Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 3/15/2017
-
Agency Self-Reviews to Commence Under Executive Order
Mar 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Cheryl Bolen
President Donald Trump signed an executive order that will start a government-wide review to determine where federal programs can be eliminated or modified and costs saved. -
(ACC Mentioned) Tainted Research: Not Just a Chemical, Industry Problem
Mar 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Chemical manufacturers can write research contracts to block their ability to influence final results, but the perception their research will be tainted remains. -
(ACC Mentioned) Correction: CNS-Foam Ban story
Mar 14, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
n a story published March 10 by The Associated Press about legislation to ban foam food packaging, Capital News Service reported erroneously that Dr. Richard Bruno opposes a bill to ban foam carriers from Maryland food businesses. He supports the bill. -
Monsanto Accused of Ghostwriting Papers on Roundup Cancer Risk
Mar 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joel Rosenblatt
Monsanto Co. was accused in court documents of ghostwriting scientific literature that led a U.S. regulator to conclude a key chemical in its Roundup weed killer shouldn't be classified as carcinogenic. -
Unsealed Documents Raise Questions on Monsanto Weed Killer
Mar 14, 2017 | The New York Times
By Danny Hakim
The reputation of Roundup, whose active ingredient is the world’s most widely used weed killer, took a hit on Tuesday when a federal court unsealed documents raising questions about its safety and the research practices of its manufacturer, the chemical giant Monsanto. -
European Parliament Greenlights Tighter Mercury Controls
Mar 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
European Parliament lawmakers March 14 rubber-stamped a draft European Union regulation that will tighten controls on the sale and use of mercury, and will bring the EU in line with the provisions of the United Nations Minamata Convention on Mercury. -
House Democrats Seek Investigation of EPA Chief Scott Pruitt
Mar 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
House Democrats are calling on the EPA inspector general to investigate EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's alleged ties to the oil and gas industry. -
Senators Hope Trump Plan Eases Regulatory 'Dog Pile'
Mar 15, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey
Senators are hoping President Trump's $1 trillion infrastructure package could also serve as a vehicle for untangling a regulatory "dog pile" that's delaying the construction of high-voltage power lines, hydroelectric plants, and oil and gas pipelines. -
Maryland House Advances Fracking Ban 97-40
Mar 14, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jeremiah Shelor
A state ban on hydraulic fracturing (fracking) is gaining momentum in the Maryland General Assembly. -
Gas Glut Reverses Lucrative 2016 Trade
Mar 14, 2017 | The Wall Street Journal
By Timothy Puk
A flood of natural gas swamping the U.S. is turning into a global glut, sinking prices and dimming the hopes of American producers to export their way out of an oversupplied domestic market. -
(ACC Mentioned) Delay of Chemical Plant Rule Could Make Congressional Action Moot
Mar 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
The EPA took a first step this week to unwind an Obama administration regulation on chemical plant safety, the agency announced late March 13, a path that could reduce requirements for operators. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Petition Tees Up Issues For Revised EPA RMP Rule, Litigation
Mar 15, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
The industry petition that prompted the Trump administration to agree to reconsider the Obama-era overhaul of EPA's risk management plan (RMP) facility accident prevention program tees up numerous issues on which the agency may seek public input, including the threshold question of whether the finding that arson caused the fire that drove the rulemaking undermines the need for the final rule. -
(ACC Mentioned) At Industry's Request, EPA Stays Risk Management Program Rule For Three Months
Mar 14, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), acting on a request from several trade associations, including the oil and gas industry, issued a three-month stay of a rule designed to help prevent accidents and explosions at refineries and other industrial facilities. -
EPA Delays Chemical Storage Rule Amid Terrorism Fear
Mar 14, 2017 | AP (In The New York Times)
The Trump administration is delaying a new rule tightening safety requirements for companies that store large quantities of dangerous chemicals. The rule was imposed after a fertilizer plant in West, Texas, exploded in 2013, killing 15 people. -
Cantwell Alarmed By Threats To Energy, Urges Trump To Act
Mar 15, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey
Senate Energy and Natural Resources ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) yesterday pushed back against rumors that President Trump is preparing to sign an executive order giving the Department of Homeland Security more authority to tackle cyberthreats. -
(ACC Mentioned) Expect Delays: How Transportation Problems Could Put The Brakes on Chemical Industry Growth
Mar 15, 2017 | Chem.Info
By Meagan Parrish
Thanks to the abundance of cheap natural gas, the industry is poised to see a wave of new plant openings and expansions that will amount to $50 billion of $160 billion in total manufacturing investment that’s been in the works since 2012. -
Emissions Rule Reviews Must Be Completed by 2020: Court
Mar 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The EPA will have three years to complete a series of legally required reviews of emissions standards covering boat manufacturers, municipal landfills and various other sources of hazardous air pollutants. -
Trump Said to Drop Climate Change From Environmental Reviews
Mar 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
President Donald Trump is set to sign a sweeping directive to dramatically shrink the role climate change plays in decisions across the government, ranging from appliance standards to pipeline approvals, according to a person familiar with the administration's plan. -
Pruitt Wants to Improve Air Quality by Partnering With Localities
Mar 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The EPA should be a partner with states and localities on improving air quality, rather than an adversary, the agency's administrator said at a conference of city leaders. -
9th Circuit To Hear Suit Over SO2 NAAQS Designations Consent Decree
Mar 15, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit will hear oral argument March 16 in litigation filed by several states seeking to overturn a federal district court approval of a consent decree between the Sierra Club and EPA setting a deadline for issuing findings of which areas are attaining the agency's sulfur dioxide (SO2) air standard. -
Trump's Order Expected To Target Host Of Obama Climate Policies
Mar 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
President Donald Trump is slated to sign an executive order March 15 ordering a review of EPA's vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG) rules though the president is also expected to sign another order in the coming days targeting a host of other climate change regulations issued by EPA and other agencies in the Obama administration. -
Bipartisan Letter Urges Tillerson To Stick With Deal
Mar 15, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Hess
House lawmakers who prioritize climate action this week sent Secretary of State Rex Tillerson a letter, urging him to make the case within the Trump administration for sticking with the Paris Agreement.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Agency Self-Reviews to Commence Under Executive Order
Mar 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Cheryl Bolen
President Donald Trump signed an executive order that will start a government-wide review to determine where federal programs can be eliminated or modified and costs saved.
The March 13 order requires a “thorough examination” of every executive branch department and agency to identify where money is being wasted, how services can be improved and whether programs are truly serving the public, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said.
“This is the beginning of a long-overdue reorganization of the federal government, and another significant step towards the president's often-stated goal of making it more efficient, effective and accountable to the American people,” Spicer said.
According to a White House fact sheet, the order, titled “Comprehensive Plan for Reorganizing the Executive Branch,” directs Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney to submit a plan to reorganize all executive branch departments and agencies.
Obama Tried
During his second term in office, former President Barack Obama repeatedly asked Congress for the authority to consolidate and reorganize the federal government.
Most recently, in July 2013, Obama directed his Cabinet to develop an aggressive management agenda for his second term that would make government smarter, more innovative and accountable to the public.
For more than 50 years, presidents were able to streamline or consolidate the executive branch by submitting a proposal to Congress that was guaranteed a simple up-or-down vote. But in 1984, during the Reagan administration, Congress stopped granting that authority.
“As the administration puts together a plan, congressional action is necessary to fix many of the larger instances of duplication and waste throughout the federal government,” Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) said in a statement. “I look forward to working with the administration to develop this important legislation.”
Self-Review
Under the new order, the OMB will ask each department and agency to submit a detailed report within 180 days containing concrete ideas to improve efficiency, effectiveness and accountability, the fact sheet said. The president will then work with Congress to put these plans and suggestions into practice, it said.
It is unclear whether Mulvaney has a numeric target in mind, either in terms of reducing the size of government or cost savings, Spicer said during a daily press briefing at the White House.
Instead, the idea is to go through each program to see what it does or doesn't do, and whether it is bloated, duplicative, outdated or in need of new technology, Spicer said.
“There's no set number that we're driving down to, as we review government,” Spicer said.
Blueprint for Action
Sometimes when programs are reviewed, their mission is found to be no longer relevant, or are duplicated in three other agencies, or there are too many people performing a function that no longer exists, Spicer said.
“That's why the mission is critical, that Director Mulvaney was given the mandate to go out and get all of these different agencies and departments to review themselves and to provide feedback for him as to where we can go,” Spicer said.
During a signing ceremony in the Oval Office surrounded by Cabinet members, Trump said he wanted to empower them to make their agencies as lean and effective as possible.
“Today there's duplication and redundancy everywhere,” Trump said. “Billions and billions of dollars are being wasted on activities that are not [producing] results for hard-working American taxpayers, and not even coming close.”
According to the fact sheet, as part of the agency review process, all Americans will be able to submit suggestions and ideas on how to make government work better for them.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107234217&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107234217&jd=107234217
-
(ACC Mentioned) Tainted Research: Not Just a Chemical, Industry Problem
Mar 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Chemical manufacturers can write research contracts to block their ability to influence final results, but the perception their research will be tainted remains.
Nor is industry the only source of biased research, speakers at the Society of Toxicology's annual meeting said during a March 13 session on bias and conflicts of interest in scientific research.
Concerns about biased science fuel public distrust of industry-funded data and spark frustration among companies that maintain that good science is ignored. Conversely, critics of climate change and other environmental and health concerns are pursuing legislation that opponents say undermines the science that agencies can consider.
People distrust industry-sponsored science because of what they read, said Kevin Elliott, a science philosopher teaching at Michigan State University.
He pointed to a January Scientific American article summarizing research that showed about half the studies published on new medical treatments omit the adverse effects their researchers uncovered. He also pointed to a September 2016 New York Times article summarizing research concluding the Sugar Research Foundation supported studies to downplay the role sugar had in heart problems and instead point the finger at fat as the culprit.
Industry-funded biomedical studies are roughly four times more likely than non-industry funded studies to yield results favorable to industry, Elliott said.
Such concerns have translated into policy considerations. Guidance on systematic review that the National Toxicology Program released, for example, said source of funding could contribute to a “risk of bias.” The program defined bias as some type of flaw in the study's design that could result in a study over- or underestimating the problem the research is investigating.
Put Protections in Contracts
hemical manufacturers and other industry sponsors of research can enhance the credibility of the studies they fund through the contracts they write, said Richard Becker, a toxicologist with the American Chemistry Council .
The contracts can give investigators legal control over the study design, the authority to analyze and interpret results, and the right to publish, he said.
Research contracts the chemistry council's Long-Range Research Initiative writes, Becker said, include requirements that:
• researchers own the data
• scientific conclusions are the researchers’ and not subject to the council's control; and
• researchers should submit their findings to peer-reviewed journals and disclose the council's funding.
Studies “must be judged on their merits through the application of consistent criteria regarding quality, relevance and reliability,” Becker said. They should be evaluated without regard to the funder or the affiliation, gender, religion or political beliefs of investigators, he added.
Companies may have to adjust such criteria for particular studies such as those involving research that must be kept confidential to protect a company from competitors, Becker told Bloomberg BNA. In such cases, the researcher and appropriate reviewers, including federal agencies, must have access to the data, he said.
Conflicts in Academia
Industry funding isn't the only problem, said Norbert Kaminski, director of Michigan State University's Institute for Integrative Toxicology.
Academics are under tremendous pressure to find grants that fund up to 50 percent of their own salaries, according to Kaminski.
They're also under pressure to publish, he said.
There's a general perception among academics that “you won't get tenure and won't get promoted if you're generating a lot of negative data,” Kaminski said. Negative data means research results that do not find a problem.
Yet the results of academic research can have a huge impact on industries and government regulations, he said.
Elephant in the Room
Other types of conflicts are undermining the science that agencies use, said Rita Schoeny, a risk assessment and science policy consultant who recently retired as a senior science adviser at the Environmental Protection Agency.
The elephant in the room, Schoeny said, is the attempt to undermine science that agencies fund and use as part of the Trump administration's and Congress's broader efforts to dismantle EPA programs.
She pointed to legislation such as the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act, H.R. 1431, which the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee approved March 9 by a largely party-line vote.
The bill would bar anyone receiving grants from the EPA from serving on the advisory board and prohibit them from applying for a grant or contract for three years following their service.
The EPA already has many procedures in place to safeguard its advisory panels from individuals with conflicts of interest, Schoeny said. She listed more than a half-dozen guidance document, including “Conflicts of Interest Review Process for Contractor-Managed Peer Reviews of EPA Highly Influential Scientific Assessment (HISA) and Influential Scientific Information (ISI) Documents.”
The agency's safeguards “work rather well,” Schoeny said.
Science Inherently Uncertain
The public's inability to appreciate—and scientists’ failure to communicate—the inherent uncertainty of science has resulted in attacks that could undermine science, speakers and audience members said.
The challenge for scientists, Becker said, is to better explain why they have sufficient confidence in particular scientific information to use it to make decisions despite its uncertainties.
“Explaining why we are confident about using particular information might be a good area going forward,” he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107234246&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=499850500&searchid=29548709&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0
-
(ACC Mentioned) Correction: CNS-Foam Ban story
Mar 14, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
ANNAPOLIS, Md. — In a story published March 10 by The Associated Press about legislation to ban foam food packaging, Capital News Service reported erroneously that Dr. Richard Bruno opposes a bill to ban foam carriers from Maryland food businesses. He supports the bill.
A corrected version of the story is below:
Bill may ban foam to-go food containers in Maryland
All expanded polystyrene products used for packaging food products, including foam carriers, could be banned from all Maryland food businesses if pending legislation is passed in the General Assembly this session
By CARA NEWCOMER
Capital News Service
ANNAPOLIS, Md. — All expanded polystyrene products used for packaging food products, including foam carriers, could be banned from all Maryland food businesses if pending legislation is passed in the General Assembly this session.
The legislation, sponsored in the House by Delegate Brooke Lierman, D-Baltimore, will prohibit a person or business from selling or providing food in an expanded polystyrene food service product beginning Jan. 1, according to a Department of Legislative Services fiscal analysis. The bill, which has also been cross-filed in the state Senate, also bans the sale and use of loose fill packaging.
The fiscal analysis defines the banned material as “a product made of expanded polystyrene that is used for selling or providing food.” This means the bill would ban food containers, plates, hot and cold beverage cups, meat and vegetable trays and egg cartons made of expanded polystyrene.
“Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) is the generic industry name for the white rigid material made by expanding polystyrene beads with steam and pressure to bond the beads together to form blocks or to shape molds,” according to Universal Foam Products.
Styrofoam, a registered trademark and a type of expanded polystyrene, is not included in the bill, according to the Department of Legislative Services report. “Although foam coffee cups and plates are often referred to as ‘Styrofoam,’ that terminology is incorrect,” the fiscal analysis said. Styrofoam is generally used in industrial settings for building materials and pipe insulation, according to the report.
Lierman said in a Feb. 15 House Environment and Transportation Committee hearing that this bill is an extension of a concept that has already been enacted in some areas. Montgomery County, Prince George’s County, the city of Gaithersburg and the city of Takoma Park have prohibitions on expanded polystyrene already in place.
Dr. Richard Bruno, a doctor of medicine who works at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, gave written testimony Feb. 15 in support of the bill, saying styrene, a chemical found in expanded polystyrene, is a threat to health, waterways and ecosystems.
Delegate Al Carr, D-Montgomery, said it is important to make this a statewide ban because it is a statewide issue and the ban has been successful locally.
“Businesses and government agencies have been able to adapt and have not seen an increase in their costs,” Carr said. “I have been receiving many emails from constituents in favor of the bill.”
“It is important to make it a statewide ban so that the prices of alternative products go down,” Lierman told the University of Maryland’s Capital News Service. Lierman pointed to California, saying when businesses there made the transition to stock alternative recyclables the prices changed. “(Expanded polystyrene) is now more expensive than recyclable products in California,” Lierman said.
Restaurants, fast food restaurants, cafes, supermarkets or grocery stores, vending trucks or carts, movie theaters, and business or institutional cafeterias would all be food service businesses affected by this bill, according to the fiscal analysis.
“Enacting a statewide ban on polystyrene foodservice packaging will level the playing field for businesses across the state,” Nick Rudolph, President of Pigtown Main Street in Baltimore, said in his testimony to the House committee.
Dart Container Corp., a national company that manufactures cups, plates, containers, lids and straws made from such materials as expanded polystyrene foam, solid polystyrene, polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate, paper and sugar cane, opposes the bill.
Dart employs 630 Marylanders with another 50 open positions in high-paying, rural manufacturing jobs, according Paul Poe, Government Affairs and the Environment Manager at Dart. Poe said Dart is also planning to open a third facility in the state, in Havre de Grace.
Poe specified in testimony that expanded polystyrene is recyclable and Dart has created a program to accept expanded polystyrene items and recycle them with drop-off and pick-up options.
Delegate Christopher Adams, R-Caroline, Dorchester, Talbot and Wicomico, said in the House committee meeting that Dart’s stance on the bill should be considered. Since the company creates jobs for Marylanders, the state should do no harm to the company, Adams said.
“This bill is our hope for a cleaner and healthier future, to neighborhoods with less toxic trash, air and water,” Claire Wayner, a high school junior at Baltimore Polytechnic Institute in Baltimore County and founding member of Baltimore Beyond Plastic, an organization created to teach students the problems with plastics like polystyrene and elevate their reactions against it, said in her Feb. 15 testimony to the House Environment and Transportation Committee.
“At Baltimore City public schools, lunch is served on polystyrene trays, and as many students are economically disadvantaged, it’s not possible to refuse a lunch . when it may be your only food you’ll see that day,” Wayner said.
“Baltimore City schools serve daily lunch on EPS trays to 83,000 students a year,” according to a Baltimore Office of Sustainability Feb. 15 letter.
“Using compostable paper trays, plates, and other containers in place of EPS would make food recovery efforts much more feasible, because users can simply place their tray and all leftover food directly into a compost container, rather than having to separate out trash and compost,” the organization said in its letter.
“Around 1 percent of the trash properly disposed of and sent to landfills is expanded polystyrene, but up to 40 percent of litter found in and along water streams is expanded polystyrene,” according to Lierman. “That shows the disproportionate amount of (expanded polystyrene) that is recycled and littered.”
Prince George’s County Department of the Environment Director Adam Ortiz told the House committee it costs $60 per ton to process expanded polystyrene food products, but when they are able to compost the alternative recyclable products, they make money.
Baltimore City, Caroline, Howard and Washington counties accept polystyrene plastics for recycling, but the rest of the Maryland jurisdictions do not, according to the analysis.
“Growing up in neighborhoods that are full of trash, it’s hard to not self-identify with the image of trash,” Wayner said in her testimony.
“Forcing businesses to use alternative products does not reduce litter; it simply changes in composition,” Melvin Thompson, senior vice president of the Maryland Restaurant Association said in a Feb. 15 letter to the committee.
Lierman said that she understands people who litter with foam containers will probably continue to litter with alternatives, but the alternatives are better for the environment and easier to pick up than the expanded polystyrene products.
There are also health risks for consumers who use expanded polystyrene containers, according to Lierman. When expanded polystyrene is heated, it leaches styrene into the food or liquid that is in the containers, Lierman said.
“Styrene, the main ingredient in (expanded polystyrene), has been listed as a possible carcinogen by both the International Agency for Research on cancer and the National Toxicology Program since 2002,” Bruno wrote in his testimony.
“The general public is exposed to 20 mg of styrene annually,” according to Bruno. “This toxin has no place in our bodies, schools, restaurants or homes.”
But the American Chemistry Council referred to a 2013 study completed by the Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group in its Feb. 15 written testimony that said “current exposures to styrene from the use of polystyrene food contact products remain extremely low, with the estimated daily intake calculated at 6.6 micrograms per person per day.”
“This is more than 10,000 times below the safety limit set by the FDA,” the organization said. “The FDAs acceptable daily intake value of styrene is calculated to be 90,000 micrograms per person per day.”
The fiscal analysis said the effect on small businesses and the state will be minimal. There will be an increased cost to the state of $19,300 in the 2018 fiscal year in order to conduct the education and outreach campaign, but will decrease to zero after one year.
“County health departments must enforce the bill’s prohibitions and may impose a penalty of up to $250 on violators,” according to the fiscal analysis. Health departments must issue a written notice of the business’ or person’s violation and allow three months to correct the violation before a fine can be issued.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/correction-cns-foam-ban-story/2017/03/14/40fb3024-08f1-11e7-bd19-fd3afa0f7e2a_story.html?utm_term=.73bf0ee6216a
-
Monsanto Accused of Ghostwriting Papers on Roundup Cancer Risk
Mar 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joel Rosenblatt
Monsanto Co. was accused in court documents of ghostwriting scientific literature that led a U.S. regulator to conclude a key chemical in its Roundup weed killer shouldn't be classified as carcinogenic.
Lawyers suing the company on behalf of farmers and others, who claim exposure to glyphosate caused their non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, alleged in a court filing which was partially blacked out until March 14 that the Environmental Protection Agency “may be unaware of Monsanto's deceptive authorship practice.”
The filing was made public by a federal judge in San Francisco handling the litigation. The judge said last month he's inclined to require a retired EPA official to submit to questioning by plaintiffs’ lawyers who contend he had a “ highly suspicious” relationship with Monsanto. The former official oversaw a committee that found insufficient evidence to conclude glyphosate causes cancer and left his job last year after his report was leaked to the press.
The plaintiff lawyers said in the filing that Monsanto's toxicology manager and his boss were ghost writers for two of the reports, including one from 2000, that the EPA committee relied on to reach its conclusion.
Among the documents unsealed March 14 was a February 2015 internal email exchange at the company about how to contain costs for a research paper. The plaintiff lawyers cited it to support their claim that the EPA report is unreliable, unlike a report by an international agency that classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen.
“A less expensive/more palatable approach” is to rely on experts only for some areas of contention, while “we ghost-write the Exposure Tox & Genetox sections,” one Monsanto employee wrote to another.
The names of outside scientists could be listed on the publication, “but we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak,” according to the email, which goes to on say that's how Monsanto handled the 2000 study.
A company spokeswoman had no immediate response to a request for comment on the court filings.
—With assistance from Lydia Mulvany.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107234239&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107234239&jd=107234239
-
Unsealed Documents Raise Questions on Monsanto Weed Killer
Mar 14, 2017 | The New York Times
By Danny Hakim
The reputation of Roundup, whose active ingredient is the world’s most widely used weed killer, took a hit on Tuesday when a federal court unsealed documents raising questions about its safety and the research practices of its manufacturer, the chemical giant Monsanto.
Roundup and similar products are used around the world on everything from row crops to home gardens. It is Monsanto’s flagship product, and industry-funded research has long found it to be relatively safe. A case in federal court in San Francisco has challenged that conclusion, building on the findings of an international panel that claimed Roundup’s main ingredient might cause cancer.
The court documents included Monsanto’s internal emails and email traffic between the company and federal regulators. The records suggested that Monsanto had ghostwritten research that was later attributed to academics and indicated that a senior official at the Environmental Protection Agency had worked to quash a review of Roundup’s main ingredient, glyphosate, that was to have been conducted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.
The documents also revealed that there was some disagreement within the E.P.A. over its own safety assessment.Continue reading the main story
AdvertisementContinue reading the main story
The files were unsealed by Judge Vince Chhabria, who is presiding over litigation brought by people who claim to have developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma as a result of exposure to glyphosate. The litigation was touched off by a determination made nearly two years ago by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization, that glyphosate was a probable carcinogen, citing research linking it to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Court records show that Monsanto was tipped off to the determination by a deputy division director at the E.P.A., Jess Rowland, months beforehand. That led the company to prepare a public relations assault on the finding well in advance of its publication. Monsanto executives, in their internal email traffic, also said Mr. Rowland had promised to beat back an effort by the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct its own review.
Dan Jenkins, a Monsanto executive, said in an email in 2015 that Mr. Rowland, referring to the other agency’s potential review, had told him, “If I can kill this, I should get a medal.” The review never took place. In another email, Mr. Jenkins noted to a colleague that Mr. Rowland was planning to retire and said he “could be useful as we move forward with ongoing glyphosate defense.”
The safety of glyphosate is not settled science. A number of agencies, including the European Food Safety Agency and the E.P.A., have disagreed with the international cancer agency, playing down concerns of a cancer risk, and Monsanto has vigorously defended glyphosate.
But the court records also reveal a level of debate within the E.P.A. The agency’s Office of Research and Development raised some concern about the robustness of an assessment carried out by the agency’s Office of Pesticide Programs, where Mr. Rowland was a senior official at the time, and recommended in December 2015 that it take steps to “strengthen” its “human health assessment.”
In a statement, Monsanto said, “Glyphosate is not a carcinogen.”
It added: “The allegation that glyphosate can cause cancer in humans is inconsistent with decades of comprehensive safety reviews by the leading regulatory authorities around the world. The plaintiffs have submitted isolated documents that are taken out of context.”
The E.P.A. had no immediate comment, and Mr. Rowland could not be reached immediately.
Monsanto also rebutted suggestions that the disclosures highlighted concerns that the academic research it underwrites is compromised. Monsanto frequently cites such research to back up its safety claims on Roundup and pesticides.
In one email unsealed Tuesday, William F. Heydens, a Monsanto executive, told other company officials that they could ghostwrite research on glyphosate by hiring academics to put their names on papers that were actually written by Monsanto. “We would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak,” Mr. Heydens wrote, citing a previous instance in which he said the company had done this.
Asked about the exchange, Monsanto said in a second statement that its “scientists did not ghostwrite the paper” that was referred to or previous work, adding that a paper that eventually appeared “underwent the journal’s rigorous peer review process before it was published.”
David Kirkland, one of the scientists mentioned in the email, said in an interview, “I would not publish a document that had been written by someone else.” He added, “We had no interaction with Monsanto at all during the process of reviewing the data and writing the papers.”
The disclosures are the latest to raise concerns about the integrity of academic research financed by agrochemical companies. Last year, a review by The New York Times showed how the industry can manipulate academic research or misstate findings. Declarations of interest included in a Monsanto-financed paper on glyphosate that appeared in the journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology said panel members were recruited by a consulting firm. Email traffic made public shows that Monsanto officials discussed and debated scientists who should be considered, and shaped the project.
“I think it’s important that people hold Monsanto accountable when they say one thing and it’s completely contradicted by very frank internal documents,” said Timothy Litzenburg of the Miller Firm, one of the law firms handling the litigation.
The issue of glyphosate’s safety is not a trivial one for Americans. Over the last two decades, Monsanto has genetically re-engineered corn, soybeans and cotton so it is much easier to spray them with the weed killer, and some 220 million pounds of glyphosate were used in 2015 in the United States.
“People should know that there are superb scientists in the world who would disagree with Monsanto and some of the regulatory agencies’ evaluations, and even E.P.A. has disagreement within the agency,” said Robin Greenwald, a lawyer at Weitz & Luxembourg, which is also involved in the litigation. “Even in the E.U., there’s been a lot of disagreement among the countries. It’s not so simple as Monsanto makes it out to be.“
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/business/monsanto-roundup-safety-lawsuit.html?mtrref=query.nytimes.com&mtrref=www.nytimes.com&gwh=82691E59F8E11331D6362C02D3777C6C&gwt=pay&_r=0
-
European Parliament Greenlights Tighter Mercury Controls
Mar 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
European Parliament lawmakers March 14 rubber-stamped a draft European Union regulation that will tighten controls on the sale and use of mercury, and will bring the EU in line with the provisions of the United Nations Minamata Convention on Mercury.
The hazardous metal is “among the 10 most harmful naturally occurring substances on our planet,” said Stefan Eck, a German environmentalist who was the Parliament's lead lawmaker on the draft mercury law. The revised EU law would limit its use and put pressure on member countries to clean up contaminated sites.
The new regulation would repeal and replace current EU controls on mercury, which are set out in a 2008 law (Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008) that, among other things, bans mercury exports from the EU and specifies criteria for storing waste mercury. Under the new regulation, mercury imports into the EU would be allowed only for certain applications, and the manufacture, import and export of a range of products that contain mercury would be prohibited after Dec. 31, 2020.
The ban would apply to most cosmetics, pesticides and biocides, for example, as well as most non-electronic measuring devices such as thermometers and blood-pressure gauges. The rules also would allow mercury to be used in dental amalgam only if it's encapsulated and would require dentists to collect separately waste containing mercury, similar to rules in the U.S.
In addition, the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, would be required to make publicly available an inventory of sites in the EU contaminated by mercury within three years of the date the regulation takes effect.
The draft regulation's tighter controls are in line with the requirements of the Minamata Convention, which was agreed in 2013. It aims to protect human health and the environment from harmful effects of mercury.
The European Parliament in Strasbourg, France, approved the draft regulation in a 699–8 vote, with 28 abstentions.
To be finalized, the regulation must be formally adopted by the Council of the EU. The regulation would go into effect Jan. 1, 2018.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107234230&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107234230&jd=107234230
-
House Democrats Seek Investigation of EPA Chief Scott Pruitt
Mar 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
House Democrats are calling on the EPA inspector general to investigate EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's alleged ties to the oil and gas industry.
Reports of Pruitt's coordination with energy businesses and his work with other Republican attorneys general to fight Environmental Protection Agency rules in recent years raise concerns about conflicts of interest, House Energy and Commerce Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and other Democrats told Inspector General Arthur A. Elkins Jr. March 13.
House Democrats had been basically silent on Pruitt until now, as the EPA administrator enters his fourth week in office.
The EPA under Pruitt, acting on a presidential order, launched a review of the agency's rule that clarified which waters can be protected by the Clean Water Act. The EPA's new goal is to rescind or revise the rule.
The EPA also quashed a request to have the oil and natural gas industry provide information on methane emissions in response to complaints from several state attorneys general and governors.
Conflict of Interest Policies
Pallone and other Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee also pointed to Pruitt's use of private email to conduct professional business in his previous post. Pruitt testified that he only used his state email address.
The Democrats asked Elkins to outline conflict of interest laws and EPA policies, as well as ethics training Pruitt may have received.
“Your investigation will help us better understand the role your office will play in ensuring strict adherence to such rules and guidelines, and how EPA and its new management will address these concerns,” the lawmakers said.
Uncovered Emails
Pruitt raised hundreds of thousands of dollars from energy companies for political campaigns in Oklahoma, and political action committees affiliated with the former attorney general continued to raise money in the lead-up to the announcement of his nomination in December, news reports and environmental groups say.
Meanwhile, the Center for Media and Democracy, a watchdog group, is still litigating the release of thousands of emails sent between Pruitt's office when he was attorney general and fossil fuel companies, including Peabody Energy Inc., Arch Coal Inc., Murray Energy Corp. and Devon Energy Corp.
Republicans said Pruitt was vetted in a seven-hour confirmation hearing and was cleared by the Office of Government Ethics.
Carbon Comment Furor
Democrats, conservation groups and scientists criticized Pruitt for saying that carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of climate change.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, urged Pruitt to preserve the EPA's endangerment finding, which identified carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases as public health threats.
“Claiming carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to global warming is scientifically false,” Carper told Pruitt in a March 13 letter. “Ignoring climate change, or the science underpinning it, will not make it go way; instead it will only make solving the problem even more difficult and expensive.”
Speaking on CNBC March 9, Pruitt said he “would not agree” carbon dioxide is a lead cause of global warming. Pruitt repeatedly said human activity contributed in “some manner” to climate change during Senate testimony, but declined to comment further.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107234218&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107234218&jd=107234218
-
Senators Hope Trump Plan Eases Regulatory 'Dog Pile'
Mar 15, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey
Senators are hoping President Trump's $1 trillion infrastructure package could also serve as a vehicle for untangling a regulatory "dog pile" that's delaying the construction of high-voltage power lines, hydroelectric plants, and oil and gas pipelines.
Case in point yesterday was Dominion Energy's 14-month wait for the National Park Service to review its application to survey one-tenth of a mile of its proposed Atlantic Coast natural gas pipeline. A Dominion executive pointed out that it took just one day to craft the application to survey that section.
"It causes you to wonder how we get anything done around here," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, where yesterday's hearing was held.
Murkowski questioned a 10-year timeline for relicensing an existing hydropower project at a cost of up to $50 million. She then pointed to Royal Dutch Shell PLC abandoning its efforts to drill for oil in the Arctic Sea in 2015 after dedicating seven years and $7 billion to the plan.
Senators made clear they hope last year's energy package that stalled on the Hill will serve as a resource as the infrastructure package moves forward, and Murkowski said she hopes to pass language streamlining hydropower licensing.
Interest is also growing off the Hill. A number of groups, including the American Wind Energy Association and Solar Energy Industries Association, stressed they are also eyeing the infrastructure package as a way to foster upgrades to the electric grid.
"Unlike that of many other forms of infrastructure, the obstacles to expanding and modernizing our grid are mainly related to policies and regulatory practices, not a shortage of taxpayer dollars," the groups wrote.
Yet an open question was whether such regulatory roadblocks would dog Trump's infrastructure push.
"We can have as many shovel-ready projects as we can possibly line up on paper, but when we meet the regulatory overlay or delay or just the bureaucracy that unfortunately hits," Murkowski continued, "it really does complicate so much of what we do."
Senators are also facing a tricky balancing act of fast-tracking what can be costly and time-consuming interagency reviews without short-circuiting environmental and safety reviews.
Clay Koplin, CEO of Cordova Electric Cooperative, told the committee how costs and timelines doubled multiple times throughout the years due to an "ineffective regulatory framework" for the company's projects in Alaska.
Koplin shared other stories in which the company was facing a "regulatory dog pile," a complex overlay of requirements that Murkowski personally helped sort out.
Koplin suggested assembling experts eager to push projects forward but said it's unclear how to ease developers' burdens. "It's a trillion-dollar question, how do you streamline the regulatory process?" Koplin said.
Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) asked Koplin why it was taking so long to license power that's renewable and signaled interest in "right-sizing" the regulatory framework for hydropower licensing, an issue that's prevalent in Maine.
But King quickly noted lawmakers aren't interested in gutting environmental or safety protections, saying, "We don't want to give up the regulatory regime altogether, but it's about ... scaling the requirements ... to the size of the project."
Murkowski echoed that sentiment, asking how energy developers "crawl out from underneath" the regulatory "dog pile" without abandoning existing rules for safety and protecting the environment.
"We don't want to abandon the regulations that allow for safety and good environmental considerations," Murkowski said. "But we want to allow for a process that's a workable process and one that's fair to the investors, fair the project and fair to the workers that want to create them."
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/03/15/stories/1060051465
-
Maryland House Advances Fracking Ban 97-40
Mar 14, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jeremiah Shelor
A state ban on hydraulic fracturing (fracking) is gaining momentum in the Maryland General Assembly.
HB 1325, which proclaims that "a person may not engage in the hydraulic fracturing of a well for the exploration or production of oil or natural gas in the state," passed 97-40 in Maryland's House of Delegates Friday.
The bill's lead sponsor is Delegate David Fraser-Hidalgo, a Democrat. The legislation now moves to the Senate for review.
If signed into law, the fracking ban would take effect Oct. 1, when a previously passed moratorium on the practice is set to expire.
Earlier this year, a panel of Maryland lawmakers reportedly asked the state's Department of the Environment (MDE) to delay implementing a set of proposed fracking regulations the agency submitted last September.
Only two western panhandle counties in Maryland -- Allegany and Garrett -- overlie the Marcellus Shale.
A February Goucher Poll, supported by Goucher College in Baltimore, found that 40% of Maryland residents surveyed opposed a state ban on fracking, with 36% supporting a ban and 24% unsure.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109757-maryland-house-advances-fracking-ban-97-40
-
Gas Glut Reverses Lucrative 2016 Trade
Mar 14, 2017 | The Wall Street Journal
By Timothy Puk
A flood of natural gas swamping the U.S. is turning into a global glut, sinking prices and dimming the hopes of American producers to export their way out of an oversupplied domestic market.
Natural-gas futures have fallen 25% over the past 2½ months. The declines continued Tuesday, with April futures dropping 3.45% to $2.938 a million British thermal units on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Shares of gas-production companies are among this year’s worst performers.
“Investors right now across the board just hate natural gas,” said Pearce Hammond, an analyst at Simmons & Co. International in Houston.
The recent declines reverse one of last year’s most profitable trades: Gas futures rose 59% in 2016, and shares of producers including Chesapeake Energy Corp. and Rice Energy Inc. doubled between March’s lows and year-end.
Many investors wagered that new gas-fired power plants and record exports would help burn off much of the excess supply in the U.S. But a historic level of exports hasn't been enough to transform a market dominated by unpredictable weather and massive new supplies from fracking.
One issue for U.S. producers is their own growing influence: More gas for sale world-wide—often floating on ships—eases bottlenecks that once drove big local price spikes. Global prices for natural gas have plummeted, down by half in some places in recent years.
Mild U.S. weather in February also has reduced demand. Warm winter temperatures sapped about 2.9 billion cubic feet a day of demand from the market this season, compared with just the 2.3 billion cubic feet a day of new exports added, according to Platts Analytics, a unit of S&P Global Platts.
“Exports are the infant,” said J. Alexander Blackman, an executive at Standard DeltaCo., a commodities-trading firm. “Until they grow meaningfully larger..prices will be heavily influenced by mother weather.”
Bernstein Research, Macquarie Group Ltd. and energy investment bank Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. all are warning that oversupply may weigh on the market for years.
The trend could allay some of the biggest fears about exporting the country’s newfound bounty of gas. Major industrial consumers publicly lobbied against export approvals in recent years, warning of higher prices. Instead, U.S. prices for consumers of all types are holding around decade lows even as exports take off, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Many see sales of U.S. gas to overseas buyers as the biggest shift in the market. A mix of global oil companies, energy traders and startups have proposed around two dozen new coastal export terminals. One terminal is already open in Louisiana, and up to five more are expected to open soon.
As recently as a few years ago, U.S. exports amounted to nothing. Now, new pipelines to Mexico and a terminal on the Gulf Coast send about 8% of U.S. output abroad. That could climb to nearly 18% in five years, Platts Analytics said.
Cheniere Energy Inc. opened the Sabine Pass export terminal in Texas a year ago, and the nearly 2 billion cubic feet it ships abroad each day could grow fivefold as four to five new terminals ramp up through 2020, according to analysts’ estimates. Exports from the U.S. to Mexico could grow from nearly 4 billion cubic feet a day today to nearly 6 billion in the same period, Platts Analytics said.
Overall, the U.S. is expected to be a net exporter by 2018, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. It has been nearly 60 years since the U.S. last shipped out more natural gas than it brought in annually.
But the impact of that export growth could be canceled out by new supply. U.S. gas producers have nearly doubled their number of rigs from a historic low last year. Oil rigs also have nearly doubled, and they produce gas as a byproduct. Macquarie estimates that 9 billion cubic feet a day of new gas from oil wells alone between 2017 and 2021 will completely cover all new demand from exports.
Global supply is likely to increase by 44% in 2020 from 2015 levels and outpace new demand through the end of this decade, according to Moody’s Investors Service.
Some investors think growth projections for U.S. exports look a little too rosy.
Pipeline delays in Mexico and President Donald Trump’s pledge to change trade terms with that country could undermine sales to the most important export market for U.S. producers. Mexico last year received nearly 60% of U.S. gas exports, according to EIA.
Australia and the Middle East put so much gas on the global market that it leaves little room for more U.S. export terminals that could help erase the domestic glut, said Robin Wehbé, portfolio director at Boston Company Asset Management. He spent 2016 buying shares of oil, metal and other commodity-producing companies, but not producers of natural gas.
“It’s too easy to find,” said Mr. Wehbé, whose company is a unit of Bank of New York Mellon Corp. “We’ve got plenty of it coming out of our ears.”
Not everyone is that bearish: Mr. Hammond at Simmons & Co. notes that many U.S. exporters have long-term contracts guaranteeing buyers for their gas.
Mexico also doesn’t have a good alternative to U.S. gas. It would probably need higher prices and years to build new infrastructure to replace U.S. gas with new domestic production, according to Simmons.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/gas-glut-reverses-lucrative-2016-trade-1489492959
-
(ACC Mentioned) Delay of Chemical Plant Rule Could Make Congressional Action Moot
Mar 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
The EPA took a first step this week to unwind an Obama administration regulation on chemical plant safety, the agency announced late March 13, a path that could reduce requirements for operators.
Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt granted an industry petition to reconsider the regulation (RIN:2050-AG82) and issued an order administratively delaying the rule 90 days from March 21 to June 19. Industry groups also took action March 13 by filing a lawsuit at the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (American Chemistry Council v. EPA, D.C. Cir., 17-01085, 3/13/17).
The actions leave options for industry to block the rule through EPA action, a win at the D.C. circuit or by legislative repeal under the Congressional Review Act. Industry groups applauded Pruitt's move March 14 but maintained the CRA was the best way to eliminate the regulation. CRA resolutions targeting the regulation are pending in the House and Senate (H.J. Res 59) and Senate (S.J. Res 28).
Pruitt's action comes under Section 307(d) of the Clean Air Act, which the petition noted was permitted for no more than 90 days to let the Environmental Protection Agency “reconsider its position and review the rule's requirements without imposing unnecessary compliance costs on regulated entities.”
The petition also requested a stay under Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act, which allows the agency to delay action “if it finds that justice so requires” while a matter is pending judicial review. But Pruitt's response did not address the claim.
Pruitt was among parties who criticized the rule as burdensome and unworkable during an EPA public comment period last year. He argued in favor of limiting what information is made available to the public so that bad actors could not learn about high-risk chemical sites.
“As an agency, we need to be responsive to concerns raised by stakeholders regarding regulations so facility owners and operators know what is expected of them,” Pruitt said in a statement March 13.
The move is just the opening salvo in a bid to stall regulation, James Goodwin, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Progressive Reform, told Bloomberg BNA March 14.
“The Trump administration and the business community has any number of ways to delay this thing as much as they want,” Goodwin said, “and they're going to use them all.”
Process Concerns
The petition claims the EPA made changes in the final rule without providing an opportunity for comment and that the industry groups are “likely to prevail on the merits of its challenges to the Final Rule due to its numerous procedural and substantive flaws.”
A host of industry groups including the American Chemistry Council, American Forest & Paper Association, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers and the Utility Air Regulatory Group filed the petition Feb. 28.
At the D.C. Circuit, ACC, AFPM, API, NAM and the U.S. Chamber argue the regulation “should be set aside because it is unlawful, arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and not otherwise in accordance with law.”
The groups also contend the EPA exceeded its statutory authority under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act; required disclosure of information prohibited from disclosure under the Department of Homeland Security's Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program; and failed to fully account for the costs of the regulation.
Because Pruitt opposed the regulation as Oklahoma Attorney General, environmental and public health groups are likely to intervene at the D.C. Circuit, Goodwin said.
Industry Says CRA Preferred
Industry groups praised the EPA's delay but said CRA action is still the first choice.
In a statement, the American Chemistry Council said March 14 that the EPA “made the right call in delaying the implementation of problematic changes to RMP that could threaten the safety and security of chemical facilities and communities across the country” but added the CRA is “the best and most appropriate way to rollback misguided changes that were hastily adopted during the final days of the Obama Administration.”
The action is “an important step for providing regulatory certainty and supporting safety and security in the oil and natural gas industry,” Frank Macchiarola , API's downsteam group director, said in a statement March 14.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107234240&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107234240&jd=107234240
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Petition Tees Up Issues For Revised EPA RMP Rule, Litigation
Mar 15, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
The industry petition that prompted the Trump administration to agree to reconsider the Obama-era overhaul of EPA's risk management plan (RMP) facility accident prevention program tees up numerous issues on which the agency may seek public input, including the threshold question of whether the finding that arson caused the fire that drove the rulemaking undermines the need for the final rule.
EPA “should reconsider the entire focus of the RMP Final Rule in light of the revelation that the West, Texas, incident was an intentional criminal act of arson,” says the Feb. 28 petition from the RMP Coalition, a group whose members include the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the National Association of Manufacturers, the Utility Air Regulatory Group and the American Petroleum Institute (API).
“In addition to the need for EPA to reopen this rulemaking based on the substantive flaws identified in this petition, EPA should open a new notice-and-comment period to allow commenters the opportunity to address this critical fact.”
The issue is one of a series that industry groups cited in their Feb. 28 petition urging EPA to reconsider and rescind its Jan. 13 final rule updating the agency's existing RMP regulation.
Authorized under the Clean Air Act, the rule imposes new requirements for independent audits, hazard analysis and disclosure of facility data.
But the industry groups' petition charges that the Obama EPA's numerous procedural deficiencies precluded petitioners and others from providing meaningful public input in the rulemaking process, and that the Trump EPA should seek notice and comment on a variety of topics as it weighs revising the rule.
For example, the industry groups highlighted investigators' finding -- just two days before the Obama EPA's deadline for public input on its proposed rule -- that arson ignited the fire that sparked the April 2013 fertilizer facility explosion in West, TX, which prompted EPA's overhaul of the agency's accident prevention program.
Although the industry groups question the need for the rule given the arson issue, environmentalists and their supporters say the rule is needed given that accidents continue to occur, despite available inherently safer technologies (IST) that reduce risks but that many facilities decline to implement.
In addition to seeking comment on the arson issue, the industry petition also asked EPA to seek public input on whether the rule's independent audit and safer technologies analysis provisions are justified, as well as on changes in the final rule that expanded provisions for disclosure of facility data and the scope of auditing requirements -- topics the agency is likely to revisit as it reconsiders the rule.
In response, Administrator Scott Pruitt agreed to delay the rule's effective date -- from March 21 to June 19 -- to reconsider the policy and weigh whether a longer extension is needed to rescind or overhaul the regulation. In a statement, Pruitt said the RMP Coalition's petition prompted the delay, and that the agency will seek public comment to inform its reconsideration of the rule, though EPA has not yet outlined topics to consider.
“As an agency, we need to be responsive to concerns raised by stakeholders regarding regulations so facility owners and operators know what is expected of them,” he said.
Other Attacks
While industry groups are welcoming the new process, they are also pursuing other means to roll back the Obama rule.
Most of the RMP coalition's members also filed a March 13 petition for review challenging the rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Many of the arguments industry detailed in their petition to EPA will also likely be echoed in any court briefs.
And industry groups also continue to press lawmakers to approve pending Congressional Review Act (CRA) disapproval resolutions, which allow Congress, with the president's approval, to rescind recently-issued rules, saying it is the fastest means of addressing the regulation.
EPA's action "is an important step for providing regulatory certainty and supporting safety and security in the oil and natural gas industry,” the American Petroleum Institute said in a March 14 statement. “Now, Congress must act to repeal this unnecessary rule, as the rule misses the mark on improving the safety and security of our nation’s energy infrastructure.”
The American Chemistry Council echoed API's statement, saying “EPA made the right call in delaying the implementation of problematic changes to RMP that could threaten the safety and security of chemical facilities and communities across the country. Congress must step up and do their part by passing the resolutions . . . which are the best and most appropriate way to rollback misguided changes that were hastily adopted during the final days of the Obama Administration.”
One source calls the industry strategy “an all of the above approach,” noting that the industry arguments in the petition for reconsideration will likely preview points that companies will make in a legal challenge to the rule that the industry attorneys said in their petition to EPA they would file.
“Any bullet that can be fired is going to be fired,” a second industry source says, noting industry objections to the rule. The source also says that while Pruitt's EPA may have limited options for rescinding a final rule, agency criticism of the Obama policy in response to the petition could be used to bolster the industry lawsuit.
'Stealth Change'
In their petition to EPA, the industry groups also contend EPA “made a stealth change” in the scope of the auditing provision from requiring review of a representative sample of facility processes to “each covered process.” EPA included the change in the proposed rule, but said nothing to cue interested parties to address that major change in comments, the groups say.
Petitioners argue EPA failed to justify requirements for third-party audits and for facilities to consider safer alternatives in their hazard analysis, arguing that “none of the agency's legal justification of third-party audits was ever made available for public comment,” and that the requirement for analysis of safer alternatives is based on a “wholly novel invocation” of the Clean Air Act.
The groups also say that between the proposed and final versions, EPA significantly expanded a provision requiring release of facility data to Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs), a change that industry groups would have targeted in comments had the agency included the broader provision in the proposed version.
“EPA significantly changed the Final Rule's required disclosures to LEPCs and the public in a manner that could not be anticipated from the proposed rule and threatens security of facilities,” the groups say. “In light of the unjustified and unanticipated expansion of LEPC disclosure requirements, EPA should reconsider disclosure obligations in the Final Rule.”
The groups also argue that EPA failed to adequately assess the rule's costs and benefits, and that the agency's “perfunctory analysis” effectively denied industry the opportunity to participate in the rulemaking in an informed way.
Industries' arguments faulting provisions in the final rule requiring disclosure of facility data, likely found a sympathetic ear in Pruitt given that as Oklahoma's attorney general he opposed the proposed rule's requirements for disclosure of facility data.
But EPA is also likely to face pushback from environmental and other health groups, who are likely to defend the rule's requirements and push to strengthen some provisions.
For example, a coalition of environmental, labor and other groups that in 2012 petitioned EPA to use authority under section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act to require facilities use IST where feasible will likely continue their longstanding calls for a stronger RMP rule than the Obama administration issued.
The advocacy groups have argued that accidents and injuries have continued to occur at industrial facilities after the West Explosion, and that requiring use of IST is necessary to reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents.
After EPA announced the rule in December, the Environmental Justice Health Alliance, a member of the coalition that petitioned EPA to require facilities use IST, pushed backed against expectations the Trump administration would roll back the RMP rule, arguing that improving facility safety is widely popular across political lines.
“Any action to block or repeal these improved safety rules will put Americans in more danger, and undoubtedly at some point cost innocent people their lives," the group said.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/industry-petition-tees-issues-revised-epa-rmp-rule-litigation
-
(ACC Mentioned) At Industry's Request, EPA Stays Risk Management Program Rule For Three Months
Mar 14, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), acting on a request from several trade associations, including the oil and gas industry, issued a three-month stay of a rule designed to help prevent accidents and explosions at refineries and other industrial facilities.
Meanwhile, a key Democratic lawmaker in the Senate and the American Meteorological Society (AMS), in separate statements, took EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to task for his comment last week that he doesn't believe carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions contribute to climate change.
On Monday, EPA said Pruitt convened a meeting to reconsider final amendments to its Risk Management Program (RMP) rule, which was to take effect on March 21. The administrator then signed a rule delaying the effective date of the RMP rule amendments until June 19.
Both moves by Pruitt came after EPA received a petition from several trade associations -- collectively calling themselves the RMP Coalition -- at the end of February. The petition urged the agency to stay the RMP rule. The American Petroleum Institute, the American Chemistry Council, the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers were among the petition's signatories.
Among the issued raised by the RMP coalition, the petitioners said the RMP rule "raises significant security concerns and compliance issues that will cause irreparable harm to the Coalition members. The final rule, for example, compels facilities to make available sensitive information about covered processes that could expose vulnerabilities to terrorists and others who may target refineries, chemical plants and other facilities."
The RMP rule emerged in response to an executive order issued by President Obama following several industrial accidents, including an ammonium nitrate explosion at a fertilizer plant in West, TX, in April 2013.
EPA planned to finalize amendments to the Accidental Release Prevention Requirements for Risk Management Programs under the Section 112(r)(7) of the Clean Air Act. According to EPA, the amendments were intended to "address and improve accident prevention program elements [and] enhance emergency preparedness requirements." They were also designed to make sure first responders and the public had access to information explaining the risks at RMP facilities, which would help the former "better prepare for emergencies."
On March 2, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), who chairs the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works (EPW), introduced a bill designed to invoke the Congressional Review Act (CRA) and block the RMP rule. The bill, SJ Res. 28, is still before the EPW Committee. A companion bill in the House, HJ Res. 59, was introduced on Feb. 1 by Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) and referred to the House Subcommittee on the Environment.
"This CRA resolution blocks an Obama administration midnight regulation that puts our chemical facilities, surrounding communities and our national security at risk, while doing nothing to actually improve safety," Inhofe said in a statement following his bill's introduction. "By requiring chemical facilities to disclose to the public the types and quantities of chemicals stored there and their security vulnerabilities, the EPA is giving a blueprint to those who would like to do us harm."
Carper, AMS rip Pruitt for CO2 comments
On Monday, Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), the ranking member of the EPW Committee, sent a letter to Pruitt criticizing him for stating in a television interview last week that he doesn't believe CO2 emissions are a primary contributor to climate change.
"Claiming CO2 is not a primary contributor to global warming is scientifically false and is in direct contradiction to your responses to scores of questions asked in the hearing and for the record by Democratic Senators during your confirmation process," Carper wrote. "This was precisely the type of denial of climate science and of the basis for the EPA's Endangerment Finding about which I and the other [EPW] Committee Democrats were concerned.
"Ignoring climate change, or the science underpinning it, will not make it go away; instead it will only make solving the problem even more difficult and expensive."
The AMS sent a similar letter to Pruitt on Monday.
"We understand and accept that individuals and institutions both public and private can reach differing conclusions on the decisions and actions to be taken in the face of this reality," the AMS said. "That's the nature of the political process in a democratic society.
"But mischaracterizing the science is not the best starting point for a constructive dialogue. We hope that you will reconsider your stance on the science, and then help lead the nation and the world to consider, first, options for action, and then the course to be followed."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109758-at-industrys-request-epa-stays-risk-management-program-rule-for-three-months
-
EPA Delays Chemical Storage Rule Amid Terrorism Fear
Mar 14, 2017 | AP (In The New York Times)
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is delaying a new rule tightening safety requirements for companies that store large quantities of dangerous chemicals. The rule was imposed after a fertilizer plant in West, Texas, exploded in 2013, killing 15 people.
Scott Pruitt, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, delayed the effective date of the Obama-era rule until June.
Pruitt's action late Monday came in response to complaints by the chemical industry and other business groups that the rule could make it easier for terrorists and other criminals to target refineries, chemical plants and other facilities by requiring companies to make public the types and quantities of chemicals stored on site.
The EPA issued a final rule in January, seven days before President Barack Obama left office. The EPA said at the time that the rule would help prevent accidents and improve emergency preparedness by allowing first responders better data on chemical storage.
A coalition of business groups opposed the rule, saying in a letter to Pruitt that it would do "irreparable harm" to companies that store chemicals and put public safety at risk.
Chet Thompson, president and CEO of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, an industry group, praised Pruitt's delay of the EPA rule.
"The midnight rulemaking in the final days of the Obama administration would not enhance safety, create security vulnerabilities and divert resources from further enhancing existing safety programs," Thompson said.
Environmental groups questioned industry claims as "self-interested" and misleading.
Hazardous chemical incidents like the explosion in West, Texas, are "frighteningly common," according to the Environmental Justice Health Alliance, an advocacy group. More than 1,500 chemical releases or explosions were reported from 2004 to 2013, causing 58 deaths and more than 17,000 injuries, the group said.
Instead of bowing to industry complaints, the EPA should "stand with the first responders, at-risk communities, safety experts, workers, small businesses and others who live at daily risk of a catastrophic chemical release or explosion," the group wrote in a letter last month to members of Congress.
The Obama-era rule came after a three-year process that included eight public hearings and more than 44,000 public comments, the group said.
The Obama administration said the rule would help prevent chemical incidents such as the 2013 explosion in Texas, while enhancing emergency preparedness requirements, improving management of data on chemical storage and modernizing policies and regulations.
Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., said the Obama-era rule gives "a blueprint to those who would like to do us harm," adding that existing regulations will remain in place to continue ensuring safety of chemical plants and other facilities.
Environmental groups lamented the delay, which they said showed Pruitt's bias in favor of industry.
"This gesture by Administrator Pruitt is hardly a surprise. Nonetheless it is still profoundly disappointing that he has found a new way to marginalize public health and safety protection in favor of refinery industry profits," said Dr. Brian Moench, president of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/03/14/us/politics/ap-us-epa-chemical-plants.html?mtrref=query.nytimes.com&gwh=B636462D1FE3110E67B949D574E5B2AE&gwt=pay
-
Cantwell Alarmed By Threats To Energy, Urges Trump To Act
Mar 15, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey
Senate Energy and Natural Resources ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) yesterday pushed back against rumors that President Trump is preparing to sign an executive order giving the Department of Homeland Security more authority to tackle cyberthreats.
The Energy Department — not DHS — should take the lead in protecting aging power plants, pipelines and the nation's sprawling electric grid against hackers, Cantwell told her colleagues on the panel during a hearing.
Trump, she said, must clarify DOE's leading role in both defending against and responding to cyberattacks on U.S. energy system.
"This is very important because we've heard rumors of an executive order further designating the Department of Homeland Security in this matter," Cantwell said. "I equate this to seeking medical attention and seeing a doctor when in reality you need a dentist because what you have is an oral problem."
Cantwell said she has lost sleep because of the growing threats. "It does keep me up at night," she said, "thinking about the potential hacks from Russians or foreign actors as we see large-scale attacks happening in other places."
The Washington Democrat pointed to a recent NBC News report that found Russia has conducted more than a dozen significant cyberattacks against foreign countries. Then there's the well-known 2015 attack on three Ukrainian distribution utilities.
A March 3 Houston Chronicle article, she said, highlighted cyberthreats to refineries, chemical companies, and oil and gas pipelines.
Cantwell said she's crafting a bill that would provide funding to develop a cyber workforce, secure the energy supply chain and help small utilities better protect against attacks.
The senator also blasted House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) for "dropping the ball" by blocking legislative language last year that she prepared as part of a larger energy package to bolster cybersecurity.
"I hope this year, the speaker will finally realize that protecting our electricity grid from attack and making needed investments in our energy infrastructure need serious attention," Cantwell said.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/03/15/stories/1060051466
-
Mar 15, 2017 | Chem.Info
By Meagan Parrish
By most accounts, the chemicals industry is entering a renaissance era.
Thanks to the abundance of cheap natural gas, the industry is poised to see a wave of new plant openings and expansions that will amount to $50 billion of $160 billion in total manufacturing investment that’s been in the works since 2012.
Dow Chemical is on the verge of finishing a $6 billion expansion at its campus in Freeport, Texas. ExxonMobil also recently announced that it plans to invest $20 billion to expand its manufacturing facilities along the Gulf Coast. And this is just the first of what analysts say could be many big waves of industry expansion and investment in the coming years.
But there’s one major problem that could steamroll the industry’s growth: transportation delays.
Recently, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) partnered with the American Chemistry Council (ACC) to study transportation logistics and issues in the industry. The results were worse than they expected.
“We were expecting to see some negative results [on how transportation is impacting the industry’s performance], but what we saw was definitely bigger than our hypothesis going in,” Mark Lustig, principal, chemical advisory at PwC, says.
For the report, PwC surveyed 68 leading chemical companies to learn about the challenges they’re facing with moving chemicals via train, truck and the high seas. PwC used these insights to estimate the costs of increasing congestion and the growing gap between chemical demand and infrastructure capacity.
Here’s how it breaks down:By The Numbers
PwC estimates that growth in chemical shipments could increase by 36 million tons each year by 2020. About 20 million tons of that volume will be olefins and methanol, which are shipped in bulk by pipeline. The remaining 16 million tons — or 1.8 million new shipments annually — will need to be moved by rail or truck, where problems are waiting.On The Road
Trucks are the main mode of transportation for chemicals and handle about 54 percent of the industry’s shipments. Unfortunately for manufacturers, that industry is in the throes of a major driver shortage. Tight regulations around working hours for drivers coupled with the special training required for handling hazardous materials has made this issue even more acute in the chemicals world.
The situation isn’t likely to improve any time soon. According to one trucking association, the rate of retirement for truckers could mean that the industry may not even be able to maintain the same level of drivers — let alone increase them.
About 70 percent of respondents in the PwC also reported that they’re concerned about trucker shortages hampering business growth.On The Rails
Trains are typically used to ship in bulk or to move containers on their way to being exported. The ongoing issue of rail congestion, however, has cast an air of uncertainty over shipping.
Rail service often gets backed up in major metropolitan areas and has grown significantly in the Gulf Coast region.
These delays make it frustratingly difficult for manufacturers to guarantee delivery times. For this reason many manufacturers often switch to sub-optimal routes or have added railcars to their fleet.
About 66 percent of respondents in the PwC survey expressed concerns about rail delays.At The Ports
Even though much of the country’s rapid growth is happening along the Gulf Coast, many chemical manufacturers can’t use nearby ports because the largest vessels don’t stop there. Instead, about 32 percent of chemical export volume is sent to the East or West Coast for export, which increases the overland transport costs of shipping overseas.
These ports can present problems as well. In 2015, for example, a labor dispute shut down West Coast ports for months.
About 60 percent of PwC respondents said they are worried about “port-related issues,” and are especially concerned the Gulf Coast ports won’t be able to adequately handle an increasing volume of chemical shipments.An Alternate Route
According to PwC, all of these issues could add up to $29 billion in additional operating costs by 2025.
What can chemical manufacturers do? Start by increasing communication and collaboration with transportation partners.
“A lot of these situations require collaboration so that everyone has a better view of the volumes coming online, where they are coming online and where the bottlenecks are likely to be,” Lustig says. “This could help with producing joint solutions.”
For example, that collaboration could come in the form of local working groups who address key issues in specific areas with higher rates of congestion (such as Chicago or Houston). These groups could focus on increasing communication between all stakeholders to predict potential problems and improve the flow of transportation.
Lustig says that chemical companies should also actively prepare their supply chain to deal with transportation issues. Companies should know their risk exposure and have options ready to overcome bottlenecks.
“This is an unprecedented growth opportunity for the chemical industry,” Lustig says. “But all the different parties need to come together to find the right solutions to take full advantage of it.”
http://www.chem.info/news/2017/03/expect-delays-how-transportation-problems-could-put-brakes-chemical-industry-growth
-
Emissions Rule Reviews Must Be Completed by 2020: Court
Mar 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The EPA will have three years to complete a series of legally required reviews of emissions standards covering boat manufacturers, municipal landfills and various other sources of hazardous air pollutants.
The March 2020 deadline, established March 13 by a federal district court judge, applies to air pollution regulations covering 20 different industries, including vehicle surface coating, integrated iron and steel manufacturing and hydrochloric acid production. The Obama administration failed to complete its reviews of those stas within the eight-year period established under the Clean Air Act, which prompted a lawsuit brought by California Communities Against Toxics and other environmental advocacy organizations.
The court order doesn't require the EPA to actually make any changes to its hazardous air pollution rules. Instead, the agency will have three years to determine whether changes are needed to take into account recent technological developments or to address remaining risks to public health.
While the EPA didn't contest that it missed its statutory deadlines, the agency did ask the court to provide nearly five years to complete all the reviews. Judge Tanya Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found a middle ground in her opinion, as the environmental advocates wanted the court to force the EPA to finish its reviews within 20 months (Cal. Cmtys. Against Toxics v. Pruitt, 2017 BL BL 77570, D.D.C., No. 15-cv-512, 3/13/17).
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107234242&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107234242&jd=107234242
-
Trump Said to Drop Climate Change From Environmental Reviews
Mar 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
President Donald Trump is set to sign a sweeping directive to dramatically shrink the role climate change plays in decisions across the government, ranging from appliance standards to pipeline approvals, according to a person familiar with the administration's plan.
The order, which could be signed this week, goes far beyond a targeted assault on Obama-era measures blocking coal leasing and throttling greenhouse gas emissions from power plants that has been discussed for weeks. Some of the changes could happen immediately; others could take years to implement.
It aims to reverse President Barack Obama's broad approach for addressing climate change. One Obama-era policy instructed government agencies to factor climate change into formal environmental reviews, such as that for the Keystone XL pipeline. Trump's order also will order a reconsideration of the government's use of a metric known as the “social cost of carbon” that reflects the potential economic damage from climate change. It was used by the Obama administration to justify a suite of regulations.
‘Labyrinth of Rules’
Tom Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, a conservative, fossil fuel-oriented advocacy group, welcomed Trump's comprehensive approach, calling it essential to undoing Obama-era climate policies that “permeated the entire administration.“
“President Obama created such a labyrinth of rules and orders and regulations to cement his agenda across practically every agency,” Pyle said in a phone interview. “It was designed to put into the mission of the agencies climate change first and make the rest of their mission second. This was a constraint deliberately set up by the previous administration to make it difficult to utilize coal, oil and natural gas.“
Environmentalists said the president's action will erode the international leadership the U.S. has played addressing climate change and encouraging other countries to limit the heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions that are the primary driver of the phenomenon.
The anticipated action “puts our country, our communities and our people at great risk,” said Paul Getsos, national coordinator of the People's Climate Movement, a coalition of labor, civil rights and faith-based groups. “It also sends a dangerous message to the world that the United States does not care about climate change or protecting front-line communities.“
Trump's coming order has been discussed by his staff since before he took office. Asked about when the executive order would be issued, White House spokesman Kelly Love said she had “nothing to announce at this time.“
Discrete Policy Changes
It will set in motion some discrete policy changes designed to make coal easier to extract and more enticing to burn.
For instance, the directive will compel the Environmental Protection Agency to undo the Clean Power Plan, an Obama-era rule that forced states to slash the use of coal-fired electricity. Trump also is set to direct Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to reverse an Obama administration order that blocked the sale of new coal-mining rights on federal lands to producers such as Cloud Peak Energy Inc. and Peabody Energy Corp.
The measure also is set to direct regulators to rescind Obama-era regulations limiting oil industry emissions of methane, a particularly potent—though short-lived—greenhouse gas.
Those changes are designed to help the president fulfill a pledge to “cancel job-killing restrictions” on domestic energy and his repeated promise to put coal miners back to work. Trump's support of coal miners helped propelled him to victory in former Democratic strongholds such as Pennsylvania and West Virginia. But Trump's action is not expected to have an immediate impact on miners, nor do analysts expect it to return coal to its earlier dominance in electricity production.
Even before the Obama administration imposed the coal leasing moratorium in January 2016, coal producers had little interest in adding new federal reserves to their portfolios, amid slumping domestic demand. The U.S. government last sold a coal lease in October 2012, and existing federal leases contain at least 20 years’ worth of coal, according to Interior Department estimates.
The use of coal to generate electricity has been in decline as utilities turned to natural gas that is both cheaper and cleaner burning, in part to comply with existing environmental regulations. Still, the removal of the Clean Power Plan—which was already put on hold by the Supreme Court—could halt coal's decline as a source of electricity over the next two decades, according to projections from the Energy Information Administration. More coal use also could temper projected gains for natural gas.
The ongoing litigation provides an opening for the Trump administration to undo the rule—but only if the White House acts fast. The U.S. Court of Appeals heard arguments in the challenge last September but has not ruled on the case.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt challenged the Clean Power Plan in federal court in his previous role as Oklahoma's attorney general, alongside more than two dozen other states, electric utilities, business groups and coal miners. An array of environmental groups, public health advocates, renewable-energy developers, large corporations and 18 other states defended the initiative.
Bureaucratic Work
Trump's action will set in motion at least a year of bureaucratic work at the EPA to formally strip the Clean Power Plan from the rule books, said Jeff Holmstead, the EPA official in charge of air pollution under former President George W. Bush. Among other steps, the administration will have to justify its decision to rescind the rule, possibly by relying on the arguments advanced by Pruitt and other critics in court.
It's not clear if EPA will write a new version of the rule, or argue that no replacement is needed or legally justified.
By contrast, the coal leasing moratorium is easier to undo. Zinke can make the change with the stroke of a pen—the same way it was imposed just over a year ago, under an administrative order issued by former Interior Secretary Sally Jewell. The halt was designed to allow time for a broad environmental review of the U.S. coal leasing program, including scrutiny of the climate change impacts of mining and whether companies should pay higher royalties for extracting the fossil fuel.
That analysis is still underway, and it was not immediately clear whether Trump would continue it. Abandoning the ongoing environmental analysis could make any new coal lease sales vulnerable in court.
Two of Trump's targets have especially symbolic significance, because the Obama administration used them to elevate the role of climate change in government actions.
For instance, the social cost of carbon serves as the linchpin for many of the Obama administration's environmental rules, from appliance efficiency requirements to limits on how much methane can leak from oil wells. Critics say the number—now nearly $40 for every metric ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere—gives artificial precision to uncertain conditions nearly 300 years in the future.
It is unclear exactly how the Trump administration will rescind or revise the social cost of carbon. Conservatives at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, American Energy Alliance and Heritage Foundation have offered blueprints for change that would keep it on the books while lowering the number, such as making it reflect projected climate costs solely in the U.S., rather than globally.
Trump can easily nullify guidance from Obama's Council on Environmental Quality that climate change should be factored into government agencies’ formal environmental reviews. The guidelines were meant to influence analysis of proposed agency actions under the National Environmental Policy Act.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107234237&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107234237&jd=107234237
-
Pruitt Wants to Improve Air Quality by Partnering With Localities
Mar 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The EPA should be a partner with states and localities on improving air quality, rather than an adversary, the agency's administrator said at a conference of city leaders.
Roughly 40 percent of the country is not in attainment with national ambient air quality ozone standards, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said March 14 at the National League of Cities Congressional City Conference in Washington, D.C.
“We need to do better, and the focus of our agency should be to work with you locally on assistance on how to improve attainment and not punish you,” Pruitt said. “I think all too often federal agencies just generally take the first step of punishment as opposed to cooperation and partnership.”
Pruitt did not provide details about the changes he had in mind. His comments came two days before the expected release of details on the Trump administration's budget proposal. Leaked budget proposal information initially indicated the administration wanted to see steep cuts in the EPA budget, including to climate programs and grants.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107234241&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107234241&jd=107234241
-
9th Circuit To Hear Suit Over SO2 NAAQS Designations Consent Decree
Mar 15, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit will hear oral argument March 16 in litigation filed by several states seeking to overturn a federal district court approval of a consent decree between the Sierra Club and EPA setting a deadline for issuing findings of which areas are attaining the agency's sulfur dioxide (SO2) air standard.
The suit puts the Trump EPA in the position of having to defend a consent decree with environmentalists that sets a deadline for a rulemaking decision -- agreements that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and others have attacked as “sue-and-settle” pacts that they oppose. But the consent decree in the 9th Circuit case delays any mandate for EPA to make regulatory decisions until 2020, and the new administration has not signaled it will drop EPA's defense.
The group of six states pursuing the appeal opposes the consent decree's deadline that gives that agency until the end of 2020 to issue designations for which areas are either attaining or in nonattainment with the 2010 SO2 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The states instead want to force EPA to immediately designate areas “unclassifiable,” which would avoid the onerous emissions control requirements associated with nonattainment.
The states want the 9th Circuit to reverse the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California's approval of the consent decree, and to remand the case “so that EPA will be forced to either negotiate a settlement that is satisfactory to the Appellant States as well as the Sierra Club or to demonstrate on the merits -- in an adversarial proceeding -- what is the appropriate remedy for EPA’s admitted violation” of the air law.
Arizona, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nevada, North Dakota and Texas filed their suit in May 2015 during the Obama administration, but it will be up to the Trump EPA at argument to defend the consent decree.
EPA’s designations for the 2010 SO2 standard were delayed years beyond a Clean Air Act deadline of two years after a new NAAQS is issued, due to a dispute with states over how areas should be designated.
The Obama administration initially favored air quality modeling over monitoring to determine such findings, because the existing monitoring network was inadequate to determine attainment with the new NAAQS that uses a short one-hour averaging time. Prior SO2 standards used three-hour, daily or annual averages, but the 2010 NAAQS employed the shorter averaging time to better measure short spikes of intense SO2 pollution.
SO2 Designations
Environmentalists generally favored air quality modeling as a faster route to designation, but industry groups and some states criticized it as dependent on conservative assumptions that result in overestimates of pollution -- and hence unwarranted nonattainment designations that could impose stricter SO2 reduction mandates.
EPA fell years behind schedule with designations, proposing to first establish a new SO2 monitoring network. That prompted lawsuits in the federal district court by states and environmentalists trying to force a quicker deadline for the agency to issue the findings. The Obama EPA reached its consent decree with environmental groups on an extended timetable that would allow the agency until the end of 2020 to complete designations.
But the states appealed the approval of the decree, saying in a November 2015 legal brief that it was “an abuse of discretion because it imposes obligations on the Appellant States and disposes of their claims without their consent; violates the plain language of the [Clean Air Act]; and adopts a framework for designating areas with regard to NAAQS that departs dramatically and without adequate justification from the one Congress laid out.”
Further, “the current lack of designations leaves the states in regulatory limbo, forced to develop air quality management plans and conduct their land use planning without any certainty regarding which areas are in attainment and which will be subject to additional regulatory obligations,” states said at the time.
The Obama EPA and environmentalists in briefing have rejected this characterization and defended their rights to reach a consent decree agreement on the schedule. The case, fully briefed since 2015, will now test the Trump EPA’s position on both the designation timeline and also the practice of EPA reaching settlements with environmentalists without the participation of other regulated parties such as states and industry.
EPA’s critics during the Obama administration attacked such “sue-and-settle” tactics, but environmentalists say that term is nonsensical and they are merely enforcing Clean Air Act requirements under the statute’s citizen suit provisions. Pruitt has repeatedly expressed his opposition to such settlements.
But the settlement delays EPA's mandate to act on making a regulatory decision, and without it the agency would be forced to issue designations more quickly. The new administration at press time had not filed anything with the court to indicate a change in the agency's position.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/9th-circuit-hear-suit-over-so2-naaqs-designations-consent-decree
-
Trump's Order Expected To Target Host Of Obama Climate Policies
Mar 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
President Donald Trump is slated to sign an executive order March 15 ordering a review of EPA's vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG) rules though the president is also expected to sign another order in the coming days targeting a host of other climate change regulations issued by EPA and other agencies in the Obama administration.
The chief targets of the directive are generally well known -- EPA's new and existing power plant GHG rules, as well as the Interior Department's moratorium on new coal leases on federal lands.
But Bloomberg reports that the order “goes far beyond a targeted assault on Obama-era measures blocking coal leasing and throttling greenhouse gas emissions from power plants that has been discussed for weeks.”
According to the report, the president will sign “a sweeping directive to dramatically shrink the role climate change plays in decisions across the government, ranging from appliance standards to pipeline approvals, according to a person familiar with the administration’s plan.”
This will include the Obama administration's guidance advising agencies on how to account for GHGs and the impact of climate change in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews, guidance on the social cost of carbon (SCC), the metric developed to measure the benefits of GHG controls, as well as EPA rules limiting methane emissions from the oil and gas industry.
Bloomberg says some of the actions, like measures to rescind the NEPA guidance and the SCC can be enacted relatively quickly, while others, like repealing EPA's power plant rules, will take longer.
The Washington Post also previewed the upcoming order, noting that it might also direct agencies to abandon the SCC.
The Post notes that the SCC “aims to capture the negative consequences of allowing greenhouse gas emissions to continue to rise. But some conservatives -- including both House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX), who held a hearing on the issue last month, and senior members of Trump’s Energy Department and EPA transition teams -- have criticized it as too sweeping.”
Instead, the newspaper says officials “will be allowed to return to a more traditional regulatory analysis, according to individuals briefed on the order who asked not to be identified in advance of the announcement. That analysis, which dates back a couple decades, includes a much lower cost associated with carbon emissions.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/trumps-order-expected-target-host-obama-climate-policies
-
Bipartisan Letter Urges Tillerson To Stick With Deal
Mar 15, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Hess
House lawmakers who prioritize climate action this week sent Secretary of State Rex Tillerson a letter, urging him to make the case within the Trump administration for sticking with the Paris Agreement.
The administration is conducting a broad review of international climate commitments, including the 2015 agreement.
Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo and Democratic Rep. Ted Deutch, the South Florida congressmen who co-founded the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus, led the letter. They were joined by Democratic Reps. Alan Lowenthal of California and Don Beyer of Virginia, co-chairs of the Safe Climate Caucus.
"This monumental agreement signaled that the world's largest carbon polluters, including China and India, are transitioning to a lower-carbon economy," they wrote, noting that Tillerson advocated during his Senate confirmation hearing for maintaining a seat at the negotiating table.
Shifting toward energy efficiency and cleaner technology will benefit the economy, the letter states, while stepping away from the agreement "would mean stepping away from the immense opportunities that these international investments afford American businesses and research institutions."
Tillerson departed yesterday for a three-country tour of Asia, including a stop in China.
Acting State Department spokesman Mark Toner said he could not "rule out" whether Tillerson would raise climate in his discussions.
On Capitol Hill, support for preserving the Paris Agreement has come from Democrats. More than 30 Democrats are backing a resolution committing the House to take meaningful action to ensure President Trump does not issue an executive order to withdraw from the accord (E&E Daily, Feb. 7).
Trump has said he has an open mind about the agreement, after promising to tear it up during the presidential campaign.
Many Republicans in Congress and members of his administration have suggested the deal is not valid without Senate approval. U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt suggested last week that it was a "bad deal" for the United States.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/03/15/stories/1060051467
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested