve longstanding issues," the letter said, adding that the Strategic and Commercial Dialogue and TPF, for example, have been valuable opportunities for senior level exchanges between the two governments.
"In the hands of a new administration, and with robust oversight and encouragement from leaders in Congress as well as greater private sector participation, the S&CD and TPF can be improved and serve as opportunities to address concretely areas of mutual economic interest that deepen the US-Indian commercial relationship," the letter said.
"Businesses in the US continue to face an evolving array of tariff and non-tariff barriers, both longstanding and new, which impede businesses and manufacturers in the United States from competing fairly in India and creating jobs here at home," the letter said."Similarly, where appropriate, WTO dispute settlement has played and should continue to play a key role in ensuring that India follows through on its international commitments," said the letter signed by Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed), American Business Conference (ABC), American Chemistry Council (ACC), American Foundry Society (AFS), Association of Equipment Manufacturers (AEM), Biotechnology Innovation Organisation (BIO), and CropLife America.
"As a result, the economic relationship between the US and India remains unbalanced and significantly underperforming its potential. The US market is largely open to India and has become the second-largest destination for Indian exports worldwide," it said.Stay updated on the go with Times of India News App. Click here to download it for your device.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/us-companies-seek-fair-play-in-india/articleshow/56933430.cms
-
Senate Democrats Dig in on Pruitt Obstruction
Feb 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
The Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee will meet for another vote Feb. 2 on Scott Pruitt's nomination for EPA administrator, and Democrats appear poised to again boycott.
Committee Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) deflected questions on whether he intends to advance the Pruitt nomination without committee Democrats present but said Pruitt will ultimately pass the full Senate chamber. The nomination will advance “expeditiously,” he told reporters.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the committee ranking member, told reporters he aims to speak with Barrasso later Feb. 1. Carper repeatedly sidestepped questions on whether Democrats will boycott, however.
After an initial boycott of the Pruitt vote Feb. 1, Carper and other committee Democrats are digging in on their opposition despite a likely Republican ability to move the nomination to the Senate floor without Democratic participation in a committee vote.
Disclosure Tunnel-Vision
Democrats continue to demand Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general, provide more comprehensive answers to a wide range of questions and disclose e-mails between his office and fossil fuel companies. In response to various questions, Pruitt directed the Democrats to file an open records request through his office, which currently has a two-year backlog.
“Scott Pruitt has consistently misrepresented his environmental record and denied us the information we require to perform our duty to advise and consent,” Carper said Feb. 1. “Our requests are reasonable. Provide this information so that we can move on.” Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) told Bloomberg BNA he couldn't envision a scenario where committee Democrats participate in a Pruitt vote.
EPW Committee rules require two members of the minority party to form a quorum, which is necessary to conduct a vote, a Senate Republican aide told Bloomberg BNA. Rules posted on the committee's website back that explanation.
But the rules also contain a potential off-ramp. A nomination may be advanced if “a majority of committee members cast votes in person,” the rules say. Republicans control the committee by a 11-10 margin.
Republicans See'Temper Tantrum’
Republicans bashed Democrats for failing to show up for the vote.
“Not having a vote on this nominee today, not organizing this important committee is a shame,” Barrasso said at the hearing that aimed to conduct a vote. “I believe no one is served, no environmental goal is achieved by the Democrats acting in this obstructionist way.”
Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) called the Democrats’ opposition tactics “silly,” and Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) urged Democrats to “cease the temper tantrum.”
In 2013, Republicans blocked Democrats, then the majority party, from advancing the nomination of former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy for roughly four months. Republicans also called her answers to a voluminous disclosure request insufficient. But Barrasso dismissed the comparison.
“A newly elected president I believe has a right to their Cabinet,” he said.
Sen. Shelley Capito (R-W.Va.) told Bloomberg BNA Barrasso may ultimately move the Pruitt nomination forward without Democrats present. That maneuver would size up similarly to a Senate Finance Committee decision Feb. 1 to advance Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) to lead the Health and Human Services Department and Steve Mnuchin as treasury secretary.
Democrats had boycotted votes on those two nominees the previous day.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=104954042&vname=dennotallissues&fn=104954042&jd=104954042
-
Republicans Reschedule Pruitt Vote After Democrats' Boycott
Feb 2, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Kevin Bogardus
Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee have rescheduled for today a panel vote on the nomination of Scott Pruitt to be U.S. EPA administrator.
Yesterday, Democrats scuttled the original vote on President Trump's EPA nominee by not attending the committee's business meeting. That angered Republicans who support the Oklahoma attorney general to lead the agency. Pruitt has run into Democratic opposition over what they consider his vague and evasive answers during the confirmation process (Greenwire, Feb. 1).
GOP senators will try again today to vote in committee on Pruitt's nomination and send him to the Senate floor for full confirmation.
EPW Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said at yesterday's business meeting that not having a vote on Pruitt was "a shame."
"I believe no one is served, no environmental goal is achieved, by the Democrats acting in this obstructionist way," Barrasso said.
Democrats said they want full and complete answers from Pruitt before moving forward on his nomination.
"I take no joy in not being a full participant in this business meeting today," ranking member Tom Carper (D-Del.) said yesterday outside the committee room. "My hope is we'll get the answers we want. What we want is the truth, what we want are the full facts, and when we get those, we're ready to move."
Under committee rules, at least two members of the minority need to be present to form a quorum. But even without Democrats, Barrasso should be able to move Pruitt's nomination forward.
The EPW chairman could suspend the panel's rules and then just have Republicans vote on the EPA nominee. GOP senators have taken that path already with other Trump nominees, such as Steve Mnuchin for Treasury secretary and Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) for Health and Human Services secretary.
Barrasso could also interpret the committee rules in such a way that a simple majority voting in support of Pruitt could advance his nomination. Former Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) considered that option in 2013 when Republicans at first sat out the committee vote on then-EPA nominee Gina McCarthy (Greenwire, May 9, 2013).
Republican senators may just have to go it alone on Pruitt's nomination.
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said at yesterday's committee hearing that Democrats, upset over their election loss, were acting like children who taken their ball home instead of playing the game. He hinted that Republicans may move Pruitt on their own.
"It'll change. But in the meantime, we have to work our way through this. I think we have to be the adults in the room. We have to act like adults in the room," Rounds said. "I think we'll follow the rules, but we will eventually approve Mr. Pruitt as the next administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency."
Schedule: The markup is Thursday, Feb. 2, at 10:15 a.m. in 406 Dirksen.
Reporter Geof Koss contributed.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/02/02/stories/1060049408
-
Battle Over EPA Pick Is Big Business
Feb 2, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Outside groups are spending millions in the Senate battle over confirming Scott Pruitt, President Trump’s nominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
More than $3 million in spending and other actions on both sides are coming from nonprofit organizations that do not have to disclose their donors.
The Environmental Defense Action Fund has spent $1 million opposing Pruitt, while NextGen Climate Action, the group founded by billionaire activist Tom Steyer, says its ad bill is seven figures.
The National Association of Manufacturers is the biggest spender in favor of Pruitt with a seven-figure ad campaign of its own.
The fierce battle reflects the high stakes of Pruitt’s nomination.
If confirmed, he would carry out Trump’s agenda of rolling back all of former President Barack Obama’s major climate change regulations, along with Obama’s major regulation asserting federal jurisdiction over small waterways, like ponds. He could also target the EPA’s limits on mercury pollution from power plants and on ground-level ozone, a byproduct of some pollutants from burning fossil fuels.
“It’s a rare thing to have this much aggression against a Cabinet nominee. Usually, Cabinet nominees are confirmed rather quickly, especially in these regulatory agencies,” said Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston.
“It’s only because Pruitt has been so outspoken on climate change issues and so aggressive that we’ve seen this play out.”
Anti-Pruitt forces scored a small victory Wednesday when Democrats on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee boycotted a committee vote to approve him, denying the GOP the quorum it needed to move forward with the vote.
But overall, Pruitt’s confirmation seems likely.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) is the only Republican to voice any concerns about him, and he’ll need only 51 votes to be confirmed; the GOP holds 52 seats in the Senate.
The expensive battle over Pruitt, Oklahoma’s attorney general who frequently sued Obama’s EPA, also reflects the growth of political nonprofit spending, which has coincided with an explosion of campaign funding through super PACs.
“There is now a permanent infrastructure of both super PACs and dark money groups that can turn on the spigot and open the sluice to have the money come pouring in at any given moment,” said Meredith McGehee, a veteran of political finance and ethics who serves as the head of policy at Issue One.
“We have an entire apparatus of groups that, with the tap of a key, can tap into huge numbers of donors, activists, et cetera,” she said.
The League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club have sponsored smaller campaigns opposing Pruitt, while America Rising Squared has done extensive public relations in support of Pruitt.
In addition, Protecting America Now, a nonprofit group, was founded after Pruitt’s nomination and solicited industry donations for the express purpose of supporting his nomination and his agenda, according to a flier obtained by The Hill.
None of the major spenders have to disclose their donors, and in the case of Protecting America Now, the flier highlighted the nondisclosure of donors as a benefit.
Kate Doner, listed as the group’s fundraiser, did not respond to requests for comment.
Pruitt isn’t the only Trump nominee who is the subject of a major advertising campaign.
Attorney general nominee Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Education secretary nominee Betsy DeVos and Health and Human Services Secretary nominee Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) have also attracted advertising, organizing and other efforts.
“It is the first set of nominations of the dark-money era,” said Keith Gaby, spokesman for EDF Action.
EDF Action has not opposed any EPA nominee before, but Gaby said it felt obliged to battle Pruitt.
“He seems to have been deliberately chosen as the most provocative, anti-EPA choice Trump could have made,” Gaby said.
Gaby pointed to the “dark money” supporting Pruitt’s confirmation as evidence of his strong allegiance with industries like oil and natural gas. Greens and Democrats have hounded Pruitt for his industry connections and his fundraising for various political groups such as the Republican Attorneys Generals Association and a pair of PACs connected to him.
“It does nothing but confirm our suspicion that Pruitt will be up to no good on behalf of special interests, when special interests are clearly funding a dark-money campaign to put him in place,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).
Jeremy Adler, spokesman for America Rising Squared, was equally critical of the environmental groups opposing Pruitt.
“Their message and agenda were rejected by the American people, and despite losing at the ballot box, they’re still prescribing the same dangerous agenda that would hurt families, drive up costs on them and eliminate millions of jobs,” said Adler.
“That’s why they’re opposing Scott Pruitt, because they know he’s an impediment to their extreme agenda,” he said.
Observers see the high interest in Pruitt’s nomination as a preview of things to come, both in terms of how outside groups will be involved in EPA fights under Trump and how groups will battle over Cabinet nominees in the future.
“There’s a pent-up demand to be able to challenge the president on policy,” said Rottinghaus. “There were concerns and fears in the party that they didn’t go far enough to really take apart his policy agenda. This is an opportunity for these groups to go after him on policy and not on personality.”
https://origin-nyi.thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/317472-battle-over-epa-pick-is-big-business
-
(ACC Mentioned) Study: Fast Food Wrappers Contain Cancer-Causing Chemicals
Feb 1, 2017 | CBS Local
SAN FRANCISCO (KPIX 5) – You already knew fast food wasn’t the healthiest option, but a new study is revealing a new health concern, in the packaging.
Fluorinated chemicals are really unique in that they never break down.
And Tom Brunton, of the Green Science Policy Institute, says researchers found those chemicals in about a third of fast food packaging tested from dozens of popular chains nationwide.
Chemicals known to migrate from the wrapper into the food itself.
The chemicals are used to repel fast food oils, the same class of chemicals used in water-resistant, stain-resist or non-stick products. Some forms have been linked to health affects like cancer, elevated cholesterol, thyroid and developmental effects on children.
“Food contact material is a direct route of exposure to these chemicals for us, it’s as if you were drinking them in your drinking water,” Brunton said.
Incidentally, previous studies did find these chemicals in drinking water.
Brunton notes that the point of the study is not to scare you out of eating fast food, rather to expose the chemicals that researchers say simply aren’t necessary.
“What they say in the study is that clearly a lot of these fast food establishments don’t know these are there,” Brunton said.
The American Chemistry Council is critical of the research, stating “Without further examination… it’s impossible to draw any definitive conclusions about the nature and source of the compounds that were detected in this particular study.”
They also note the industry is switching to — what are believed to be — safer versions of the chemicals.
And keep in mind, these are chemicals we’re exposed to every day in products such as rain jackets.
“You’re likely not going to get the same kind of exposure from those products, but you’re not eating your rain jacket, right?” Brunton said.
Only two of the restaurants responded to the study’s authors.
While the study was published Wednesday, the samples were tested between 2013 and 2015.
Critics note the industry is moving in a healthier direction, but Brunton points out some of the chemicals found in the study, were supposed to have been phased out a decade ago.
Other studies have found these chemicals in drinking water and in the blood of almost everyone tested.
Meanwhile, to reduce exposure, consumers can avoid food in contact with grease-proof packaging, such as microwave popcorn, some take-out containers and wraps around fast food.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/02/01/study-food-wrappers-contain-cancer-causing-chemicals/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Potentially Dangerous Chemicals Found In Fast-Food Wrappers, Researchers Say
Feb 2, 2017 | Tribune News Service (In South China Morning Post)
For more than three decades, fast-food chains have relied on the chemical industry to keep grease and oil from soaking through burger wrappers, french fry cartons and pizza boxes.
Few questioned the safety of the specially coated food packaging until the early 2000s, when lawsuits uncovered the history of a class of chemicals that were widely used in consumer goods with practically no government oversight.
Researchers slowly began to realise that many of those compounds, known as perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs), break down in people’s bodies to a chemical called PFOA that lingers in the bloodstream for years. Other studies determined that PFOA can cause cancer, damage the liver, trigger reproductive problems and scramble hormones during critical stages of development.
It turned out food wrappers were a major source of exposure. Under oath, a former DuPont chemist described how customers ingested the chemicals every time they ate a french fry.
McDonald’s, Burger King and other chains pledged to stop using the chemicals, and manufacturers began to phase them out. Last year, the US Food and Drug Administration banned the use of three PFCs in food packaging.
But some fast-food restaurants continue to rely in part on grease-resistant packaging made with structurally similar chemicals that remain largely unknown to independent researchers, many of whom are concerned about potential health risks.
lected from McDonald’s, Burger King, Starbucks and other restaurants contained fluorine, a key building block in PFCs. Some contained traces of PFOA, one of the chemicals banned by the FDA.
The study, published Wednesday in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science & Technology Letters, highlights the long, often difficult process of identifying new chemicals in the marketplace and determining if they can cause harm. It also raises questions about corporate branding. McDonald’s and Burger King, for instance, have promoted their packaging as “PFOA-free,” meaning it doesn’t contain banned PFCs.
Fluorine, however, was detected in samples collected from both chains — indicating companies have embraced chemicals related to PFOA.
“We just don’t know enough about the safety of these new chemicals,” said David Andrews, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group who co-authored the study with researchers from federal and state agencies, universities and other nonprofit organisations. “Since there are other options out there, this should be a wake-up call for these companies.”
PFOA and related chemicals were used for decades to make Teflon, the nonstick coating pioneered by DuPont, and thousands of other products that resist stains, grease and water. Manufacturers say their replacements, described as “short-chain” because they contain fewer fluorine-carbon bonds than PFOA, offer the same benefits but leave the body faster and are considerably less toxic.
“Any further regulation of modern-day short-chain food packaging materials is unnecessary and would provide no further benefits to human health or the environment,” the American Chemistry Council, the industry’s chief trade group, said in a statement.
Fast-food chains couldn’t immediately be reached for comment. When researchers attempted to find out if they were aware of PFCs in their packaging, two unnamed companies said they believed their packaging was PFC-free even though it wasn’t, according to the study.
Many of the wrappers and cartons tested did not contain the chemicals. The study’s authors suggested that could indicate restaurants obtain packaging from different suppliers, some of which use alternative methods to make paper grease-resistant.
The presence of PFOA, the banned PFC, in some packaging could have come from recycled paper, researchers said.
Several environmental scientists pointed to a replacement chemical developed by DuPont as an example of a questionable alternative. In documents submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency between 2006 and 2013, DuPont reported the chemical, branded as GenX, caused some of the same health problems in laboratory rats that PFOA does, including cancer and reproductive problems. Company scientists downplayed the findings by saying they weren’t relevant to humans, echoing what DuPont had said earlier about PFOA.
“If we can all agree that PFOA is hazardous, but then we test its replacements with basically the same assays that gave it a ‘passing grade,’ aren’t we missing something?” said Laura Vandenberg, a researcher at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst who was not involved in the new study.
More research is needed on the potential hazards of short-chain PFCs at levels similar to how people might be exposed to the chemicals, Vandenberg and others said. But that work can take years, in part because the identities of many chemicals are considered trade secrets and manufacturers aren’t required to tell the FDA or EPA when they are used in food packaging or other products.
http://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/2067459/potentially-dangerous-chemicals-found-fast-food
-
EPA Names Thayer to Head Chemical Risk Information Agency
Feb 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
An EPA program that provides chemical risk information that underlies agency and state regulatory decisions has a new director.
Kris Thayer, formerly director of Office of Health Assessment and Translation at the National Toxicology Program, became director of the Environmental Protection Agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Jan. 8, Bloomberg BNA has confirmed with senior agency staff.
IRIS evaluates the health hazards of chemicals and doses at which those hazards could manifest. Risk assessors throughout the agency and state agencies combine that information with exposure data or estimates to decide if clean up, air emissions or other standards are needed.
Thayer helped develop systematic review procedures in her previous position directing the toxicology program's Office of Health Assessment and Translation.
Environmental health risk assessors increasingly strive to use systematic review methods, because they make the assessment's questions, data analyzed, and rationale for accepting or rejecting scientific studies clearer.
Tina Bahadori, who previously lead the EPA's Chemical Safety for Sustainability research program, has moved to run the agency's National Center for Environmental Assessment, which oversees the IRIS and other programs.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=104954045&vname=dennotallissues&fn=104954045&jd=104954045
-
Killing Clean Power Plan Won't Be Easy — McCarthy
Feb 2, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Robin Bravender
Former U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy thinks the Trump administration faces a heavy lift in eliminating the Obama administration's signature climate change rule.
The Obama EPA's Clean Power Plan rule — which Trump has vowed to eliminate — has been stalled by the Supreme Court, and a lawsuit over the rule is still pending in a federal appeals court. But McCarthy told WBUR radio in Boston today that the new administration could face an uphill climb overturning the policy she and her staff crafted.
If the Trump administration walks away from defending the rule in court, "it would not be over," McCarthy said during the radio interview.
"They would have to re-propose a rule that actually addressed what they consider to be the inadequacy," she said. "They would have to explain why greenhouse gas science is a hoax, and that's already been looked at two or three times by the Supreme Court, who actually agreed that the science was robust. Or they'd have to say that there is some other fundamental flaw with the rule as it's been designed, and I don't think they can do that."
With the rule on hold for now, "that could mean that the Clean Power Plan will continue to be stayed until it is re-proposed in some way, which could buy them the entire length of a four-year administration," she said.
She added that emission reductions are happening anyway. "The energy world is transitioning," McCarthy said. "We are unlikely to lose a lot in emissions because most of the states already are at levels of greenhouse gas emissions reductions that we didn't project until 2022."
McCarthy criticized the actions the Trump team has already taken at her former agency, citing "missteps" like a crackdown on social media use (Greenwire, Feb. 1).
Beyond the new administration's policy agenda, McCarthy said she's worried about how the new team is treating EPA staff.
"My concern is exactly what they're talking about, which is diminish the capacity of the agency to do its job — reduce people, keep them quiet, don't give them any money," she said. "That will be their way, potentially, of diminishing the ability for the agency to act with the authority and responsibility it's supposed to have."
Trump administration political officials, meanwhile, have said media reports have inaccurately represented their actions at EPA and have said they are committed to working with career staff to carry out EPA's mission of protecting public health and the environment.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/02/01/stories/1060049397
-
Trump's Mexico Feud May Send Natural Gas to $2 If Exports End
Feb 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Naureen S. Malik
Natural gas prices in the U.S. may tumble about 40 percent if President Donald Trump's feud with Mexico turns into an all-out trade war.
Prices could slide to $2 per million British thermal units or lower if U.S. gas exports to Mexico by pipeline are halted, according to Tudor Pickering Holt & Co. and Again Capital LLC. While analysts with those companies don't anticipate a complete cutoff, they're watching closely for signs of disruption to the shipments, which accounted for as much as 5 percent of U.S. production of the fuel last year.
Trump's push to impose a 20 percent tax on imports from Mexico to pay for a border wall is threatening to reverse a shift toward stronger alliances between the U.S. and its southern neighbor. The nations’ economies have become increasingly intertwined as crude oil and gas from U.S. shale basins flow south to feed power plants and factories in newly-deregulated Mexican energy markets.
“You could easily talk about dropping to the $2 area for sure or below that,” John Kilduff, partner at Again Capital LLC in New York, said in a telephone interview Monday. He sees a 40 percent chance of a trade war occurring.
The U.S. is sending a record amount of gas south of the border, with exports via pipeline topping 4 billion cubic feet a day in August through October, based on the most recent data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Mexico also became the largest importer of liquefied natural gas from its northern neighbor, receiving eleven cargoes from Cheniere Energy Inc.’s Sabine Pass terminal in Louisiana since early August, according to ship tracking data compiled by Bloomberg.
The energy links between the countries are poised to deepen, with pipeline flows set to rise by almost a billion cubic feet a day this year, Alex Tertzakian, an analyst with Energy Aspects Ltd. in London, said by e-mail Jan. 30. Pipeline projects including Energy Transfer Partners LP's San Elizario Crossing are seen boosting export capacity by 4 billion cubic feet a day in the first half of the year.
Even without a trade war, the Trump administration's promised overhaul of trade and economic ties could hurt the U.S. gas industry by slowing Mexico's gross domestic product growth, James Brick, principal analyst of North American gas with Wood Mackenzie Ltd. in Houston, said in a phone interview Tuesday.
U.S. gas prices would slide by about a dollar if all pipeline exports to Mexico are stopped, leaving the U.S. market awash in supply and forcing drillers to cut production, said Brandon Blossman, managing director at Tudor Pickering in Houston.
“It's certainly a question mark, but I don't think investors believe it will happen,” Blossman said. “Exports going away would be a big surprise to the market. It would be a struggle to understand who would win if that trade didn't continue.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=104954024&vname=dennotallissues&fn=104954024&jd=104954024
-
Dakota Access Oil Pipeline Nears Final Permit, Lawmakers Say
Feb 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Energy Transfer Partners LP may be close to getting the permit it needs to finish the Dakota Access oil pipeline, a project that became a flash point for environmentalists but a symbol of President Donald Trump's pledge to jump start energy infrastructure.
Just a week after Trump signed a memo directing the Army to expedite the line's approval, North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven (R) said Jan. 31 that the Army Corps of Engineers had been directed to move forward with the easement necessary to build the final leg of the $3.8 billion crude oil line under North Dakota's Lake Oahe.
“Essentially where we are at is the White House has done whatever review they needed to do and they have directed the (acting) Secretary of the Army Robert Speer to go ahead with the easement,” Hoeven said in a telephone interview. “They will do that in the next few days.”
The decision would follow months of protests that have stalled construction on the last leg of the 1,172-mile (1,886-kilometer) project. Environmentalists warn it will endanger water supplies and Native Americans say it will damage culturally significant sites. But Trump vowed during his campaign to speed reviews of energy projects and ordered his administration in his first days in office to expedite the Dakota line as well as the Keystone XL line connecting the Canadian oil sands with refineries on the Gulf of Mexico.
The rest of the line will be built with “the necessary safety features to protect” the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and others that have fought against its construction, Hoeven said in a statement.
The tribe said Jan. 31 that it will challenge any suspension of the federal environmental review that was being conducted on the Dakota Access line. Abandoning the review would “amount to a wholly unexplained and arbitrary change based on the president's personal views,” the tribe said in an e-mailed statement.
No Notice
The tribe said it hadn't received a notice that an environmental review had been suspended.
“The Army Corps lacks statutory authority” to stop the review and issue an easement, the tribe said. “The Corps must review the presidential memorandum, notify Congress, and actually grant the easement.“
The Army Corps and Energy Transfer didn't respond to requests for comment after regular business hours. Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said in a statement Jan. 31that the Army Corps had notified Congress of its plan to grant the easement.
“President Trump has proven to be a man of action and I am grateful for his commitment to this,” Cramer said.
Trump owned as much as $1 million in Energy Transfer Partners LP shares, according to his federal candidate disclosures in 2015. He has since sold those shares, Hope Hicks, a White House spokeswoman, said in December when she was with the transition team. Trump's pick for energy secretary, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, served on the board of the company but resigned Dec. 31, according to his ethics statements.
The Dakota Access line would give oil explorers in the prolific Bakken shale formation a new route to markets, allowing them to forgo more costly rail shipments that have been a backstop when existing pipes fill up. With a capacity of about 470,000 barrels a day, Dakota Access would ship about half of current Bakken crude production to the Midwest and Gulf Coast.
Hoeven said that Vice President Mike Pence on Jan. 31 agreed to “push this forward” after the pair discussed the issue during the Senate Republican Caucus meeting which they both attended. Hoeven also spoke with Speer.
—With assistance from Meenal Vamburkar and Jennifer A. Dlouhy.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=104954025&vname=dennotallissues&fn=104954025&jd=104954025
-
Despite Rumors, Pipeline Approval Remains Elusive
Feb 2, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey and Ellen M. Gilmer
The Army Corps of Engineers is following through with President Trump's executive memo to quickly decide whether a deep environmental review of the contested Dakota Access oil pipeline is necessary.
Yet, despite suggestions from North Dakota lawmakers last night, a final approval remains elusive.
Acting Army Secretary Robert Speer sent a memo to the Army Corps yesterday, outlining the president's directives and instructed the agency to "take all actions necessary and appropriate to fully and unequivocally comply with the specific directives."
Speer added that the corps should strictly comply with directions from Army headquarters. Speer, a holdover from the Obama administration, has served at the agency since 2009.
Administration attorneys notified the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia of the memo this morning, emphasizing that a final decision had not been made.
"Issuance of the January 31st Memorandum does not mean that a final decision on the application for an easement to construct the Dakota Access pipeline under Corps-managed Federal land at Lake Oahe has been made," Justice Department attorney Matthew Marinelli wrote.
"The Army will make any decisions once a full review and analysis is completed in accordance with the Presidential Memorandum," he wrote.
Speer's memo falls in line with analysts' expectations following Trump's actions. Despite lawmakers' insistence that a final decision is imminent, analysts noted that permitting and legal hurdles remain (E&E Daily, Feb. 1).
And as the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe pointed out last night, the corps has not officially rescinded its intent to conduct an environmental impact statement on Dakota Access. The tribe also reiterated it would challenge any change in plans.
ClearView Energy Partners analyst Christi Tezak in a note to clients today said the Army Corps on Monday made clear it was addressing the president's memo and Speer's directive was expected.
The next meaningful update for the Dakota Access pipeline, she said, would likely materialize at a Feb. 6 court status conference, when the corps is required to update Judge James Boasberg on its plans for the easement.
Energy Transfer Partners LP, the pipeline's developer, is also expected to update the court on its estimate for the interval between receiving the easement and delivering oil, Tezak noted.
While North Dakota lawmakers have focused on shoring up enforcement near the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe reservation, some on Capitol Hill are calling for more consultation with the tribe before any approval is granted.
"There must be meaningful consultation with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe before any further action on the Dakota Access Pipeline is taken," Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington tweeted today.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/02/01/stories/1060049384
-
Utility Mercury Rule Settlement Possible Under Trump
Feb 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
New leadership at the EPA could lead to a settlement in litigation over an Obama-era finding on the need to regulate mercury emissions from the power sector, states and industry organizations suggested in a court filing.
The state and industry petitioners, in a Jan. 31 motion, asked a federal appeals court to temporarily halt the latest round of litigation over the Environmental Protection Agency's 2012 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards to allow the Trump administration to evaluate the issue. The petitioners said a 45-day extension in briefing deadlines would allow the new administration to evaluate whether it can resolve any of the issues raised in the case, potentially through a settlement (Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 16-1127, motion filed 1/31/17).
At issue is an April 2016 supplemental finding (RIN:2060-AS76) reaffirming the EPA's determination that it is “appropriate and necessary” to regulate mercury and other hazardous pollutants from power plants. The EPA issued that finding in a response to a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision, which concluded that the agency erred when it failed to consider cost in its initial decision-making.
The “appropriate and necessary” finding is the threshold decision that led the EPA to set the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, which the agency estimated the compliance cost for the power sector at $9.6 billion. The rule, which factored into the decision of some companies to invest in pollution controls or shutter coal-fired power plants, remains in place despite the Supreme Court's ruling in Michigan v. EPA.
Pruitt ‘Walled Off’ From Involvement
The utility mercury emissions case is one of the active lawsuits that Scott Pruitt, Trump's nominee to lead the EPA, brought against the agency while serving as Oklahoma attorney general. Pruitt, in a written response to questions posted by Senate Democrats, said he upon his nomination he was immediately “walled off” from involvement in legal action Oklahoma is pursuing involving the EPA.
Several Democratic senators questioned whether Pruitt would recuse himself from involvement as EPA administrator in any litigation he previously brought against the agency. Pruitt said he would recuse himself from participation in those cases, unless he received consent from Oklahoma and permission from federal ethics officials to be involved.
If Pruitt were to recuse himself from any decision-making related to litigation brought by Oklahoma during his tenure as attorney general, current EPA policy would allow the agency's deputy administrator to step in on an acting capacity to make any necessary decisions, according to Pruitt's answers.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=104954029&vname=dennotallissues&fn=104954029&jd=104954029
-
(ACC Mentioned) Pruitt Testimony Criticized as Industry Seeks EPA Rule Changes
Feb 1, 2017 | Chem.Info
By Andy Szal
As industry groups call on Congress to reject an EPA proposal regarding chemical plant risk management, Senate Democrats criticized President Donald Trump's nominee to lead the agency for his answers to their questions during the confirmation process.
Bloomberg reports that Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt supported industry efforts to curb the risk management rule — but did not share specifics about his position with Democratic members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
The rule, proposed early last year, would require chemical plants to consider safer alternatives as part of their risk management planning process.
It would also increase the amount of information available to the public, improve coordination between facilities and local officials and require audits and analyses to identify potential improvements.
The Obama administration said at the time that chemical plants reported more than 1,500 accidents in the preceding decade that resulted in nearly 60 fatalities. Some critics suggested that the proposed rule did not go far enough.
Twenty-one industry groups, including the American Chemistry Council, American Petroleum Institute and the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates, countered with a letter to congressional leaders last week expressing their concerns with the proposal, Bloomberg reported.
The groups defended their records under current risk management guidelines and argued that the new rule would impose significant new costs without a demonstrated improvement in safety.
"[I]t may actually compromise the security of our facilities, emergency responders and our communities," the groups wrote.
Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Environment committee, asked Pruitt as part of the confirmation proceedings whether chemical companies should be responsible for making their facilities "as safe as possible." Carper said in a statement that the answers he received were "shockingly devoid of substance."
Pruitt, according to documents released by Carper's office, responded that "every American should be provided safe home and work environments and people who live or work in and around chemical facilities are no exception to that."
"As the confirmation process continues, I strongly urge Mr. Pruitt to revisit these questions and provide us with the comprehensive information we need to ensure the American people will continue to have an EPA that protects our environment and health," Carper said in his statement.
Pruitt's nomination initially drew criticism from Democrats and environmental advocates because of his skepticism regarding climate science, his previous lawsuits against the EPA and his reported tendency to negotiate with industry.
He supporters defended his record and said that he believes “many of the nation’s challenges regarding clean air and water are best met at the state and local level.”
The committee is scheduled to vote on his nomination Wednesday.
http://www.chem.info/news/2017/02/pruitt-testimony-criticized-industry-seeks-epa-rule-changes
-
Congress' Inquiry Into Grid Threat Turns Up Human Error
Feb 2, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Blake Sobczak
The cyberthreat facing the power grid is at an "all-time high," a leading electric sector official told lawmakers yesterday, although hackers have not yet caused any blackouts in the United States.
Gerry Cauley, president and CEO of the North American Electric Reliability Corp., briefed members of a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on emerging online hazards for the U.S. grid and utilities' efforts to avoid them.
He said the risk of utility employees inadvertently downloading malicious code on work computers "is probably the greatest vulnerability that we have, and the most challenging to manage."
"The corporate side of each utility is as exposed to the outside world as any other business," Cauley said at the first hearing hosted by the Subcommittee on Energy in the new Congress. "And we're also subject to human frailties."
Cauley was referring to the natural temptation to open email attachments or visit untrustworthy websites. NERC sets and enforces cybersecurity standards for utilities on the bulk electric network, but speakers at yesterday's hearing acknowledged that such rules cannot fully guard against human error.
In the first half of 2015, hackers tricked employees at three Ukrainian distribution utilities into clicking infected email files. The attackers exploited their foothold on the companies' corporate networks to burrow into the grid's operating systems. Months later, the hackers cut off power to about a quarter-million people in western Ukraine in the first such cyberattack of its kind (Energywire, July 18, 2016).
Cauley said he doubted hackers could hide that long on U.S. grid networks without being detected and booted out. "Humans will make mistakes," he said, but "they should not last on a laptop more than hours or days before they get fixed."
While lawmakers broadly credited Cauley and the three other panelists from the electric power industry for efforts to lock down U.S. critical infrastructure, there were a few misgivings from both sides of the aisle.
Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) cited past congressional testimony from a software executive who claimed portions of the grid could be disabled with a specialized team of just 10 experts.
"I keep being told that everything's going to be fine," McKinley said. "I'm still going to remain uncomfortable."
Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) said she appreciated the industry panel's "sincere understanding of all the security facets of this" but urged it not to overlook even seemingly minor threats.
She cited two recent cyber events at utilities in California and Vermont that stoked concerns over grid security. One of the cases, at Burlington Electric, turned out to be a false alarm, while few details are known about the other case in Riverside County, Calif. (Energywire, Jan. 30).
"Please be cognizant that a lot of these [incidents] can start with those innocuous-looking, smaller-type infiltrations," Castor said.
Scott Aaronson, executive director for security and business continuity at the Edison Electric Institute, a major utility industry trade group, told lawmakers that he would not claim the cybersecurity problem is "100 percent under control."
Still, he cited several ongoing industry efforts to shore up their networks, practice how to respond to cyber-enabled power outages and agree to share critical equipment like power transformers in the event of a grid emergency.
"While an [online] attack that has an impact is always within the realm of the possible, the resilience and redundancy that continues to evolve makes me a lot more comfortable in our ability to deal with this," he said.
Barbara Sugg, vice president for information technology and chief security officer at the Southwest Power Pool, and Chris Beck, chief scientist and vice president for policy at the Electric Infrastructure Security Council, also testified at the hearing.
None of the speakers called for any major congressional action to address the cybersecurity threat to the grid. Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy, said in a statement following the hearing that cyberthreats to reliability "deserve our constant examination."
"We must continue to build a record about electric sector efforts to address cybersecurity threats," he said. "Moving forward, we will identify whether additional measures are necessary."
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), ranking member of the full Energy and Commerce Committee, harkened back to the 2015 cyberattack on the Ukraine grid in his comments at the hearing, noting that "we owe it to the American people to ask whether anything about that attack could be replicated here."
Pallone also alluded to last year's hack of the Democratic National Committee, which saw thousands of internal DNC documents dumped online in an apparent attempt to sway the elections. U.S. intelligence agencies later pinned that attack on Russia.
"If Russia hacked our election, what's to stop them from hacking our electricity grid?" Pallone asked.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/02/02/stories/1060049426
-
EU Specifies Worker Exposure Limits for 31 Substances
Feb 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
European Union countries must specify new occupational exposure limits for 25 hazardous substances and review their limits for six substances for which workplace exposure thresholds have already been specified as part of a European Commission published a directive Feb. 1
The directive, published in the EU Official Journal, amends a 1998 EU law on the protection of workers from the effects of chemicals (Directive 98/24/EC). The directive marks the fourth time the 1998 law has been amended and brings the number of substances covered to about 140.
The exposure limit values for the 31 substances covered by the new directive are considered “indicative” and EU countries have some leeway to adopt higher or lower limits in line with their national laws. The directive requires EU countries to adopt their national limits for the substances by Aug. 21, 2018.
The commission, the EU's executive arm, said in a statement that the newly specified limits were based on independent scientific assessment and provide “employers, workers and enforcers with a common reference point on the maximum level of exposure to these chemicals allowed in the workplace.”
The six substances already subject to EU indicative occupational exposure limit values are 1,4-dichlorobenzene, acetic acid, bisphenol A, calcium dihydroxide, lithium hydride and nitrogen monoxide. For these substances, the amending directive tightens the current indicative exposure limits.
According to the amending directive, EU countries can defer until 2023 adoption of new limit values for nitrogen monoxide and the newly-listed substances nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide in “underground mining and tunneling” because of lack of effective measuring technologies.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=104954027&vname=dennotallissues&fn=104954027&jd=104954027
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Memo Spurs New Industry Push for EPA Permitting Changes
Feb 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Manufacturers hope President Donald Trump's call to expedite permitting for new projects will galvanize the EPA and state environmental regulators to speed up their permit review processes and pursue broader revisions to underlying regulations.
Trump's Jan. 24 presidential memorandum doesn't contain specific policy changes, but rather instructs the Commerce Department to coordinate with the EPA and other agencies to develop a “Permit Streamlining Action Plan” that recommends policy and procedural changes that will boost domestic manufacturing. Despite the lack of details, a pair of industry trade organizations that have long sought changes to the EPA's regulation of the manufacturing sector are optimistic that the new administration can help ease the process of obtaining air and water permits.
The Trump memo could cover a number of environmental permits that manufacturing facilities must obtain, according to Michael Walls, vice president of regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council. Those include Title V operating permits and New Source Review permits issued under the Clean Air Act, as well as National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits issued under the Clean Water Act.
The manufacturing sector has highlighted regulatory requirements, including delays in the processing of necessary permits, as a barrier to investment in domestic manufacturing projects. Greg Bertelsen, senior director for energy and resources at the National Association of Manufacturers, told Bloomberg BNA that the Trump memo is “right in line” with that organization's message on environmental regulations for the past several years.
Trump Priority
Jon Sohn, an environmental and natural resources attorney at Dentons in Washington, D.C., said there are a range of issues that can make the permitting process take longer than industry would like. The Trump administration, however, will have to make the process more efficient and credible in a way that doesn't circumvent the public's right to engage on projects in their community, Sohn told Bloomberg BNA.
“Figuring out how to get that done is clearly a priority of President Trump,” Sohn said. “They're going to have to find a way to do that that respects and values the environment.”
The memo, which calls on federal agencies to submit to the White House within 120 days a plan with recommendations to streamline permitting and ease regulation on the manufacturing sector, is consistent with Trump campaign promises to reduce regulations as part of an economic agenda to drive job growth. The president followed up the memo on streamlining permitting and reducing regulatory burdens on manufacturing with a Jan. 30 executive order requiring agencies to identify two existing regulations for elimination for every new regulation issued.
In addition to the order instructing the removal of regulatory burdens on manufacturing, a Trump executive order to speed up environmental reviews for pipelines, highways and other infrastructure projects could benefit manufacturers, Walls said.
“I think it's appropriate to look at those two memos together,” Walls said. “New investment in our industry is dependent on new infrastructure.”
But Sohn added that any list of credible recommendations on permitting will have to include a “frank discussion” on the capacity of the agencies to do the work faster in light of diminishing budgets in recent years, both on the state and federal levels.
“In my view, the wrong direction would be to set up very draconian timelines without corresponding budget and capacity support to the EPA and their state partners,” Sohn said.
Permitting Run by States
The Trump administration won't be able to simply order the EPA to issue permits faster because most environmental permitting programs are run by state regulators, with the federal government playing an oversight role. While there are some actions the federal government could take in the short term to expedite permitting, such as revising the process for reviewing state permit decisions, changing the underlying environmental regulations governing the manufacturing sector would take time.
“I think [Trump] appears to have good intentions, but EPA doesn't directly issue most of the permits,” said Brian Potts, a partner at Perkins Coie LLP in Madison. “I always tell clients that the wheel of justice moves slowly. ... The wheels of administrative agencies move even more slowly.”
Potts, whose practice focuses on environment and energy issues, said the process to amend any EPA rules to ease permitting requirements, which states then would have to incorporate into their own rules, could take years. In addition, potential administrative changes to other regulations affecting the manufacturing sector, such as Clean Air Act regulations on the utility sector, won't be made quickly because they would be subject to rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act, Potts said.
Opposition Likely
Potential changes to the underlying regulations, as well as any push to change the Clean Air Act and other environmental laws, will likely face fierce opposition from environmental watchdog groups, which have said they'll oppose any effort by Trump or Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, the nominee to head the EPA, to weaken environmental protections.
Eric Schaeffer, director of the Environmental Integrity Project, told Bloomberg BNA that state regulators already process most environmental permits quickly. Schaeffer served as director of the EPA's Office of Civil Enforcement before leaving the agency in 2002 to co-found the Environmental Integrity Project.
“Most permits go through pretty quickly if the states want them to go through quickly,” Schaeffer said. “Where they get held up sometimes is if there is a lot of local opposition” to a project.
The Trump memo indicates that to the extent the EPA reviews a permit, the goal of the agency should be to expedite its processing, he added.
“They're sending a message to grease the permits through,” Schaeffer said. “Our take on that is: You want a fast permit? Do what the law says you're supposed to do.”
Schaeffer said environmental advocates will continue to exercise their right to challenge permit decisions in the courts, but acknowledged that it is “impossible to keep up” with all the permits that are issued.
Quicker Decisions a ‘Simple Reform’
While states take the lead on most environmental permitting issues, there are several steps the federal government can take to speed up the process, attorneys said. In the short term, federal agencies could prioritize permitting programs and reallocate resources to those activities.
Besides air and water permits processed on the state level, there are some permits that the federal government processes. The EPA is the lead permitting agency in some areas, mostly on tribal lands, while the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reviews wetlands permits issued under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
The EPA often defers making controversial decisions on permits and instead puts things on hold, according to Jeffrey Holmstead, who served as assistant EPA administrator for air and radiation under President George W. Bush. Holmstead, now a partner at Bracewell LLP in Washington, D.C., who focuses on energy and environmental issues, told Bloomberg BNA that sometimes his main job in helping a client through the permitting process is to “hound the agency” to get a decision made.
Making more timely decisions is a “simple reform” that could be implemented fairly quickly because it doesn't require any regulatory changes, Holmstead said.
Modeling Requirements Could Be Eased
One area that Holmstead identified for improvement is the EPA's oversight of air quality modeling requirements under the New Source Review permitting program. That program requires manufacturing facilities, power plants and other stationary sources of air pollution to obtain a permit before construction begins.
To obtain a New Source Review permit, an applicant must demonstrate that emissions from the project won't contribute to a violation of federal air pollution standards for ozone and other pollutants. Holmstead said the modeling is “very case-specific” and can be slowed by the EPA's need to approve the modeling evaluations.
“In many cases, this is what holds up the project more than anything else,” he said.
In a January Environmental Law Institute article he co-authored, Holmstead argued that the EPA's current modeling guidance “substantially overstates” the air quality effects of potential new pollution sources and recommended adopting a probabalistic modeling approach that reflects variability in emissions, weather and background.
Several attorneys noted that the EPA under President George W. Bush sought to change the New Source Review program to ease requirements on power plants, refineries and other industrial facilities by exempting routine maintenance projects from the permitting review. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck that rule down in 2006 (New York v. EPA, 443 F.3d 880, 61 ERC 2133 (D.C. Cir. 2006)).
Changes to Objection, Review Processes
Another area the Trump administration could target in an effort to expedite environmental permitting is the objection process under the Title V operating permit program. Title V of the Clean Air Act allows the public to petition the EPA administrator seeking an objection to Clean Air Act operating permits issued by state permitting authorities.
Environmental advocates, including the Environmental Integrity Project, filed 34 permit objection petitions in 2016, according to the EPA's Title V petition database. The agency is supposed to issue a decision on Title V permit objection petitions within 60 days, but frequently takes longer.
“That might be something you could see the Trump administration try to speed up,” Sohn of Dentons said.
Attorneys also identified the Environmental Appeals Board's processes for reviewing certain types of permitting decisions as a candidate for changes under the Trump administration. Permit applicants and other interested parties can petition the board, a panel of independent judges, to appeal permit decisions from EPA regional officials and some state permitting authorities. There is “no reason” the Environmental Appeals Board has to be involved in the permitting process and suggested that EPA leadership could easily alter the process, Holmstead said.
Guidance, Rulemaking Options
In addition to internal EPA process changes, the Trump administration could issue new guidance and regulations to allow for the faster processing of environmental permits at the state level.
For example, the EPA could clarify requirements under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System water pollution permitting program, according to Fredric Andes, a partner at Barnes and Thornburg LLP with offices in Washington, D.C., and Chicago. One area that produces some uncertainty and confusion in the Clean Water Act permitting process is antidegredation, the protection of water bodies that meet water quality standards to avoid backsliding, Andes told Bloomberg BNA.
Additional guidance, as well as possible regulatory changes, might be needed to address water permitting for new manufacturing plants built near bodies of water deemed impaired, Andes said. That's due to a 2007 court decision that rejected a water pollution permit for an Arizona copper mining project because the permit would have allowed copper discharges into an river that didn't meet water quality standards (Friends of Pinto Creek v. EPA, 504 F.3d 1007, 65 ERC 1289, 2007 BL 118648 (9th Cir. 2007)).
Andes said the EPA hasn't clarified how that ruling affects the ability of new plants to obtain a permit for discharges into an impaired body of water, even if the discharge from that facility is small. The issue hasn't been a priority for the agency because there haven't been many new plants built in the U.S. since the 2007 decision.
“EPA may need to think about not only guidance, but changing the rules that were interpreted in that case,” Andes said. “It just hasn't been a priority issue because ... there simply hasn't been a pressing need.”
Industry Prepping Recommendations
The agencies tasked with developing the permitting plan can expect to hear a variety of suggestions from industry during the outreach period. Walls of the American Chemistry Council said the agencies’ outreach effort will allow for industry to identify specific barriers and concerns to expansion projects.
When asked for the types of regulatory changes that the Trump administration could take to boost manufacturing, Walls identified implementation of more stringent federal ozone standards set in 2015 as an area of focus. The ACC and other industry groups have opposed the standards, which parts of at least 22 states are unlikely to meet. A failure to attain the ozone standards would mean additional pollution control and permitting requirements in areas ranging from big metropolitan areas like Los Angeles to the rural, but oil-and gas-rich Uinta Basin in Utah.
As part of this permitting and regulatory burden memo, the EPA could ease the implementation schedule for the ozone standards, which calls for decisions on what areas do and don't meet the standards by Oct. 1, Walls said.
Bertelsen of the National Association of Manufacturers also identified the ozone standards as an area where the Trump administration could focus. Besides issuing more timely guidance to states on how to implement permitting under the ozone standards, the EPA also could revoke the less-stringent 2008 ozone standards to ease requirements on states and manufacturers.
Industry advocates are eyeing Congress as a potential avenue to ease compliance with the 2015 ozone standards. Congressional Republicans have shown an appetite for rolling back Obama-era environmental rules early in the 115th Congress: The House is scheduled to vote this week on a pair of resolutions to disapprove of Obama-era rules on methane emissions and coal mining waste. The Congressional Review Act allows Congress to consider resolutions of disapproval on recently issued regulations under expedited floor procedures in the Senate.
While environmental advocates have pledged to fight back against efforts to weaken the Clean Air Act, Holmstead of Bracewell said he's optimistic that there may be an opportunity for Congress to act on environmental issues. Holmstead noted that there are a number of Senate Democrats up for re-election in 2018 in states that Trump won in the 2016 election.
“I think there's an opportunity for sensible statutory reform with these sorts of things,” Holmstead said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=104954022&vname=dennotallissues&fn=104954022&jd=104954022
-
(ACC Mentioned) ‘Making EPA Great Again’ Is Stated Aim of House Science Panel
Feb 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The social cost of carbon—the economic costs of carbon emissions—and “secret science” are among the top issues the House Science, Space and Technology Committee intends to examine in the 115th Congress, the committee announced Feb. 1.
Changes to some of these areas could have significant impacts on how rules are justified at the EPA. The committee will also look to limit Energy Department money spent on loan guarantees or subsidies and focus funds instead on research the private sector can't conduct.
These efforts are generally areas that Republicans sought to address in previous Congresses. But with the new Republican-swept Washington, there are better odds for successfully executing these actions. The hearing may touch on science transparency issues, among other areas and could help the committee build a blueprint for future priorities and actions, a committee aide told Bloomberg BNA.
These efforts, specifically on sound science, will begin Feb. 7 when the committee holds its “Making EPA Great Again” hearing, which will include witnesses from groups such as the American Chemistry Council.
The committee intends to “revisit” the issues addressed in legislation in the 114th Congress. That includes areas under the Secret Science Reform Act that would have barred the EPA from finalizing rules without releasing scientific information and data used to develop the rule.
Another area of interest for the committee includes reauthorization of the National Institute of Standards and Technology programs to address cyberattack vulnerability issues, according to the announcement.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=104954036&vname=dennotallissues&fn=104954036&jd=104954036
-
(ACC Mentioned) Rep. Lamar Smith, Emboldened In A New Washington, Seeks to Reshape EPA
Feb 1, 2017 | MyStatesman.com
By Asher Price
Highlights
U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, has long warred against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
With Trump’s ascendancy to the White House, Smith now has key allies.
Climate scientists worry about the future of government-sponsored research.
For years, U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, who represents parts of Central and South Austin, wandered in a kind of policy desert, his proposals to box in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency often failing in fights with the Obama administration.
But now, energized by a suddenly simpatico White House, Smith, the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, will launch a fresh effort to reshape the agency he has long vilified.
The “Making EPA Great Again” hearing in Washington on Tuesday, comes as climate scientists are anxious about the future of government support for their research.
“EPA has long been on a path of regulatory overreach, and the committee will use the tools necessary to put EPA back on track,” Smith said in a news release Wednesday.
Most scientists say emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases help trap heat in the Earth’s atmosphere, leading to a warming planet. Smith, who wasn’t available for an interview Wednesday, has told the American-Statesman in the past that evidence scientists provide is “wishy-washy.”
Smith relished doing battle with the Obama administration, gaining notoriety for accusing federal scientists of altering data as part of an “extreme climate agenda” and in some cases issuing subpoenas.
Advocacy organizations for scientists said he was on a politically motivated witch hunt.
Smith — who gets more money from oil and gas than any other industry — also went after Democratic state attorneys general, supported by environmental groups, for attacking ExxonMobil over the company’s representation of the threats of climate change.
New administration
Still, even as he was climbing onto newspaper front pages, some of Smith’s key bills targeting the EPA languished. One would have remade the agency’s science advisory board, opening it up to industry representatives. Another Smith measure, the Secret Science Reform Act would have barred the agency from using any confidential health data or medical records; government watchdog groups said it would have hampered the agency’s ability to look at data to make policy decisions.
Neither made it into law.
And in spring 2015, in an effort to defund climate research, his committee voted to cut NASA’s budget for Earth science. (In an end-of-year budget deal, much of the money was restored.)
But Smith threw early support to President Donald Trump, and the longtime San Antonio-based lawmaker now finds himself at the apex of his powers, with allies aplenty in the White House.
Trump has said he wants to strip away environmental regulation, and shortly after the inauguration, his administration froze EPA grants and contracts, alarming some government watchdog groups and environmentalists.
“If you have a signed contract (with the EPA), you want to keep a low profile lest you become a target,” one scientist, who does work in Texas but didn’t want his name used because he is the recipient of EPA money, told the American-Statesman this week.
“Basic research has been stalled because the far right wing of the Republican Party doesn’t like what the EPA was doing on climate change,” said Al Armendariz, a former regional EPA administrator who now works on an anti-coal campaign for the Sierra Club.
EPA officials said the move amounted to quality control. This week, EPA spokesman David Gray said the review was finished and “nothing has been delayed.”
Last month, Smith said Trump’s pick to lead the agency, Scott Pruitt, who gained a reputation as an anti-regulatory advocate as Oklahoma’s attorney general, would put the EPA “back on track.”
‘Panic attack’
Fed up with Smith’s climate-change naysaying, a few dozen Austinites descended on his South Austin field office in 2015 to present him with a “Flat Earth” award.
“Climate change is one of the most politicized issues in the U.S., up there with immigration, gun rights and abortion,” said Katharine Hayhoe, a Texas Tech University researcher who will give a talk Friday at the Paramount Theatre in downtown Austin titled “Climate and Faith, Money and Politics: Can We Build a Sustainable Future?”
“Even though lot of objections to climate change are framed in terms of science — ‘it’s a natural cycle’ or ‘we don’t know a lot about it yet’ — dig down and maybe 99 times out of 100 it has nothing to do science,” she said.
“Right now, anybody who cares about climate change is not just concerned, but is practically having a panic attack when they look at what’s happening at the federal level,” Hayhoe said.
Her talk, part of an event organized by University of Texas’ Environmental Science Institute, will be followed by a panel discussion examining the future of climate science.
It will be different in one major way from the “Making EPA Great Again” hearing in Washington next week: The panelists will all be scientists.
Witnesses at Smith’s hearing in Washington will include an industry lobbyist; an official with the American Chemistry Council, an industry trade association; the chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes the journal Science; and a University of Virginia law professor who has criticized the Obama administration’s climate change policies as leading to failures of coal companies.
“The purpose of this hearing is to examine the Environmental Protection Agency’s process for evaluating and using science during its regulatory decision making activities,” said a committee announcement for the hearing.
http://www.mystatesman.com/news/rep-lamar-smith-emboldened-new-washington-seeks-reshape-epa/usTp2sAyhgSPHuWY8IFJiN/
-
Gorsuch Could (But Might Not) Spell Trouble for Environmental Rules
Feb 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Wilhelm
U.S. Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch has opposed giving broad deference to the EPA and other federal agencies during a decade on the federal bench, but his track record also indicates a reluctance to support “heavy-handed rollbacks” of Obama-era environmental rules, legal experts told Bloomberg BNA.
If confirmed, Gorsuch's biggest impact on environmental law might come from his opposition to Chevron deference, which refers to a 1984 Supreme Court decision giving agencies wide latitude in deciding how to interpret their responsibilities under federal statutes, they said.
Gorsuch “has expressed skepticism about Chevron deference, which would certainly have an effect on environmental law cases,” Jonathan H. Adler, Case Western Reserve University School of Law professor, told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail. “Perhaps paradoxically, this position could make it more difficult for a Trump administration to undo some of the Obama administration's environmental initiatives.”
President Donald Trump has explicitly said that he intends to reverse a number of Obama administration policies, but it's likely that Gorsuch would not support “heavy-handed rollbacks,” Brendan K. Collins, a partner at Ballard Spahr LLP in Philadelphia who has argued before the Supreme Court, told Bloomberg BNA.
Limits on ‘New Sheriff’
“I think that Gorsuch would frown on the notion that the 2016 election result ought to lead to a reversal of judicially affirmed conclusions of law,” Collins said.
For example, the Supreme Court has found that carbon dioxide is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act subject to Environmental Protection Agency regulation, but Gorsuch might be hostile to reversing that determination simply “because there's a new sheriff in town,” Collins said.
And if confirmed, Gorsuch could also—if consistent in his reasonings—upend regulations promulgated by the Trump administration, Harvard Law School professor Richard J. Lazarus told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.
“The challenge … is to have judges who in fact apply the doctrine in an even-handed way even when it goes against the policies they might personally favor or be favored by those who have nominated them to the Court,” Lazarus said. “Far more judges claim to be even-handed than in fact are.”
“But let's hope that if Judge Gorsuch becomes Justice Gorsuch, he will be that kind of outstanding Justice who is even-handed.”
Nearly a Year Since Scalia's Death
Trump Jan. 31 nominated Gorsuch, who has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit since 2006, to fill the seat left vacant almost a year ago by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Senate Republicans had refused to consider President Barack Obama's nominee Merrick Garland, who is chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Speaking at the White House late Jan. 31, Gorsuch pledged to be impartial and independent, stressing that a judge's role is “to apply, not alter, the work of the people's representatives.”
He added: “A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge.”
Gorsuch has reviewed almost a dozen environmental law cases during his tenure at the Tenth Circuit, including an attempt to bar a mining company that settled its Superfund liability in bankruptcy court from recovering some of those costs and a challenge to the EPA's decision not to limit mercury and selenium emissions from a coal-fired power plant in northwest New Mexico (Asarco, LLC v. Noranda Mining, Inc., 844 F.3d 1201, 83 ERC 1897, 2017 BL 59, (10th Cir. 2017); WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, 759 F.3d 1196, 79 ERC 1194, 2014 BL 204023, (10th Cir. 2014)).
Time ‘to Face the Behemoth’
Under the Chevron doctrine, courts take a two-step approach in reviewing challenges to agency actions. If the statute clearly speaks to the issue, the inquiry stops there. If the statute is silent or ambiguous, the court determines whether the agency's interpretation is a permissible statutory construction. If so, the court defers to the agency (Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 21 ERC 1049 (1984)).
Gorsuch outlined his views on agency deference in a concurrence he wrote to one of his own majority opinions last year (Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 1142, 2016 BL 273118, (10th Cir. 2016)).
“Chevron and Brand X permit executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power and concentrate federal power in a way that seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers’ design,” Gorsuch wrote in the immigration law case. “Maybe the time has come to face the behemoth.”
‘Super Court of Appeals’
The Supreme Court held in Brand X that an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute outweighs prior decisions of a federal appeals court, unless the court has held that the statute is not ambiguous (Nat'l Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 73 U.S.L.W. 4659 (2005)).
This doctrine has permitted agencies to act like “some sort of super court of appeals,” Gorsuch wrote in Gutierrez-Brizuela.
In United States v. Magnesium Corporation of America, the Tenth Circuit upheld an EPA reinterpretation of a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act regulation governing mineral processing waste. Writing for the majority, Gorsuch reassured regulated parties that they would not be subjected “to the whims of an agency's arbitrary interpretive reversals” (United States v. Magnesium Corp. of Am., 616 F.3d 1129, 71 ERC 1641, 2010 BL 190182, (10th Cir. 2010)).
He noted that the Administrative Procedure Act requires agencies to explain their decision-making and empowers courts to review those decisions.
Scant Environmental Law Record
“He hasn't made a lot of substantive environmental decisions,” Collins said. “A number of environmental advocacy groups have lambasted his record, but I don't think there's much traction there.”
“Gorsuch has proven himself hostile to environmental protection … and cannot be trusted to protect our air, our water, or our communities,” Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune said in a statement.
The cases in which he has made decisions on environmental or public lands issues are really more about his administrative law views, Harvard Law School professor Jody Freeman told Bloomberg BNA. “He seems to come down on both sides depending on the particulars of the case.”
‘Not ... Out of the Mainstream’
“He's not wacky or out of the mainstream,” Victor B. Flatt, professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law, told Bloomberg BNA.
For example, Gorsuch ruled in favor of a plaintiff suing a nuclear weapons manufacturer and held that the Price Anderson Act did not preempt their federal and state tort claims (Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 790 F.3d 1088, 80 ERC 2172, 2015 BL 199152, (10th Cir. 2015)).
Gorsuch also voted to uphold Colorado's clean energy law, which requires 20 percent of electricity to come from renewable fuels, against a constitutional challenge (Energy & Env't Legal Inst. v. Epel, 793 F.3d 1169, 2015 BL 222450, (10th Cir. 2015)).
“That one decision was probably something that advocates for clean energy will like, but you can't make too much of it,” Freeman said.
Scalia Comparisons
Gorsuch is a conservative jurist and would likely replicate Justice Scalia's positions, Freeman said. However, he might be more skeptical than Scalia of agency deference.
Scalia was an early proponent of Chevron, although in the past few years he began questioning the doctrine, Flatt said. In that sense, Gorsuch is not Scalia. “He actually moves the court in a direction that's more likely to disavow the Chevron doctrine.”
But the doctrine is far from doomed, Thomas Lorenzen, a partner at Crowell & Moring LLP in Washington, D.C., told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail. “So far, I think only Justice [Clarence] Thomas agrees with Judge Gorsuch that Chevron is wrong.”
Son of Former EPA Administrator
The 49-year-old jurist is the son of Anne Gorsuch Burford, who served under President Ronald Reagan as the first female administrator of the EPA, but was forced to resign in 1983 after less than two years on the job, after trying to dismantle the agency.
Gorsuch graduated from Harvard Law School in 1991. He clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy and would be the first sitting justice to serve alongside his former boss.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=104954031&vname=dennotallissues&fn=104954031&jd=104954031
-
Dems Fret Trump Pick Could Undermine Environmental Rules
Feb 2, 2017 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink and Geof Koss
Senate Democrats are already raising concerns that Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch could reverse long-standing environmental law as they prepare for a highly partisan fight over confirming President Trump's first high court pick.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) yesterday said Gorsuch's questioning of the so-called Chevron deference was "central" to his opposition to the nomination.
"I have a real concern that his record is going to be predictive of an anti-environment, anti-consumer, anti-women record at the Supreme Court, and so I am extremely apprehensive and opposed to his confirmation," Markey said in an interview.
Under Chevron, courts give deference to federal agencies when Congress has been silent or ambiguous on a subject. The two-step Chevron test generally involves deciding whether a statute is ambiguous and then whether an agency has been reasonable in its interpretation (Greenwire, Feb. 1).
If confirmed, Gorsuch, a 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge, would bring a deeply skeptical view of the Chevron doctrine — a legal standard that often helps agencies win in environmental litigation — to the Supreme Court.
While he did not specifically cite Chevron deference, Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, said yesterday that he's most concerned about "whether settled law will be respected, whether he's an activist judge who's bent on reversing long-settled law."
"And there are some concerning signals in several areas that he is interested in making significant shifts in settled law," he said of Gorsuch.
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), an Environment and Public Works Committee member who is calling for a filibuster, also raised concerns about how Gorsuch would treat existing law.
"This is now a swing seat [that] will have a big impact on the federal ability to enforce clean water and clean air laws," Merkley said.
Senate EPW Committee ranking member Tom Carper (D-Del.) said he had yet to delve into Gorsuch's record, given his current focus on the battle over U.S. EPA nominee Scott Pruitt. "I can barely spell his name. I know next to nothing about him," he said.Filibuster fight
Much of the early jockeying over Gorsuch, the son of the late EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch Burford and was nominated Tuesday night, focused on whether Democrats would unite to filibuster the nominee. Sixty votes are needed to overcome a filibuster, and with the GOP controlling only 52 seats, if Democrats limit defections they could derail Gorsuch.
Trump weighed in on that matter yesterday, saying the GOP should alter the Senate rules to allow for the pick to be confirmed with a simple majority if Democrats filibuster.
Senate Republicans, though, are not yet ready to call for changing the chamber's rule on Supreme Court filibusters.
The GOP, however, has been unanimous in praising Gorsuch and saying he's the rightful replacement for conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, whose death last year created the court opening.
"The idea of defeating a Supreme Court justice on a filibuster is a bridge that they should avoid," said Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.).
Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said he does not plan to have to weigh in on changing Senate rules because he expects Gorsuch to get broad support.
Grassley noted that Gorsuch was unanimously confirmed to the federal circuit court by the Senate 10 years ago and that 31 of the senators who backed him then remain in the chamber.
Democrats, however, cited the GOP's handling of President Obama's proposed high court nominee Merrick Garland to make their case for a filibuster or, at minimum, extensive vetting.
GOP leaders held up Garland's nomination by arguing it would be better left to the incoming president to make the court pick.
Merkley said he would try to filibuster because he believes the court seat was "stolen" by Republicans who refused to consider Garland.
It's not yet clear how many other Democrats are ready to join Merkley.
"Just like I thought Merrick Garland deserved a hearing, I think this nominee deserves a hearing. I think the idea of a 60-vote margin is a good idea," said Carper. "The idea of someone being nominated for the Supreme Court and needing to get 60 votes is more likely to bring us to a consensus candidate."
While resentment over Garland's treatment lingers, Coons said that Gorsuch deserves a fair vetting, although he stopped short of calling for a full vote by the Senate.
"Even though I thought that was an unjustified and offensive break with precedent, I would not respond in kind," he told reporters. "And I think we should give Judge Gorsuch a hearing and a vote on committee."
Coons called for a multiday hearing that includes Gorsuch and witnesses both in support and opposing his nomination, but he declined to say the nominee deserves a floor vote "at this point."
Several moderate Democrats facing what could be tough re-elections in 2018 in red states won by Trump are not ready to oppose the GOP nominee. They could be potential swing votes if the 60-vote threshold is not changed.
"We'll do our due diligence," said Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), who is up in 2018 and said he had heard from constituents who both support and oppose Gorsuch. He said it would be a "mistake" to change Senate filibuster rules.
Facing her first re-election in a Trump state, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) laughed when asked by reporters if she would oppose Gorsuch, noting she had not even met him yet. She promised a "fair assessment."
And potentially vulnerable Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) criticized the GOP's "precedent-setting bad behavior" in not having a hearing on Garland. But she suggested her colleagues not overreact by immediately opposing Gorsuch because they disagree with Trump policies.
"Everyone is very emotional right now. I get it, so am I. [But] I am making every decision on every nominee individually — that's my job," she added.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/02/02/stories/1060049407
-
Bipartisan Bills Aim To Delay Ozone Standard To 2025
Feb 2, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly,
A bipartisan and bicameral team is again seeking to roll back implementation of U.S. EPA's latest ozone standard well into the next decade, accompanied by broader changes to the Clean Air Act's apparatus for setting ambient air quality limits for key pollutants.
EPA adopted the 70-parts-per-billion ozone standard in late 2015; final attainment designations are scheduled for this October. Under the "Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017," introduced yesterday in both chambers, that deadline would be delayed until October 2025, with state cleanup plans not due until 2026.
While EPA is also supposed to review — and, if needed, revise — the standards for ozone and five other "criteria" pollutants once every five years, the legislation would stretch that statutory timetable to once every decade. EPA would be barred from revisiting the ozone benchmark until 2025.
Then-EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy signed off the 70 ppb standard on the grounds that it was needed to meet the Clean Air Act's mandate to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. But manufacturers and other businesses continue to argue that compliance will be overly burdensome, particularly because some parts of the country have yet to meet the previous 75 ppb threshold, set in 2008 (E&E News PM, Jan. 12).
Across the country, "states have suffered job losses and economic devastation under the regulatory burdens of the previous administration," Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), the lead sponsor of S. 263, said in a joint news release yesterday. The bill, she added, "will provide more clarity, more regulatory certainty, and ease the economic burden of never-ending overreach."
Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas), the measure's lead House sponsor, said it would provide "needed flexibility so that states and localities can properly achieve new, lower standards with time for compliance." The House bill had not been numbered as of press time.
Ozone, the main ingredient in smog, is produced by the reaction of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds in sunlight. It is associated with asthma attacks and can make breathing more difficult for emphysema sufferers. One source of NOx emissions is coal combustion; the oil and gas industry is a key emitter of volatile organic compounds.
Olson and Capito had introduced similar legislation last year during the 114th Congress. While Olson's bill passed the House on a mostly party-line vote, it died in the Senate following an Obama administration veto threat. Capito's version stalled after Democrats made their opposition clear during a Senate Environment and Public Works subcommittee hearing.
In the 115th Congress, the legislation should get a friendlier reception from the White House, where President Trump has heatedly denounced EPA regulations.
But public health and environmental groups, which have dubbed it the "Smoggy Skies Act," remain strongly opposed. And the measure could again face Democratic pushback in the closely divided Senate, where the rules effectively require any bill to have at least 60 votes to move forward. Republicans currently control 52 seats, and Democrats have 48.
In the meantime, the implementation process has advanced, with states having submitted their nonattainment recommendations last fall.
Besides extending the review cycle, the bill would allow EPA to take "likely technological feasibility" into account as a secondary consideration in setting the primary public health standards for the six criteria pollutants. Along with ozone, they are lead, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter. The agency would also have to conduct a study on the extent to which foreign emissions sources affect compliance with federal air quality standards.
The co-sponsors of the House bill are Reps. Bill Flores (R-Texas) and Bob Latta (R-Ohio). The Senate co-sponsors are Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.).
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/02/02/stories/1060049410
-
Southern California Could Swap Air Pollution Trading for Rules
Feb 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Southern California could scrap its longstanding air pollution trading program in favor of direct regulations, irking industries, as it seeks to bring the worst regional air quality in the nation in line with federal requirements.
The draft plan to improve air quality in Los Angeles and the surrounding areas, is expected to cost as much as $1 billion a year for the next 15 years for incentives to reduce pollution emissions from vehicles even though the South Coast Air Quality Management District hasn't yet identified all the sources for the necessary funds. However, environmental groups still say the plan won't be enough to bring the region in line with Environmental Protection Agency requirements.
Questions about the adequacy of the plan and the future of the trading program, the Regional Clean Air Incentives Market or RECLAIM, are among many issues the South Coast Air Quality Management District's governing board must face at its Feb. 3 meeting to consider the plan.
Industry groups aren't happy with language in the plan that suggests the region's 22-year-old emissions trading program to curb nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides from oil refineries and other stationary sources should be phased out and replaced with direct regulations.
Emissions Trading ‘Highly Successful’
Industry groups support the plan's focus on curbing emissions from mobile sources through incentive programs. However, the Regulatory Flexibility Group also urged the air district to conduct a careful evaluation of RECLAIM before ending the program.
“The RECLAIM program has been highly successful,” Michael J. Carroll, an attorney at Latham & Watkins’ Costa Mesa, Calif., office who represents the group, said in Nov. 4 comment letter.
While some sources or categories of the program could be transitioned to more traditional regulatory program, it would require “extremely careful planning and consideration that takes into account the substantial investments that facilities have made over the past two decades consistent with the RECLAIM market-based model,” Carroll said.
In contrast, the environmental groups want the air district to include an end date for RECLAIM in the plan.
Groups representing the ports and railroad companies advised against establishing emissions limits for those sources of pollution.
Voluntary Measures Opposed for Ports, Trains
The final draft of the plan sets no emissions limits for the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, Calif., multiple rail yards and warehousing projects. Rather, the plan proposed voluntary efforts to curb those major sources of nitrogen oxides and diesel soot. Should the voluntary effort fail to achieve the needed emissions reductions, the plan said regulations would follow.
Advocacy groups are pressing the air district to include specific measures to reduce emissions from the ports, rail yards and warehouse facilities.
The proposed plan “needs to be rewritten to comply with EPA guidance” for reliance on voluntary measures, David Pettit, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in the Feb. 1 letter to the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
Funds Needed
Rolled out in June as “new, innovative” approach to tackle the region's stubborn air pollution problem, the proposal offers no specific source of the $1 billion a year, beginning this year, for incentives it says will slash emissions from mobile sources. Instead, regulators hope to raise the $11 billion to $14 billion over the next 15 years from federal, state and regional programs and by partnering with other groups.
Last year, South Coast officials joined forces with air quality regulators from other states to lobby for a federal Clean Air Investment Fund, similar to the Superfund program, to provide funding. Industry groups have pledged to help regulators lobby for such a program, but there is no guarantee those efforts will pay off.
Key Challenges
The draft 2016 Air Quality Management Plan charts a path for attainment with the national 1979, 1997 and 2008 national air quality standards for ozone and the 2006 and 2012 standards for fine particulates.
To meet the ozone standards, emissions of nitrogen oxides—a precursor to ozone formation—must be cut an additional 45 percent by 2023 and another 55 percent by 2031. Reducing nitrogen oxides by those levels will also help the region achieve the particulate standards, the air district said.
Major elements of the plan depend on the existing stationary source control programs, few if any new measures and earning credits for implementing state climate programs. Also, the plan counts on state and federal mobile source control measures and the state's program to transition to near-zero and zero-emission vehicles throughout the region.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=104954047&vname=dennotallissues&fn=104954047&jd=104954047
-
Arguments In Air Toxics Suit Pose Early Test For Trump EPA Legal Policy
Feb 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
A federal appeals court is poised to hear oral arguments next week in what appears to be the first major lawsuit in which Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys will defend an EPA policy from environmentalists' attacks, posing an early test for how the new administration will respond to lawsuits that claim Obama-era rules are too weak.
The suit, Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA, et al., pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, challenges the agency's June 3, 2015, finding that it has satisfied a Clean Air Act mandate to list for regulation industrial sources that account for 90 percent of the emissions of seven hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). Had EPA declared that it had not satisfied the mandate, it would have had to issue new air toxics rules for the HAPs.
The chemicals are alkylated lead compounds, polycyclic organic matter, hexachlorobenzene, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofurans and 2,3,7,8- tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. These HAPs were singled out in the Clean Air Act because of their persistent and bioaccumulative properties.
The agency issued the finding in response to a court order in earlier litigation that said EPA failed to meet an air law requirement to issue the declaration. The D.C. Circuit will hear oral arguments Feb. 10 on the merits of the declaration, which Trump would be expected to support as it avoids triggering any new regulatory requirements.
Should the agency lose the case, it could be obligated to issue a series of new regulations to limit the seven HAPs contradicting the Trump administration's stated goal of reducing regulatory burdens. As a result, DOJ's arguments could offer important insight on how the administration will approach litigation where it is defending EPA rules against environmentalists' claims that they are too weak, rather than where industry says they are too strict.
Challenges to nationally applicable EPA rules are heard in the D.C. Circuit rather than other appellate circuits, and the Sierra Club HAP case appears to be the first such suit to be heard since Trump's Jan. 20 inauguration.
In a Feb. 1 order, the court said environmentalists and DOJ will get 20 minutes each at arguments. The panel hearing the case consists of Democratic appointees Judges Judith Rogers and Patricia Millett, and Republican appointee Judge David Sentelle.
The Clean Air Act originally said that the obligation to regulate 90 percent of sources of the seven identified HAPs was to have been accomplished by 1995. However, the agency for years declined to make a formal finding that it had met the mandate. After protracted litigation, the agency ultimately issued its 2015 finding as a formal agency action eligible for judicial review. EPA found that it had, through various rules dating back years, met the 90 percent obligation, in part though use of “surrogates” to control for the seven HAPs at issue.
Environmentalists dispute that surrogates can effectively control the seven HAPs, and want direct regulation of the HAPs. The Obama EPA in briefing has countered that use of surrogates is permissible, and that environmentalists are in effect challenging the underlying air toxics rules the agency relies on in its completion finding. This is time-barred as the legal deadlines to sue over the rules have long since passed, EPA has argued.
Additional Authorities
In a Jan. 31 letter advising the court of additional authorities to bolster their case, Sierra Club and California Communities Against Air Toxics sought to bolster their earlier briefing. The groups cited the D.C. Circuit's 2016 ruling in U.S. Sugar Corporation v. EPA, in which the court first vacated, then remanded a series of air toxics limits in its rule setting maximum achievable control technology (MACT) for industrial boilers.
“U.S. Sugar considered EPA’s attempt to use carbon monoxide as a surrogate for polycyclic organic matter, formaldehyde, and other organic hazardous air pollutants emitted by industrial boilers. U.S. Sugar holds that, to be reasonable, EPA’s use of a surrogate standard must 'accomplish what the statute plainly requires: that the EPA set emission standards for organic [HAPs] at the average level achieved by the best performers with regard to those [HAPs],'” the environmental groups say in the new letter.
Further, the court in U.S. Sugar found EPA “failed to directly consider and respond to” comments “suggesting that other control technologies and methods could be effectively used to reduce [HAP] emissions without also impacting [carbon monoxide] emissions, or vice versa,” and the court “pronounced EPA’s use of carbon monoxide as a surrogate 'arbitrary and capricious,'” the environmentalists say.
“In this case, EPA purports to close off its obligation to set MACT standards for polycyclic organic matter (POM), hexachlorobenzene (HCB), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) by repurposing standards for other pollutants as surrogate standards for POM, HCB, and PCBs,” environmentalists say. “Yet EPA does not claim, in the present rule or in prior rules, that the alleged surrogates allow the agency to identify the sources with the lowest emissions of POM, HCB, and PCBs, or that regulating the alleged surrogates reduces emissions of POM, HCB, and PCBs to the level achieved by those best performing sources,” the letter says.
“Further, as in U.S. Sugar, EPA declined to consider and respond to comments identifying technologies that are effective for controlling the target hazardous air pollutants but not for controlling the alleged surrogates, and vice versa,” the groups argue.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/arguments-air-toxics-suit-pose-early-test-trump-epa-legal-policy
-
EU Ready to Lead on Climate if U.S. Backtracks: Official
Feb 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Union is on track to meet its 2020 decarbonization goals and is ready to “assume global leadership” in case the U.S. under President Donald Trump backtracks on its emissions-reduction commitments, the EU's top energy official said Feb. 1.
Maros Sefcovic, European Commission vice president for Energy Union, said it was “not easy to follow the pace of developments in the United States,” but “based on the recent announcements we have heard, of course we are concerned” about the direction the Trump administration's climate policy might take.
“Some of the actions that have been announced” in the U.S., “might lead to the situation where Europe would have to assume—and we are ready for that—global leadership in the fight against climate change,” he added.
The EU favors reducing carbon emissions not only for environmental reasons, but also because it “makes very strong business sense; we really can modernize the whole economy,” Sefcovic said.
In addition, the EU has a “positively developing relationship with China” in areas such as emissions trading to cap and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, he said.
Progress Report
Sefcovic was speaking on the commission's publication of a report to the European Parliament and EU member countries on progress toward the bloc's decarbonization goals.
According to the report, EU greenhouse gas emissions in 2015 were down 22 percent from 1990 compared to a legally binding target to reduce emissions by 20 percent by 2020. The EU also is on track to beat targets for 2020 for renewable sources to provide 20 percent of final energy consumption and for energy consumption to fall to levels that would represent a 20 percent energy efficiency gain.
According to Sefcovic, the EU would have to spend 387 billion euros ($417 billion) a year after 2020 to meet additional goals by 2030 of a 40-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to 1990, a 27 percent share for renewables in consumed energy, and a 27 percent energy efficiency saving.
He cautioned EU countries against spending on fossil fuel energy infrastructure that could become redundant. “We need to invest smartly” because “traditional” investment would lead to a “huge overcapacity,” he said.
Despite progress, “the EU's current energy plans don't come close to the scale of action needed to meet the threat of climate change,” said Sebastian Mang, a policy adviser with Greenpeace.
The bloc should “accelerate its move to 100 percent renewable energy, and it must scrap subsidies for fossil fuels,” Mang said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=104954035&vname=dennotallissues&fn=104954035&jd=104954035
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested