Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 23/2
-
Fee Rule for Chemical Makers, Processors Coming, EPA Says
Feb 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A proposed rule detailing the fees chemical manufacturers and processors would pay the Environmental Protection Agency for some chemical-related services should be released in a couple of months, a senior agency official said Feb. 22. -
(ACC Blog) You Can’t Eat That Much Fish!
Feb 22, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steven Hentges
Like most people, you probably like seafood. Not only does it taste good but seafood provides healthy amounts of protein, vitamins, minerals, and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids. The latter is particularly important since consumption of these fatty acids is linked to reduced risk of cardiovascular disease. That’s why international health agencies recommend 1-2 servings of fish each week. What’s not to like? -
Euratex Calls For Improvements To REACH Restriction Process
Feb 22, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
The REACH restriction process should be improved to help companies avoid regrettable substitutions, according to textiles and apparel trade association, Euratex. -
EU Commission Study To Probe Impacts Of Authorisation
Feb 23, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
An in-depth European Commission study is underway to assess the costs and benefits of the REACH authorisation process for hazardous substances and whether it is achieving its objectives. -
EU Seeks to Stop Two Chemicals From Washing Into Wastewater
Feb 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By By Stephen Gardner
A draft European Union regulation would add a restriction on two ingredients used in wash-off products, such as hair conditioners and shower gels, to prevent the substances from being washed into wastewater. -
Canada Requires Advance Notice of New Uses of Two Chemicals
Feb 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Menyasz
Canada is requiring companies to report new uses or imports of two forms of heteromonocycle, organic chemicals that form the basis for many common consumer products and cosmetics, to ensure they don't become toxic and pose a risk to human health. -
The Pruitt Emails: E.P.A. Chief Was Arm in Arm With Industry
Feb 22, 2017 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport and Eric Lipton
As Oklahoma’s attorney general, Scott Pruitt, now the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, closely coordinated with major oil and gas producers, electric utilities and political groups with ties to the libertarian billionaire brothers Charles G. and David H. Koch to roll back environmental regulations, according to over 6,000 pages of emails made public on Wednesday. -
Pruitt Energy Ties Not Unusual, Former EPA Officials Say
Feb 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
The close relationship Scott Pruitt enjoyed with fossil fuel companies as Oklahoma's attorney general was not unusual and may continue in his new rule as EPA administrator, former agency officials said. -
Emails Detail Pruitt's Prior Coordination With Fossil Groups On EPA Rules
Feb 22, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan & Abby Smith
Newly released emails from EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's time as Oklahoma attorney general (AG) show several examples where he or top officials in his office coordinated with fossil fuel groups to target EPA's climate and air regulations, bolstering critics' claims that the new administrator is too close with industry. -
Morrisey Hopes Trump Seeks Broad Rollback Of EPA Power Plant GHG Rules
Feb 22, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
West Virginia Attorney General (AG) Patrick Morrisey (R), one of the most ardent critics of EPA's power plant greenhouse gas rules, hopes that an executive order President Donald Trump is slated to sign will seek a broad rollback of the agency's rules for both new and existing sources, suggesting some uncertainty about the scope of the order. -
Trump Eyes Easing Obama Rules for Sprawling Pipeline Network
Feb 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Catherine Traywick and Laura Blewitt
The hints of a pipeline spill are subtle: the hiss of rushing fluid, a streak of rainbow sheen. Tucked far below ground, a ruptured line can escape notice for days or even weeks, especially in the backcountry, where inspectors rarely venture. -
Fracking Is Dangerous To Your Health - Here's Why
Feb 23, 2017 | Forbes
By Judy Stone
Fracking, or drilling for gas by hydraulic fracturing, has been associated with a growing number of health risks. Last week, I began this series looking at some of the hazardous chemicals injected into the wells to make drilling easier and cheaper, and the growing risks to our health by the GOP rushing through the approval of Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). -
State Lawmakers Introduce Amber Alert-Style Bill For Chemical Accidents
Feb 22, 2017 | Chem.Info
By Meagan Parrish
Safety experts have long complained that the public is not adequately warned about the inherent dangers of living near chemical plants. -
Trump Environment Adviser Seen as Moderate on Climate Front
Feb 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
A top adviser named to assist President Donald Trump on international energy and environmental issues is viewed as an experienced internationalist who could be a moderating force in Trump's decision to withdraw from or keep the U.S. in the Paris climate pact. -
Industry Groups Detail Challenge To HFC Refrigerant Rules
Feb 23, 2017 | Inside EPA
An industry coalition says it will challenge what it calls EPA's unlawful expansion of Clean Air Act refrigerant handling rules to cover “substitute” chemicals with lower global warming potential (GWP), in a suit testing EPA's ability to impose leak-prevention measures on hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) climate-warming refrigerants.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Fee Rule for Chemical Makers, Processors Coming, EPA Says
Feb 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A proposed rule detailing the fees chemical manufacturers and processors would pay the Environmental Protection Agency for some chemical-related services should be released in a couple of months, a senior agency official said Feb. 22.
Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, acting assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, discussed recent and future actions the EPA is taking to implement the Toxic Substances Control Act amendments of 2016. She spoke during an American Bar Association meeting in Washington sponsored by the association's Pesticides, Chemical Regulation and Right-to-Know Committee.
The TSCA amendments authorized the EPA to collect industry fees of up to $25 million. The fees would reimburse the agency's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics for costs it incurs providing four types of services:
• collecting and reviewing toxicity, exposure and other data about chemicals (Section 4 of TSCA);
• reviewing and making decisions about new chemicals and new uses of existing chemicals (Section 5 of TSCA);
• reviewing and managing existing chemicals (Section 6 of TSCA); and
• reviewing confidential business information claims and managing information deemed confidential (Section 14 of TSCA).
The proposed rule would describe which specific services industry would pay for, and it would propose lower fees for small businesses.Cleland-Hamnett said the EPA has consulted with affected industries to prepare the proposed rules as the TSCA amendments require.
The amendments state the agency may collect up to 25 percent of its costs to carry out Sections 4, 5, 6 and 14 or $25 million—whichever is lower—in annual fees. Those fees must be supplemented by congressional appropriations.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=106122270&vname=dennotallissues&fn=106122270&jd=106122270
-
(ACC Blog) You Can’t Eat That Much Fish!
Feb 22, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steven Hentges
Like most people, you probably like seafood. Not only does it taste good but seafood provides healthy amounts of protein, vitamins, minerals, and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids. The latter is particularly important since consumption of these fatty acids is linked to reduced risk of cardiovascular disease. That’s why international health agencies recommend 1-2 servings of fish each week. What’s not to like?
According to some people, what’s not to like is that seafood may contain unhealthy amounts of certain environmental contaminants. Should we risk our health by eating seafood that may contain trace levels of a potentially harmful contaminant, or do we avoid the contaminant and risk our health by missing out on essential nutrients?
Thanks to a new on-line tool named FishChoice, we can make an informed choice. The tool is a result of a European Union funded project aimed at assessing food safety issues related to various contaminants in seafood and their impact on human health. One of the contaminants is bisphenol A (BPA), which has been reported to be present at trace levels in various types of seafood.
There’s quite a bit going on behind the scenes to ensure scientifically defensible answers, but the tool is easy for consumers to use. Weekly intakes are individually customized for specific consumption patterns (i.e., 24 types of fresh and canned seafood, up to 7 servings of 3 portion sizes, 8 demographic profiles), which allows consumers to make rational decisions on whether and how to change their consumption patterns.
Using BPA as an example, I queried FishChoice about BPA intake for a child eating 80 grams of canned tuna every day. Shown below is the simple graphical answer showing a green fish, which indicates that the intake is healthy. If it were not, a red fish would have been displayed
In addition to the graphical answer, the Pro version of FishChoice, which is available upon request, includes data on the actual intake and the health-based guidance value used to determine whether an intake is healthy or whether changes to the consumption pattern should be made. Both versions also report intake of key nutrients in comparison with recommended levels.
Since I really like seafood, I wondered how much seafood I could eat before hitting the limit for BPA intake. In the Pro version, I selected the maximum amount of seafood possible – 7 servings per week of all 24 seafood types in each serving size, or 504 servings. From the result showing that I’m still well below the limit, I calculated that I’d have to eat more than 5,400 pounds of seafood per week to hit the safe intake limit for BPA, or about 775 pounds of seafood per day.
Burp!
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2017/02/you-cant-eat-that-much-fish/
-
Euratex Calls For Improvements To REACH Restriction Process
Feb 22, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
The REACH restriction process should be improved to help companies avoid regrettable substitutions, according to textiles and apparel trade association, Euratex.
The organisation is one of several industry groups, NGOs and public sector bodies, to submit comments to the European Commission's consultation on the second review of REACH. The review's findings are due to be completed later this year.
Euratex says REACH can drive the replacement of hazardous chemicals, through restrictions, provided enough time is available to develop and apply scientifically validated and technically feasible alternatives.
It urges that restrictions on certain chemicals are carefully assessed to avoid regrettable substitution. These are cases where a dangerous chemical falling under a ban is replaced with a structurally similar substance with similar properties not covered by the ban. These include, it says, substances that are not as functionally effective.
"Substitution, and especially potential regrettable substitution, pose a great risk to SMEs as many of them do not have the capacity to invest in a long-lasting search for safer alternatives and ensure that these alternatives are technically feasible," Euratex says.
It uses the Commission's proposed ban on PFOA as an example of a welcomed transition period. The restriction, which also covers PFOA's salts and related substances, will come into force three years after the Regulation is published. However, the Commission has proposed a six-year transition period for its application to textiles for the protection of workers and membranes intended for use in medical textiles.
"This decision has averted the serious risk of hindering the production of high performance technical textiles crucial for workers’ protection and the capacity of such textiles to meet high EU safety standards," the association says.EnforcementBetter surveillance of imported products is also needed in order to safeguard the health of EU citizens, says Euratex. This would help to "set a level playing field" between EU and non-EU manufacturing.
The European industry is at a "competitive disadvantage," because REACH authorisation requirements do not apply to non-EU producers, allowing products manufactured using substances subject to authorisation to be imported to the EU, it adds.
The lack of market surveillance fails to "prevent the inflow of unsafe goods". The shift of production and use of restricted chemicals towards non-EU countries was "an unintended consequence of legislation". Communication
Another challenge, particularly for SMEs, is providing complete and correct safety data sheets (SDS), it says. In addition, some speciality chemicals are unregistered by SMEs "due to high costs". For example, it says, the expense of registering dye precursors has led to most of the dyestuff industry, which used to exist in Germany and Switzerland, being relocated to Asia.
Euratex also says that all related means for testing should be made available to companies before entry into force of legislation or the publication of guidelines.
For example, the Echa guidelines for lead and its compounds in articles, which can be mouthed by children, do not give a standardised test method for the release rate of lead to meet the required limit. As a result, companies do not know how to test the migration limits to comply with the restriction, Euratex says. It recommends consulting industry on "appropriate and validated testing methods".
It also calls for the relationship between REACH and occupational health and safety (OHS) legislation to be further clarified in order to avoid legal uncertainty for companies and incoherence in chemical legislation.
The European Commission has said provisions could be added to REACH and other legislation – such as the carcinogens and mutagens Directive – to ensure greater consistency when assessing the risks of workplace exposure to chemicals.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53700/euratex-calls-for-improvements-to-reach-restriction-process
-
EU Commission Study To Probe Impacts Of Authorisation
Feb 23, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
An in-depth European Commission study is underway to assess the costs and benefits of the REACH authorisation process for hazardous substances and whether it is achieving its objectives.
The EU directorate general responsible for industry, DG Grow, awarded the one-year project – The Impacts of Authorisation – to a group of consultancy firms led by the Economics for the Environment Consultancy (Eftec) last year. Its findings, due in preliminary form from April, will feed into the 2017 REACH Review.
The study has three objectives related to that review:
· to evaluate the performance of authorisation – providing evidence of whether it is working as intended and achieving its objective;
· to provide evidence on the functioning of the current implementation of the SVHC 2020 Roadmap, and in particular the risk management option analysis (RMOA); and
· to evaluate the adequacy of current guidance for stakeholders to facilitate the preparation of applications for authorisations (AfAs).
The REACH authorisation process aims to substitute SVHCs with less hazardous substances and to control risks where suitable alternatives are not available. A large number of applications have been made.
Richard Dubourg, director of The Economics Interface, one of the consultants collaborating with Eftec, said the consultants are now in a position "to look back critically on the impacts of making SVHCs subject to the REACH authorisation process".
As of last December, Annex XIV – the authorisation list – contained 31 entries, with 169 other substances still on the candidate list, Mr Dubourg said. According to Echa statistics on authorisation, the Commission has received 185 AfAs in the past five years. To date, this has resulted in 45 final decisions.Facing criticism
Nevertheless, some member states, NGOs and industry bodies have criticised the system as being ineffective and inefficient, and called for changes.
NGOs have said the authorisation process is inefficient and that the Commission should instead focus on improving the quality and reliability of applications.
And some EU countries have said the Commission's additional consultation with the Competent Authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal) on the socio-economic impacts of adding substances to the authorisation list is unnecessary.
Mr Dubourg said the study will provide evidence that might help to substantiate or allay those concerns. It aims specifically to:
· collate instances where firms have improved their risk management measures as part of their preparation for applying for authorisation, or as a condition of their authorisation being granted;
· assess the extent to which the markets for SVHCs and their alternatives have been affected by the authorisation process, from initial identification, through to candidate-listing and the application process itself; and
· attempt to quantify the costs and benefits of these various impacts, and overall for specific case study substances.
As part of the project, consultations are being undertaken with a variety of stakeholders, and Mr Dubourg urged any interested parties who have not yet been contacted to get in touch.
"Authorisation applications are the most visible effect of the REACH authorisation requirement, but we suspect they are just the tip of the iceberg," he told Chemical Watch. The greatest impact on substitution is happening "under the radar" long before a substance's sunset date, he said. "That makes it much more challenging to identify, but it is crucial to understanding the full effects of authorisation.”
https://chemicalwatch.com/53745/eu-commission-study-to-probe-impacts-of-authorisation
-
EU Seeks to Stop Two Chemicals From Washing Into Wastewater
Feb 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By By Stephen Gardner
A draft European Union regulation would add a restriction on two ingredients used in wash-off products, such as hair conditioners and shower gels, to prevent the substances from being washed into wastewater.
World Trade Organization members have until April 20 to file comments on the draft regulation, which would add the restriction on the ingredients to the annexes of the bloc's REACH chemicals law (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals).
The regulation would limit to 0.1 percent by weight the presence in wash-off products of two hazardous substances, octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) and decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5). The restriction would cover products sold in the EU and would take effect two years after entry into force of the regulation.
According to the draft regulation, D4 and D5 persist and accumulate in the environment, and the 0.1 percent limit is necessary to prevent the substances from being washed into wastewater.
The regulation added that the 0.1 percent limit “effectively ensures that all intentional use of D4 and D5 will cease since those substances must be present in wash-off cosmetic products in a much higher concentration to perform their intended function.”
The U.K. proposed the REACH restriction on D4 and D5 in 2015 and the European Chemicals Agency's (ECHA) scientific committees adopted opinions favoring the restriction during 2016. The ECHA committees’ final opinion said that wash-off cosmetics were the main source of D5 in the environment, while D4 should be included in the restriction to prevent its use in place of D5.
The European Commission, the EU's executive, circulated the draft regulation to WTO members Feb. 20 in line with the WTO Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=106122275&vname=dennotallissues&fn=106122275&jd=106122275
-
Canada Requires Advance Notice of New Uses of Two Chemicals
Feb 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Menyasz
Canada is requiring companies to report new uses or imports of two forms of heteromonocycle, organic chemicals that form the basis for many common consumer products and cosmetics, to ensure they don't become toxic and pose a risk to human health.
Companies are required to report to the government, at least 90 days in advance, proposed significant new uses of 2-methyl-heteromonocycle, polymer with oxirane, carboxymethyl octadecyl ether and 2-methyl-heteromonocycle, polymer with oxirane, carboxymethyl hexadecyl ether. The chemicals are used in do-it-yourself products such as paints, coatings, adhesives and sealants, the government said Feb. 18.
The requirement to report new uses greater than 10 kilograms in a calendar year is based on a suspicion that significant new uses could lead to the substances becoming toxic as defined in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the government said. An assessment of the substances raised concerns that repeated skin exposure would cause significant negative effects, it said.
The requirement applies to imports of products for use by consumers that involve more than 10 kilograms of the substances per year, and additional information is required for proposed uses or imports greater than 50,000 kilograms per year, it said.
However, transitional provisions limit, through Feb. 28, 2018, the reporting requirements to new uses of the substances of 1,000 kilograms per calendar year or more.
For new uses that require notification, the government committed to providing approval or denial within 90 days of receiving the full information required.
Heterocyclic compounds, also called heterocycles, are a major class of organic chemicals with some or all of the atoms joined in rings and containing at least one atom that isn't carbon—most commonly nitrogen, oxygen or sulfur. Well-known examples include furan, thiophene and pyrrole.
Many naturally occurring pigments, vitamins and antibiotics are heterocyclic compounds, as well as most hallucinogens.
The requirements apply to use of the substances in products covered by the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, with exceptions for products such as explosives, pest control products, vehicles and firearms, and to cosmetics covered under Section 2 of the Food and Drugs Act.
Uses for research and development or as site-limited intermediate substances are exempt, as well as use in natural health products.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=106122255&vname=dennotallissues&fn=106122255&jd=106122255
-
The Pruitt Emails: E.P.A. Chief Was Arm in Arm With Industry
Feb 22, 2017 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport and Eric Lipton
WASHINGTON — As Oklahoma’s attorney general, Scott Pruitt, now the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, closely coordinated with major oil and gas producers, electric utilities and political groups with ties to the libertarian billionaire brothers Charles G. and David H. Koch to roll back environmental regulations, according to over 6,000 pages of emails made public on Wednesday.
The publication of the correspondence comes just days after Mr. Pruitt was sworn in to run the E.P.A., which is charged with reining in pollution and regulating public health. Senate Democrats tried last week to postpone a final vote until the emails could be made public, but Republicans beat back the delay and approved his confirmation on Friday largely along party lines.
The impolitic tone of many of the emails cast light on why Republicans were so eager to beat the release. And although the contents of the emails were broadly revealed in The New York Times in 2014, the totality of the correspondences captures just how much at war Mr. Pruitt was with the E.P.A. and how cozy he was with the industries that he is now charged with policing.
“Thank you to your respective bosses and all they are doing to push back against President Obama’s E.P.A. and its axis with liberal environmental groups to increase energy costs for Oklahomans and American families across the states,” said one email sent to the offices of Mr. Pruitt and an Oklahoma congressman in August 2013 by Matt Ball, an executive at Americans for Prosperity. That nonprofit group is funded in part by the Kochs, the Kansas-born business executives who spent much of the past decade combating federal regulations, particularly in the energy sector. “You both work for true champions of freedom and liberty!” the note said.Continue reading the main storyThe Trump White HouseStories about President Trump’s administration.Repeal of Health Law Faces Obstacles in House, Not Just in SenateFEB 23Rex Tillerson Arrives in Mexico Facing Twin Threats to RelationsFEB 22F.B.I. Interviews Tell of Cleric’s Role in Plot to Bomb PlaneFEB 22Trump Rescinds Rules on Bathrooms for Transgender StudentsFEB 22Hispanic Leaders Plan Fight Against Trump’s AgendaFEB 22
See More »RECENT COMMENTSBos 29 minutes ago
I am no fan of the present EPA Chief, AG Scott Pruitt, but the real problem I have is the rubber stamping of the issue on both sides. On...Ann 3 hours ago
Under Pruitt, Oklahoma becomes the earthquake capital of the world--and now Republicans decide to add to the corruption and unleash him on...JimBob 5 hours ago
Let them have their fun while it lasts. When the American people wake up, including those who thought it would be a good idea to "shake...SEE ALL COMMENTS WRITE A COMMENTRELATED COVERAGESenate Confirms Scott Pruitt as E.P.A. Head FEB. 17, 2017E.P.A. Workers Try to Block Pruitt in Show of Defiance FEB. 16, 2017
AdvertisementContinue reading the main story
Environmental groups rushed to condemn the correspondence.
“This extensive trail of emails reads like a yearslong chain of love letters between soul mates,” said Ken Cook, the president of the Environmental Working Group.
Mr. Pruitt has been among the most contentious of President Trump’s cabinet nominees. Environmental groups, Democrats in Congress and even current E.P.A. employees have protested his ties to energy companies, his efforts to block and weaken major environmental rules, and his skepticism of the central mission of the agency he now leads. As soon as this week, Mr. Trump is expected to announce at least two executive orders directing Mr. Pruitt to begin rolling back and weakening a set of Obama-era E.P.A. regulations aimed at limiting emissions that cause global warming, and at pollution in the nation’s rivers, streams and wetlands.
An Oklahoma judge ordered the release of the emails in response to a lawsuit by the Center for Media and Democracy, a liberal watchdog group. Many of the emails are copies of documents previously provided to The Times, which examined Mr. Pruitt’s interaction with energy industry players his office helps regulate.
The companies provided him with draft letters to send to federal regulators in an attempt to block regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from oil and gas wells, ozone air pollution and chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, the technique of injecting chemicals underground to extract oil and gas, the emails show.
Industry executives and Mr. Pruitt held secret meetings to discuss more comprehensive ways to combat the Obama administration’s environmental agenda, and companies and the organizations they funded repeatedly praised Mr. Pruitt and his staff for the assistance in their campaign.
In his new job, Mr. Pruitt will regulate many of the companies with which he coordinated as attorney general of Oklahoma. From that perch, Mr. Pruitt took part in 14 lawsuits against major E.P.A. environmental rules, at times in coordination with energy companies such as Oklahoma Gas & Electric, whose executives held a fund-raising event for Mr. Pruitt, while he joined with the company to challenge a rule that would require it to upgrade or replace certain coal-burning power plants.
The emails show that his office corresponded with those companies — including Devon Energy, an Oklahoma oil and gas producer, and American Electric Power, an Ohio-based utility — in efforts to weaken federal environmental regulations, the same rules he will now oversee.
“Please find attached a short white paper with some talking points that you might find useful to cut and paste when encouraging states to file comments on the S.S.M. rule,” wrote Roderick Hastie, a lobbyist at Hunton & Williams, a law firm that represents major utilities, including Southern Company, urging Mr. Pruitt’s office to file comments on a proposed E.P.A. rule related to so-called start-up, shutdown and malfunction emissions.
The most frequent correspondence was with Devon Energy, which has aggressively challenged rules proposed by the E.P.A. and the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management, which controls drilling on federal lands. In the 2014 election cycle, Devon was one of the top contributors to the Republican Attorneys General Association, which Mr. Pruitt led for two years during that period.
In a March 2013 letter to Mr. Pruitt’s office, William Whitsitt, then an executive vice president of Devon, referred to a letter his company had drafted for Mr. Pruitt to deliver, on state stationery, to Obama administration officials. Mr. Pruitt, meeting with White House officials, made the case that the rule to rein in methane emissions would harm his state’s economy. His argument was taken directly from Mr. Whitsitt’s draft language.
“To follow up on my conversations with Attorney General Pruitt and you, I believe that a meeting — or perhaps more efficient, a conference call — with O.I.R.A. (the O.M.B. Office of Information and Regulatory Analysis) on the B.L.M. rule should be requested right away,” Mr. Whitsitt wrote to a senior member of Mr. Pruitt’s staff, referring to the section of the White House Office of Management and Budget that coordinates regulations throughout the government. “The attached draft letter (or something like it that Scott is comfortable talking from and sending to the acting director to whom the letter is addressed) could be the basis for the meeting or call.”
In an email from January of that year, Mr. Whitsitt thanked Mr. Pruitt’s office for pushing the Bureau of Land Management to loosen a proposed regulation on fracking.
“I just let General Pruitt know that B.L.M. is going to propose a different version of its federal lands hydraulic fracturing rule thanks to input received — thanks for the help on this!” Mr. Whitsitt wrote.
In another example, Mr. Pruitt’s office coordinated with the oil and gas lobbying group American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers in petitions against two E.P.A. regulations: one mandating production of renewable fuels and another limiting pollution of smog-causing chemicals. In 2013, lawyers for the group met with Mr. Pruitt in Washington. In a July 2013 email, the group provided Mr. Pruitt’s office with language for a petition against the rules.
“This argument is more credible coming from a state,” Richard Moskowitz, general counsel at the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, wrote to one of Mr. Pruitt’s aides.
Later that year, Mr. Pruitt filed petitions against both those rules.
On Tuesday afternoon, Mr. Pruitt addressed career E.P.A. employees to assuage unease with — and even rebellion against — their new boss. Mr. Pruitt praised the employees for their years of public service and promised to listen to them.
“I believe that we as an agency, and we as a nation, can be both pro-energy and jobs and pro-environment. But we don’t have to choose between the two,” he told employees, even as he stressed that federal authority should be diminished, and that regulatory powers and oversight of pollution should be left largely to the states.
“Federalism matters,” he said.
The E.P.A. and the White House did not respond to requests for comment on the emails.
The emails do not appear to include any request for his intervention explicitly in exchange for campaign contributions, although Mr. Pruitt was separately working as a member of the Republican Attorneys General Association to raise money from many of the same companies.
The Oklahoma attorney general’s office withheld some documents, asking the judge to determine if they can be exempted from the order requiring their release. Other open-records requests from the Center for Media and Democracy, The Times and other news organizations remain pending.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/us/politics/scott-pruitt-environmental-protection-agency.html?ref=energy-environment&_r=1&mtrref=www.realclearenergy.org&gwh=8205222BB573CAB46A3F86397D8AFA4F&gwt=pay
-
Pruitt Energy Ties Not Unusual, Former EPA Officials Say
Feb 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
The close relationship Scott Pruitt enjoyed with fossil fuel companies as Oklahoma's attorney general was not unusual and may continue in his new rule as EPA administrator, former agency officials said.
As Pruitt begins his role as Environmental Protection Agency administrator, his work with energy sectors that felt constrained under President Barack Obama's environmental regulations will likely continue.
“People have sides,” Christine Todd Whitman, who served as EPA administrator in President George W. Bush's first term, told Bloomberg BNA. “As long as you don't take one side and put it whole cloth into a regulation,” she said, Pruitt's relationship with the oil and gas sector shouldn't affect the agency's work.
The e-mails from Pruitt's office as Oklahoma attorney general that were released Feb. 22—which suggest that oil and free-market interests inserted their views into the attorney general's talking points—are ammunition for environmental groups that fought against his EPA nomination. But it may not be a radical departure from previous administrations. Climate change documents developed in the George W. Bush administration were commonly revised with industry language, said Dina Kruger, a former EPA official who worked under Presidents Bill Clinton, Bush and Barack Obama.
Viewpoints “were supposed to slide right in to the rule” Kruger, now president of Kruger Environmental Strategies, told Bloomberg BNA. “Working on climate change at the end of the Bush administration was pretty fraught because they weren't going to regulate, they didn't want to regulate.”
Under Gina McCarthy, Obama's second EPA administrator, the agency was accused of working closely with groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council to develop the Clean Power Plan, which set the first-ever carbon emission limits on the electricity sector. The Government Accountability Office also found the EPA at fault for lobbying to promote the Clean Water Rule, which redefined which streams and wetlands are protected under the Clean Water Act.
In reality, the relationship that Republicans have with fossil fuel interests is not quite analogous to the clout that environmental nonprofits hold with the left, said Kruger. Energy industries—whether oil and gas, or solar and wind—are often granted a better glimpse of agency action because the regulation will affect them directly. Environmentalists groups are not privy to the type of information that industry typically gets, and are often not in a position to offer the technical detail that companies can offer.
“[Those] being regulated typically tend to have a lot more information at their fingertips,” Kruger said. “It's a bit of a lopsided battle, I would say.”
Devon Energy Offered Pruitt ‘Suggestions’
The Center for Media and Democracy released the e-mails after winning a federal court battle to compel the attorney general's office to make its correspondence with the industry public. CMD initially requested the documents in January 2015. The records reveal several instances in which Pruitt's staff asked companies, oil and gas producer Devon Energy Corp. in particular, to revise letters sent on behalf of attorneys general opposed to the Obama administration's regulations.
In one instance, a top public affairs official for Devon Energy, an Oklahoma City oil and gas extraction company, rewrote a letter from 13 attorneys general to urge the federal government not to regulate methane emissions from hydraulic fracturing.
Deputy Solicitor General for Oklahoma Clayton Eubanks asked William Whitsitt, then executive vice president for public affairs for Devon, for help.
“I thought we should insert a sentence or two regarding the recent EPA report indicating their initial estimates on methane emissions for two categories were too high. Any suggestions?” he asked in a May 1, 2013, e-mail.
The attachment with Whitsitt's changes was not included in the released emails, but Whitsitt told Eubanks the same day that the editing included “some further improvements from one of our experts.”
On another letter opposing the Bureau of Land Management's rule on hydraulic fracturing, Eubanks thanked another Devon official—former director of public and government affairs Brent Rockwood—for his “guidance and assistance in getting this letter out.”
“Our engagement with Scott Pruitt as attorney general of Oklahoma is consistent —and proportionate—with our commitment to engage in conversations with policymakers on a broad range of matters that promote jobs, economic growth and a robust domestic energy sector,” a spokesman for Devon said in an e-mailed statement. “We have a clear obligation to our shareholders and others to be involved in these discussions related to job growth, economic growth and domestic energy.”
The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers sent the attorney general's office on Aug. 30, 2013, a template for requesting waivers under the Renewable Fuel Standard, the federal program to promote ethanol use that is opposed by the petroleum industry.
Pruitt is ‘Extremely Transparent’
There is a big difference between the Pruitt concerns and those raised in 2015 over close ties between the EPA and environmental groups during the Obama administration, said a Republican staffer with the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The earlier alleged collusion took place while McCarthy was on the job. By contrast, the close ties alleged between Pruitt and industry pre-date his confirmation last week as EPA head, the aide said.
“I think there is a distinction between Pruitt's role as attorney general and his role as an EPA administrator,” a job he was just confirmed to by 52-48 by the Senate on Feb. 17, the aide said.
Another distinction, the aide said, is that the Pruitt e-mails of concern have already been released during the very beginning of his tenure, showing transparency, while Senate Republicans were repeatedly rebuffed in their attempts to get access to e-mails from McCarthy.
“I'd note that that's a big distinguishing element here,” the aide said. “We have all of his [Pruitt's] e-mails. He's being extremely transparent, whereas her e-mails and repeated attempts at oversight over Obama's EPA were just like trying to reach into a black box.”
The comparison between McCarthy's communication with environmental advocates and Pruitt's communication with industry is a poor one, according to Liz Perera, clean air policy director at the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, the majority owner of Bloomberg L.P., parent of Bloomberg BNA.
Perera told Bloomberg BNA that McCarthy “spoke to industry all the time” while running the EPA. In comparison, Pruitt didn't appear to balance out the input he got from industry, but instead adopted industry's viewpoint verbatim, Perera said.
While the EPW aide noted that Pruitt's relationship with the oil and gas industry predated his confirmation, Perera said environmental advocates are concerned that industry will continue to have a large influence on his actions as EPA administrator at the expense of environmental concerns.
“I think we are concerned he will just continue this pattern,” Perera said. “We're always open to being wrong, but history has told a tale.”
-- WIth assistance from Patrick Ambrosio, Andrew Childers, Rachel Leven, David Schultz, Dean Scott and Bloomberg News.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=106122283&vname=dennotallissues&fn=106122283&jd=106122283
-
Emails Detail Pruitt's Prior Coordination With Fossil Groups On EPA Rules
Feb 22, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan & Abby Smith
Newly released emails from EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's time as Oklahoma attorney general (AG) show several examples where he or top officials in his office coordinated with fossil fuel groups to target EPA's climate and air regulations, bolstering critics' claims that the new administrator is too close with industry.
The more than 7,500 documents -- released Feb. 22 by the group Center for Media and Democracy (CDM) following a state court ruling ordering the AG's office to turn them over -- come as Pruitt is just beginning his tenure at the agency and trying to assuage career staffers' fears that he is not committed to EPA's core mission of protecting public health and the environment.
The emails appear to focus on the 2013-2014 time period, and CDM says in a release that it is pushing for the AG's office to release additional batches of emails in response to the court order.
The documents reinforce to some extent Democrats' criticism of Pruitt during his Senate confirmation process. Despite those charges, however, Pruitt won confirmation Feb. 17 on a 52-46 vote and gave his first speech to agency employees Feb. 21.
While the emails bolster efforts by Democrats and environmentalists to attack Pruitt's credentials, the narrative is well known after the New York Times in 2014 reported on some of the email correspondence.
In addition, the pending release of the emails failed to prevent Pruitt from winning Senate confirmation. Democrats unsuccessfully sought to delay that vote pending the release of the emails, but Republicans rejected that request.
Even so, lawmakers said they plan to use the emails in possible criminal and congressional investigations, as well as motions for Pruitt to recuse himself from suits over EPA rules.
“You have to use them in motions to recuse, you have to use them in congressional investigations, if the facts justify they could be used in criminal investigations, and of course they will be available for use in all of the litigation that will undoubtedly ensue from an administrator who is so closely allied with the fossil fuel polluters,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) said in a Feb. 17 interview with Inside EPA at the Capitol.
During Pruitt's confirmation hearing, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) questioned him about whether he was a “mouthpiece” for oil and gas firms, citing the Times report about a previously published letter that Devon Energy drafted charging that EPA overestimated emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Pruitt's office subsequently sent EPA the letter with few changes.
The newly released emails show numerous similar examples -- with industry groups providing then-AG Pruitt with information to urge EPA not to regulate oil and gas methane emissions, decline to tighten its national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone, grant petitions to waive renewable fuel standard (RFS) blending targets, and scrap a proposed rule requiring states to eliminate certain exemptions for startup, shutdown and mulfunction (SSM) events in state Clean Air Act compliance plans.
'Nice Work'
For instance, Clayton Eubanks, a deputy solicitor general in Pruitt's office, on May 1, 2013, sent a Devon Energy lobbyist a draft of a letter Pruitt and a dozen other state AGs planned to send to EPA urging the agency not to regulate methane emissions from oil and gas facilities. EPA eventually issued such rules in June 2016.
The AG staffer said, “I thought we should insert a sentence or two regarding the recent EPA report indicating their initial estimates on methane emissions for two categories were too high. . . . Any suggestions?”
The Devon lobbyist replied with some suggested edits, which appear to be incorporated in the AGs' final letter, sent to EPA on May 2.
The lobbyist subsequently emailed Eubanks and Pruitt's chief of staff Melissa McLawhorn Houston a copy of an E&E News article about the letter. That article quoted the letter as saying hydraulic fracturing “represents the largest contribution to the overall natural gas production sector emissions estimate, but it has been assessed by industry and academia to be inaccurate. The justification for those estimates has been challenged by mounting evidence, including voluminous data, and investigation of potential flaws in the statistical methodology.”
The lobbyist emailed the two Pruitt staffers, saying, “FYI -- Nice work!” In response, Houston said: “Enjoyed your quote in the article!”
The group American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) -- which represents refiners -- also traded emails with Pruitt staffers, lobbying the AG to urge EPA not to tighten its ozone NAAQS and to waive biofuel blending targets under the RFS.
After a May 2013 meeting between Pruitt and AFPM officials in Washington, D.C., a Pruitt staffer introduces the group to Eubanks, who “would handle issues such as the RFS and Ozone NAAQS, which you all discussed at the meeting.”
Days later, an AFPM official sent Pruitt's office a series of papers on the ozone NAAQS. At the time, EPA was considering tightening the standard from 75 parts per billion (pbb) to between 60-70 ppb -- the range recommended by the agency's scientific advisers.
The papers covered the basic process of setting a NAAQS, argued that a stricter standard “could hurt” refiners and would be “unattainable,” and highlighted the severe consequences of an area being designated as not attaining the federal standards.
Such consequences, AFPM noted, include high compliance costs, loss of economic development due to restrictions on building new facilities that would contribute to non-attainment, and the potential loss of federal highway funds.
Regarding the RFS, Eubanks in a July 2013 email told AFPM that he had the opportunity to become familiar with the RFS “and its obvious shortcomings and problems. I think it's safe to say that AG Pruitt has an interest in the issue.”
He then asked the group a series of procedural questions about how it planned to ask EPA to waive statutory blending targets.
In response, an official noted that the group planned to send a waiver petition with the American Petroleum Institute, but added that Oklahoma should also file a petition “that emphasizes 'severe environmental harm,' as this argument is more credible coming from a State with primary responsibility for achieving and maintaining attainment with the NAAQS.”
Then, AFPM in August 2013 sent Houston the group's petition to waive RFS targets for 2014, as well as a template that states could use to submit a similar petition. In the template, the petition is nearly complete, except that it includes placeholders for the state name, state-specific industries that would be “decimated,” and a short description of how gasoline is used in the state.
For example, the template says, “Florida may highlight marine usage.”
Also, the group included a document with specific information about “the economic and environmental impacts the RFS has on Oklahoma.”
Then in October, the AFPM official again emailed Houston, saying she had “some language for you on the RFS waiver letter, but was hoping we could chat before I send it to you so I can give you a little context.”
'Cut And Paste'
Additionally, Rod Hastie, an official with industry law firm Hunton & Williams, on April 30, 2013, emailed Eubanks “a short white paper with some talking points that you might find useful to cut and paste when encouraging States to file comments” critical of a then-proposed rule to require more than 35 states to remove air law exemptions related to facilities' SSM from their state compliance plans.
EPA subsequently finalized that proposal in July 2015.
The white paper summarized industry concerns with the proposed SSM rule and urged states to submit formal comments touting the success of their air law compliance plans and stressing that such plans require continued emission improvement even during SSM periods.
The white paper warned that if EPA finalized the rule, it would allow EPA to “encroach further on State authority in administering the Clean Air Act,” while exposing industry to more enforcement from the agency and environmental groups.
In addition, Hastie sent Pruitt's office a summary of other states' comments on the proposal, as well as a copy of comments from Devon Energy.
Around the same time, Hastie and Hunton's Richard Guerard traded emails with Eubanks about a separate white paper that Hunton was preparing about Pruitt's record attacking EPA climate and air rules.
The intended audience of the white paper is not immediately clear, but Eubanks in one message noted that Pruitt “sincerely appreciates” the firm's work on it.
An April 23, 2013, draft of the paper touts Pruitt's “strong energy record,” noting that he has taken steps to “combat federal government overreach, protect ratepayers, and safeguard energy jobs.”
It then summarizes several Pruitt legal and regulatory attacks on EPA rules, including comments on a then-proposed “global warming rule” limiting GHGs from new power plants and litigation challenging EPA's mercury and air toxics standards for the power sector.
The paper also praised Pruitt's challenge of “EPA's grab of state authority” in a separate lawsuit that targeted the agency's cross-state air pollution rule, as well as Pruitt and other states' challenge of EPA's “rush” to regulate GHGs in the agency's initial package of climate regulations covering automobiles and stationary source permits.
Further, it touts a Freedom of Information Act request Pruitt filed over lawsuits environmental groups filed against EPA; a suit over an Interior Department mine permitting case; and EPA's federal implementation plan for Oklahoma that addressed regional haze requirements. --
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/emails-detail-pruitts-prior-coordination-fossil-groups-epa-rules
-
Morrisey Hopes Trump Seeks Broad Rollback Of EPA Power Plant GHG Rules
Feb 22, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
West Virginia Attorney General (AG) Patrick Morrisey (R), one of the most ardent critics of EPA's power plant greenhouse gas rules, hopes that an executive order President Donald Trump is slated to sign will seek a broad rollback of the agency's rules for both new and existing sources, suggesting some uncertainty about the scope of the order.
In an exclusive interview with Inside EPA Feb. 21, Morrisey expressed hopes that the order is broad in scope to end litigation over both the existing source rule, also known as the Clean Power Plan (CPP), as well as the new source rule.
“It's so critical that we turn the Clean Power Plan litigation around and that we reverse course. We're very hopeful that this administration will deem the Clean Power Plan unenforceable and that we're in a position to move in a much different direction,” Morrisey told Inside EPA, adding that he and other states opposing the rule want to “remove the threat of the Clean Power Plan from the books.”
Morrisey also urged a rollback of the power plant new source performance standards (NSPS) rule, the legal prerequisite to the CPP. He told Inside EPA that he wants the Trump administration to signal that it does not support the CPP or the NSPS.
Trump is expected to sign as soon as this week several executive orders aimed at scaling back EPA's climate and environmental regulations. One order could direct EPA to reexamine the CPP, as well as order the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management to lift a moratorium on coal leasing on federal lands.
A second order is expected to direct EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to reexamine another significant Obama EPA rule, the Clean Water Act jurisdiction rule.
But it is unclear what other Obama-era regulations an executive order could address. The Trump administration has not been as vocal about its plans for the NSPS and has not yet indicated it would change course in the pending litigation over that rule, which is slated to go to oral argument in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in April.
Though it is widely expected that the forthcoming Trump executive order will address the CPP, the scope of the directive is unclear -- whether it will simply direct EPA to broadly reexamine the regulation or whether it will be more specific about next steps.
Observers say administration officials could still be debating how they may want to proceed in rolling back the rules. For example, they could be considering whether to bar the use of section 111 -- the section of the Clean Air Act EPA used to write the rules -- as a means of addressing GHGs, or they could be considering whether to try to narrow the CPP's scope to actions inside the fenceline of coal-fired power plants rather than including electricity system-wide options like generation shifting to gas and renewables as the Obama EPA did.
But Bloomberg Government notes that if the administration decides not to regulate GHGs, it could create tort liability for power plant operators given Supreme Court precedent in American Electric Power (AEP) v. Connecticut that held there is a private right of action over GHG emissions absent EPA regulation.
“If EPA decides it 'can’t' regulate under Sec. 111, then that could undercut the court’s rationale in the AEP case. And so, nervous coal plant owners may wonder, could they then face private lawsuits because EPA action is foreclosed?” the article says.
Moreover, Scott Pruitt, newly sworn in as EPA's administrator, may want some time to consider his options before the president signs any order.
'An Important Role'
Morrisey, who has led the coalition of states opposing the CPP and the related GHG rule for new power plants, is eying a broad rollback of these rules -- both of which are the subject of pending lawsuits -- in favor of a regulatory regime that better reflects that coal will continue to play “an important role” in the country's energy future.
He hopes the Trump EPA will adopt the principles and position of CPP critics that the power plant rule is unlawful and that the agency lacks legal authority “to engage in generation-shifting or to double regulate coal-fired power plants or to commandeer the states to effectuate the agency's top policy goals.”
“President Trump has indicated that he understands the challenges of the massive regulatory state, and we're very hopeful that turning these regulations around is going to begin to occur in the very near future,” he added.
In terms of the future of pending litigation over the CPP, Morrisey said he and other opponents of the rule are “waiting for the Trump administration to take the lead through its executive order and to begin signaling its position on these issues, and then the states and others will be in a position to follow up.”
The D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments in the case, West Virginia, et al. v. EPA, et al., Sept. 27 but has yet to issue a ruling, and observers on both sides of the litigation have said a ruling could impact how the Trump administration proceeds with any rulemaking to roll back the CPP.
Morrisey said that the position of West Virginia and other opponents on the CPP “remains the same, and we're going to pursue every avenue to ensure that the CPP never sees the light of day, whether that's action in the courts, through the administrative avenues or through the legislative process.” He added that his coalition's position has a strong legal basis and is rooted in “compelling” policy arguments that they are “hopeful” the Trump EPA will adopt.
He also said West Virginia and the state coalition are “ready to fight” attempts from environmentalists, states and other groups that support the rules to slow or oppose Trump administration efforts to roll them back. Morrisey suggested that such groups “should refocus their efforts on the agency's core mission and not stray so far afield from the EPA's core statutory authority,” adding that “we're going to ensure that West Virginia and the coalition [of states] will continue to have a voice on these issues.”
Morrisey also urged EPA to include the NSPS in the “package of issues that gets a close look and real scrutiny under the Trump administration's review.” And on pending litigation over that rule, he said, “We believe that that regulation should fall if it proceeds in the courts. But we're always open-minded as to how we can resolve issues without resorting to further litigation.”
Morrisey noted his current focus is the rollback of the power plant and other Obama EPA rules, and he did not comment on other potential Trump administration moves that could inhibit the ability of the agency to regulate GHGs. For example, some Trump advisers have suggested the administration try to repeal EPA's 2009 GHG endangerment finding, which underpins the agency's power plant and other climate rules.
Pruitt, during his confirmation process, did not say he intends to target the GHG risk finding, but his vague responses to written questions left the door open that the Trump EPA could review the finding.
And in a Feb. 18 interview with the Wall Street Journal, his first since being nominated and confirmed as EPA administrator, Pruitt said he would not prejudge the question of whether EPA will regulate GHGs. “There will be a rulemaking process to withdraw” the CPP, “and that will kick off a process. And part of that process is a very careful review of a fundamental question: Does EPA even possess the tools, under the Clean Air Act, to address this?”
Pruitt added: “It's a fair question to ask if we do, or whether there in fact needs to be a congressional response to the climate issue.”
Morrisey did not say whether he would support a review of the GHG risk finding, suggesting instead that he and others are waiting to see what approach the Trump EPA will take.
“We're going to evaluate how the EPA will want to proceed on that issue and then we can make a determination thereafter as to how we move forward in court,” Morrisey said about the finding. He added that the current focus of the state coalition is “pending litigation” over the CPP and NSPS, and “it would be premature to talk about other issues that may arise in the future.”
'Taming the Bureaucracy'
Broadly, Morrisey is optimistic that the Trump administration and Pruitt will lead EPA in his preferred direction and correct what he identified as overreach from the Obama agency. He noted that one of the challenges Pruitt will face as administrator is “taming the bureaucracy of EPA.”
“My sincere hope is that the EPA is going to change its culture through the positive influence of Scott Pruitt,” Morrisey said.
In addition, the West Virginia AG was encouraged that Pruitt, as administrator, would help right the balance of authority of the states and of the agency in environmental regulation.
Pruitt “understands the importance that states play in the enforcement regime of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, and I think he's going to be more sensitive to the needs of the states,” Morrisey said. “Every state is different, and Scott Pruitt is going to at a minimum listen to all those concerns and then make a decision that's in accordance with the law.”
Morrisey also suggested that Pruitt intends to do “a lot of outreach” to states, both those like West Virginia that support the “new direction of the agency” and those that disagree with the Trump administration's goals.
“We believe that Scott Pruitt is going to refocus the EPA on its core mission, and that's going to include refocusing on enforcement and hewing closely to the statute,” Morrisey said. “If he does that, and he sticks to that approach, he's going to be very successful” and “we're going to see a lot of improvement.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/morrisey-hopes-trump-seeks-broad-rollback-epa-power-plant-ghg-rules
-
Trump Eyes Easing Obama Rules for Sprawling Pipeline Network
Feb 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Catherine Traywick and Laura Blewitt
The hints of a pipeline spill are subtle: the hiss of rushing fluid, a streak of rainbow sheen. Tucked far below ground, a ruptured line can escape notice for days or even weeks, especially in the backcountry, where inspectors rarely venture.
Regulators in the waning hours of the Obama era wrote rules aimed at changing that, and the industry is looking forward to the new administration rolling them back. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration “has gone overboard,” said Brigham McCown, a former head of the PHMSA who served on President Donald Trump's infrastructure transition team. “They built a Cadillac instead of the Chevrolet that Congress told them to build.”
The oversight agency, an arm of the U.S. Department of Transportation, is just one of many where Barack Obama's policies are in the Trump team's sights. The battle lines are predictable, with companies on one side and safety and environmental activists on the other. What's particularly worrying the latter is timing, because the rules could be upended as new shipping routes go into service across the country.
The president, a fan of fossil fuels, has revived two controversial pipelines, TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL and Energy Transfer Partners LP's Dakota Access. They would add 2,300 miles (3,700 kilometers) to the U.S. network with room to transport 1.1 million barrels a day. As it is, there are more than 200,000 miles of pipe cutting across the country carrying crude, gasoline and other hazardous liquids—about 18 billion barrels worth annually. Many other projects are on the map; in Houston alone, planned lines are expected to increase capacity by 550,000 barrels a day in the next few years.
“I'm terrified about what is going to happen under Trump,” said Jane Kleeb, president of the Bold Alliance, a coalition of groups opposing Keystone XL. “My worry is that they will just budget-starve PHMSA.”
While Obama was president, the PHMSA budget grew by 61 percent. Then, seven days before Trump's inauguration, the agency finalized a rule toughening up inspection and repair demands, mandating, for example, that companies have leak-detection systems in populated areas and requiring they examine lines within 72 hours of flooding or another so-called extreme weather event. The American Petroleum Institute, the oil and gas industry's main trade group, characterized it all as overreaching and unnecessary.
The rule was set to take effect in July. The Trump administration slapped a freeze on all regulations written under Obama that haven't yet gone into force.
Pipeline leaks are pretty much inevitable; one ruptures every day on average in the U.S., though in the majority of cases the discharge is less than 5 barrels, or 210 gallons.
But big ones can be destructive, and deadly. The 2010 failure of an Enbridge Inc. line sent more than 20,000 barrels of heavy crude into a Kalamazoo River tributary, coating birds, muskrats and other wildlife and closing the river to recreational activity for 22 months; Enbridge agreed to pay $177 million in fines and to boost safety in a settlement with the U.S. Justice Department, which said it took the company 17 hours to notice the breach.
Last October, an explosion on the largest U.S. gasoline pipeline killed one person, injured several more and temporarily cut off the fuel supply along the East Coast. In December, about 150 miles from a Dakota Access protest camp, a pipeline spilled 4,200 barrels of oil and was held up by environmentalists as a harbinger of what's to come.
Government statistics show there has been recent improvement in incident rates: In 2016, the number of accidents fell for the first time in five years, to 417 from 462, with total volume spilled declining 27 percent and the cost of related property damage dropping to $183 million from $257 million. The PHMSA wouldn't speculate on the reasons and pro-regulation forces were reluctant to draw conclusions based on a single year's statistics.
From the perspective of the Association of Oil Pipe Lines, the network is safer than ever, with problems quickly contained. The trade group credits improving technology and industry vigilance in adhering to the PHMSA's self-policing policies, with operators responsible for reporting leaks and required to design and submit for approval integrity-management plans for keeping their lines as leak-free as possible.
Since 2010, five companies have been responsible for 44 percent of all hazardous liquid spills, according to a Bloomberg analysis of data collected by the PHMSA. The remaining were split among more than 60 companies.
Those with vast assets tend to report a higher number of incidents, of course. The biggest, Enterprise Products Partners LP, ranked first between 2010 and 2016. But the amount spilled comprised “a tiny fraction” of the total shipped, said Enterprise spokesman Rick Rainey.
Mileage, though, doesn't always correlate with incident rate. Energy Transfer Equity LP's system, which will include the Dakota Access if opponents don't block it, is 40 percent smaller that Enterprise's and ranked No. 2 in incidents and spill amounts. The company declined to comment.
“The highest priority is to get to zero incidents,” said Carl Weimer, executive director of the nonprofit Pipeline Safety Trust, a watchdog group founded after a 1999 gasoline pipeline explosion in Bellingham, Washington, that killed two children, both 10, and an 18-year-old.
Congress isn't likely to move to repeal or rewrite the Obama rule until a new head of the PHMSA is in office. But the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Pennsylvania Republican Bill Shuster, said last week that easing up on the regulations was the right thing to do.
“Are there some bad actors out there? Sure,” he told the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. “But we gotta let these industries go do their business.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=106122254&vname=dennotallissues&fn=106122254&jd=106122254
-
Fracking Is Dangerous To Your Health - Here's Why
Feb 23, 2017 | Forbes
By Judy Stone
Fracking, or drilling for gas by hydraulic fracturing, has been associated with a growing number of health risks. Last week, I began this series looking at some of the hazardous chemicals injected into the wells to make drilling easier and cheaper, and the growing risks to our health by the GOP rushing through the approval of Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
This post looks in greater depth at the health problems linked to fracking. These are not hypothetical concerns—there are now more than 700 studies looking at risks—and more than 80% of the health studies document risks or actual harms.
It’s also important to note that these risks are likely to be seriously underestimated, because the environmental agencies have been downplaying the risks to the public. A new in-depth expose from investigative journalists at Public Herald looks in-depth at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) misconduct and negligence, as the DEP studiously ignored citizens’ complaints, sometimes not even testing water samples. Earlier studies from ProPublica and others showed similar EPA failures in the western U.S.
A variety of health problems are associated with fracking
Respiratory problems:
Cough, shortness of breath and wheezing are the most common complaints of residents living near fracked wells. Toxic gases like benzene are released from the rock by fracking. Similarly, a toxic waste brew of water and chemicals is often stored in open pits, releasing volatile organic compounds into the air. These noxious chemicals and particulates are also released by the diesel powered pumps used to inject the water. An epidemiological study of more than 400,000 patients of Pennsylvania’s Geisinger clinic, done with Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, found a significant association between fracking and increases in mild, moderate, and severe cases of asthma (odds ratios 4.4 to 1.5). Hopkins’ Dr. Brian Schwartz cautions that residents should be aware of this hazard as “some ‘pristine’ rural areas are converted to heavily trafficked industrial areas.”
Problems during pregnancy:
Fracking chemicals are harmful to pregnant women and their developing babies. West Virginia researchers found endocrine-disrupting chemicals in surface waters near wastewater disposal sites; these types of chemicals can hurt the developing fetus even when present at very low concentrations.
Another Hopkins/Geisinger study looked at records of almost 11,000 women with newborns who lived near fracking sites and found a 40% increased chance of having a premature baby, and a 30% risk of having the pregnancy be classified as “high-risk,” though they controlled for socioeconomic status and other risk factors. Contributing factors likely include air and water pollution, stress from the noise and traffic (1000 tankers/well on average).
Premature babies accounted for 35% of infant deaths in 2010. In addition to the personal toll on the families, preemies are very expensive for society—prematurity is a major cause of neurologic disabilities in kids, and their cost of care was more the $26 billion in 2005 alone, or $51,600 per preemie. Cost to employers during the infant’s first year of life averaged $46,004—more than 10 fold higher than for a full-term delivery.
[Note that if the Affordable Care Act is repealed, women may once again be denied health insurance for pregnancies and a premature baby will likely never be granted health insurance. According to the March of Dimes, Medicaid expansion of health insurance to low-income citizens helped the percentage of babies born as preemies drop to a low level of 11.4% in 2013.]
Noise, stress, and sleep deprivation
Other studies have found that the noise from the drilling itself, the gas compressors, other heavy equipment, and the truck traffic is high enough to disturb sleep, cause stress, and increase high blood pressure. Longer term exposure to noise pollution contributes to endocrine abnormalities and diabetes, heart disease, stress and depression, and has been linked to learning difficulties in children. Sleep deprivation has pervasive public health consequences, from causing accidents to chronic diseases.
Another epidemiologic study from University of Pennsylvania and Columbia University compared the hospitalization rates between a county with active fracking and a neighboring county without. This study found that fracking well density was significantly associated with higher inpatient hospitalization for cardiac or neurologic problems. There was also an association between skin conditions, cancer, and urologic problems and the proximity of homes to active wells.
Spills and accidents
With disturbing frequency, new spills or accidents are reported, at the same time as industry tries to reassure that fracking brings safe and clean energy. Tell that to the residents of Dimock, PA, who have had their drinking water destroyed, or those in many other communities.
A newly released study found 6,648 spills in just four states over the past 10 years. Once again, the EPA had reported a far lower number—457 in eight states over a six-year period. Why the huge difference? Because the EPA chose to only look at the actual fracturing stage, rather than the whole life cycle of the gas and oil production. The DeSmogBlog notes that just this month, the day after U.S. Army Corps of Engineers gave the owners of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) the final permit it needed to build across Lake Oahe (threatening the Standing Rock Sioux tribe’s land and water), a pipeline of a DAPL co-owner exploded near New Orleans, killing one and injuring others. Aging pipelines pose special risks as they deteriorate. An ExxonMobil pipeline built in 1947 spilled 134,000 gallons of gas in Arkansas. You can see the location and magnitude of the spills at this handy interactive from National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) Science for Nature and People Partnership (SNAPP). Another disturbing data viz show the type of spill and whether water was impacted.
But new fracking has additional risks, as the conventional pipes often used are unable to withstand the high pressure of the fracking mixture being injected. In fact, new wells were not safer, and 6% of unconventional (fracked) wells drilled since 2000 showed problems, with even the PA DEP (shown by Public Herald to not be thorough in investigating citizens' complaints, nor entirely forthcoming) confirming more than 100 contaminated drinking water wells.
Conclusion
The oil and gas industry says that these health problems are not proven to be caused by fracking. That is partially true—especially since agencies like the PA DEP have actively hidden complaints or even failed to test the water of residents, as Public Herald reported. With the new head of the EPA, Scott Pruitt, determined to dismantle the agency and its protections, we will likely never have definitive proof. Some health problems, as cancer and some neurologic problems also take years to develop after an exposure.
Fracking profits go to private industry but the public--families and communities--bear the cost of the many health complications from the drilling.
There is growing evidence of a variety of health problems being associated with fracking. Common sense dictates that drinking and breathing cancer-causing agents will take its toll. The correlation is too strong to ignore, especially when we have other, cleaner energy options. For our safety and that of future generations, we should not allow the new administration to sell off public lands, nor allow drilling on our land, and should ban fracking completely.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2017/02/23/fracking-is-dangerous-to-your-health-heres-why/#570d8b2d52c1
-
State Lawmakers Introduce Amber Alert-Style Bill For Chemical Accidents
Feb 22, 2017 | Chem.Info
By Meagan Parrish
Safety experts have long complained that the public is not adequately warned about the inherent dangers of living near chemical plants.
Now lawmakers in Texas are aiming to address the gap in knowledge between the industry and the public with a bill that would require an Amber Alert-style warning to be sent out during chemical emergencies.
According to the Houston Chronicle, the bill would mandate the creation of a system that sends out a mobile alert if any chemical incident would “substantially endanger human health or the environment.” Residents could opt out of receiving the alerts if they want.
Currently, various government agencies are responsible for telling the public to chemical plant-related dangers, but there are times when no notification is sent at all.
Instead, the bill’s backers want the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality — who receive notifications from companies when there’s a toxic chemical release — to be in charge of sending out alerts.
However, because that reporting is based on information sent by the company, there is still the potential for the public to not be adequately warned. The Chronicle points out that during a 2014 accident that killed four workers at DuPont’s La Porte plant, the company official that initially called 911 said there was no risk to the public. But a later investigation by the U.S. Chemical Safety Board found that the pesticide chemical that was released during the accident could have ignited and exploded.
Despite potential flaws in the proposed system, local advocates for increased chemical safety hope the bill will be a good first step in the right direction.
http://www.chem.info/news/2017/02/state-lawmakers-introduce-amber-alert-style-bill-chemical-accidents
-
Trump Environment Adviser Seen as Moderate on Climate Front
Feb 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
A top adviser named to assist President Donald Trump on international energy and environmental issues is viewed as an experienced internationalist who could be a moderating force in Trump's decision to withdraw from or keep the U.S. in the Paris climate pact.
The selection of George David Banks—who worked for the Council on Environmental Quality under President George W. Bush and even received a climate protection award for his climate diplomacy efforts—will help fill a Trump White House vacuum in the arena of international energy and climate change.
Banks’ new White House position, special assistant to the president and senior director for international energy and environment, was announced Feb. 22 by the American Council for Capital Formation; Banks had worked at the ACCF for the last two years as executive vice president.
Banks’ “hands-on experience promoting greater energy security and expertise in international relations will be a great asset to the Trump White House,” ACCF President and CEO Mark Bloomfield said in a Feb. 22 statement announcing Banks’ departure. Banks’ selection is also a welcome sign for some advocates of U.S. climate action, who say he is a solid choice and could temper voices who are likely pushing Trump to make good on his campaign pledge to withdraw from the 2015 Paris climate pact.
“Based on his past performance, I'd say so,” one former State Department official told Bloomberg BNA. The former Obama administration official pointed to Banks’ Bush-era efforts to prod international action on methane and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), powerful greenhouse gas emissions sometimes called “super pollutants” because they are more powerful than carbon dioxide in driving the greenhouse effect.
A Paris Pledge Skeptic?
But Banks is far from an unwavering backer of the Paris Agreement, which was negotiated by President Barack Obama and reached by nearly 200 nations just 14 months ago. While at the ACCF, Banks was particularly skeptical of the U.S. pledge offered in the run-up to the Paris negotiations. The U.S. vowed it would cut emissions between 26 percent and 28 percent by 2025 from 2005 levels.
Banks authored a November 2015 paper while at the ACCF that argues the U.S. will almost surely fall short of that pledge; he also suggested that the carbon limits that account for the bulk of those reductions—EPA carbon pollution limits for power plants—are vulnerable to a legal challenge. Whether Banks was prescient or not is being worked out in the courts, but the power plant carbon limits now face an uncertain future under Trump.
The 2015 U.S. pledge also would require even more executive branch commitment by Obama's successor, Banks warned, and would likely mean the U.S. “would also need to regulate non-industrial sectors, including land use and agriculture” in the future. Any such regulation is largely seen as off-limits in Congress, particularly the agricultural sector.
Banks also worked closely with a top international climate negotiator in the Bush administration, Jim Connaughton, who led the White House Council on Environmental Quality for the entire eight years of Bush's presidency and represented the U.S. at talks under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The UNFCCC is essentially the parent treaty to the Paris climate agreement.
During Banks’ tenure as Connaughton's senior adviser on international affairs and climate change, the CEQ launched a new set of talks among the biggest emitting developed and developing nations. It was retained and ultimately rebranded under Obama as the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate.
Middle of Political Spectrum?
It was also during Banks’ CEQ tenure, from August 2006 to January 2009 when Obama took office, that the adviser was given the Climate Protection Award by the EPA, in recognition for his work on climate diplomacy. He was the only Bush political appointee to be given such an award, according to the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development, where Banks worked after departing the Bush administration.
The 2009 climate diplomacy award recipient drew praise at the time from the Sierra Club, which said Banks worked “to get what he could out of the Bush administration” in the international climate arena, according to a 2009 statement from John Coequyt, the Sierra Club's senior climate and energy representative.
The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, the majority owner of Bloomberg L.P., parent of Bloomberg BNA.
But Banks isn't seen as quite the environmental advocate on Capitol Hill. There he is viewed as more of an “establishment Republican,” said one Senate Environment and Public Works Committee aide, who says Banks is already well-regarded in diplomatic circles. “Dave Banks has a good relationship with embassies, and that's something they certainly can use” in the new administration, the aide told Bloomberg BNA.
More difficult, the aide said, is gauging whether Banks will be welcomed by more conservative voices in Trump's administration who argue that the president should withdraw not only from the Paris climate deal but also the UNFCCC parent treaty. Environmental groups probably would prefer an ardent supporter of the Paris deal; conservatives probably would opt for one who would put the Paris pact on the chopping block, the aide said.But Banks, the committee aide said, is most likely somewhere in the middle ideologically.
Along the political spectrum where a “one” ranking would be considered most conservative and a 10 a very enthusiastic backer of the Paris deal, Banks would probably be seen as somewhere in the middle, the aide said: a “five.”
“He's more conservative than Connaughton,” Banks’ one-time boss at CEQ, the aide said, before pausing to further mull Bank's record. “Or maybe a 4.5.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=106122284&vname=dennotallissues&fn=106122284&jd=106122284
-
Industry Groups Detail Challenge To HFC Refrigerant Rules
Feb 23, 2017 | Inside EPA
An industry coalition says it will challenge what it calls EPA's unlawful expansion of Clean Air Act refrigerant handling rules to cover “substitute” chemicals with lower global warming potential (GWP), in a suit testing EPA's ability to impose leak-prevention measures on hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) climate-warming refrigerants.
In its Feb. 17 statement of issues in the consolidated case National Environmental Development Association's Clean Air Project (NEDA/CAP) v. EPA, now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Air Permitting Forum (APF), representing a range of industry groups including auto industry firms, says that EPA's expansion of leak prevention measures to HFCs is unlawful.
EPA in a Nov. 18 final rule updated provisions limiting leaks of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) used for refrigeration, issued under air law section 608. The rule further expanded the section 608 provisions to “substitute” refrigerants -- HFCs -- with lower ozone-depleting power, but higher GWP.
The rule is one of several where EPA has sought to address HFCs' GWP via its authority that critics charge is intended only to regulate the chemicals' ozone-depleting properties. Such measures formed an important part of the Obama administration's climate policy agenda. But a D.C. Circuit panel expressed skepticism during recent oral arguments that the agency has such authority when it crafted a rule removing several high GWP HFCs from a list of acceptable chemicals.
APF says in its statement of issues that it will examine whether “EPA’s decision to expand the scope of the refrigerant management requirements by including 'substitutes' in the rule applicability along with Class I And Class II refrigerants is arbitrary and capricious or otherwise contrary to law.”
APF and the Auto Industry Forum -- collectively known as “the Forum” -- in joint Jan. 25, 2016, comments on the proposed version of the leak-prevention rule said, “The Forum does not support significantly expanding the scope of the current rule to apply the detailed management requirements to all substitutes. EPA has not demonstrated that the rule expansion is cost-effective, necessary for ozone protection for all substitutes, and legally justified.”
Further, “EPA is using [air law] Section 608 authority to regulate chemicals based on global warming potential, which is not the original intent of this section,” they argued.
In its statement of issues, APF says it will further test the legality of EPA's decision to amend the definition of “appliance” to include “motor vehicle air conditioner,” EPA's new recordkeeping requirements for “persons evacuating refrigerant from appliances” and whether EPA failed to give proper public notice or opportunity for comment on some of the changes.
Meanwhile, NEDA/CAP in its Feb. 17 statement of issues raises other questions over whether the leak detection and repair requirements; provisions requiring retrofit or retirement of appliances; and compliance deadlines are “unreasonable,” arbitrary or capricious, or otherwise inconsistent with law. The group also alleges that the agency failed to provide the data underlying the technical basis asserted for the rule.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/industry-groups-detail-challenge-hfc-refrigerant-rules
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested