Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 3/16/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Industry Weighs in as Trump Vows to Rewrite Nafta
Mar 16, 2017 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
US president Donald Trump has called the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) a ‘terrible deal’ for the US, repeatedly stating that he wants to renegotiate the treaty as soon as possible, and the North American chemical industry has seized the opportunity to call for updated regulations. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Coalition Slams Perkins+Will's Views on Antimicrobials
Mar 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
Chemical industry groups have urged a global architectural firm to retract a white paper, which claims the use of antimicrobials in building products is unnecessary. -
(ACC Mentioned) Denise Rice is Named Director of TMA Group
Mar 16, 2017 | Cleveland Daily Banner
By Staff
Denise Rice, a longtime manufacturing veteran who once headed the Cormetech plant in Cleveland and later advanced to a corporate position within the company, has been named director of the Tennessee Manufacturers Association. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Seeks Efficiencies in TSCA ‘Inventory Reset’ Proposal
Mar 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Industry groups have called on the US EPA to amend its TSCA ‘inventory reset’ proposed rule to remove “duplicative and unnecessary” reporting requirements. -
No Sense of Panic About US EPA Changes, Says ACI
Mar 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
The US cleaning industry does not have a “sense of panic” about changes afoot at the EPA, but has cautioned that the agency must be resourced to ensure successful implementation of TSCA. -
US EPA Round-Up
Mar 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has published section 5(a)(3)(C) determinations for one fluorescent dye and five polymers that were the subject of pre-manufacture notices (PMNs). -
Trump Proposes Massive Cuts to EPA
Mar 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
US President Donald Trump has proposed major cuts to the EPA, reducing the agency’s annual budget by 31%, eliminating approximately 3,200 agency jobs and defunding more than 50 programmes. -
US Toxicology Programme Issues Report on 2-Chloropyridine
Mar 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US National Toxicology Program (NTP) has published its technical report on 2-chloropyridine, covering dermal and oral exposures. -
US EPA Received 57 PMNs in January
Mar 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA received 57 pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) in January. Of these, 36 saw the manufacturer or importer withheld as confidential business information (CBI). -
Echa Round-Up
Mar 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
An Echa report has identified several formaldehyde releasers – chemicals used as an antimicrobial/antifungal preservative in cosmetics and hair care products – that would be subject to REACH. It also clarifies the substances' uses. -
Draft Trump Executive Order has Wide-Ranging Attacks on Climate Rules
Mar 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
President Donald Trump is weighing a wide-ranging executive order to target multiple Obama administration climate change measures, according to a draft version, which calls for a “rewrite” of EPA's greenhouse gas rules for new and existing power plants, while repealing numerous executive actions crafted by the prior administration. -
Enviros Attack Trump Team's Plan to Scrap Fracking Rule
Mar 16, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Supporters of an Obama-era hydraulic fracturing rule are mobilizing to oppose the Trump administration's newly announced effort to scrap the regulation. -
Trump Budget Guts Climate Change Programs
Mar 16, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann and Emily Holden
President Trump's budget released this morning aims directly at programs addressing climate change by eliminating funds for the Clean Power Plan and "reorienting" U.S. EPA on air pollution. -
Trump Proposes Slashing DOE Clean Energy Research
Mar 16, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr
President Trump today issued his "America First" budget blueprint that fulfills campaign promises with a proposed $54 billion increase in defense spending and border security, coupled with sharp cutbacks in funding for environmental protection, climate-related and clean energy programs, federal land acquisition, foreign aid, and other domestic programs. -
Gas Group Vows to Fight for Voluntary Methane Program
Mar 16, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
Natural gas distributors say they fear key methane programs will be on the chopping block as the White House moves to defund or privatize U.S. EPA's voluntary climate change efforts. -
Dakota Access Pipeline Races to Start Moving Bakken Crude
Mar 16, 2017 | Platts Blog
By Meghan Gordon
Oil will likely flow through the Dakota Access Pipeline under Lake Oahe in North Dakota early next week. -
Two Bills Seek to Limit Drilling Near Schools and Provide Public Notice
Mar 16, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Ryan Handy
Two bills proposed this month by Democratic lawmakers in the Texas Legislature are trying to give municipalities more control over oil and gas development in their communities by limiting oil and gas drilling around schools and requiring public meetings for permit approval. -
Refiners, Union Hit Trump Plan to Cut Chemical Safety Board
Mar 16, 2017 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Ben Lefebvre
The White House’s proposal to get rid of the Chemical Safety Board is already drawing criticisms from refinery operators and workers. -
Cook Inlet Gas Leak Could Endanger Fragile Environment
Mar 16, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
In late January, technicians at Hilcorp Alaska noticed a change in the flow rate for an 8-inch subsea pipeline that carries natural gas from the company's onshore facility to a group of offshore pumping platforms in the Cook Inlet in southern Alaska. -
Shippers Aren't Rushing to Upgrade Ethanol Trains
Mar 16, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
Thousands of safer rail cars are sitting idle as ethanol shippers continue to use cars that were deemed unsafe to carry oil following a 2013 Quebec derailment that killed 47 people. -
State Lawmakers Question Choice of Cap and Trade
Mar 16, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
California state lawmakers appeared open to alternatives to Gov. Jerry Brown's (D) plans to extend the state's landmark cap-and-trade system past 2020.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Industry Weighs in as Trump Vows to Rewrite Nafta
Mar 16, 2017 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
US president Donald Trump has called the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) a ‘terrible deal’ for the US, repeatedly stating that he wants to renegotiate the treaty as soon as possible, and the North American chemical industry has seized the opportunity to call for updated regulations.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC), Chemistry Industry Association of Canada (CIAC), and Mexico’s Asociación Nacional de la Industria Química (ANIQ) have released a joint statement outlining the industry’s priorities for a potential renegotiation of Nafta.
The three organisations said that Nafta has provided enormous benefit for the chemical sectors in Canada, Mexico and the US over the past two decades, expanding the region’s economic growth, creating jobs, and enhancing North American competitiveness in the global market.
Trade in chemicals between Nafta countries has risen from $20 billion at the treaty’s inception in 1994 to $63 billion in 2014, according to industry figures. Accounting for inflation, this means the value of goods traded between the countries has almost doubled in that period.
The ACC, CIAC and ANIQ say Nafta’s effectiveness in reducing barriers to trade has directly enabled the chemical industry to have an ‘oversized share of economic activity’ in North America, including trade in energy products like natural gas, which is key to chemical production.
Burdensome barriers
The trade groups argue that Nafta could confer even greater benefits to the North American chemistry sector if its underlying regulatory, customs, transport, and communication practices are modernised. They also want to update the treaty with ‘enhanced regulatory cooperation commitments’ from Canada, Mexico and the US, for example better agreement on classification and labelling procedures in all three countries, as well as an effort to harmonise their processes for approving new chemicals.
However, concerns have been expressed from various quarters that free trade agreements could be used to legally challenge regulations in areas like environmental protection or chemical safety, on the basis that they hurt industry profits.
Under Nafta, private companies have sued governments over laws that threaten their expected revenues, and Canada has already lost at least two key cases under the treaty.
There is still time for interested parties to weigh in. US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross recently indicated that the Trump administration probably won’t begin ‘real’ negotiations to overhaul Nafta until later this year.
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/industry-weighs-in-on-nafta-rewrite/3006979.article
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Coalition Slams Perkins+Will's Views on Antimicrobials
Mar 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
Chemical industry groups have urged a global architectural firm to retract a white paper, which claims the use of antimicrobials in building products is unnecessary.
Perkins+Will published the paper, Healthy Environments: Understanding Antimicrobial Ingredients in Building Materials, jointly with US NGO Healthy Building Network (HBN) last month. It led the architecture company to place building products marketed as antimicrobial on its precautionary list and to urge its clients to avoid them whenever possible.
But the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and others condemn the paper as based on "overly generalised claims" and cherry-picked statements from US authorities. The American Coatings Association, Consumer Specialty Products Association and Silver Task Force of North America joined the ACC in writing to Perkins+Will, urging it retract or revise it.
The letter says antimicrobials are strictly regulated by the US EPA and there is no scientific evidence to support the white paper's claim that they pose a threat public and environmental health.
According to the ACC, most act as key material preservatives, leading to more sustainable products. Komal Jain of the trade body's biocides panel says the white paper mainly talks about those used to protect public health, and "fails to clearly distinguish between these uses [...] creating the misleading impression that antimicrobials are not beneficial additions to building materials".
For example, she says, the substances are used to ensure low-VOC paint doesn't require refrigeration, and to extend the life of materials such as wood and drywall. "By reducing additional refrigeration and transportation steps and the need for frequent replacements, antimicrobials are key elements to creating more sustainable construction projects," says Ms Jain.
Another concern the industry bodies raise is that the white paper quotes reports by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the FDA questioning the benefit of their use in hospitals and in consumer hand soaps.
But they say these reports were not addressing building materials, and cannot be applied to determine the benefits of biocides in other products.
They also criticise the paper's claim that use may be contributing to antimicrobial resistance. Silver, for example, has long been used in clinical settings without the emergence of bacterial resistant strains, the letter says.
Perkins+Will or HBN have not yet responded to the letter.
The same industry groups wrote with similar concerns to healthcare giant Kaiser Permanente, when it decided to ban the use of 15 antimicrobials in fabric, furniture and finishes in any of its future building projects.
Despite these companies' actions, the ACC says it does not expect to see more firms moving away from antimicrobials, because this would usually pose "significant performance and sustainability challenges".
https://chemicalwatch.com/54469/industry-coalition-slams-perkinswill-antimicrobial-white-paper
-
(ACC Mentioned) Denise Rice is Named Director of TMA Group
Mar 16, 2017 | Cleveland Daily Banner
By Staff
Denise Rice, a longtime manufacturing veteran who once headed the Cormetech plant in Cleveland and later advanced to a corporate position within the company, has been named director of the Tennessee Manufacturers Association.
Now a Hamilton County resident, Rice was named to the statewide role by Tennessee Chamber President and CEO Bradley Jackson.
Founded in 1912, the Tennessee Chamber serves as the Tennessee Manufacturers Association and is the exclusive statewide partner with the National Association of Manufacturers.
Formerly the manufacturing plant manager and operations director for Cormetech’s facility in Cleveland, Rice is the founder and president of Peak Performance Inc., a workforce training and industry consulting agency specializing in the instruction of lean manufacturing techniques and strategic business planning designed to optimize operational efficiency.
In her new Tennessee Chamber role, she brings more than 25 years of combined career experience in various manufacturing specialties across Tennessee, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and New York, Jackson explained.
She has served on the board of the Tennessee Chamber and the Chattanooga-based Tennessee Association of Manufacturers. Rice is also a renowned advocate for engaging young students in industrial education and STEM learning, working with Cleveland State Community College’s OneSource Workforce Readiness Center and serving as an industry advisor to Cleveland High and Walker Valley High School’s engineering programs.
In her new role, she will be responsible for planning and directing organizational and programmatic activities for the Tennessee Manufacturers Association under the operational umbrella of the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry.
In announcing her appointment, Tennessee Chamber Board Chairman Greg Martz noted, “After an extensive search, we are thrilled that Denise will be joining the Tennessee Chamber,” said Tennessee Chamber Board Chairman Greg Martz. “Having managed a facility in Tennessee, Denise understands the challenges of manufacturers and is uniquely qualified to spearhead operations for Tennessee’s premier manufacturing advocacy organization.”
Rice said she is honored, and personally excited, to join the organization because of its importance in the upkeep of the manufacturing industry in Tennessee.
“It’s an honor to work with manufacturers and the state chamber,” Rice stressed. “Manufacturing in Tennessee has a long and rich history, and I look forward to leveraging both the existing statewide manufacturing network of the Tennessee Chamber and growing our outreach and work around manufacturing.”
The Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry, a 105-year-old organization, also serves as the Tennessee Manufacturers Association. Commanding statewide partnerships with businesses and local chambers, the Tennessee Chamber works alongside elected leaders and government officials on behalf of the state’s business community.
The Tennessee Chamber is the official state affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the American Chemistry Council.
http://clevelandbanner.com/stories/denise-rice-is-named-director-of-tma-group,54565
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Seeks Efficiencies in TSCA ‘Inventory Reset’ Proposal
Mar 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Industry groups have called on the US EPA to amend its TSCA ‘inventory reset’ proposed rule to remove “duplicative and unnecessary” reporting requirements.
The Lautenberg Act requires the EPA to set a rule outlining the process for designating the 85,000 substances on the TSCA inventory as 'active' or 'inactive' by June. The exercise will inform the agency’s prioritisation of substances for risk evaluation, and also ensure that confidential business information (CBI) claims are current.
An array of stakeholders lauded the agency’s straightforward approach and many of the provisions outlined in its 13 January proposed rule. But some in industry questioned elements, which it views as going beyond the mandate of determining which substances were active in commerce in the past ten years.
The American Petroleum Institute (API), for example, flagged up concern with the proposed requirement to report the first and last date a substance was manufactured domestically.
“Such information is extraneous to the statutory purpose of the rule and goes beyond information needed to update the inventory,” it said; obtaining it would be “onerous” in many cases.
‘One and done’
Many industry groups urged the agency to adopt a ‘one and done’ approach to reporting.
In comments, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) said that the new TSCA calls for the regulation to avoid requiring reporting that is “unnecessary or duplicative”.
And only one company’s notification is required for the EPA to determine if a substance is active, it said. Subsequent reports are duplicative and would impose “unnecessary burden”.
A “more efficient alternative” would be for the agency to maintain and publish a list of substances already identified as active, for which further notification is not required.
The Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates (Socma) agreed that this approach is “logically consistent” with the proposal to exempt from reporting chemicals on the ‘interim substances list’ – non-confidential substances reported under the 2012 and 2016 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule. This, it said, would “dramatically reduce burdens” on both reporting companies and the agency.
But the Environmental Defense Fund countered that “the law is clear this is not allowed”. Nothing in the Lautenberg Act’s language, said the NGO, allows for only a subset of manufacturers to report substances in use.
Further, the EDF said that the law does not support the industry-lauded proposal to use the interim substance list as a basis for inventory notification exemptions. CDR-based reporting exemptions, it said, should only be extended to those companies that reported under the scheme, not to all manufacturers of a substance.
Industry notes
Additional requests – reiterated in several letters from downstream user groups and suppliers alike – include:
allowing enforcement discretion and a correction period for errors or failures to report;
dedicating resources to resolving nomenclature issues;
ensuring that processors have sufficient time after the draft inventory designations are released to complete optional reporting;
clarifying requirements for polymer manufacturers and the definition for ‘reasonably available’ information;
permitting additional time for joint reporting;
better addressing reporting for imported mixtures; and
confirming the effectiveness of the CDX online reporting portal, and offering additional training where needed.
Chemours – a spinoff of DuPont established in 2015 – also requested the rule explicitly state the obligations of companies not in existence during some portion of the ten-year ‘look-back period’.
NGO wishlist
A coalition of five NGOs – including Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families (SCHF), Earthjustice and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) – sought changes to the EPA’s proposal to “enhance the informational value of notices filed under the rule”.
These include requiring:
reporting for chemicals in imported articles, when the chemical is released during end-use and serves a separate function;
resumption notices to be filed at least 90 days before activities are commenced, so the agency has time to impose significant new use rules (Snurs) where merited;
upfront substantiation of CBI claims;
reporting the site of manufacture, import or processing; and
that the EPA periodically notify the public when substances are redesignated as active.
The EDF also reiterated several of its previously expressed concerns regarding CBI claims, including ensuring that no new claims arise through the reset process.
One day after the 14 March comment deadline, the EPA announced it would extend the consultation until 24 March.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54484/industry-seeks-efficiencies-in-tsca-inventory-reset-proposal
-
No Sense of Panic About US EPA Changes, Says ACI
Mar 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
The US cleaning industry does not have a “sense of panic” about changes afoot at the EPA, but has cautioned that the agency must be resourced to ensure successful implementation of TSCA.
Speaking to Chemical Watch at the recent Cleaning Products Europe conference, the American Cleaning Institute’s Brian Sansoni said there is a lot of speculation right now about what the EPA is going to do.
But he said that the industry is “not over-reacting or hyperventilating like a lot of the headlines.
“Let’s wait until the ink is dry, see what’s there. And then, after whatever’s proposed, we have this institution known as Congress – and there’ll be a lot of activity there.”
His comments were made in advance of the release of President Donald Trump’s budget blueprint – which has called for a 31% annual budget cut and the defunding of more than 50 programmes – but news outlets have been reporting for several weeks that the agency would see massive cuts under the proposal.
ACI priorities
Notwithstanding the broader changes, Mr Sansoni said it is essential the EPA is resourced to continue implementing the reforms to TSCA, as amended by the Lautenberg Act.
This is of particular concern to the cleaning industry, he said, as TSCA “helps provide the pipeline to innovation for a lot of sustainable cleaning products”.
There are also concerns, he said, about the potential defunding of voluntary programmes such as the EPA’s Safer Choice labelling scheme, as many member companies participate in it.
He also said there were fears in the cleaning products industry that lack of confidence in federal regulation could lead to more state-level efforts on chemicals. Recent proposals have included a plan announced by Governor Cuomo in New York requiring cleaning products manufacturers to disclose their ingredients and a California cleaning products disclosure bill (SB 258) introduced last month.
“One of our top concerns is poorly-considered state-level efforts to try and further restrict products and ingredients. There [are] predictions of a lot of activity at state-level and we’ll have to see what is proposed and how that affects our members and our supply chain.”
Sustainability efforts
Speaking at the conference, organised by Smithers Apex, Mr Sansoni said the new US administration was unlikely to sway companies’ sustainability efforts.
He quoted a cross-industry online survey by the sustainability group Green Biz, which asked what impact the changes in the US presidency and Congress would have on companies’ sustainability strategies.
Of more than 400 companies that replied, 60% said there would be no impact on their sustainability policies; 34% said it would slow down, but not stop, their efforts.
Demand for sustainability efforts comes from stakeholders, not from the government, Mr Sansoni told attendees.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54475/no-sense-of-panic-about-us-epa-changes-says-aci
-
Mar 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C) determinations
The US EPA has published section 5(a)(3)(C) determinations for one fluorescent dye and five polymers that were the subject of pre-manufacture notices (PMNs).
The substances were determined not likely to present an unreasonable risk, based on low human health and environmental hazard.
The agency also made "not likely" determinations for two microbial commercial activity notices (MCANs).
The determinations were made between 18 January and 13 February, for reviews that started from October to December 2016.
Comment period extension
The agency has unofficially extended the consultation on the TSCA ‘inventory reset’ rule to 24 March.
Comments on the proposed process for determining which substances are active in commerce were due on 14 March. The EPA received a request from a trade association to extend the comment period, but it said it did not have sufficient time to formally extend the consultation.
The agency says it will "make every effort to consider comments received outside of the formal comment period, if provided by 24 March". A previous notice that said the comment period would be formally extended to that time was issued "in error", it added.
RMP rule implementation delayed
The EPA has delayed until 19 June the effective date of the Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air (RMP rule).
The 90-day extension will give the agency time to consider promulgating a rulemaking, to further extend the effective date. During this time, it will reconsider the rule, as requested by a February 2017 petition from the RMP Coalition.
PFOA stewardship report
The agency released its final progress report for its voluntary PFOA stewardship programme. All eight participating companies have met the stewardship goals.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54386/us-epa-round-up
-
Trump Proposes Massive Cuts to EPA
Mar 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
US President Donald Trump has proposed major cuts to the EPA, reducing the agency’s annual budget by 31%, eliminating approximately 3,200 agency jobs and defunding more than 50 programmes.
The ‘budget blueprint’ follows through on campaign statements from Mr Trump, who regularly said he believed the agency overstepped its authority. It calls for cutting the EPA’s annual budget from $8.1bn to $5.7bn, dropping agency funding levels to their lowest since the 1990 federal fiscal year.
“You can’t drain the swamp and leave all the people in,” said Mick Mulvaney, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). “The president wants a smaller EPA. He thinks they overreach, and the budget reflects that.”
The budget proposes to axe the EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). This programme screens pesticides, chemicals and environmental contaminants for their potential effect on oestrogen, androgen and thyroid hormone systems.
More than 50 “lower priority and poorly performing programmes” would also be stripped of funding, though the full list has not yet been made available.
It also proposes to eliminate the Chemical Safety Board, an independent federal agency charged with investigating industrial chemical accidents.
TSCA impacts?
The budget outline does not mention the amended TSCA or what impacts these cuts could have on the law’s ongoing implementation.
But Mark Duvall, a principal at the law firm Beveridge & Diamond, told Chemical Watch that even if the funding for this remains flat, it is likely to be difficult for the agency to meet its planned activities on schedule.
And although the TSCA budget is expected to be bolstered by the introduction of user fees next year, those increases will not be enough to offset the increased agency activity that TSCA creates, he said.
“EPA may have the resources under this budget to implement TSCA, but not at the level it would like,” Mr Duvall said. And this could affect compliance with statutory deadlines, he added: “While the TSCA programme can borrow employees from other programmes within EPA, there might simply not be enough bodies available.”
Strong reaction
NGO the Environmental Working Group (EWG) said the budget proposed would “effectively cripple” the EPA’s ability to protect public health and the environment, leaving the burden on local and state governments.
Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, said the cuts to the EPA’s budget are unnecessary, as it only receives 2 cents for every $10 the government spends.
“This is an overzealous attempt to undermine America’s most basic environmental protections, with no concern about the serious harm it will cause,” Mr Krupp said.
The blueprint is not a complete budget and does not include revenue projections, impacts to mandatory spending or policy projections. The Trump administration plans to release its full budget in May.
The proposed budget will be submitted to Congress and subject to changes from lawmakers, who will then vote to approve it before the president signs it into law. With the Republican party in control of both the House and the Senate, Mr Trump’s proposed bill may remain relatively intact.
The Trump administration has targeted the EPA from its first days. Mr Trump nominated Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt, a known EPA critic, to be the agency’s administrator. The administration also blocked all EPA communications with the public and has issued far-reaching executive orders aimed at restricting its regulatory authorities.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54488/trump-proposes-massive-cuts-to-epa
-
US Toxicology Programme Issues Report on 2-Chloropyridine
Mar 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US National Toxicology Program (NTP) has published its technical report on 2-chloropyridine, covering dermal and oral exposures.
The substance, also known as o-chloropyridine, is used as an intermediate in synthetic organic, pharmaceutical and agrochemical manufacture. It is also used as a catalyst for phase transfer and is a key intermediate in the manufacture of pyrithione-based biocides for use in cosmetics and various pharmaceutical products.
The NTP selected the substance for scrutiny, based on:
increasing production and use as a pharmaceutical and agrochemical intermediate;
the potential for occupational and environmental exposures during manufacture;
persistence – of over six months – in the environment;
evidence of mutagenicity; and
suspicion of carcinogenicity based on structurally similar substances.
Neither the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Niosh) nor the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) has set any standards or guidelines for occupational exposure to 2-chloropyridine.
Similarly, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) has not recommended a threshold limit value or a biological exposure index.
The research team conducted toxicity tests with rats and mice and found changes in the kidneys, spleen, bone marrow and liver of those given 2-chloropyridine in their drinking water.
Male rats showed increased kidney weight, in the absence of histopathologic changes, with a lowest observed effect level (Loel) of 10ppm. Female rats showed splenic congestion with a Loel of 10ppm. At higher exposures, the rats also showed: hematopoietic cell proliferation and pigmentation in the spleen; bone marrow hyperplasia; centrilobular hepatocyte hypertrophy; and hematological changes.
At higher exposures, female mice showed increased liver weight, and incidences of centrilobular hepatocyte hypertrophy, with a Loel of 300ppm.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54366/us-toxicology-programme-issues-report-on-2-chloropyridine
-
US EPA Received 57 PMNs in January
Mar 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA received 57 pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) in January. Of these, 36 saw the manufacturer or importer withheld as confidential business information (CBI).
The agency also received 16 notices of commencement (NOCs).
The number of new substance notifications compares to 37 during the same timeframe in 2016, and 83 in2015.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54474/us-epa-received-57-pmns-in-january
-
Mar 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Agency publishes investigation into formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers
An Echa report has identified several formaldehyde releasers – chemicals used as an antimicrobial/antifungal preservative in cosmetics and hair care products – that would be subject to REACH. It also clarifies the substances' uses.
The report is a result of a European Commission request in December 2015. This tasked the agency with collecting available information on identity and uses – other than for biocidal purposes – of formaldehyde releasers. Echa was also asked to provide advice on whether they should be part of a possible Annex XV dossier.
Submitted CLH proposals
The agency has received four newly submitted harmonised classification and labelling (CLH) dossiers for:
dichlorodioctyl stannane. Submitted by Sweden, it proposes a future Annex VI entry of acute toxicity 3, reprotoxic 1B, STOT RE 1 and aquatic chronic toxicity 3;
dioctyltin dilaurate; bis(dodecanoyloxy)(dioctyl)stannane. Submitted by Sweden, it proposes a future Annex VI entry of reprotoxic 1B and STOT RE 1;
2,2-dibromo-2-cyanoacetamide. Submitted by Denmark, it proposes a future Annex VI entry of acute toxicity 2 and 3, skin irritation 2, eye damage 1, skin sensitisation 1B, aquatic acute toxicity 1 and aquatic chronic toxicity 2; and
α-cyano-4-fluoro-3-phenoxybenzyl-3-(2,2-dichlorovinyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate, for which there are currently no further details.
Harmonised classification and labelling intention
Echa has added a harmonised classification and labelling (CLH) intention to its registry for 4-methylpentan-2-one. Austria is proposing a future entry in Annex IV of CLP addressing carcinogenicity and specific target organ toxicity - repeat exposure. No date is given for when the dossier is expected.
Testing proposals
Echa has added 12 testing proposals for seven substances to its list of substances and hazard endpoints, for which it is currently inviting third parties to submit scientifically valid information and studies. They are:
3-(trimethoxysilyl)propyl (2E,4E)-hexa-2,4-dienoate;
6-[(1-oxomethyloctyl)amino]hexanoic acid;
chloroethane;
condensation products of triethanolamine with addition products of fatty acids, C18 (unsaturated) alkyl with maleic anhydride;
fatty acids, tall-oil, reaction products with 2-[(2-aminoethyl)amino]ethanol; and
methyl [3-(trimethoxysilyl)propyl]carbamate.
The deadline for submitting information is 25 April.
Last call to pre-registrants
Echa has issued a last call reminder on pre-registering chemicals. It says, to benefit from the extended deadline for registering existing, low volume chemicals by the last REACH registration deadline, registrants must have pre-registered with the agency.
It tells companies if they manufacture or import a substance for the first time at or above 1 to 100 tonnes per year, and their substance is not known to be carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to reproduction, they can still pre-register within six months of starting the activity, and at the latest by 31 May. This is one year before the deadline.
Companies without a valid pre-registration or registration for their substance after 31 May, will need to submit an inquiry to Echa and register their substance before they can manufacture or import it.
Guidance
A new draft of Echa's Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter R.7a, Section R.7.5 has been sent for consultation to the Risk Assessment and Member State Committees (Rac and MSC). The section deals with repeated dose toxicity.
And the agency's Guide on safety data sheets and exposure scenarios has now been translated into 22 languages from English. The interactive document aims to help suppliers and recipients of SDSs compile and understand substance and use information.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54463/echa-round-up
-
Draft Trump Executive Order has Wide-Ranging Attacks on Climate Rules
Mar 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
President Donald Trump is weighing a wide-ranging executive order to target multiple Obama administration climate change measures, according to a draft version, which calls for a “rewrite” of EPA's greenhouse gas rules for new and existing power plants, while repealing numerous executive actions crafted by the prior administration.
In addition to targeting EPA's power plant rules, the draft document, first reported by Politico, calls for an interagency working group to “reconsider” the social cost of carbon metric developed by the Obama administration to estimate the benefits of GHG controls, and “requests “ that the White House Council on Environmental Quality rescind its climate change guidance for how agencies craft National Environmental Policy Act reviews of major projects.
Further, it directs the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to lift its moratorium on new coal leasing, “rescind” its hydraulic fracturing regulation, and “review the new source standard for methane from oil and gas operations.”
The latter item is confusing in that it appears to reference EPA's first-time methane limits for new oil and gas facilities, but it is included in language directed at BLM. The bureau has a separate methane rule governing existing oil and gas facilities on federal land that Congress is currently considering eliminating by a Congressional Review Act disapproval resolutions.
Trump is widely expected to sign a version of the climate policy executive order in the coming days.
The extent to which the draft document, labeled as “speculative,” will resemble a final order is not clear, but it is nonetheless remarkable for the breadth of its attack on climate change policy.
But the document is also noteworthy in that its explicit language calls for revisiting, rather than eliminating, EPA's power plant rules. Sources have suggested that such language could be a legal hedge to help the order comply with the Administrative Procedure Act.
The document directs EPA to take a series of actions “consistent with applicable law and policy.” They include “rewrite” the Obama administration's “so-called” Clean Power Plan; “rewrite” EPA's GHG standards for new power plants, which the document asserts is based on emissions control technology “that is not commercially viable;” and “review and recommend an appropriate path forward” for the proposed federal implementation plan the Obama EPA drafted as a guide for implementing the Clean Power Plan.
The document would order the Department of Justice to ask an appellate court to hold litigation on the power plant rules in abeyance or remand the rules to the agency while administrative proceedings to rewrite them are underway, a step environmentalists and other rule supporters have pledged to fight.
SCC Options
The draft order also does not include a specific proposal for how to rewrite the SCC, which allows agencies to calculate the climate benefits of reducing GHGs in rules. However, speculation has swirled about numerous options the Trump administration could use in this area, including a fundamental rewrite of how discount rates are factored into the metric that could result in cheaper estimates of climate damages.
The draft order also would repeal several Obama administration climate change executive orders -- one on planning for federal sustainability, a second establishing a federal flood risk management standard, a third on “climate resilient” international development, and a fourth on preparing the U.S. for climate impacts.
The last line of the draft order directs EPA and other agencies to “conduct a review of existing agency policies and practices that result in impediments to domestic energy production and the expansion of energy production facilities,” and to report their findings.
Broadly, the order is framed as an “energy independence” measure that would reduce domestic dependence on other countries for energy.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/draft-trump-executive-order-has-wide-ranging-attacks-climate-rules
-
Enviros Attack Trump Team's Plan to Scrap Fracking Rule
Mar 16, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Supporters of an Obama-era hydraulic fracturing rule are mobilizing to oppose the Trump administration's newly announced effort to scrap the regulation.
Hours after government officials notified a federal court yesterday that they are working to rescind the fracking rule, a filing by environmental groups urged a panel of judges to allow litigation to move forward as scheduled.
Earthjustice attorney Mike Freeman, who is representing the groups, said the Interior Department's new plan to roll back the rule is purely partisan.
"This is a political decision intended to circumvent the rule of law and deliver a gift to the oil and gas industry at the expense of public safety," he told E&E News. "What the Trump administration wants is to go back to using outdated 30-year-old regulations that BLM itself recognizes failed to address threats to public health from modern fracking."
Justice Department lawyers representing Interior have asked the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to delay oral arguments scheduled for Wednesday in the government's ongoing appeal over the fracking rule and put the case on hold while the administration works to rescind the regulation.
A decision by the government to back away from the case would have major consequences, as the district court ruling at issue in the appeal found that Interior does not have authority to regulate fracking at all.
The embattled rule sets new requirements for well construction, wastewater management and chemical disclosure for fracked wells on public and tribal lands. It was the Obama administration's marquee effort to address impacts from the rapid expansion of the use of fracking and horizontal drilling for oil and gas development. The rule has been tangled in litigation from industry, states and tribes since its March 2015 release and has never taken effect.
In yesterday's court filing, Interior said it began reviewing the rule in response to President Trump's January executive order on streamlining the regulatory process.
"As part of that process, the Department is reviewing the 2015 Rule (and all guidance issued to implement that rule) for consistency with the policies and priorities of the new Administration," Richard Cardinale, chief of staff to Interior's assistant secretary for land and minerals management, said in a filing. "The initial review has revealed that the 2015 Rule does not reflect those policies and priorities."
Interior will kick off a rulemaking process within 90 days to rescind the regulation. Agency officials did not respond to requests for more information on that process.
'Disturbing' development
Supporters of the fracking rule expressed outrage yesterday at Interior's plan. Former Deputy Secretary David Hayes, who served at Interior during the Clinton and Obama administrations and helped craft the rule, said rolling back the regulation undermines the federal government's ability to oversee public lands.
"Some elements of the oil and gas industry obviously asked the Interior Department to step away from fracking regulation, and this administration has shown a disturbing propensity to do what some in the oil and gas industry want them to do," he said in an interview. "The reason it's particularly disturbing is that a fundamental responsibility of the federal government as a steward of the public lands is at issue here."
Hayes noted that the creation of the fracking rule was a "tremendous undertaking" and that the rule "got better and better" throughout the long rulemaking process.
"To have all that work wiped away is certainly disappointing, but it's not the amount of work that's the issue," he said. "It's the principle here."
Hayes joined former agency officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations in an amicus brief last year that urged the 10th Circuit to reinstate the fracking rule after a district court in Wyoming struck it down (Energywire, Aug. 22, 2016).
Earthworks policy director Lauren Pagel said the Trump administration's plan "prioritizes billionaires and big business over the public interest," and Center for Biological Diversity attorney Michael Saul added that the decision is a red flag for the priorities of newly installed Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke.
"It undermines the suggestion that Secretary Zinke might have been a kinder, gentler sort of Trump appointee," he said. "Really, he's backing away from a long overdue and very modest effort to deal with some of the admittedly huge challenges with the growth of hydraulic fracturing on BLM lands."
Oil and gas industry advocates, meanwhile, cheered Interior's move to scrap the rule as an acknowledgement of its costly requirements.
"Obviously we had the lower court ruling, which was very clear that BLM did not have authority for this rule, and rather than continue to fight in court over that, I think the Trump administration wisely decided that this rule just needed to be rescinded," Western Energy Alliance President Kathleen Sgamma said. "States are effectively regulating fracking, and BLM does not need to duplicate."
BakerHostetler attorney Mark Barron, who is representing the Western Energy Alliance and the Independent Petroleum Association of America in the case, agreed, noting that he's "pleased that they're reconsidering a rule that was not well-considered in the first place."
Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman (R), one of the rule's first challengers, also praised the news.
"The current administration understandably does not support the Bureau of Land Management hydraulic fracturing rule that we sued to enjoin in 2015, and we expect the upcoming 10th Circuit argument will be canceled," she said in a statement, adding that the rule "intrudes on Colorado's sovereignty" over development within its borders.
Next steps in court
The 10th Circuit is expected to quickly decide on the Trump administration's request to delay next week's scheduled oral arguments. What happens after that is uncertain, but the court recently indicated it would be open to supplemental briefing if the government's legal position has changed (Energywire, March 10).
Freeman said the environmental intervenors in the case will continue pushing the court to hear the appeal regardless of Interior's plans to rescind the rule because the case deals with much broader questions of federal authority.
"Any decision by BLM to rescind the Rule will necessarily be informed by whether it has legal authority to manage oil and gas development on public lands," the groups told the court last night. "The agency's reversal of position does not eliminate the need for appellate review here."
The U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming's decision to strike down the fracking rule last summer was sweeping, finding that Interior lacks authority to regulate fracking. The court rejected Interior's arguments that it has a duty to address environmental concerns for activity taking place on government-held lands.
"I would argue that [the ruling] was an extreme outlier of a decision, and I think it was very vulnerable in the court of appeals," Saul said. "Definitely a grave concern I have is that they're going to attempt to back out of this case in a way that leaves that ruling in place and undermines future efforts to deal with the huge challenges posed by the expansion of hydraulic fracturing on BLM lands."
Continuing a legal defense of a rule the federal government no longer supports would put Earthjustice in an awkward but not unprecedented legal position. In 2001, for example, environmental lawyers defended the Clinton-era Forest Service "roadless rule" after the George W. Bush administration announced plans to reconsider it.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/03/16/stories/1060051542
-
Trump Budget Guts Climate Change Programs
Mar 16, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann and Emily Holden
President Trump's budget released this morning aims directly at programs addressing climate change by eliminating funds for the Clean Power Plan and "reorienting" U.S. EPA on air pollution.
The blueprint calls for a 31 percent spending reduction for EPA, slashing its budget by $2.6 billion. Environmental advocates described it as a crippling blow to an agency at the vanguard of climate action.
The budget also seeks a 5.6 percent cut to the Energy Department and a 12 percent decrease for the Interior Department (Energywire, March 16). It also slashes funding for Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's agency by 28 percent.
The plan now goes to Congress, where lawmakers from both parties are bound to scrap many of Trump's politically painful cuts.
As a businessman and a candidate, Trump spoke frequently of his doubts about people's influence on global temperatures. He also blamed wind turbines for killing eagles and lamented the costs of solar power.
Now his budget turns those words into numbers, said Mick Mulvaney, the White House budget director.
"You can expect reductions in the EPA that don't line up with the president's view on things like global warming and alternative energies," Mulvaney told reporters yesterday. "You will see a reduction in subsidies, a reduction in participation in those types of programs."
EPA science office halved
Mulvaney's staff examined Trump's campaign speeches and news stories about his policies and spoke directly with the president to craft the unconventional budget, which would drain $54 billion from programs across the government so it can be applied to military and other security-related measures.
The result is a message of size and strength for friends and foes alike.
"There is no question this is a hard power budget. It is not a soft power budget," Mulvaney said. "The president very clearly wants to send a message to our allies and our potential adversaries that this is a strong, power administration."
That's reflected in sweeping cuts to EPA programs.
The White House would cut nearly in half the budget of EPA's Office of Research and Development, which does most of agency's science work. That office would receive $250 million, down from $488 million.
Categorical grants to localities would fall 45 percent, from $1.1 billion to $597 million. Enforcement of environmental infractions and crimes would also see a 24 percent cut, from $548 million to $419 million.
The president's blueprint would eliminate funding for popular regional programs, including the $300 million Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, which Congress authorized last year, and a large Chesapeake Bay cleanup project, which receives $73 million each year. Geographic programs would see a total $427 million cut. Those proposed reductions are likely to spur fights on Capitol Hill.
Mulvaney mum on EPA jobs
In all, the proposed budget would do away with 50 EPA programs that cost $347 million, including Energy Star, targeted air pollution grants, endocrine disrupter screening and infrastructure assistance to Alaska Native villages and the Mexico border.
Some programs at EPA would see increases. The blueprint would shift $4 million above current spending levels to state revolving funds and $20 million to the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt had said he wanted to protect those funds.
But the proposal does not shield other spending areas Pruitt said he would support, including money for cleaning up hazardous waste at Superfund sites. That account would drop 30 percent, from $1.1 billion to $762 million.
Critics quickly dismissed the plan as political messaging, rather than a genuine attempt to fund the government, an exercise that is fraught with pitfalls in the best of times.
"This is not a budget. It's a Trump campaign press release masquerading as a government document," said Stan Collender, a budget expert at Qorvis MSLGROUP.
Mulvaney said the governmentwide cuts are aimed at the "most inefficient, most wasteful, most indefensible" programs. But they won't prevent agencies from performing the root of their duties, he said.
"The core functions of the EPA can be satisfied — beyond the core functions — can be satisfied with this budget," Mulvaney said.
He declined to comment about the accuracy of news reports saying that up to 3,000 EPA jobs could be at risk. That decision is up to Pruitt, who would implement the cuts, Mulvaney said.
Winners: nuclear security; losers: refugees
The State Department, which saw perhaps the largest cut behind EPA, is shouldering much of Trump's emphasis on nationalism. The president is fulfilling his promises to depress U.S. activity abroad by eliminating the Global Climate Change Initiative. The budget also zeros out funding for the Green Climate Fund and the Climate Investment Funds.
The document says it preserves "significant" funding for humanitarian assistance during natural disasters, though it would ask other nations to "pay their fair share." It would eliminate the Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance account and cut funding to the World Bank and other entities financing development by $650 million over three years.
The Interior Department would see the Abandoned Mine Land grants program eliminated, and the budget "streamlines operations" at the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management.
It would increase funding for Interior programs that support "environmentally responsible development of energy on public lands and offshore waters," the document says.
The Department of Energy would see a 5.6 percent decrease in funding, to $28 billion, shifting $1.4 billion of that to the National Nuclear Security Administration.
The proposal seeks to focus electricity research on "limited, early-stage applied energy research and development," rather than commercialization. That includes at the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, and Fossil Energy Research and Development program.
The blueprint would eliminate the Weatherization Assistance Program and State Energy Program, a cost-sharing program for demonstration activities in efficiency, renewable power and alternative energy. Overall, those cuts would equal $2 billion.
The White House would eliminate the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), as well as loan guarantee programs, greenhouse gas reducing technologies and advanced vehicle programs.
The Office of Science would see a $900 million cut and is meant, according to the proposal, to focus on "basic science and energy research and development."
The budget also would include $140 million to restart licensing activities for nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain, a thorny issue on Capitol Hill.
But EPA appears to bear the brunt of the cuts. That follows Trump's campaign promises to shrink the agency, which he describes as the spear tip of former President Obama's "war on coal."
Trump is expected to sign an executive order in the coming days that would begin the long process of repealing the Clean Power Plan, the cornerstone of Obama's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector.
Former EPA spokeswoman Liz Purchia said a cut of up to 25 percent would "be unprecedented and would really dismantle the agency's ability to protect the health of Americans and the environment."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/03/16/stories/1060051557
-
Trump Proposes Slashing DOE Clean Energy Research
Mar 16, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr
President Trump today issued his "America First" budget blueprint that fulfills campaign promises with a proposed $54 billion increase in defense spending and border security, coupled with sharp cutbacks in funding for environmental protection, climate-related and clean energy programs, federal land acquisition, foreign aid, and other domestic programs.
The fiscal 2018 budget request includes $28 billion for the Department of Energy, a $1.7 billion cut, or 5.6 percent less than the current-year continuing spending resolution approved by Congress. The nuclear weapons programs that form nearly half the department's budget would get an 11 percent increase. The clean energy, smart grid and electric vehicle initiatives favored under the Obama administration are singled out for elimination or sharp cutbacks, based on the president's conviction that research aimed at jump-starting new technology should be left to the private sector.
"The budget for DOE demonstrates the administration’s commitment to reasserting the proper role of what has become a sprawling federal government and reducing deficit spending," the blueprint says.
"It reflects an increased reliance on the private sector to fund later-stage research, development, and commercialization of energy technologies and focuses resources toward early-stage research and development," it says.
The president, leading a sharply divided nation, anchored his budget decisions for fiscal 2018 firmly in his personal assessment of national challenges and priorities. "If he said it on the campaign, it's in the budget," Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said at a press briefing yesterday.
To balance the $54 billion in higher defense spending, civilian discretionary spending programs are cut by the same amount in the budget proposal.
Along with the State Department's foreign aid programs, U.S. EPA was singled out for severe cuts, with the Trump budget reducing current funding by $2.6 billion to $5.7 billion, a 31 percent drop.
Funding for EPA's Clean Power Plan, the Obama administration's signature climate policy initiative to curb carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, is eliminated. Spending on climate change research and international climate program participation is halted, a saving that OMB said would equal over $100 million.
"Consistent with the President's America First Energy Plan, the budget reorients EPA's air program to protect the air we breathe without unduly burdening the American economy," the budget document says.
Briefing reporters yesterday, Mulvaney said, "You can expect reductions in the EPA [programs] that don't line up with the president's view on things like global warming and alternative energy."
'Political onus is with the GOP'
Under the White House budget proposal, the Interior Department would get $11.6 billion, down $1.5 billion, or 12 percent. The cuts target major acquisitions of federal land in favor of channeling lower funding amounts to maintaining existing national parks, refuges and public lands.
The DOE budget provides $120 million to restart licensing activities for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository and eliminates the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), a center of Obama administration investment in commercializing clean energy technologies; the Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program; and the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, stating "the private sector is better positioned to finance disruptive energy research and development and to commercialize innovative technologies."
Funding for the Office of Science is cut by $900 million from current levels, and the Trump budget removes $2 billion in funding in all from the federal Weatherization Assistance Program directed to lower-income households, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Office of Nuclear Energy, the Office of Electricity, and Fossil Energy Research & Development. The lower funding levels aim to focus these programs "on limited, early-stage applied energy research and development activities where the federal role is stronger," the budget says.
The Trump budget proposals are certain to add highly combustible fuel to the budget wars between Republicans and Democrats that marked the Obama presidency.
Under the Trump proposal, fiscal 2018 defense spending would be raised to $603 billion from the current $549 billion level, while non-defense discretionary programs would drop to $462 billion from $516 billion currently. The budget blueprint does not include revenue estimates and the Congressional Budget Office's projected fiscal 2018 budget deficit of $488 billion is unchanged, Mulvaney noted. The new budget request does not assume approval of the House Republicans' health care proposal.
"The House will be happy to do them on a party-line vote. Some Democrats may vote for some of the defense spending," said Joseph White, director of the Center for Policy Studies at Case Western Reserve University.
"The Senate will not be particularly interested in voting for all of the domestic cuts," predicted White. "Presumably, since the Republicans control the process, there is a chance the Senate would pass the defense spending, and God knows what they would do with domestic programs.
"Assuming they can pass a budget resolution, they'll pass some increase in defense but not be able to pass appropriations bills," he said. "There will be a continuing resolution with modest cuts in current levels (for civilian discretionary programs), but not close to the numbers required in the budget resolution, then another continuing resolution, and another, and another, and at some point they'll settle it."
The difference with other budget standoffs, White said: "Now there is a Republican president and Republican leadership in both houses in the Capitol. So the political onus is with the GOP."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/03/16/stories/1060051558
-
Gas Group Vows to Fight for Voluntary Methane Program
Mar 16, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
Natural gas distributors say they fear key methane programs will be on the chopping block as the White House moves to defund or privatize U.S. EPA's voluntary climate change efforts.
EPA's Natural Gas Star and Methane Challenge programs look like contenders to have their funding zeroed out as part of the Trump administration's budget proposal, said Pam Lacey, chief regulatory counsel for the American Gas Association. If that happens, she said, the industry association is prepared to push back.
"We'd like to see those [programs] continue. It provides a transparent platform to show what our members are doing to continue their progress in reducing emissions," Lacey said.
"We're going to make our views known to EPA and the administration and let them know how those programs actually benefit us and we think benefit the country and should be retained," she added.
The prospect of the methane programs losing funding came up after widely circulated reports that the Office of Management and Budget had instructed EPA to eliminate 14 voluntary climate partnerships. It remains unclear whether other companies and industry associations will support or oppose such cuts.
But Janet McCabe, former acting assistant administrator of EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, said companies opposed to federal regulations would have a reason to instead promote voluntary programs that encourage and reward good behavior.
"I hope there are companies that would [support it], especially companies whose values are consistent with being thoughtful about using resources and being thoughtful about climate change," McCabe told E&E News.
She noted that existing oil and gas facilities are a significant contributor to methane, a highly potent greenhouse gas, and that there were reasonable and cost-effective ways to reduce emissions.
McCabe made the case for keeping EPA's voluntary climate partnership programs at the agency instead of moving to privatize them as a widely circulated budget outline had also suggested.
"We find over and over and over again that these kinds of programs can actually save money as well as raise the profile of the company. That's why I think it's so important to have EPA engaged. EPA is the premier environmental health organization in the world. There is something very meaningful about having the imprimatur of the EPA," McCabe said.
"The agency can provide all kinds of technical assistance and can bring in expertise from other parts of EPA in a way that a privately run entity just focused on that one thing wouldn't be able to do," she added.
The prospect of losing funding for the two programs also concerned environmental groups, even as many had argued the emissions reductions achieved by the programs fell far short of what was needed at a national level.
"The Natural Gas Star Program is very important and, in its way, very successful. Leading companies did step forward to participate and much was learned both by the companies and by the broader public about what can be done to reduce methane emissions from oil and gas operations," said Mark Brownstein, vice president of the climate and energy program at the Environmental Defense Fund.
But even though the program has been around for over two decades, only a small fraction of the overall industry has joined the program, said Brownstein.
The Natural Gas Star Program, launched in the 1990s, keeps a permanent record of the progress companies have made in voluntarily reducing their emissions.
Last year, EPA launched its updated version, the Natural Gas Star Methane Challenge Program, designed to allow companies to make public commitments to reduce methane emissions anywhere along their entire supply chain. However, the program launched as EPA was working on finalizing methane regulations for new sources within the oil and gas industry, dampening interest. The program mainly drew its support from American Gas Association members who were not going to be subject to the upcoming regulations that focused on upstream production and storage.
If the Trump administration does seek to zero out funding those programs, it would fall in line with its moves away from the methane regulations put forth by the Obama administration. Lawmakers currently are working on pulling back Department of the Interior regulations on oil and gas production on federal lands (Climatewire, March 7). EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt also recently canceled an information collection request aimed at gathering data so the agency could begin crafting regulations to control methane from existing sources in the oil and gas industry.
McCabe called the move by Pruitt "distressing," saying EPA underwent a lengthy comment process from industry and other stakeholders to whittle the information collection request down to information that was not already readily available and that was important and relevant to developing possible future regulations.
"And so for the administration to say we need to reconsider that, and think that information may not be needed, is troubling," McCabe said. "Information is what people make decisions on, and if they don't have the information I don't know how they will go about making a thoughtful decision about whether a regulation is needed."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/03/16/stories/1060051553
-
Dakota Access Pipeline Races to Start Moving Bakken Crude
Mar 16, 2017 | Platts Blog
By Meghan Gordon
Oil will likely flow through the Dakota Access Pipeline under Lake Oahe in North Dakota early next week.
Barring any more twists or turns — and there have been plenty in the last seven months of this project — the contentious 470,000 b/d crude oil pipeline will start commercial service very soon thereafter. It will open up a major new route for Bakken and Three Forks production to flow to Illinois and onto the Texas Gulf Coast.
A March 7 ruling by Judge James Boasberg of the US District Court for the District of Columbia cleared the way for the startup, when he turned down two North Dakota tribes’ request for a preliminary injunction to prevent oil from flowing under Lake Oahe. On Tuesday, he ruled against the tribes again in denying an injunction pending appeal by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The lawsuit will go on, but Boasberg’s role in the Dakota Access saga will likely fade to the background.
Boasberg has presided over the lawsuit with a level head that you’d expect of any judge named to one of the top US courts. He often acted as a mediator during hearings, trying to get the parties to the lawsuit — the North Dakota tribes, the US Army Corps of Engineers and Dakota Access — to reach an agreement without protracted filings about scheduling or moot issues.
He lost his cool only once — after the US Department of Justice issued a press release freezing pipeline activity near Lake Oahe moments after Boasberg had denied a preliminary injunction and allowed construction to go on.
Boasberg routinely thanked members of the public who attended the hearings — for being civil and for being a part of the process. There were Standing Rock Sioux in ceremonial regalia, energy industry analysts gathering information for clients, and lots of lawyers and journalists filling the less-than-comfortable benches of Courtroom 19 in the federal courthouse in Washington.
Protesters will continue to fight Dakota Access and use it to galvanize opposition to future energy projects. The movement solidified a shift among environmentalists from exclusively targeting upstream projects to trying to block the transportation networks that move oil or natural gas from the wellhead to markets.
At the same time, companies have likely learned their own lessons from the Dakota Access saga — whether they plan to ramp up local engagement before applying for projects to build community support or adopt Energy Transfer Partners’ strategy of keeping nearly silent while they go through the regulatory and court process.
http://blogs.platts.com/2017/03/16/dakota-access-pipeline-bakken-crude-oil/
-
Two Bills Seek to Limit Drilling Near Schools and Provide Public Notice
Mar 16, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Ryan Handy
Two bills proposed this month by Democratic lawmakers in the Texas Legislature are trying to give municipalities more control over oil and gas development in their communities by limiting oil and gas drilling around schools and requiring public meetings for permit approval.
One bill, Senate Bill 1868 would require public hearings for oil and gas companies that want to drilling within 1,500 feet of a school or daycare. Earthworks, a national environmental non-profit that supports the bill, estimates that there are around 1,000 schools in Texas that have oil and gas wells within 1,500 feet. The bill was proposed Sen. Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo. The Railroad Commission of Texas, which regulates the oil and gas industry, does not require any kind of public notice with it approves drill permits, but does require public notifications for injection wells.
The second bill, House Bill 3403, would grant municipalities the right to decide whether or not oil and gas companies can drill within 1,500 feet of a school. The bill was proposed by Rep. Terry Canales, D-Edinburg.
For environmental advocates, both bills are attempt to regain ground lost during the 2015 legislative session. when House Bill 40 effectively stripped municipalities of the right to deny oil and gas drilling permits within city limits.
“It’s just common sense that cities should be able to put a tighter rein on oil and gas facilities that are most likely to pollute and disrupt our kids’ schools,” said Earthworks’ Gulf region organizer Sharon Wilson, in a statement.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2017/03/16/two-bills-seek-to-limit-drilling-near-schools-and-provide-public-notice/
-
Refiners, Union Hit Trump Plan to Cut Chemical Safety Board
Mar 16, 2017 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Ben Lefebvre
The White House’s proposal to get rid of the Chemical Safety Board is already drawing criticisms from refinery operators and workers.
The budget that Trump’s team released today would eliminate the independent agency charged with investigating accidents involving hazardous materials at refineries. Past investigations include the 2015 explosion at the Exxon Mobil refinery in Torrance, Calif., and the 2010 fire at a Tesoro refinery in Washington that led to seven fatalities.
Refinery company sources told POLITICO they viewed the cut as drastic, even though the industry in general had bumped heads with the agency under its prior chairman.
But relations were improving under current leadership, said Stephen Brown, vice president and legislative counsel for federal government affairs at Tesoro, the country’s fourth-largest refiner.
“I just think we’d like to see it better run, which is the way they’re going,” Brown said. “The industry’s perspective on the CSB is that the agency, staffed with professional and experienced investigators, professionally administered — minus a knee-jerk hostility to industry agenda — would be a good thing for all concerned.”
The agency itself has a budget that just tops $10 billion, and while its findings and recommendations are not binding, both the industry and union members working at the refineries take it seriously.
Eliminating the CSB would be “really quite stupid,” said Michael Wright, the United Steelworkers' head of health, safety and environment.
“The CSB is probably one of the best deals in Washington if we compare their budget to the money they save and certainly the lives they save," Wright said. "Their recommendations have saved residents living as much as 20 miles downwind from toxic gas.”
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Cook Inlet Gas Leak Could Endanger Fragile Environment
Mar 16, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
In late January, technicians at Hilcorp Alaska noticed a change in the flow rate for an 8-inch subsea pipeline that carries natural gas from the company's onshore facility to a group of offshore pumping platforms in the Cook Inlet in southern Alaska.
During the days that followed, the company began helicopter surveillance in the region. On Feb. 7, Hilcorp reported that gas was bubbling from the 52-year-old pipeline, which provides fuel to the offshore pumping facilities for heat, light and power.
The leak is located 4.6 miles offshore from the Kenai Peninsula town of Nikiski, in the middle of the federal critical habitat region for Alaska's endangered beluga whales, only 340 of which remain in the inlet.
In response, Hilcorp reduced the flow rate for the fuel, which is made up of 98 percent methane. But the company said it couldn't send divers to assess and repair the breached pipe because of the Cook Inlet's dangerous icy conditions.
The company also argued that it can't shut down the gas flow because the pipeline was once used to transport oil and still contains some "residual" crude. Hilcorp officials insist that the remaining oil could leak into the inlet if the gas flow stops and seawater flushes out the pipeline.
The Houston-based energy company has subsequently ratcheted down the pressure in the gas line. But the leak, which the company now says began in December, continues to emit 193,000 to 215,000 cubic feet of methane into the inlet each day.
In response to the breach, the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration gave Hilcorp until May 1 to repair or shut down the pipeline, which regulators noted has experienced two other leaks since June 2014.
The May deadline is particularly important in Alaska, where commercial and recreational fishing for salmon and other species is scheduled to begin in the spring.
Meanwhile, at the request of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Hilcorp has agreed to begin environmental monitoring to measure the impacts of the millions of cubic feet of methane flowing into the Cook Inlet.
And on Tuesday, state regulators signed off on the company's environmental sampling and monitoring work plan for the gas leak.
Abundant wildlife at risk
Thus far, no one knows exactly how Hilcorp's methane leak is affecting Cook Inlet's abundant wildlife.
Last week, Hilcorp took a group of state regulators for an overflight of the upper Cook Inlet shoreline, flying from Anchorage 100 miles south to Kaligan Island in the middle of the inlet.
The state reported that no beluga whales or other marine mammals were observed. Hundreds of birds were seen on the western side of the inlet, but none near the bubble field.
Federal marine scientists are most concerned about the leak's impact on Alaska's endangered and iconic beluga whales, whose critical habitat is situated in the northern inlet region. They warn that Hilcorp's gas emissions could create a hypoxic region in the Cook Inlet, as methane displaces oxygen in the water column and in the air above the leak site.
That pollution could jeopardize the food supply for the endangered beluga whales.
Beluga whales eat fish, which need an oxygen-rich environment to survive. "Without that, the beluga's prey will either vacate the area or die," explained Greg Balogh, supervisor for the National Marine Fisheries Service's Protected Resources Office in Anchorage.
Methane leaks also create noise from the high-pressure gas surging from the pipeline. That intense sound could "harass the Cook Inlet belugas or change their behavior," noted Sadie Wright, NMFS coordinator for the Cook Inlet natural gas leak.
According to the NMFS, the region is also frequented by a number of other protected sea mammals, including harbor seals, Steller sea lions, killer whales, humpback whales, fin whales, harbor porpoises and Dall's porpoises.
The inlet's icy conditions could worsen the environmental problems. "It's our understanding that ice cover could potentially contain the methane in the water column, leading to a buildup of methane concentration or decrease in dissolved oxygen," Wright said.
Once the leak is stanched, however, the strong Cook Inlet tides could help dissipate the methane plume. "The tides would be working in our favor to dilute the effects of this more rapidly than if it was happening in a lake or a portion of the ocean that has little to no current," Balogh explained.
The result would be a less intense but more widespread region of pollution.
Activists boost pressure
Days after Hilcorp reported the gas line leak, Cook Inletkeeper Bob Shavelson wrote to Alaska environmental regulators demanding that the state immediately shut down the company's pipeline.
The Homer-based activist was particularly incensed by Hilcorp's statements that minimized the potential environmental impact of the gas release. The company argued that the effect of the leak on marine life is "minimal based on the volume of gas being leaked."
In response, Shavelson released a video of the leak, showing a bubbling cauldron in the middle of the inlet's patchy ice field.
Shavelson said that "Hilcorp has amassed a broad array of environmental and safety violations during its relatively short tenure in Cook Inlet, and it's now apparently more concerned with its bottom line than the health, safety and welfare of Cook Inlet and the communities that rely on it."
When the state declined to crack down on Hilcorp, Shavelson sent a letter notifying CEO Jeffery Hildebrand that he plans to sue the company under the Clean Water Act for discharging pollutants into the Cook Inlet.
Since then, the Center for Biological Diversity has also jumped into the legal fight. Late last month, the group called on U.S. EPA to take enforcement action against the company and threatened to file a citizen suit against Hilcorp under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Pipeline Safety Act and Endangered Species Act.
More recently, Alaska Native groups REDOIL and the Eyak Preservation Council joined forces with the Natural Resources Defense Council and four other national environmental groups to ask the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to issue an emergency order closing down the pipeline (Greenwire, March 8).
Hilcorp's gas leak comes at a pivotal time for the company, which is seeking federal approval to drill for oil at its offshore Liberty leases in the Arctic Ocean.
Alaska environmentalists argue that Hilcorp's inability to quickly solve the Cook Inlet methane leak proves that the independent oil company shouldn't be trusted to operate in the Beaufort Sea.
The company's 2014 development plan for Liberty, which would be located in federal waters, proposes construction of a man-made island 6 miles from shore. Federal regulators are expected to complete a draft environmental impact statement on that project by May.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/03/16/stories/1060051541
-
Shippers Aren't Rushing to Upgrade Ethanol Trains
Mar 16, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
Thousands of safer rail cars are sitting idle as ethanol shippers continue to use cars that were deemed unsafe to carry oil following a 2013 Quebec derailment that killed 47 people.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration gave the ethanol industry until 2023 to start using cars with thicker shells and other safety features. But some experts say that's not soon enough, because the older cars represent a serious danger.
A train transporting ethanol flew off the tracks in Iowa last week, sending fireballs into the sky (Greenwire, March 10).
There were no injuries, but the accident has highlighted the fact that shippers are not rushing to implement the safer equipment.
"We would like to see the shippers accelerate their schedule to get these legacy DOT-111 tank cars out of service when transporting flammable liquids — specifically crude oil and ethanol," said Robert Sumwalt, a member of the National Transportation Safety Board, on Saturday.
As of September, there were 35,252 tank cars hauling ethanol, and 84 percent of them were the older DOT-111 model. The newer DOT-117s account for 6 percent of the current fleet.
The newer, safer cars are also more expensive: A shipper using 1,000 of the old ones would save $5.4 million a year, based on current lease rates.
"While we are having some success in getting ethanol customers to upgrade to DOT-117s when their leases expire, we are not seeing a lot of demand from customers to make this switch," said Christopher LaHurd, a spokesman for GATX Corp., a leading rail car leaser.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/03/16/stories/1060051559
-
State Lawmakers Question Choice of Cap and Trade
Mar 16, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
California state lawmakers appeared open to alternatives to Gov. Jerry Brown's (D) plans to extend the state's landmark cap-and-trade system past 2020.
Assemblymember Cristina Garcia (D) is one of the authors of a bill, A.B. 378, that could carry out Brown's directive to extend the program. At a budget oversight hearing in Sacramento yesterday, Garcia raised concerns about conventional air pollution as well as carbon dioxide. She acknowledged that air quality has improved in her Los Angeles district but that it still remains among the most polluted in the state.
"It's not just toxics, but even carbon is an issue," she said. "We've learned enough over the last decade to figure out ways to be complementary and do better by these communities."
State lawmakers are in a prime position to adjust the cap-and-trade program this year, due to the possibility that the state may lack the authority to continue it past 2020. Brown has called for the Legislature to reapprove cap and trade with a two-thirds vote, to insulate it against legal challenges that it violates a state constitutional amendment requiring a supermajority approval of new taxes and fees.
Garcia signaled resistance to the status quo. "We have two Californias right now," she said. "We need to think about how we do that better and close that gap."
Activists who oppose cap and trade for its potential to reduce total greenhouse gas emissions while allowing emissions at individual facilities to increase have mounted a fierce battle to get California regulators to consider alternatives as they pursue emissions cuts through 2030. Known as environmental justice groups, they have pushed for direct regulations or a carbon tax. A tax coupled with an emissions cap "can deliver both emission and revenue certainty," said Amy Vanderwarker, co-director of the California Environmental Justice Alliance.
A Republican on the committee echoed their concerns. "If we reauthorize and move to the 2030 goals, you're suggesting that that's going to drive the cost up?" Assemblymember Jim Patterson asked a witness from the state Legislative Analyst's Office, which has recommended either the continuation of cap and trade or a carbon tax. "Would there be in a carbon tax environment a similar possibility of taking the carbon tax revenue and returning it to the businesses and the families and the households?"
State officials in charge of reaching the 2030 goal of 40 percent below 1990 emissions levels defended the trading program and pointed out that a tax would make it more difficult to reach the target.
"The preferred scenario is continuation of the cap-and-trade program," said Edie Chang, deputy executive officer at the California Air Resources Board. "We've talked about a carbon tax for a number of years in California."
ARB also introduced a new top agency official to lawmakers. Veronica Eady started two weeks ago as the agency's first executive officer for environmental justice (Climatewire, Jan. 27).
Eady, a lawyer who has served in environmental justice positions at U.S. EPA and in Massachusetts state government, said she was well-versed in the issues, having grown up in an industrial neighborhood in Pennsylvania where she "played within the fence line of a W.R. Grace asbestos processing plant."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/03/16/stories/1060051549
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested