Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 2/16/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) American Chemistry Council Calls Baker & Hostetler
Feb 15, 2017 | O'Dwyer's PR News
By Jon Gingerich
The American Chemistry Council, the trade association that represents American chemical manufacturers, has hired global law firm Baker & Hostetler for representation in Washington on issues related to chemicals, energy, homeland security and corporate tax policy... -
Senate GOP Maneuvers to Confirm Pruitt by Tomorrow
Feb 16, 2017 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink
Senate Republicans are insisting U.S. EPA nominee Scott Pruitt will be confirmed by the end of this week, despite near-solid Democratic resistance and at least one GOP opponent. -
Collins to Oppose Pruitt Nomination
Feb 15, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
Sen. Susan Collins says she will vote against Scott Pruitt's nomination to be EPA administrator, according to a local news report. -
GAO Says TSCA May Help End 'High Risk' Status of EPA Chemical Reviews
Feb 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) says revisions to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) could help move EPA's chemical risk assessment program off GAO's list of programs that pose a “high risk” of fraud, waste or abuse... -
EU Finalizes Flame Retardant Prohibition
Feb 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The widely used brominated flame retardant decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE) would be largely prohibited in the European Union after March 2, 2019, under a regulation published in the bloc's Official Journal. -
Industry Groups Oppose California Cleaning Products Disclosure Bill
Feb 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Several industry groups have voiced their opposition to a California bill requiring manufacturers to fully disclose ingredients in cleaning products sold in the state. -
In First Climate Case Under Trump, D.C. Circuit To Hear Suit over HFC Rule
Feb 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
Upcoming appellate court oral arguments in litigation challenging an EPA rule curbing hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) could offer a crucial indication of where the Trump administration stands on regulating the potent greenhouse gases, as well as potential insight... -
Setback for Monsanto in PCB River Pollution Case
Feb 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
Monsanto may not proceed with a cost recovery countersuit against Spokane, Wash., in litigation over PCB contamination in the Spokane River, the Eastern District of Washington ruled Feb. 14 (City pf Spokane v. Monsanto Co., 2017 BL 44392, E.D. Wash., No. 15-cv-00201, 2/14/17). -
Ireland Consulting on Proposed Microbeads Ban
Feb 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Ireland has opened a public consultation on a proposal to ban the sale, manufacture and import of cosmetics, personal care products and detergents containing plastic microbeads. -
(ACC Mentioned) Sens. Portman and Shaheen Roll Out 'Win-Win' Bill
Feb 15, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Christa Marshall
Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) formally introduced legislation today that would shift energy efficiency policy at federal agencies and across the private sector. -
Without Clean Power Plan, Coal Use Could Rise Again
Feb 16, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Ryan Handy
The U.S. Department of Energy expects coal to regain its spot as the nation’s main energy source if the Clean Power Plan is not implemented, which would reverse a trend of natural gas dominance driven by lower prices and government incentives to switch to cleaner energy. -
Roadblocks to Trump's Fast-Track Plans Surface on the Hill
Feb 16, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey
If the Dakota Access pipeline is any indication, the Trump administration's push to fast-track reviews of oil and gas pipelines and other energy infrastructure could be fraught with prickly politics and tough questions about landowner and tribal rights. -
Tribe, Dakota Access Developer Face Off at House Hearing
Feb 15, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Representatives from the company building the Dakota Access pipeline and the tribe opposing it both told a House committee Wednesday that the government is responsible for the tense debate over the project. -
Diamondback Raising Rigs as Activity Escalates in Permian
Feb 15, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
Diamondback Energy Inc.’s Permian Basin production climbed 38% year/year and was 16% higher sequentially during the fourth quarter as the company raised more rigs in the Southern Delaware. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industries Plan to Press Pruitt for New EPA RMP Rule if CRA Effort Fails
Feb 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Chemical, agricultural, and other industry officials plan to press Scott Pruitt -- President Donald Trump's nominee for next EPA administrator -- to pursue a rulemaking repealing controversial Obama-era revisions to the agency's facility safety program if a Congressional Review Act... -
Cyber Executive Order a Reasonable Step Forward, Yet More Remains to Be Done
Feb 15, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Betsy Cooper
The speed with which the Trump administration has been issuing Executive Orders comes as no surprise. -
Freight Railroad Asks Congress to Pay for Safety Technology in Passenger trains
Feb 15, 2017 | The Hill - Transportation
By Melanie Zanona
A top freight railroad made a somewhat unusual plea to Congress on Wednesday: pay for passenger railroads to install a life-saving train technology. -
Pruitt Could Alter Air Science Advisory Panel Direction at EPA
Feb 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio and Rachel Leven
A panel of science advisers whose recommendations underpin some of the EPA's most contentious air pollution regulations is likely to see some changes under the Trump administration, including the possible appointment of scientists who disagree... -
EPA Girds for Pruitt Arrival as Democrats Continue to Fight
Feb 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
Scott Pruitt may take the reins of the Environmental Protection Agency Feb. 17, the agency's acting administrator Catherine McCabe told colleagues in a video posted publicly. -
Gaetz's Bill to Abolish EPA Gets Little Traction
Feb 16, 2017 | Roll Call
By Eric Garcia
Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz’s bill to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency is not getting much traction in either party. -
Air: CBD Threatens Suit to Force EPA Ozone Nonattainment Findings
Feb 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Center for Environmental Health are threatening to sue EPA over the agency's failure to determine by a Jan. 20 Clean Air Act deadline whether areas granted a one-year extension to meet the 2008 ozone...
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) American Chemistry Council Calls Baker & Hostetler
Feb 15, 2017 | O'Dwyer's PR News
By Jon Gingerich
The American Chemistry Council, the trade association that represents American chemical manufacturers, has hired global law firm Baker & Hostetler for representation in Washington on issues related to chemicals, energy, homeland security and corporate tax policy, according to lobbying registration documents filed in February.
The Washington, D.C.-based trade group, formerly known as the Chemical Manufacturers' Association, works to shape policies that benefit the chemical industry and its member companies, which includes Dow Chemical, DuPont, Honeywell and Marathon Petroleum.
The American Chemistry Council spent more than $9 million in total lobbying expenditures in 2016. Other firms that have recently represented the chemical trade group include Ogilvy Government Relations, CGCN Group, Schumacher Partners International and Holland & Knight.
Science-based nonprofit the Union of Concerned Scientists in 2015 released a report blasting the ACC for “pushing for industry-friendly chemical policies that fail to protect public health.”The ACC account will be managed by Chris Jones, former chief of staff to Rep. Mike Ferguson (R-NJ), deputy chief of staff to Rep. David McIntosh (R-IN) and press secretary to Rep. John Myers (R-IN); and Tyler Thompson, former legislative assistant to Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA), legislative correspondent to Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and legislative correspondent to Senator Zell Miller (R-GA).
http://www.odwyerpr.com/story/public/8385/2017-02-15/american-chemistry-council-calls-baker-hostetler.html
-
Senate GOP Maneuvers to Confirm Pruitt by Tomorrow
Feb 16, 2017 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink
Senate Republicans are insisting U.S. EPA nominee Scott Pruitt will be confirmed by the end of this week, despite near-solid Democratic resistance and at least one GOP opponent.
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said Pruitt would be confirmed by no later than tomorrow afternoon even if Democrats continue to force floor delays.
He said the vote could come earlier if members of the minority opt not to use all 30 hours of their allowed floor time to fight Pruitt.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said last night: "All members should plan to stay here until complete consideration of the Pruitt nomination."
EPW Committee ranking member Tom Carper (D-Del.) promised Democrats would use all of the time to oppose the Oklahoma attorney general, whom they believe would push for a massive regulatory rollback at EPA. If Democrats stick with their plans, the Senate will be in for another overnight session tonight.
Carper suggested waiting until after a week to allow a federal court to possibly release emails related to his tenure as attorney general.
"Why wouldn't we wait a week to find out what story those emails told?" Carper asked yesterday evening. "Maybe they're fearful of a story they would tell."
Collins to oppose Pruitt
Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, one of the Senate's leading moderates, broke with her party yesterday and announced she would oppose Pruitt.
Collins told Maine Public Radio that Pruitt is a competent attorney and that she could support him for another post, but not EPA.
"Pruitt has actively opposed and sued the EPA on numerous issues that are of great importance to the state of Maine, including mercury controls for coal-fired power plants and efforts to reduce cross-state air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions," Collins said.
"His actions leave me with considerable doubts about whether his vision for the EPA is consistent with the agency's critical mission to protect human health and the environment," she said.
Collins, whose move was largely expected, is the first and may be the only member of her party to break ranks on Pruitt.
With the GOP holding a two-seat advantage in the Senate and West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin speaking positively about Pruitt, Collins' opposition won't derail the pick.
The Natural Resources Council of Maine praised Collins and the state's independent Sen. Angus King, who caucuses with Democrats, for protecting the state's natural resources by opposing Pruitt.
"We are counting on them to continue defending the health of Maine people, our nature-based economy, and safeguards for the clean air and clean water that define our state," said Lisa Pohlmann, the group's executive director.
FreedomWorks, the pro-fossil fuel group, mocked Collins' vote by sending out a sarcastic press release, which it called a template for when the moderate lawmaker opposes a conservative choice.
"The template reads, 'We're shocked — absolutely shocked — that Sen. Collins would oppose a conservative [insert policy or nominee]. It's a shame that Sen. Collins is once again aligning with herself far-left Democrats and special interests like [insert crazy liberal group(s)] to block a crucial [nominee/policy who/that] would accomplish conservatives' dream of [action/result]," the FreedomWorks statement said.
Mulvaney
Debate on Pruitt will begin once the Senate approves Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) as director of the Office of Management and Budget. Votes are set for this morning.
In that post, the four-term lawmaker will oversee the crafting of President Trump's annual spending plans and coordinate rules across government.
Mulvaney, a fiscal hardliner who supported the last government shutdown and has raised doubts about human links to climate change, has drawn solid opposition from Democrats and concerns from some in the GOP, particularly over his willingness to call for cutting Pentagon spending.
One of those critics, Senate Appropriations Chairman Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), said yesterday he would support the nomination.
Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.), who challenged Mulvaney over spending cuts at his confirmation hearing, said he would vote against him.
Perry, Zinke
Congressional aides won't rule out voting on other nominees before Congress adjourns for a weeklong Presidents Day recess.
Less controversial picks, such as Energy secretary nominee Rick Perry, Interior secretary nominee Ryan Zinke and Commerce secretary nominee Wilbur Ross, could be confirmed quickly if the parties can come to a deal.
Perry's chances for a speedy approval might have dimmed a bit yesterday with the League of Conservation Voters coming out strongly against his nomination.
"Perry's record of putting fossil fuel industry interests ahead of public health and environmental protections disqualifies him for the critical position of Secretary of Energy," LCV said, promising to score lawmakers on their vote.
Another pending nominee, Agriculture secretary pick Sonny Perdue, awaits a date for his confirmation hearing, which is seen as likely by the end of the month.
Reporters Kevin Bogardus, Arianna Skibell and Geof Koss contributed.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/02/16/stories/1060050159
-
Collins to Oppose Pruitt Nomination
Feb 15, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
Sen. Susan Collins says she will vote against Scott Pruitt's nomination to be EPA administrator, according to a local news report.
“Specifically, I have significant concerns that Mr. Pruitt has actively opposed and sued the EPA on numerous issues that are of great importance to the state of Maine, including mercury controls for coal-fired power plants and efforts to reduce cross-state air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions,” she told Maine Public Radio. “His actions leave me with considerable doubts about whether his vision for the EPA is consistent with the agency’s critical mission to protect human health and the environment.”
The Maine Republican is the only member of her party to come out against Pruitt. He is expected to get a final floor vote by Friday afternoon.
Despite opposition from Collins, who has been on the fence about President Donald Trump's EPA nominee for weeks, Pruitt’s confirmation does not appear to be in real danger.
Republicans still have 51 expected votes for him. And GOP leaders are angling to pick up several red-state Democrats, particularly Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who put out a statement in January through President Donald Trump’s transition team praising Pruitt.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
GAO Says TSCA May Help End 'High Risk' Status of EPA Chemical Reviews
Feb 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) says revisions to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) could help move EPA's chemical risk assessment program off GAO's list of programs that pose a “high risk” of fraud, waste or abuse, because the updated law will help EPA take steps to address the watchdog's long-running concerns.
GAO in a Feb. 15 report updating its annual list of programs considered high-risk also adds federal environmental cleanups to that list for the first time, while retaining a previous listing for climate change as a high risk. The report is designed to highlight areas of major concern for the federal government to address.
On toxics, GAO reiterates past concerns that EPA's chemicals review program has produced inadequate information, creating problems with the agency's air, waste, and toxics programs that rely on the data produced through the agency's risk assessments. The program has spent years on the list, even prompting a congressional investigation in 2016 over the need for improvements.
But GAO now says the TSCA law enacted last June could aid EPA in bolstering the program and potentially helping to remove the toxics program as a high risk category in the future.
“Passing TSCA reform may facilitate EPA’s effort to improve its processes for assessing and controlling toxic chemicals in the years ahead . . . Using both new and previously existing TSCA authorities should enhance the agency’s ability to gather new information as necessary to evaluate hazard and exposure risks,” the report says.
However, GAO notes that EPA's implementation of the law is still in its early stages, and warns that EPA officials will have to work with Congress in order to make sure reforms take hold. “Additional work will also be needed to issue a workload analysis to demonstrate capacity, complete a corrective action plan, and demonstrate progress implementing the new legislation,” the report says.
GAO also praises EPA for crafting new multi-year agenda for the the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program -- which is separate from TSCA but also included in the high-risk listing -- but notes that the agency still has work to do in order to achieve the goal of setting concrete timelines for assessments and gauging IRIS' resource requirements.
“EPA still needs to provide current and accurate information on chemicals that the agency plans to assess through the IRIS program for IRIS users on an annual basis. The Multi-Year Agenda does not identify projected start dates for new assessments, and therefore is not ensuring that current and accurate information on chemicals that EPA plans to assess through IRIS is available to IRIS users,” GAO says.
The GAO high-risk list includes programs that the office has determined are especially vulnerable to waste, fraud, abuse or mismanagement, or require transformative change in order to fulfill their objectives.
Climate Change
GAO's assessment of the climate change program focuses on policies to spur adaptation and resiliency in order to lessen the government's financial liability from the effects of sea level rise, extreme weather and other climate impacts. While efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are important, it says, “limiting the federal government’s fiscal exposure to climate change risks will be challenging no matter the outcome of efforts to reduce emissions, in part because greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere will continue altering the climate system for many decades.”
And the report concludes that current efforts to blunt climate change impacts are too disparate, requiring a more unified agenda to succeed.
“The federal government is not well organized to address the fiscal risks to which climate change exposes it, partly because of the inherently complicated, crosscutting nature of the issue. The federal government would be better positioned to respond to the risks posed by climate change if federal efforts were more coordinated and were directed toward common goals,” the report says.
While GAO praises steps the Obama administration took in 2015 and 2016 to plan for climate change, such as the Council on Environmental Quality's guidance for incorporating its impacts into National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews, it notes that all such efforts will need to be sustained far into the future in order to be effective.
For instance, addressing Executive Order (EO) 13693, which orders agencies to incorporate sustainability in their planning efforts, the report says “it is too early to determine how effective agency strategic sustainability performance plans under E.O. 13693 will be at reducing aspects of the federal fiscal exposure to climate change.”
But it does not consider the likelihood that President Donald Trump will eliminate those efforts, as he and the administration's supporters have vowed to do.
Federal Cleanups
While the Feb. 15 list adds environmental cleanups as high-risk for the first time, the listing is not based on a major new incident. Rather, GAO says the change is warranted because of a steadily accumulating cleanup burden that has now reached $447 billion, combined with the failure of the Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Energy (DOE) to implement 13 of the office's 28 recommendations since 1994 for improving their cleanup programs.
“If implemented, these steps would improve the completeness and reliability of the estimated costs of future cleanup responsibilities, and lead to more risk-based management of the cleanup work,” it says.
According to the report, DOE is liable for $372 billion in cleanups, and DOD for $63 billion, with other agencies collectively responsible for only $12 billion.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/gao-says-tsca-may-help-end-high-risk-status-epa-chemical-reviews
-
EU Finalizes Flame Retardant Prohibition
Feb 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The widely used brominated flame retardant decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE) would be largely prohibited in the European Union after March 2, 2019, under a regulation published in the bloc's Official Journal.
The regulation formalizes a restriction on decaBDE by writing it into the EU's REACH law (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals). The restriction on decaBDE was proposed in 2014 on the basis that the substance is classified persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic and very persistent and very bioaccumulative.
The wide-ranging restriction is needed, according to the regulation, because of decaBDE's “widespread distribution and potential to cause irreversible long-term harm to the environment, even after emissions have ceased.”
The regulation amends Annex XVII of REACH to ban the manufacture and sale of decaBDE in the EU and to ban its use in any chemical formulation or any product above a concentration of 0.1 percent by weight.
The restriction would allow continued use of decaBDE in aircraft parts up to March 2, 2027, and in spare parts for some vehicles. The restriction also would exempt electronic and electrical equipment, from which decaBDE is already prohibited under the EU Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS Directive, 2011/65/EU).
Restriction Welcomed
Frida Hök, an adviser to Chemsec, the International Chemical Secretariat, which campaigns for the phaseout of toxic substances, said the restriction on decaBDE was “very much overdue.” She said that exemptions for spare parts should not have been allowed because it was “important that hazardous substances are not simply reintroduced on the market through recycled materials.”
DecaBDE will be considered during 2017 for inclusion in Annex A of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, meaning parties to the convention would be required to eliminate its production and use.
The European Commission, the EU's executive arm, circulated the restriction in draft form to World Trade Organization members in May 2016, and published the final regulation in the EU Official Journal Feb. 10.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105706427&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105706427&jd=105706427
-
Industry Groups Oppose California Cleaning Products Disclosure Bill
Feb 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Several industry groups have voiced their opposition to a California bill requiring manufacturers to fully disclose ingredients in cleaning products sold in the state.
Under SB 258 all ingredients – including fragrances – must be listed on product labels and online. Current laws require ingredient listing in foods, drugs and cosmetics, but exclude cleaning products.
But industry groups have raised concerns about the protection of trade secrets.
Farah Ahmed, president and CEO of the International Fragrance Association North America (Ifrana), says requiring blanket fragrance formulation disclosure could lead to counterfeit products entering the market and put jobs at risk.
"Creative artistry is the lifeblood of the fragrance industry," says Ms Ahmed. "SB 258 makes no provision for the protection of proprietary formulas that would easily be stolen by counterfeiters looking to make a quick profit off of the efforts of perfumers who have often spent years crafting a fragrance."
The Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA) also expressed worries about protecting confidential business information.
Kristin Power, CSPA vice president for state affairs, says trade secret protection is "a key instrument for driving advances in safer and greener chemical technologies and product innovation."
And the American Cleaning Institute (ACI) says industry already voluntarily provides information about ingredients contained in consumer cleaning products.
It issued a statement in opposition to the bill that said state-level legislation to mandate ingredient disclosure "is completely unnecessary because of the industry's successful ingredient communication initiative that is designed to provide useful information to consumer."
The ACI recently launched the Cleaning Product Ingredient Safety Initiative (CPISI) website, which it says consumers can use to access safety data on hundreds of chemicals.
Consumer confidence
But several companies that already disclose their ingredients are backing the bill. Companies for Safer Chemicals, a coalition of businesses coordinated by the American Sustainable Business Council, says ingredient disclosure would build consumer confidence and drive the industry to make cleaner and safer products.
Kelly Vlahakis-Hanks, president and CEO of Earth Friendly Products, says: "Ingredient transparency is fundamental to our business, and we're proud to list all our ingredients on our labels."
The bill also has the support of several NGOs. Nancy Buermeyer, senior policy strategist for the Breast Cancer Fund (BCF), says: "Consumers have a right to know what's in the products we buy so we can protect our families from potentially harmful chemical ingredients."
https://chemicalwatch.com/53612/industry-groups-oppose-california-cleaning-products-disclosure-bill
-
In First Climate Case Under Trump, D.C. Circuit To Hear Suit over HFC Rule
Feb 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
Upcoming appellate court oral arguments in litigation challenging an EPA rule curbing hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) could offer a crucial indication of where the Trump administration stands on regulating the potent greenhouse gases, as well as potential insight into how it could approach other key climate and environmental suits.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has scheduled Feb. 17 arguments in Mexichem Fluor, Inc., v. EPA. The suit challenges EPA's July 2015 rule removing several high global warming potential (GWP) HFCs from a list of acceptable chemicals under its Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program.
The rule is the first of several such measures to limit production and use of the refrigerants due to their climate change impacts. The Obama administration promulgated another SNAP rule in October 2016 delisting a second round of high-GWP HFCs.
The chemical companies that brought the lawsuit, Mexichem Fluor and Arkema, Inc., argue that EPA lacks Clean Air Act authority to regulate HFCs under the SNAP program, which was originally developed to limit ozone-depleting chemicals. Under that program, HFCs were approved as acceptable replacements for other refrigerants that caused significantly more damage to the ozone layer.
The companies also charge that, even if EPA does have SNAP authority to regulate HFCs, its rule was “arbitrary and capricious” because the agency failed to consider factors other than GWP when delisting the chemicals.
The upcoming arguments mark the first time the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) will be charged with defending an Obama-era climate rule in court, and also the first arguments in an environmental lawsuit since Attorney General Jeff Sessions was confirmed.
In the first EPA suit to be argued under the Trump administration, DOJ on Feb. 10 defended an Obama EPA declaration that it has satisfied an air law requirement to regulate 90 percent of seven air toxics. But that defense was expected because the finding helps EPA avoid issuing new air toxics rules.
In the HFC litigation, it is unclear whether the new administration, which is largely hostile to climate policy, will switch positions during the arguments or potentially seek to settle the case.
The suit presents an interesting dynamic because industry is split. While Mexichem and Arkema are seek to scrap agency's underlying authority over HFCs, large chemical companies Honeywell and Chemours are defending the agency and rebuking the other chemical firms' view of the air act as too restrictive.
Challengers “resort to tortured constructions of the law” to fight the regulation, primarily because they did not have the foresight to develop new chemicals in preparation for compliance, Honeywell and Chemours said in a June 10 brief supporting the rule.
One fact that could affect the Trump administration's view on the issue is that Mexichem and Arkema are foreign firms while the companies backing the rule are domestic. Trump has often talked about boosting American companies through trade policy and other venues.
And broadly, industry groups, including chemical firms and many appliance manufacturers, support a “manageable” transition away from high-GWP HFCs, though they have sometimes criticized EPA's SNAP rules.
Industry sources have also noted that the pending litigation causes compliance uncertainty because some of the SNAP obligations began in January.
Trade Sanctions
Industry also largely backs an international agreement struck last year that crafts a global phasedown of HFCs under the Montreal Protocol. However, the future of that deal -- known as the Kigali Amendment -- is now uncertain.
Chemical and appliance firms, as well as environmentalists, are urging Trump to back the Kigali deal, which would likely require ratification by the Senate. They also warn that not participating in the deal carries significant risks.
The Montreal Protocol includes strict trade sanctions banning the import of chemicals from countries that are not members of the deal and do not follow its phasedown requirements. Exporting chemicals to such countries would also be prohibited.
Thus, if the United States does not join the Kigali pact and does not follow its HFC restrictions, domestic chemical producers could not export HFCs to developing countries like India that are poised to be significant customers because the Kigali amendment does not require them to begin phasing down the substances until 2028.
U.S. appliance manufacturers might also be affected because they would be limited to purchasing refrigerants from domestic suppliers -- a move that might boost prices.
The SNAP rules give the U.S. a path to meet Kigali's first phasedown step in 2019. That effectively protects against trade sanctions even if Trump administration decides not to move forward with the global deal.
But if the court overturns the SNAP rules, or if the administration ultimately weakens the regulations, the country could be in jeopardy of not meeting its first set of Kigali obligations.
'Square Peg, Round Hole'
Much of the Feb. 17 oral arguments will likely focus on whether courts should grant deference to EPA's interpretation that its SNAP authority allows it to limit HFCs.
Mexichem and Arkema charge that EPA disregarded the bounds of the SNAP program as set by air act section 612 to meet the HFC reduction goal in President Barack Obama's Climate Action Plan.
“In short, EPA has pounded the square peg of the President's Climate Action Plan into the round hole of [section] 612 and the SNAP regulations. In doing so, the Agency has produced a rarity -- an air emissions regulation where the significance of risk, amount of emissions, extent of controls, and actual effects on the atmosphere are irrelevant,” Mexichem and Arkema wrote in their March 2016 opening brief.
The firms charge EPA lacks authority to regulate HFCs under the statute “without Congress's authorization.” Congress also would have to act, they say, to grant EPA authority to craft rules to implement the Kigali deal.
They also argue that EPA's interpretation of section 612 as allowing it to continue direct replacement of future generations of chemicals is “astonishingly expansive” and “far removed from the comparatively modest purpose of the provision -- to ensure that ozone-depleting substances are replaced with safe alternatives as they are phased out.”
But EPA and its supporters say petitioners' interpretation of the statute is too restrictive and would inhibit EPA's ability to meet the SNAP program's requirement that it update the list of acceptable chemicals to reflect those that pose the lowest overall risk based on a variety of factors, including “human health and the environment.”
“To hold otherwise, as Petitioners advocate, would disregard Congress's mandate that EPA consider risks to human health and the environment when regulating alternatives to ozone-depleting substances and would stand in tension with settled principles of administrative law regarding an agency's authority to reconsider prior decisions,” the Obama DOJ wrote in a May brief defending the rule.
Honeywell and Chemours also argue that restricting the agency's ability to continually update the list of acceptable and unacceptable chemicals “would stifle the very innovation Congress sought to promote and forever insulate even the most harmful chemicals from being removed from the list of acceptable alternatives, long after industry has invented better substitutes that pose lower risks to human health and the environment.”
In addition, the Natural Resources Defense Council in a June 10 brief argued that Mexichem and Arkema could not point to any specific statutory language that restricts EPA's power to regularly update its lists of acceptable and unacceptable chemicals.
The petitioners also oppose the rule on several other grounds, including that EPA did not adequately consider energy efficiency in its SNAP rule decisions, and that the agency neglected to properly articulate its reasoning for the GWP limits.
DOJ, however, argued that EPA determined which chemicals to delist based on the SNAP program's “comparative risk framework” -- of which environmental impacts like GWP are only one factor. “Petitioners' dissatisfaction with that analysis should not be confused with a failure to perform it,” DOJ wrote.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/first-climate-case-under-trump-dc-circuit-hear-suit-over-hfc-rule
-
Setback for Monsanto in PCB River Pollution Case
Feb 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
Monsanto may not proceed with a cost recovery countersuit against Spokane, Wash., in litigation over PCB contamination in the Spokane River, the Eastern District of Washington ruled Feb. 14 (City pf Spokane v. Monsanto Co., 2017 BL 44392, E.D. Wash., No. 15-cv-00201, 2/14/17).
The company didn't establish that its costs in containing and responding to polychlorinated biphenyls in the river, which it says were discharged by the city, were necessary to clean up the hazardous waste.
Monsanto established, at most, its costs in defending the litigation brought by the city, the court said.
That showing is required by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), a federal law that governs remediation of and liability for hazardous waste spills.
The ruling is a setback for Monsanto, which is enmeshed in litigation over alleged PCB contamination from its industrial operations in Washington state. But the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington also permitted the company to correct the defect in its counterclaims.
“The court agreed defendants had standing and asked for details about costs that would be recoverable,” Scott Partridge, Monsanto's vice president of global strategy told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 15 in an e-mail. “We will be amending the counterclaims to address the Court's concerns.”
Counsel for the City of Spokane didn't respond to a request for comment Feb. 15 didn't receive a response.
Decades of PCB Contamination Alleged
Spokane lodged public nuisance, products liability, negligence and other claims against Monsanto and Pharmacia Corp. in 2015. It contends that decades of Monsanto's manufacturing operations caused the contamination.
But Monsanto contends the city discharged PCBs into the river through sewage, wastewater and storm runoffs for years, and therefore is liable for the cleanup.
Monsanto's counterclaims are an effort to improperly shift blame for contamination it caused, Spokane argued, and also fell short of showing of any cost other than defending the claims brought by the city.
The court agreed, and dismissed the counterclaims, citing CERCLA's requirement that a party allege sufficient facts to establish that its cleanup costs “are necessary and consistent with the national contingency plan.”
The national contingency plan is a federal Superfund blueprint for proper remedial responses for hazardous substance discharges.
While Monsanto “made substantial claims” that the city is responsible for a significant portion of the PCB contamination, its “conclusory allegations here are simply insufficient to state a claim,” the court said.
Spokane also asked the court to dismiss Monsanto's counterclaims with prejudice, asserting the defects couldn't be cured by an amended pleading, but the court declined to do so.
It said “it is not absolutely clear from the record that Monsanto has not incurred or will not incur” valid costs.
U.S. District Judge Salvador Mendoza Jr, wrote the opinion.
The law offices of Latham & Watkins, as well as Lee & Hayes represented Monsanto and Pharmacia.
The Spokane City Attorney's Office, as well as Baron & Budd and Gomez Trial Attorneys represented the City of Spokane.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105706448&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105706448&jd=105706448
-
Ireland Consulting on Proposed Microbeads Ban
Feb 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Ireland has opened a public consultation on a proposal to ban the sale, manufacture and import of cosmetics, personal care products and detergents containing plastic microbeads.
The country's Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government (DHPCLG) says it wants to "lead by example in Europe" on the issue.
But it says any proposed prohibition could have implications for the principle of free movement of goods within the EU and would require approval from the European Commission.
The DHPCLG says it is preparing "a robust case" and will forward the required notification to the Commission and WTO soon.
The consultation, which began on 13 February, will close on 24 March. People can submit their views via an online questionnaire.
Meanwhile, a consultation is gathering views in the UK about a proposal to ban microbeads in 'rinse-off' products, including exfoliating scrubs, shower gels and toothpaste. It closes on 28 February.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53615/ireland-consulting-on-proposed-microbeads-ban
-
(ACC Mentioned) Sens. Portman and Shaheen Roll Out 'Win-Win' Bill
Feb 15, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Christa Marshall
Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) formally introduced legislation today that would shift energy efficiency policy at federal agencies and across the private sector.
The "Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act" mirrors earlier efficiency legislation from the senators. The two have been trying to get a major energy efficiency package passed for six years.
Most recently, Portman-Shaheen language was incorporated into an energy reform package that passed the Senate last year, then stalled.
"This bill is a win-win, creating nearly 200,000 new jobs and protecting our environment — all without a single new tax or mandate," Portman said in a statement.
Yesterday, Shaheen said support for the legislation remains strong in the Senate (E&E Daily, Feb. 15).
The measure contains titles on buildings, regulations and industrial efficiency and would direct new policies at federal agencies. Its provisions would affect much of the energy sector by strengthening national model building codes, establishing new Department of Energy and job training programs, streamlining financing of energy efficiency projects, and mandating that the federal government adopt energy-saving measures for computers.
Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) signed on as co-sponsors.
The bill is supported by multiple environmental and industry groups, including the American Chemistry Council and National Association of Manufacturers.
"This is exactly the kind of legislation Americans want Congress to pass — bipartisan, common-sense policy that saves taxpayers money and drives economic activity and job creation," said Kateri Callahan, president of the Alliance to Save Energy.
Other groups are raising concerns about some provisions. In an email, Andrew Goldberg, managing director of government relations and advocacy at the American Institute of Architects, said his organization opposes language that would repeal part of a 2007 law requiring new and renovated federal buildings to phase out fossil fuel power by 2030.
The language has been a sticking point for years in congressional negotiations (Greenwire, Oct. 27, 2016).
"We look forward to working with members of Congress on crafting energy legislation that preserves the federal government's role in leading the fight against climate change as well as promotes other energy conservation measures," Goldberg said.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/02/15/stories/1060050134
-
Without Clean Power Plan, Coal Use Could Rise Again
Feb 16, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Ryan Handy
The U.S. Department of Energy expects coal to regain its spot as the nation’s main energy source if the Clean Power Plan is not implemented, which would reverse a trend of natural gas dominance driven by lower prices and government incentives to switch to cleaner energy.
In 2016, natural gas became the dominant source of energy in the U.S., and in Europe a surge of wind power was bumped coal from its number two spot as main energy provider.
The Environmental Protection Agency issued a rule implementing the Clean Power Plan in 2015, but the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the enforcement of the rule pending legal challenges. Nonetheless, states and energy companies have created their own clean energy goals and plans, pushing towards a future with less reliance on coal and more use of natural gas and renewable energy. But President Donald Trump has pledged to curtail the EPA’s work to reduce the impacts of climate change, and has promised to rescue beleaguered coal country by rolling back the Clean Power Plan.
But the economics and the politics of coal have been out of sync. While Trump plans to save coal, record low natural gas prices made it the top energy source for the first time last year. Energy companies around the country, stung by the high cost of burning coal, have switched plants from coal to natural gas, and other coal-fired power plants have been shut down. But without enforcement of the Clean Power Plan looming on the horizon, that trend could reverse, the Energy Department said.
“In the scenario where the Clean Power Plan is not implemented, coal again becomes the leading source of electricity generation by 2019 and retains that position through 2032,” the department said in an analysis by the Energy Information Administration.
Without the Clean Power Plan, fewer coal-fired power plants will be retired and additions to renewable energy capacity will drop.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2017/02/15/without-clean-power-plan-coal-use-could-rise-again/
-
Roadblocks to Trump's Fast-Track Plans Surface on the Hill
Feb 16, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey
If the Dakota Access pipeline is any indication, the Trump administration's push to fast-track reviews of oil and gas pipelines and other energy infrastructure could be fraught with prickly politics and tough questions about landowner and tribal rights.
With the ink still drying on final approval for the $3.8 billion Bakken pipeline, members of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy yesterday waded into the heated fight between the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the project developer, Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners LP.
What followed was a series of sharp exchanges with little resolution.
In one back-and-forth, Republican Rep. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, a former President Trump adviser, pushed Chad Harrison, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's councilman at large, on whether the 1,172-mile Dakota Access pipeline would cross the reservation in North Dakota.
Harrison said Dakota Access does not intersect with the reservation "as it stands today," a nod to the tribe's argument that private land making up the pipeline's corridor north of the reservation is part of the tribe's ancestral homeland under the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie that was later taken for private use (Energywire, Nov. 1, 2016).
After Cramer suggested the tribe had given up some authority over the land in an 1868 treaty, Harrison replied that "the tribe has never given up anything, it was taken. That's a big point of contention on this."
In another raucous exchange, a member of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe interrupted Republican Rep. Joe Barton of Texas after he asked Joey Mahmoud of Energy Transfer Partners about the company's inability to enter into formal consultations with the tribe.
Barton was asking Mahmoud whether Energy Transfer Partners has the right to consult with tribes, when JoAnn Spotted Bear stood up, waved copies of treaties and shouted, "Yes, thank you very much, you don't have the treaty."
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has taken a host of legal actions in recent weeks to halt construction after Trump pivoted from the Obama administration's vow to complete a deeper environmental review of the pipeline. Energy Transfer Partners, which has remained quiet throughout the permitting process, yesterday in written comments blasted the Obama administration for political interference and compared activists' aggressive tactics to terrorism.
But issues raised at the hearing — what constitutes "meaningful consultation," pipeline safety, effects on drinking water, climate change and eminent domain — reach far beyond North Dakota. Indeed, a number of tribes have begun mobilizing to fight the Keystone XL pipeline in South Dakota, and landowners and environmental groups are pitted against gas pipelines up and down the East Coast.
Members on both sides of the aisle spoke of the need to "strike a balance" among supporting labor unions, creating jobs and building out infrastructure, all while protecting the environment and respecting landowners and tribes.
Kim Kann, a landowner from rural Lancaster County, Pa., told the panel her farm is slated to be cut in half by the recently approved Atlantic Sunrise natural gas pipeline. Kann said the process that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission led didn't allow for a meaningful exchange, a sentiment that she said was shared by her neighbors in a Republican-leaning area that helped Trump clinch the White House.
Kann also said pipelines moving through communities shipping oil or gas for export should be held to a higher standard before being granted authority to exercise eminent domain and seize private land.
"As people speak up to this issue, they almost feel like they're kind of not in keeping with their Republican roots," Kann said. "But then the issue becomes the actual protection of individual landowners and the actual protection under the Bill of Rights."
Despite the pushback, Trump's push to fast-track other critical infrastructure projects has cemented an alliance between unions and the GOP.
"Who would've believed it would take a billionaire from Manhattan to bring the labor back to the Republican Party?" said Cramer. "And that's what's happened because Donald Trump speaks plainly and he wants to rebuild the country."
Terry O'Sullivan, general president of the Laborers' International Union of North America, applauded Trump's executive order and memos approving Dakota Access and Keystone XL.
An uptick in gas pipeline projects in coal-heavy states like West Virginia, he said, has helped employ laid-off union workers.
But he also warned that regulatory bottlenecks could derail that success.
"We are seeing a slowdown in the permitting process," O'Sullivan said. "Shovel-ready projects are only shovel ready if there's a reasonable review process. ... There needs to be a beginning and an end."
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/02/16/stories/1060050153
-
Tribe, Dakota Access Developer Face Off at House Hearing
Feb 15, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Representatives from the company building the Dakota Access pipeline and the tribe opposing it both told a House committee Wednesday that the government is responsible for the tense debate over the project.
But the officials found time to point fingers at one another, as well.
At a hearing on energy infrastructure improvements, an Energy Transfer Partners official said political appointees in the Obama administration were behind the push to slow down the project. He said it was a “political decision” to withhold an easement allowing construction at a controversial river crossing in North Dakota.
But the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, which has sued to stop the pipeline, also had “no interest in discussing the project with us,” Dakota Access project director Joey Mahmoud charged.
“Requests for consultation were mostly denied,” Mahmoud told the Energy and Commerce Committee. “We had some conversations with the tribal chairman, but at the same time we were not able to have meaningful consultation due to lack of engagement.”
Energy Transfer Partners last week received an easement to build its pipeline under Lake Oahe on the Missouri River in North Dakota. The company hopes to begin running oil through the 1,172-mile pipeline within two months, after it was delayed for much of the past year while the Obama administration reconsidered permitting decisions for the project.
“We came to realize that good-faith efforts to meet accommodation — with many different stakeholders involved — can be a fool’s errand when political motivation overrides the rule of law,” Mahmoud said.
Chad Harrison, a councilman-at-large for the Standing Rock Sioux, said the company improperly “argues it is the victim here,” when it has instead benefited under the Trump administration.
“Dakota Access is a multibillion-dollar pipeline company in which the president of the United States has been an investor and whose CEO has been a campaign contributor to the president,” Harrison said. “When in history has such a company been a victim of an improvised Indian tribe? The answer is never.”
Wednesday’s hearing didn’t reveal new ground in the roiling debate over the pipeline.
Harrison said the tribe wasn’t properly consulted before federal officials approved the pipeline. He proposed a series of updates to federal procedures that would give tribes a bigger role in future infrastructure permitting decisions.
Energy Transfer Partners has maintained that it worked hard to reach out to the tribe before finalizing Dakota Access’s route, a position Mahmoud and panel Republicans repeated on Wednesday.
The hearing served as a new venue for the back-and-forth debate between developers and the tribe, and it gave them the chance to vent about the approval process directly to lawmakers.
“We came to realize that even a company as large as Energy Transfer is helpless in the face of a government which will neither obey nor enforce the law. We came to realize that playing by the rules can count for little,” Mahmoud said of the Obama administration’s refusal to grant the North Dakota easement.
“We wish to be heard,” Harrison said. “We are Americans. We are the First Americans, and we wish to be treated as such.”
http://www.thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/319744-tribe-dakota-access-developer-face-off-at-house-hearing
-
Diamondback Raising Rigs as Activity Escalates in Permian
Feb 15, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
Diamondback Energy Inc.’s Permian Basin production climbed 38% year/year and was 16% higher sequentially during the fourth quarter as the company raised more rigs in the Southern Delaware.
The Midland, TX-based independent, which is focused entirely on West Texas oil and gas, said 4Q2016 production rose to 51,900 boe/d. Full-year output of 43,000 boe/d was 30% higher than in 2015.
CEO Travis Stice, speaking with analysts during a conference call Wednesday, said the “two halves” of 2016 “could not have been more different. We reacted appropriately to the unprecedented decline in commodity prices in the first half of the year by deferring completion activity and subsequently responded quickly with increased activity and asset acquisitions in the second half of the year.”
Six horizontal rigs are working today, five in the Midland sub-basin and one in the Southern Delaware sub-basin. Two more rigs are to be raised in the Delaware once the pending $2.43 billion takeover of Brigham Resources is completed, now expected in 2Q2017.
However, depending on the direction of prices, even more rigs could go up.
“We could potentially increase our operated rig count to 10 rigs in the back half of the year should commodity prices continue to strengthen,” Stice said. “As a result, we are increasing our 2017 production guidance, a range which implies over 65% production growth at the midpoint and positions us to continue to have multi-year organic growth at or near cash flow breakeven prices at current strip.”
Management is wary of oilfield service costs, which undoubtedly are going to increase, he said. “Mathematically, we've dialed between a 10% and 15% total well cost increase starting in the first quarter. We're not seeing that just yet. We actually believe that if oil stays kind of rangebound between $50 and $55, the impetus behind service cost increases will be muted a little bit.
“However, if we continue to see commodity prices strengthen to that $55-60/bbl, we believe that you'll see these service cost increases start to accelerate in the back half of this year.”
Diamondback has no plans to “acquiesce on these cost increases. We're working diligently with our service providers and our business partner...to try to mitigate those costs. We know that for a healthy industry, as we continue to build rigs in the Permian, we are going to have to have a service company that's well-capitalized and ready to support increased activity.“I think last week here in the Permian, we eclipsed 300 rigs, and we're adding anywhere between five and 10 rigs per week. And so if that pace continues, you'll start to see some tightening. We've not just opened our eyes to this phenomenon this quarter; it's something we've been doing really since the back half of last year when all activity increased.”
Diamondback “may not be not insulated from all service cost increases” but “we feel like we've been proactive enough to be able to offset some of the service cost increases that we're forecasting.”Diamondback achieved 40%-plus production growth in the second half of 2016 “by showcasing our ability to respond quickly to a rising commodity price environment,” Stice said. “We ended the year operating five rigs, and as I said in November, we are just beginning to bear the fruit of our activity ramp.”
After doubling Tier 1 acreage in the Delaware during the second half of 2016, “our focus now shifts to execution...Our updated 2017 guidance implies over 65% production growth at the midpoint, while conservatively preparing for potential service cost inflation with respect to capital guidance.”
The Permian pure-play drilled 25 gross horizontal wells and completed 23 operated horizontal wells with an average of two completion crews during the final quarter. Operated completions included 14 Lower Spraberry wells, two Middle Spraberry wells, six Wolfcamp A wells and one Wolfcamp B well.
Last month Diamondback added a sixth operated horizontal rig to begin developing Southern Delaware Basin acreage. Once the Brigham Resources transaction is completed, two more rigs will go up.
During 4Q2016, Diamondback drilled an 8,200-foot lateral well in Glasscock County, TX in less than nine days from spud to total depth, a new company record. It also drilled a 13,500-foot lateral in Midland County, TX in 20.3 days, another record.
The company expects to complete 130-165 gross wells with average lateral lengths of 8,500 feet.
In the Midland Basin of West Texas, Howard County wells targeted the Lower Spraberry, Wolfcamp A and B with average completed lateral lengths of 9,725 feet. A Glasscock County two-well Wolfcamp A pad recently was completed with an average lateral of 10,660 feet.
Two Lower Spraberry wells also were completed in Andrews County with an average laterals of 10,000 feet. The wells achieved an average peak 15-day initial production rates of 1,564 boe/d per well.
Diamondback earned $26 million (32 cents/share) in 4Q2016 from a year-ago loss of $187.4 million (minus $2.80). Cash operating costs were $8.48/boe, including lease operating expenses of $4.89/boe and cash general and administrative expenses of 92 cents/ per boe.
In the final three months of 2016, Diamondback spent $104 million on drilling and completion, $10 million on infrastructure and $8 million on nonoperated properties. Additionally, $87 million was spent on acquisitions in 4Q2016. At the end of December Diamondback had $1.667 billion in cash and an undrawn $500 million credit facility.
To account for the increased activity and completing the Brigham Resources acquisition, the company has increased its 2017 capital expenditure guidance for drilling, completion and infrastructure to $800 million to $1 billion, including $75 million of one-time capital expenditures for oil and natural gas gathering systems in the Southern Delaware Basin.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109435-diamondback-raising-rigs-as-activity-escalates-in-permian
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industries Plan to Press Pruitt for New EPA RMP Rule if CRA Effort Fails
Feb 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Chemical, agricultural, and other industry officials plan to press Scott Pruitt -- President Donald Trump's nominee for next EPA administrator -- to pursue a rulemaking repealing controversial Obama-era revisions to the agency's facility safety program if a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to undo the changes fails to become law.
For now, industry sources says that they continue to support backing Rep. Markwayne Mullin's (R-OK) CRA resolution to scrap EPA's Jan. 13 final rule strengthening its Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility accident prevention rule with new requirements for auditing, hazard analysis and disclosure of facility data. But at press time the bill had just 31 co-sponsors and is not on the House GOP leadership's list of priority CRA bills.
If the measure fails to clear Congress but Pruitt is confirmed soon by the Senate, then an industry attorney says critics of the RMP revisions will shift focus to asking the new administrator to reverse the changes.
Under this scenario, industry would argue that EPA has the authority to launch a notice-and-comment rulemaking to undo specific parts of the Obama-era changes that critics say impose the greatest burdens.
Central to the industry strategy is that compliance dates for the new rule's most controversial requirements are four years after the rule takes effect, meaning EPA would likely have adequate time to propose a rule to reverse the RMP changes, take public comment as required by the Administrative Procedure Act, and finalize it before companies would have to take any significant steps toward complying with the Obama EPA's rule.
“There is a sufficient amount of time to go to [the Trump EPA], and try to sell them on basically doing another rulemaking to peel back much of what this final rule required,” the source says. “It would be going through the normal rulemaking process just in the opposite direction.”
The Senate is expected to confirm Pruitt in the coming days or weeks. The source expects Pruitt would likely be amenable to a rule scaling back RMP given that while Oklahoma's Republican Attorney General, Pruitt led a push from Republican state officials faulting the Obama administration's proposed rule.
In a July 2016 letter to EPA, Pruitt argued that proposed requirements for public release of facility data raised security risks. EPA sought to address the concern in a final rule, with an approach allowing local officials to weigh security concerns on a case-by-case basis, though requirements for disclosure of facility data remain.
The industry source also argues that the Obama EPA rushed out a rule revising RMP after President Obama's August 2013 Executive Order 13650 on improving the safety and security of industrial plants, and failed to adequately justify the benefits of new requirements.
Regulatory Revisions
A narrowly-tailored rule targeting requirements for facilities to hire third-party auditors and analyze safer technologies would likely take less time, the source says. Potentially expediting the process is that the Trump EPA likely would not have to conduct a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act review of the potential rule because the rule would reduce rather than impose new costs on small businesses, the source says.
While the Trump EPA would have to show that undoing controversial provisions would not increase risks to human health or the environment, the source argues that would not be an insurmountable hurdle because the Obama-era rule provides a tenuous explanation of potential benefits.
Industry officials have criticized EPA's Jan. 13 RMP rule as imposing unnecessary new requirements without clear benefit. They have especially faulted as costly and unnecessary new requirements that certain facilities analyze whether safer technologies would improve safety, conduct independent audits, and release data to first responders and the public.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) in a Feb. 6 letter to Acting EPA Administrator Catherine McCabe, urges the agency to postpone by at least 60 days the rule's current March 21 effective date to allow time for consideration of industry concerns and Mullin's pending CRA resolution.
The CRA, enacted during the Clinton administration, allows Congress to pass disapproval resolutions on simple majority votes in the House and Senate to reverse discretionary rules promulgated within 60 legislative days of their actions. For the rules to be repealed, the disapproval resolutions must be signed by the president.
In the letter, ACC reiterates industry criticisms that the RMP rule encroaches on Occupational Safety and Health Administration jurisdiction, imposes unnecessary new requirements without clear benefits, and that requirements for disclosure of facility data could help terrorists target facilities.
The Agricultural Retailers Association in a Feb. 15 statement says officials recently met with more than 160 members of Congress or their representatives to push rolling back EPA's RMP rule and other priorities.
CRA Resolution
But industry sources acknowledge that the RMP rule CRA resolution pending in the House faces an uncertain path given competing priorities. The rule did not make House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy's (R-CA) initial short list of Obama-era regulations targeted for CRA repeal.
Other industry sources say that industry officials are meeting with senators to seek support for CRA rollback of RMP. And in Feb. 9 statements on the Senate floor, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), former chairman of the upper chamber's environment panel, argued the RMP rule's requirements for facilities to assess safer technologies is a first step toward government control of chemical manufacturing and that disclosure requirements make facilities less safe.
The industry attorney argues that a push for the Trump administration rule revising the Obama-era regulation would likely include petitioning the agency to revise the rule. Industry also would file, as a precautionary measure, a lawsuit challenging the rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, then seek a stay of the litigation pending discussions with the new administration for a revised rule.
While a new rulemaking is a lengthy process, the source says, the recently-issued RMP rule does not require industrial facilities to make significant financial investments to comply with the new requirements until years after the rule takes effect.
Facilities have four years from the rule's effective date to comply with rule's most controversial new requirements to conduct third-party audits, safer alternatives analysis, and information disclosure. While facilities must comply with a requirement for coordinating with emergency responders within one year of the effect date, facilities have up to three years to develop an emergency response program.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/industries-plan-press-pruitt-new-epa-rmp-rule-if-cra-effort-fails
-
Cyber Executive Order a Reasonable Step Forward, Yet More Remains to Be Done
Feb 15, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Betsy Cooper
The speed with which the Trump administration has been issuing Executive Orders comes as no surprise. President Trump’s campaign promises of addressing immigration and financial regulation have become the focus of his first 100 days and the defense of these actions has dominated the news cycle from day one.
The same focus, however, hasn’t been given to an important policy area that was exposed during the 2016 election: cybersecurity. Since the first draft of the cyber EO was leaked on Jan. 31, updated drafts and political grandstanding have caused the signing of this extremely important measure to be delayed twice – and have shifted focus away from important issues in the process.
On the whole, the latest draft EO takes a measured, careful approach. But sometimes, what is most interesting about these rather dry government orders is not what is included, but what is not. By leaving out important aspects of cybersecurity, the new administration is signaling what it intends to prioritize --- and what it is leaving behind.
Take workforce growth – if there is one thing we hear over and over from companies in Silicon Valley and beyond, it is that there are not enough good cybersecurity professionals to fill the many open jobs. The original leaked draft of the executive order proposed a “workforce development review . . . to understand the full scope of U.S. efforts to educate and train the workforce of the future.” That section is totally missing from the most recent version.
This is a disappointing change. The talent pipeline is a crucial component of cybersecurity, and one that deserves urgent government action. Our universities aren’t creating the number of top cybersecurity professionals needed by our government and companies. This is a market failure which will require government action to solve.
These problems are compounded by a second omission – the role of the White House. Nowhere in the new EO is the Federal Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) cited. Perhaps this isn’t surprising, given that we don’t yet have one. Other top technology positions remain unfilled as well – no Chief Technology Officer has been named, and the White House CISO recently left. And other appointments that have been made – Rudy Giuliani’s cyber advisor position in particular – fall completely outside traditional White House structures.
The vacuum at the top – and confusing reporting lines for those who remain – will make it difficult to develop a comprehensive cybersecurity strategy. The result is likely instead to be a piecemeal approach. And, especially given the new EO requires lots of intergovernmental collaboration to produce myriad reports – I count 11 separate reports due this year alone– who is going to moderate departmental infighting when they disagree about who should take the lead?
The cybersecurity EO is a well thought out and reasonable step forward. It deserves to get the president’s priority attention and signature. And unless the final version takes account of our need to grow both the cyber workforce and our White House leadership in this area, more remains to be done.
Dr. Betsy Cooper is the Executive Director of the UC Berkeley Center for Long-Term Cybersecurity. The CLTC recently released ‘Cybersecurity in the New Administration: Looking Beyond the First 100 Days.’
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/319699-cyber-executive-order-a-reasonable-step-forward-yet-more
-
Freight Railroad Asks Congress to Pay for Safety Technology in Passenger trains
Feb 15, 2017 | The Hill - Transportation
By Melanie Zanona
A top freight railroad made a somewhat unusual plea to Congress on Wednesday: pay for passenger railroads to install a life-saving train technology.
BNSF Railway has been a leader in implementing positive train control (PTC), a technology that automatically slows down a train going over the speed limit and will eventually be required by law.
But Matthew Rose, executive chairman of BNSF, said Wednesday that their efforts will be futile if the passenger and commuter trains that they share tracks with aren’t also fully equipped with the technology.
“As a freight railroad, it may sound out of line, but I actually urge Congress to fund passenger commuter rail funding for positive train control,” Rose said during a Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation subcommittee hearing.
“I can’t imagine a more difficult train wreck for us to have to go to where we have the positive train control on the freight rail, and the passenger or commuter train didn’t because of lack of funding.”
Congress had originally given commuter and freight railroads until the end of 2015 to install the technology, which can prevent derailments, collisions, crashes and improper track switching.
But as railroads struggled to meet compliance deadlines, lawmakers pushed back the implementation date to at least Dec. 31, 2018.
Recent deadly train crashes — including a speeding New Jersey Transit train that slammed into Hoboken Terminal — have stepped up pressure on railroads to come into compliance even sooner.
Federal reports, however, show that railroads across the country have still been slow to adopt positive train control, in part because of the steep cost of the technology, though Congress has chipped in over $650 million in federal grants since 2008.
Freight rails are making more headway than passenger rails in recent months. Rose noted that BNSF tested 35,000 positive train control segments last month and 85 percent went through the system without a hitch.
He thinks BNSF’s progress can serve as model for other railroads working to implement positive train control.
“We think all the work we’re doing is getting rid of a lot of the challenges, a lot of the problems that some of the other railroads that aren’t as far as long will face,” Rose said. “We hope our hard-knock lessons will help the rest of industry.”
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) says he hopes “railroads across the country will take your guidance seriously.”
“Some of them may have the resources or access to funds, but still have not implemented this life-saving technology, which is hardly novel or new,” he said.
https://origin-nyi.thehill.com/policy/transportation/319753-freight-railroad-asks-congress-to-pay-for-safety-technology-in
-
Pruitt Could Alter Air Science Advisory Panel Direction at EPA
Feb 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio and Rachel Leven
A panel of science advisers whose recommendations underpin some of the EPA's most contentious air pollution regulations is likely to see some changes under the Trump administration, including the possible appointment of scientists who disagree with past agency findings on the health effects of ozone and other pollutants.
Scott Pruitt, the nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency, has indicated a desire to alter the makeup of the EPA's independent science panels. During his Jan. 18 confirmation hearing, he highlighted “conflicts of interest” on the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) that he said need to be addressed.
While ex-members of the committee interviewed by Bloomberg BNA described the CASAC committee's work as independent and transparent, Pruitt's views appear to align with congressional Republicans and other critics of EPA air rules who have raised concerns about the panel's balance and impartiality. Pruitt during his confirmation hearing also expressed support for having better geographical representation on EPA's advisory committees, echoing another common criticism about CASAC's balance: that certain regions of the country are underrepresented.
John Walke, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Clean Air Project, said it's concerning that Pruitt seems to embrace the need for geographic diversity, which Walke described as a “preposterous qualification” for whether a scientist or other expert should serve on an independent advisory committee. The push for geographic diversity, combined with criticism by congressional Republicans that independent researchers who receive government grants have conflicts of interest, is part of an agenda against sound science and peer review at the EPA, Walke told Bloomberg BNA.
“I think it signals a very ominous politicization of science advisers to the federal government in order to bias and slant the outcomes in favor of an industry agenda,” Walke said.
Six Vacancies by 2018
Critics of Obama environmental regulations are eyeing the CASAC as something that could be in for changes under Pruitt's leadership. If confirmed, Pruitt will have the opportunity to make his mark on the committee: Six of the seven members of the chartered committee will see their terms end by Sept. 30, 2018, according to a government database. The seventh member of the committee, Donna Kenski of the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium, was appointed to the committee in 2016, so her term doesn't expire until September 2019.
The scope of what the committee reviews also could change during the Trump administration, as Pruitt could direct it to provide analysis of the economic and energy effects of tightening national air standards, a duty the committee is tasked with under the Clean Air Act but has not historically carried out.
While the EPA administrator is barred by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from considering implementation costs in the decision on where to set those standards, an ex-EPA official said directing the committee to study the economic and energy effects of tightening air standards could rally support for legislative changes to the Clean Air Act if the agency-appointed expert panel were to highlight substantial economic burdens caused by new requirements.
Small Panel Plays Big Role
The CASAC plays an important role in the EPA's review of national standards for ozone, particulate matter and other pollutants, as it reviews available studies on the human health and environmental effects of those pollutants and recommends whether the national standards should be retained or revised.
During the most recent review of the national ozone standards, the committee recommended that the EPA consider setting the standards somewhere in the range of 60 parts per billion to 70 ppb after determining that less-stringent standards wouldn't adequately protect public health. Then-EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy ultimately set the standards at 70 ppb, a decision that upset both environmental advocates who wanted even more protective standards and a coalition of states, industry groups and lawmakers that argued the standards will be unattainable in some parts of the U.S.
The advice provided by CASAC also carries weight with the courts. A federal appeals court in 2009 ruled against the EPA in litigation over a George W. Bush-era fine particulate matter standard, in part because the agency didn't adequately explain its rationale for not accepting the committee's recommendation on where to set the standard (Am. Farm Bureau Fed'n v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512, 68 ERC 1417, 2009 BL 37548 (D.C. Cir., 2009)).
While a subsequent ruling on the 2008 ozone standards gave the EPA more leeway to disagree with the committee's policy recommendations, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit created a “super important role” for CASAC in deciding where national ambient air quality standards should be set, said William Yeatman, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. While several of his colleagues at CEI, including Myron Ebell, served during President Donald Trump's transition, Yeatman is not involved with the new administration.
“When it comes to the science advice, the EPA has virtually no room to depart from what CASAC said,” Yeatman told Bloomberg BNA.
Administrator Has Appointment Authority
The process for staffing the CASAC, as well as other agency science advisory panels, is led by the Science Advisory Board's staff office, which annually makes recommendations regarding the membership of those committees. However, the Clean Air Act grants ultimate authority for appointing members of the seven-member chartered CASAC, as well as the larger review panels that assess specific pollutants, to the EPA administrator.
Gretchen Goldman, research director at the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, described the committee as the “gold standard” for providing reliable, independent scientific advice and said it's “absolutely crucial” that the new administration maintains the independence of its advisory committees.
“I hope they'll continue that strong tradition of having independent scientists” on the CASAC, Goldman told Bloomberg BNA. “If it's not broke, don't fix it.”
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) had asked Pruitt if he intended to change the current appointment process for the EPA's independent science advisory panels and if he would maintain the existing structure of the committee. In response, Pruitt, in a written response submitted to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said he had “no first-hand knowledge” of the existing processes and rules of the committee, but pledged to “follow applicable legal authorities” as administrator.
The Clean Air Act does spell out some requirements for the committee, which must include one physician, one member of the National Academy of Sciences and one representative of state air pollution control agencies. The committee's charter also states that members of the CASAC “will have demonstrated high levels of competence, knowledge and expertise” in relevant fields.
Walke of the NRDC acknowledged that the EPA administrator does have a “fair amount of leeway” under the law in appointing members to advisory committees, though the law does require expertise, qualification and balance of membership.
“Every Republican and Democratic administration has interpreted balance to cover different stakeholders and even different perspectives, but not to accommodate something as irrational as a geographic litmus test or a demand that regulated industries have an overbearing influence,” Walke said. “That appears to be the clear theme of critics of the [Science Advisory Board] and other advisory committees.”
Changes on the Way?
The Trump administration has expressed an early interest in the EPA's use of science. Doug Ericksen, who is directing communications for Trump's EPA landing team, told reporters Feb. 2 that the new administration is interested in “expanding the science” at the agency. In response to a question about his views on climate change, Ericksen said the Trump EPA will work to give a voice to people who have been denied the ability to air their scientific views.
“There were stories saying we were going to lock down on science, and it's actually the opposite,” Ericksen said. “New science will be allowed in; more people have a voice when it comes to debating the science of issues at the EPA.”
Jeffrey Holmstead, former assistant EPA administrator for air and radiation under President George W. Bush, told Bloomberg BNA that while the people who are appointed to the CASAC have the necessary technical expertise, those selected in the past to serve “tend to be people” who agree with the viewpoint of EPA staff.
“I think you don't get a true understanding of the diversity that's out there among air quality experts,” Holmstead, now a partner at Bracewell LLP in Washington, D.C., said. “I believe, and I hope, there will be an effort to appoint more balanced panels” under Pruitt.
Push for Ozone Science Critic
Last year, there was an unsuccessful push by industry to get Michael Honeycutt, director of the Toxicology Division of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, appointed to the CASAC. Honeycutt co-authored a May 2015 article that argued that available science didn't support the EPA's assertion that tighter ozone standards would result in measurable health benefits, a viewpoint at odds with the advice the CASAC provided.
Honeycutt was included on a list of seven state air officials under consideration for an open committee spot that was circulated for comment by the SAB office. EPA leadership eventually decided to appoint Kenski of the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium, who had previously served on the committee from 2008-2010.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) was among those who weighed in during the most recent CASAC nomination process: in a letter to the EPA he complained of a “seeming geographic bias” to the selection of committee members during the Obama administration and urged the agency to not reappoint Kenski because the panel needed “fresh perspectives.” Inhofe said geographic bias left the committee without the benefit of experts from parts of the U.S. that are most affected by the ozone standards.
Inhofe told Bloomberg BNA that he has “always been concerned” about the membership of the CASAC and is reviewing the procedure to make changes. He declined to comment on what changes are warranted, but said they would be in “the best interest” of the committee.
“My biggest concern has always been that in the committee, the committee does things that are based on sound science,” Inhofe said. “This has not always been the case.”
IG: Adequate Bias Controls
Congressional criticism of the EPA's science advisory panels isn't limited to Inhofe, as House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) Feb. 8 described the scientists who serve on the agency's science advisory panels as “rubber stamps” who are biased toward the EPA because they've received federal grant funding.
In addition to geographic diversity and the presence of EPA-funded scientists, another common criticism of the committee is that members of the panel often end up reviewing studies they were involved with
Those criticisms have continued even after the EPA's Office of Inspector General conducted an investigation into the committee that was requested by Inhofe during the Obama administration. The OIG's report, released in 2013, concluded that the EPA office that oversees the committee has “adequate procedures” for identifying independence and impartiality concerns, but suggested the agency improve the documentation of how those concerns are addressed.
The investigation also concluded that the CASAC is balanced with respect to scientific points of view and effectively limits members to six years of service, which helps balance the need for fresh perspectives with the need for experience.
A pair of House Democrats touted the importance of maintaining the independence of the committee. Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mailed statement that he would not support any changes to the CASAC that would alter the mission or makeup of the panel.
“Undermining the independence of the committee by changing the membership to reflect a preferred policy bias or including members with significant conflicts of interest would damage the credibility of the committee and its ability to provide unbiased advice to the administrator,” Pallone said.
In the past, Republicans have suggested that more industry scientists should be added to the CASAC, according to an aide to House Science Committee ranking member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas). Having industry representatives that could directly benefit from halting additional regulation could skew the panel's results, the aide told Bloomberg BNA.
Ex-Members Defend Panel
A pair of former members of the chartered CASAC defended the panel against many of the criticisms, including allegations that EPA funding of scientific grants affected the committee's conclusions.
Joseph Brain, a former member of the committee, told Bloomberg BNA that while EPA staff would provide the committee with summaries of data and predictions on the health effects of pollution exposure, the committee operated free of interference from agency leadership and was always open to differences of opinion. Brain, the Cecil K. and Philip Drinker Professor of Environmental Physiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, said he has received grants from EPA.
“I literally can't remember a single time where there was any direction [from EPA leaders] on what the standard should be and what our CASAC report should say,” Brain said.
Brain acknowledged that it is a reality that members of the CASAC review panels often have contributed to the body of air pollution studies the panel would review. But, he said the size of the review panels ensured a balanced look at all the available science so that even if one member of the committee worked on a particular study, that study wouldn't escape scrutiny.
“One of the nice things about science is that we welcome controversy,” Brain said. “There was careful analysis of all the studies.”
Jonathan Samet, who served as chairman of the CASAC during President Barack Obama's first term, agreed that studies authored by committee members received the same level of review as the rest of the science the panel reviewed. Samet, director of the University of Southern California's Institute for Global Health, told Bloomberg BNA that there was transparency about who funded the work of committee members and an effort to prevent panel members from commenting on studies they had worked on.
Samet also disagreed that the panel was hampered by a lack of geographic diversity. He said the committee was “quite well-equipped” to deal with region-specific science issues, such as ozone in the mountain West region.
“This is not something that confounded CASAC because nobody was living on a mountaintop in Utah,” Samet said.
Possible New Directive
The options for Pruitt to make changes to the CASAC wouldn't be limited to membership. As administrator he also could direct the committee to provide analysis of the adverse economic and energy effects of tightening national standards for ozone and other pollutants. Section 109(d) of the Clean Air Act states the committee is to advise EPA leadership of “any adverse public health, welfare, social, economic or energy effects” that would result from implementing more stringent air standards.
A different advisory committee, the EPA Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis, did provide the agency with advice on the costs and benefits of Clean Air Act programs from 1991-2014. However, the CASAC historically hasn't been equipped to engage in discussions about economics and energy effects of specific air quality standards, according to Samet. He said, however, the committee could expand that expertise by adding more members with economic expertise to the consulting review panels, if the EPA were to provide the committee with related material to review.
During the most recent review of the national ozone standards, the committee told EPA leadership that the panel would be “receptive” to a request to review the agency's analysis of the factors identified in Section 109(d). If such a request were made, an ad hoc panel could be formed to obtain the expertise necessary to review those factors, according to Christopher Frey, who chaired the committee in 2014. Frey is a professor in the Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering at North Carolina State University.
A coalition of industry organizations is challenging the EPA's alleged failure to consider adverse economic, social and energy effects during its last ozone review. In their opening brief, the industry organizations noted that the EPA didn't solicit the CASAC's advice, despite clear legal requirements that the panel advise the administrator on those issues (Murray Energy v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1385, briefs filed 4/22/16).
Holmstead, who urged the CASAC to consider adverse economic and energy effects during the last ozone standards review, said he personally nominated people who had “real academic credentials” to serve on the committee, but the EPA didn't consider those nominations. Holmstead said he'd continue to push the EPA to seek the advice of the committee to provide a better understanding of the trade-offs associated with tightening national ambient air quality standards.Could Analysis Be Useful?
Congress also has taken an interest in the CASAC's role in reviewing the adverse effects of tightening ozone standards: Legislation (H.R. 806, S. 263) that would delay implementation of the 2015 ozone standards by eight years includes language that would require the EPA administrator to seek that advice from the committee before taking action to set or revise a standard.
The CEI's Yeatman said the new EPA leadership might select new CASAC members who have expertise on those economic and energy factors, but predicted that the agency's eventual use of that information would be subject to legal challenges. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2001 unanimously held that the EPA administrator cannot take cost into account in setting national ambient air quality standards (Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457, 51 ERC 2089 (2001)).
“It wouldn't shock me at all if they chose [committee members] with an eye toward this second responsibility of CASAC,” Yeatman said. “Were they to pursue that, it will get litigated.”
Walke of the NRDC acknowledged that an analysis of adverse economic and energy effects could be useful toward implementation of national ambient air quality standards, but noted that any suggestion that those factors should influence adoption or revision of a health-based air standards would be “flatly contrary” to the Whitman decision.
Holmstead said the committee's analysis of economic effects could potentially help spur support for updating the Clean Air Act.
“If you were to have an EPA-appointed expert panel issue a report that said there are very substantial economic and other burdens that are caused by these standards, I think you're much more likely to get statutory reform,” he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105706426&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105706426&jd=105706426
-
EPA Girds for Pruitt Arrival as Democrats Continue to Fight
Feb 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
Scott Pruitt may take the reins of the Environmental Protection Agency Feb. 17, the agency's acting administrator Catherine McCabe told colleagues in a video posted publicly.
That projection aligns with Senate Republicans’ repeated commitments to confirm the controversial nominee by the end of this week before departing for a roughly 10-day recess.
Still, the precise timing of a confirmation vote remains murky, and Democrats continue to push for last-minute disclosures of the Oklahoma attorney general's correspondence with fossil fuel companies. Those disclosures would allow lawmakers to fully evaluate the nominee, the Democrats indicated in a Feb. 15 letter to an Oklahoma district court judge.
The judge, Aletia Haynes Timmons, will convene an emergency hearing Feb. 16 to assess a suit filed over the long-delayed release of the attorney general's office e-mails to Murray Energy Corp. and Devon Energy Corp., among other companies (Ctr. for Media and Democracy v. Pruitt, Okla. Dist. Ct., CV 2017-223, 2/7/17).
Democrats Aim to Join Suit
The Center for Media and Democracy and the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union filed the suit, citing a more than two-year delay of the release of the e-mails. In recent days, the attorney general's office provided more than 400 of those e-mails, but the plaintiffs say hundreds, if not thousands, more should be disclosed.
Senate Environment and Public Works Democrats, led by ranking member Tom Carper (D-Del.), urged Timmons to force full disclosure of the e-mails and asked to formally participate in the case as amici advisers.
“Mr. Pruitt has not been forthcoming with information many of us believe to be necessary to evaluating his nomination fully,” the Democrats said before providing a range of information they allege shows improper ties between Pruitt and the fossil fuel industry. “We are providing this information to the court today because we have concluded plaintiff's pending Open Records Act requests may be the only means by which the Senate and general public can obtain in a timely manner critical information about Mr. Pruitt's ability to lead the EPA.”
Committee Democrats boycotted two nomination votes on Pruitt in early February, but Republicans suspended committee rules and advanced the nomination to the Senate floor. Following possible confirmation Feb. 16 of Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) as Office of Management and Budget chief, Senate Republicans have vowed to move then to Pruitt's confirmation.
McCabe Concerns
McCabe told agency employees to prepare for a new wave of EPA personnel.
“We expect to see Mr. Pruitt here at EPA as early as this Friday. You will also see new political appointees arriving at EPA Friday or in the coming weeks,” she said.
The tumultuous presidential transition, however, is taking its toll on the agency, McCabe added. “The freeze on hiring is already creating some challenges to our ability to get the agency's work done,” she said. “We also recognize that the freeze on regulations raised many questions.”
The Trump administration is tentatively scheduled to lift the regulatory freeze in March, while the hiring freeze may wrap up the following month. Former and current EPA officials fear the hiring freeze could persist beyond that date. Critical functions, such as scientific research and grant administration, would suffer as a result, those officials have told Bloomberg BNA.
McCabe didn't specify the particular areas in which the EPA is currently falling short.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105706449&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105706449&jd=105706449
-
Gaetz's Bill to Abolish EPA Gets Little Traction
Feb 16, 2017 | Roll Call
By Eric Garcia
Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz’s bill to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency is not getting much traction in either party.
And with the freshman’s bill going against the grain of the respect for the environment in the state, he’s not getting much support from his Florida colleagues in Congress, either, the Palm Beach Post reported.
“The American people are drowning in rules and regulation promulgated by unelected bureaucrats,” Gaetz wrote to fellow lawmakers in a letter obtained by Buzzfeed. “And the environmental Protection Agency has become an extraordinary offender.”
Despite criticism for the EPA, Rep. Brian Mast told the Post he did not agree with Gaetz’s legislation.
“While there’s no doubt that far too often over the last eight years the EPA has been used as a tool to advance a one-sided political agenda, indiscriminately eliminating the Environmental Protection Agency will hurt communities like ours who rely on clean air and water to boost tourism, help small businesses and improve the quality of life for local families,” Mast said.
Similarly, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., did not specifically comment on Gaetz’s legislation, but said he supported eliminating many of the regulations that happened during the Obama administration.
Melinda Pierce, legislative director of the Sierra Club, said she is less worried about Gaetz’s bill than coming confirmation of President Donald Trump’s EPA director Scott Pruitt.
“The more pernicious threat we face is the confirmation of someone like Scott Pruitt, who has been a foe of the organization he’s been nominated to lead,” she told the Post.
- See more at: http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/gaetzs-bill-to-abolish-epa-gets-little-traction#sthash.FKdywwK1.dpuf
http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/gaetzs-bill-to-abolish-epa-gets-little-traction
-
Air: CBD Threatens Suit to Force EPA Ozone Nonattainment Findings
Feb 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Center for Environmental Health are threatening to sue EPA over the agency's failure to determine by a Jan. 20 Clean Air Act deadline whether areas granted a one-year extension to meet the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) have attained the standard.
In a Feb. 14 notice of intent to sue (NOI) letter to EPA, the groups warn EPA of their intent to file suit if the agency does not issue required findings within 60 days with respect to the Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. multi-state nonattainment areas for the 2008 NAAQS, which is set at 75 parts per billion (ppb). The Obama EPA in October 2015 then tightened the ozone standard to 70 ppb.
According to the groups, EPA has missed a statutory deadline to publish a finding no later than Jan. 20 on whether areas in “marginal” nonattainment with the standard that were granted an additional year to comply in fact met the standard. Ordinarily, areas have three years to attain, but EPA may extend this deadline by a year in instances where areas are close to compliance.
The NOI says the extended attainment date for the Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., areas passed July 20, and EPA had six months from that date to issue its determination, but failed to do so.
If EPA finds that areas failed to attain by their deadlines, it must “bump up” their nonattainment status to “moderate,” requiring states to supply implementation plans outlining measures they will take to come into compliance.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/air-cbd-threatens-suit-force-epa-ozone-nonattainment-findings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested