Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 3/17/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) Infrastructure Quietly Coming to Boil, Unions Head Says
Mar 17, 2017 | Bloomberg BNA
By Elliott T. Dube
A “tremendous” amount of behind-the-scenes activity is taking place to propel President Donald Trump’s infrastructure plan forward, the president of North America’s Building Trades Unions told Bloomberg BNA. -
(ACC Mentioned) ATA Announces First Annual Economic Summit
Mar 17, 2017 | Go By Truck News
American Trucking Associations announced it will be hosting the first annual ATA Economic Summit July 20 in Arlington, Va., for its motor carrier and private fleet members. -
Enforcement Advocates Call Budget a 'Death Blow'
Mar 17, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
Deep cuts to environmental enforcement proposed by the Trump administration, experts say, would translate into fewer U.S. EPA inspectors poking around in the oil patch and less oversight of state regulation programs. -
Sharing Data Under a Reformed TSCA
Mar 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Herb Estreicher
Under a reformed US Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the EPA now has the authority to require manufacturers, importers and processors to test the chemicals they place on the market for any associated health and environmental effects. -
NGO Platform: Making America Toxic Again
Mar 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Ken Cook
It’s easy to forget what America was like before President Richard Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970. The country’s landscape was marred by oil slickened rivers that caught on fire, smog so thick it obscured city skylines, and unregulated chemical plants that spewed life-threatening toxic pollution into the air and water. -
New Research Shows Increased Imports of Dangerous Chemicals
Mar 16, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Michele Setteducato and CJ Frogozo
Today, three public health groups asked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take action to protect the health of all Americans and the environment from ten highly toxic chemicals that they concluded pose an unreasonable risk to human health and the environment. -
Monsanto and the EPA Have Been Lying to Us for Years About Roundup
Mar 17, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Zen Honeycutt
Yesterday's groundbreaking news of a new lawsuit regarding Monsanto's collusion, cover ups, and corruption inside the EPA is a part of a long string of unraveling safety claims. -
Cosmetics Industry Backs US FDA Lead Limit
Mar 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
The Personal Care Products Council (PCPC) has voiced support for the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) proposed guidance to limit lead in cosmetic lip products to 10parts per million (ppm). -
(ACC Mentioned) PK Clean Announces Plans for Plastic-to-Oil Expansion in Coming Year
Mar 17, 2017 | Waste Dive
By Cole Rosengren
Utah-based startup PK Clean has announced a second facility using its plastic-to-oil technology is currently being built in Canada and will be operational by the end of the year. -
'Skinny Budget' Plants a Big Flag for Energy Production
Mar 17, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
President Trump's "skinny budget" did more than slash Interior Department funding. -
'More to Come' from Trump, GOP on Energy — Gerard
Mar 17, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
Jack Gerard, the nation's top oil and gas lobbyist, foresees lots of action from the Trump administration and Congress on energy issues in the next six weeks. -
Study: Emissions from Power Plants, Refineries May Be Far Higher Than Reported
Mar 16, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Joe Rudek and David Lyon
A new peer-reviewed paper in Environmental Science and Technology suggests that methane emissions from natural gas power plants and oil refineries may be significantly higher than accounted for in current inventories. -
Court Delays Fracking Rule Proceeding as Interior Plans Rollback
Mar 17, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A federal court has scrapped upcoming oral arguments over the Obama administration's landmark effort to regulate hydraulic fracturing. -
Phillips 66 Announces Rodeo Pipeline in the Permian
Mar 17, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Jordan Blum
Houston’s Phillips 66 hopes to take advantage of West Texas’ booming Permian Basin by building the 130-mile Rodeo pipeline to the Midland area. -
(ACC Mentioned) Donald Trump’s Proposal to Scrap Chemical Safety Board Draws Criticism
Mar 17, 2017 | The Indian Express
By Reuters
US President Donald Trump’s proposal to do away with the federal agency that investigates chemical accidents drew sharp criticism from environmental, labour and safety advocates, who said that eliminating the watchdog would put American lives at risk. -
CSB to Trump — Don't Eliminate Us
Mar 17, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board jumped to defend its work as news came yesterday that President Trump wanted to completely ax the agency. -
President Trump’s Budget Request Sidelines Science
Mar 17, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jessica Morrison and Britt E. Erickson
President Donald J. Trump’s proposed fiscal 2018 budget would slash federal support for biomedical research, defund the U.S. Chemical Safety & Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) and the Department of Energy’s advanced energy research, and lop funding for EPA by nearly a third. -
Climate Diplomacy Fund Dies in Budget Blueprint
Mar 17, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
Climate change advocates say they are not optimistic about being able to save the $1.3 billion in international global warming assistance that President Trump would ax from the budget. -
Pruitt, Citing Staff Shortage, Puts Off 5 Rules
Mar 17, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, citing a lack of Senate-confirmed staff, is imposing an added two-month delay in the effective dates of five final rules issued in the waning days of the Obama administration.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Infrastructure Quietly Coming to Boil, Unions Head Says
Mar 17, 2017 | Bloomberg BNA
By Elliott T. Dube
A “tremendous” amount of behind-the-scenes activity is taking place to propel President Donald Trump’s infrastructure plan forward, the president of North America’s Building Trades Unions told Bloomberg BNA.
Trump probably will move infrastructure to the forefront of priorities after dealing with health-care reform and potentially tax reform, NABTU President Sean McGarvey said March 15.
Meanwhile, the National Economic Council has gotten some “real quality people in place and on board” for launching an infrastructure program and is still filling key positions, he said. Outside experts are “putting white papers and policy positions together” to share with officials who will directly shape the program, he said.
“That work is going on in earnest,” McGarvey said. “We’re participating in five, six, seven different groups that are working on those issues.”
McGarvey also praised the Congressional Building Trade Caucus’s “honorable and respected” activity in spotlighting infrastructure and other construction industry concerns. Rep. Donald Norcross (D-N.J.), a former head of the New Jersey State AFL-CIO, and Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.), a former Southern New Jersey Building Trades Council president, created the caucus in 2016.
McKinley, Norcross and 11 other U.S. representatives sent a letter March 1 encouraging Trump to adopt certain priorities as part of any infrastructure program. The writers urged Trump to use prevailing wage standards in any infrastructure package, to rely on the existing registered apprenticeship model, and to distribute infrastructure funds to “all corners of the country.”
Trump Following Up on Campaign Talk, McGarvey Says
In the meantime, Trump has started “putting campaign rhetoric into action” by following up on other proposals he made that appealed to working-class, wage-earning voters, McGarvey said.
For instance, the president has put “a stake through” the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership by withdrawing from it and has put pressure on the country’s partners in the North American Free Trade Agreement to revise that pact, he said.
McGarvey also referenced Trump’s recent executive order streamlining and expediting environmental reviews and approvals for infrastructure projects. Trump also issued a “Buy American” memorandum directing the Commerce Department to develop a plan for the use of U.S. materials and equipment in all new pipeline projects. The White House has since specified that the mandate is “specific to new pipelines or those that are being repaired” and doesn’t cover the under-construction Keystone XL pipeline project.
Trump’s attention to these jobs-related, trade and other economic issues is resonating, McGarvey said.
“I can tell you from my travels out in the country that they are the issues that people who support him are still paying attention to,” McGarvey said. “There’s lots of other things going on, but by and large, that’s not their focus.”
Prevailing Wage Debate Continues
McGarvey also addressed recent efforts by lawmakers to minimize or eliminate prevailing wage standards.
U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) recently introduced a bill to suspend Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage requirements for federal transportation-related infrastructure contracts. In addition, numerous states in recent years repealed or altered their prevailing wage laws.
The Davis-Bacon Act is an archaic law that involves a “broken wage determination process,” Ben Brubeck, vice president of regulatory, labor and state affairs for Associated Builders and Contractors, told Bloomberg BNA in a March 14 email.
State-level prevailing wage rollbacks have “relieved state and state-assisted projects from inefficient compliance burdens, outdated work restrictions and inflated costs,” Brubeck said.
But McGarvey said attempts to roll back prevailing wage standards are based on ideology, not fiscal considerations. Flake’s legislation is “more of a message bill” that NABTU is nevertheless taking seriously in opposing, he said.
“There’s this preconceived notion that prevailing wage laws benefit the building trades and in turn benefit the Democratic Party, and that’s really the line of attack,” McGarvey said. “It has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility or being good stewards of state tax money. That’s been proven over and over again.”
The building trades have consistently been a major source of political contributions for Republicans in Congress, which is part of the reason why legislation is “so difficult for ideologues to move there,” he said.
A “who’s who of corporate America"—including trade groups such as the American Petroleum Institute, the American Chemistry Council, the Nuclear Energy Institution and the Waterways Council—have gone on record as saying prevailing wage standards are smart public policy and a useful tool for developing highly skilled, safe workforces, McGarvey added.
https://www.bna.com/infrastructure-quietly-coming-n57982085354/
-
(ACC Mentioned) ATA Announces First Annual Economic Summit
Mar 17, 2017 | Go By Truck News
American Trucking Associations announced it will be hosting the first annual ATA Economic Summit July 20 in Arlington, Va., for its motor carrier and private fleet members.
“We know trucking is the backbone of the supply chain,” said ATA Chief Economist Bob Costello, “and with this summit, we want to bring together experts from other adjacent industries to explore the state of the economy and trends that impact trucking and the U.S. economy at large.”
The Summit will bring together chief economists from several trade associations for an outlook on their respective industries, spanning from manufacturing to construction to retail. Attendees will gain a broad perspective on the state of the economy and forecasts in the supply chain ecosystem that they can use to strategize their budgets and future plans.
“Knowledge is power,” said ATA President and CEO Chris Spear, “and this Summit will offer the opportunity for fleet executives to gain the insights and knowledge necessary to make informed decisions.”
Among the organizations expected to be represented at the Summit are ACT Research, the American Chemistry Council, the Associated General Contractors, the Beer Institute, the National Automobile Dealers Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Restaurant Association and more to be announced later. Bob Costello will also give an outlook for the motor carrier industry.
https://www.gobytrucknews.com/ata-economic-summit/123
-
Enforcement Advocates Call Budget a 'Death Blow'
Mar 17, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
Deep cuts to environmental enforcement proposed by the Trump administration, experts say, would translate into fewer U.S. EPA inspectors poking around in the oil patch and less oversight of state regulation programs.
The spending proposal rolled out yesterday contains a 24 percent cut to EPA's enforcement office, called the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA). That would further erode a branch that has already been losing staff to budget cuts during the Obama years.
Even though Congress is unlikely to agree to such deep cuts, enforcement veterans and former agency officials say the proposal is a clear signal of the new administration's priorities.
"The policy direction is less enforcement," said Rich Alonso, a former air pollution enforcer at the agency now at Bracewell LLP.
Advocates of enforcement called the cuts devastating. In an email exchange, Obama-era OECA Chief Cynthia Giles called them a "death blow."
The administration's blueprint justifies the cuts by stating the plan "avoids duplication" of state enforcement efforts.
The main EPA programs delegated to states include programs covering clean water, drinking water, solid and hazardous waste programs, and stationary source air pollution, Alonso said. Presumably, those would be targeted for the biggest reductions.
Federal-only programs include mobile sources and fuel regulations under the Clean Air Act, pesticide programs, toxic substances control and the wetlands program.
But state governments may not be able to pick up the slack. In EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's home state of Oklahoma, agencies have been told to prepare for another year of spending cuts at levels as high as 14.5 percent.
In Pennsylvania, the head of the state Department of Environmental Protection wrote to Pruitt yesterday, saying proposed reductions in federal funding would hit his agency hard.
"These budget cuts do not reduce any of the responsibilities that DEP has to the people of Pennsylvania, but does decrease the resources available to fulfill those responsibilities," wrote acting Secretary Patrick McDonnell, part of Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf's administration.
Trump budget writers protected state revolving funds, which provide money for infrastructure to state and local governments. But they proposed a sharp cut to grant programs, including many for states, saying many "go beyond EPA's statutory requirements."
But many of those grants "actually go to support bread-and-butter air and water pollution programs," said Avi Garbow, EPA's general counsel in the Obama administration.
"This is a pipeline that is going to dry out," said Garbow, now at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.
'Desktop enforcement'
More details of how Trump wants to cut EPA and other agencies are expected in May (E&E Daily, March 16).
Alonso said he'd expect sharp cuts to any programs where EPA reviews the work of state environmental programs to ensure compliance. State oil and gas agencies are the primary regulators of oil and gas operations.
While he expects energy companies to see the enforcement changes as a good sign, Alonso said they should be cautious in their optimism.
He expects that EPA officials will turn to more "desktop enforcement," where the agency demands compliance data from companies to look for violations. While that requires fewer resources for the agency than on-site inspections, it can be time-consuming for companies.
And environmental groups, likely drawing record contributions, will also try to fill any gap EPA leaves in enforcement with lawsuits.
"These organizations are pretty well-known. They're taken seriously," Alonso said. "They're good adversaries."
But Joel Mintz, author of "Enforcement at the EPA: High Stakes and Hard Choices," said nonprofit groups can't come close to filling such a gap.
"There's only so much they can do," said Mintz, a law professor at Nova Southeastern University. "It will not make up for the loss of attention to environmental problems."
Critics say the cuts could challenge Pruitt's oft-touted devotion to the "rule of law" by making it difficult or impossible to comply with federal statutes.
For example, federal law requires that the agency have 200 criminal investigators. But it has far fewer. The agency already struggles to meet many deadlines set in statute. Environmental groups and others can sue to enforce them.
"If this budget is imposed," said Garbow, the Obama-era general counsel, "it could so decimate the agency that it is incapable of following the duties delegated to it by Congress."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/03/17/stories/1060051629
-
Sharing Data Under a Reformed TSCA
Mar 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Herb Estreicher
Under a reformed US Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the EPA now has the authority to require manufacturers, importers and processors to test the chemicals they place on the market for any associated health and environmental effects.
In addition to the agency’s long-standing authority to order testing of new chemicals that raise potential concerns, it can now do so for existing chemicals on the market – known as active substances – that it has selected as high priorities for risk evaluation or to implement risk management measures.
However, the agency must demonstrate the need for the tests, and there are provisions under the law requiring it, where possible, to make decisions on the basis of existing data and information to avoid unnecessary animal testing. It must also employ quantitative structure-activity relationship (Qsar) models and other computational techniques where it can.
In its proposed rules to implement this new authority, the EPA suggests it is likely to prioritise and evaluate chemicals that already have a complete data set without requiring new testing – at least in the early years of its activities under the amended TSCA.
At first, the agency is expected to process relatively few chemicals, roughly 20-30 per year. However, the law states that it will ultimately prioritise and evaluate all existing chemicals in US commerce, despite this possibly taking many years. As such, some level of EPA-mandated testing is likely to be required in order to keep the pipeline full as it runs out of candidates with complete data sets for risk evaluation.
There are also several provisions under the amended TSCA that may lead to a considerable amount of testing or at least the need for US manufacturers to gain access to studies owned by third parties. First, before the EPA begins the evaluation of a chemical, it must provide the public with the opportunity to submit data to support it.
Manufacturers, and others interested in the outcome, are likely to submit studies developed by EU companies under the REACH Regulation provided they have access to the data. Secondly, the Lautenberg Act, which amended the old TSCA, makes provisions for manufacturers to nominate chemicals for EPA-conducted risk evaluations.
But they must also provide the agency all the data needed and pay the costs. Although it is uncertain whether, and under what circumstances, manufacturers will nominate chemicals, the Lautenberg Act expects that at least 25% of the chemicals that the EPA evaluates will come this way.
Clearly, some new testing under TSCA is likely to be required, but the level will pale in comparison with what was needed for the registration of substances under the REACH Regulation. However, US companies are likely to need access to existing studies developed by EU companies under REACH, as they attempt to influence the outcome of the EPA risk evaluations or to the extent that they nominate chemicals for evaluation.
It should be noted that EPA officials have already indicated that they would need access to the full study reports and will not be able to conduct the evaluations on the basis of robust study summaries. US manufacturers that are not part of REACH consortia are unlikely to have access to the full study reports generated under REACH, which means they will need to negotiate data access with EU data owners. It is also worth noting that the EPA will publish any data submitted under TSCA and EU data owners will need to consider whether this will compromise their ability to obtain compensation in Korea or Taiwan or other jurisdictions with REACH-like registration requirements.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54507/sharing-data-under-a-reformed-tsca
-
NGO Platform: Making America Toxic Again
Mar 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Ken Cook
It’s easy to forget what America was like before President Richard Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970. The country’s landscape was marred by oil slickened rivers that caught on fire, smog so thick it obscured city skylines, and unregulated chemical plants that spewed life-threatening toxic pollution into the air and water.
Now, much of the progress accomplished over nearly 50 years is threatened by President Trump and his new EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt. The nation’s drinking water and air quality, safeguards against pesticides and oversight of big polluters are at great risk. It is not hyperbole to say that Americans are facing the greatest political challenge to our environmental health ever.
As attorney general of Oklahoma, Mr Pruitt did nothing to clean up the state’s serious problem of chicken manure pollution in water. He filed or joined more than a dozen lawsuits against the EPA’s rules on clean air and drinking water. He rejects the overwhelming scientific consensus that carbon dioxide emissions are causing catastrophic climate change.
At his confirmation hearing, he couldn’t even say if banning leaded gasoline was a good idea. Mr Pruitt now holds the most important environmental job in the world, yet his record and rhetoric confirm that Mr Trump picked him to dismantle the EPA, not lead its efforts to protect public health.
Fast start
And they are making a fast start. Mr Pruitt and the Trump administration are already working at a breakneck pace, weakening safeguards intended to cut mercury, lead and other air pollutants that lower IQ and cause asthma attacks in children. They’re also working to erode rules designed to prevent pollution of drinking water supplies from factories and farms.
The White House is moving forward with plans to cripple the EPA, proposing to cut the agency’s annual budget by more than $2bn and reduce staff by one-fifth. These massive cuts will hobble the agency’s ability to protect Americans from exposures to toxic chemicals, and will ultimately jeopardise the health of tens of millions of Americans, including children.
TSCA at risk?
Last year Congress passed the new Frank R Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act – it was the first update of the nation’s primary toxic substances law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA, since 1976. In November, the EPA named the first ten highly toxic substances it planned to evaluate. Many of these chemicals have been linked to cancer and can be found in everything from cosmetics to insulation, paint strippers and household cleaning products. If the EPA gets it wrong with these first ten, there could be serious consequences for current and future generations of Americans.
The agency designated asbestos as one of the top chemicals for review and regulation under the new law. As a real estate developer, Mr Trump praised the notorious carcinogen as “the greatest fire-proofing material ever used”.
The EPA first moved to ban asbestos more than 25 years ago, but was overruled by a federal court in 1991. Finally, the EPA has strengthened authority to take decisive action against this deadly substance that continues to kill up to 15,000 Americans each year, and join the other 58 nations that have already banned asbestos.
Other priority chemicals targeted by the EPA for action include 1,4-dioxane, found in cosmetics, and tetrachloroethylene, common in dry-cleaning chemicals. Like asbestos, both are strongly associated with causing cancer in humans.
Targets
Mr Pruitt – who at his confirmation hearing wouldn’t commit to prioritising an asbestos ban – has not yet set his sights on TSCA and the EPA’s new found powers to protect the public from toxic chemicals. But no one should think for a second that he and Mr Trump will leave the chemical safety law off their list of targets.
If they turn their rhetoric into reality, the EPA could be starved of the resources it needs to evaluate and regulate these and many other toxic chemicals. Under an administration that seems unlikely to act aggressively to restrict toxic chemicals, it’s more important than ever for consumers to vote with their wallets.
A number of manufacturers are making market-changing decisions in response to growing consumer demand for nontoxic substances in products and healthier ingredients in food. In February, Unilever announced a bold new initiative to provide detailed information on fragrance ingredients for all products in its multibillion-dollar portfolio of personal care brands.
Last year, Procter & Gamble – the multinational manufacturer of family, personal care and household products – made public a list of more than 140 chemicals it does not use in any fragrances in its brands.
Progress
When consumers support companies and retailers that are making strides to improve products, progress in environmental health protection can occur even in the absence of government safeguards.
Consumer action can’t completely make up for the need for changes in government policy, but they send a signal to Mr Trump, Mr Pruitt and other elected enemies of public health that no one voted for dirty air, contaminated water or consumer products containing hazardous chemicals.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54510/ngo-platform-making-america-toxic-again
-
New Research Shows Increased Imports of Dangerous Chemicals
Mar 16, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Michele Setteducato and CJ Frogozo
Today, three public health groups asked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take action to protect the health of all Americans and the environment from ten highly toxic chemicals that they concluded pose an unreasonable risk to human health and the environment. These are the first ten chemicals to be evaluated under the recently strengthened federal chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
In comments submitted to EPA on the scope of its risk evaluations, the groups provided new information on the production, import, use, and disposal of six of these toxic chemicals. Some of this information, which is based on a review of shipping records on the international trade in toxic chemicals, has never before been made available to the public.
“EPA’s first risk evaluations will be an early test of the new law, so it’s critical that they assess the complete life cycle of the chemicals, including impacts at production plants, from all chemical uses by industry and in products, and from disposal at the end of their useful life, with an eye toward evaluating the exposures and risks to the most vulnerable groups” said Liz Hitchcock, Government Affairs Director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.
“This is the just first step under the new law toward phasing out these highly toxic chemicals, which we believe pose an unreasonable risk to the health of pregnant women, children, workers, fenceline communities, and the environment,” said Mike Belliveau, Executive Director of the Environmental Health Strategy Center.
“Our investigation of global shipping records revealed new information on the rising imports of highly toxic chemicals from China, numerous chemical companies who failed to report toxic imports in apparent violation of the Toxic Substances Control Act, and Brazilian asbestos miners dying to prop up the U.S. chemical industry’s unjustifiable use of asbestos in an outdated technology to produce chlorine,” said Jim Vallette, Research Director of the Healthy Building Network.
The groups examined six of the ten chemicals, including asbestos, 1-bromopropane (NPB), carbon tetrachloride (CTC), hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), and methylene chloride (DCM). Among their research findings submitted to EPA:
Asbestos –Acknowledged as the deadly “poster” chemical for TSCA reform:
Three U.S. chemical companies imported more than 4 million pounds of asbestos in the last 4 years for their use in 15 chlor-alkali plants, which represents the only significant remaining use of asbestos in the United States.
99% of these imports come from Brazil, where the chemical’s mining and packaging has led to high numbers of workers suffering and dying from asbestos-related mesothelioma.
1- Bromopropane (nPB) – a Substance of Very High Concern based on reproductive toxicity, in Europe.
As many as eight U.S. chemical companies imported nearly 3 million pounds of nPB from China in 2014-2015, but failed to report that activity to EPA in apparent violation of the Chemical Data Reporting requirements of TSCA.
In the last 15 years, U.S. production and use of nPB has increased nearly tenfold, primarily as a result of aggressive marketing of nPB as a drop-in substitute for the carcinogenic chlorinated solvents trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene, and as an “acceptable” substitute for other more potent ozone depleting substances.
Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD): A persistent organic pollutant that is being phased out across most of the world.
About 100 million pounds of HBCD remains in the built environment in the U.S., a huge toxic legacy reservoir of future environmental releases as buildings are demolished or damaged, and from disposal activities
While domestic U.S. manufacturing of HBCD reportedly ceased by 2016, about 847,000 pounds were imported in 2016, with more than 400,000 pounds of HBCD imported from China where HBCD continues to be manufactured
Carbon Tetrachloride (CTC): Exposure to carbon tetrachloride may present a significant cancer risk and the chemical has been identified as a potential endocrine disruptor.
Air emissions of carbon tetrachloride during its production and fugitive emissions from its use as a chemical feedstock have been seriously unreported and grossly underestimated.
CTC production is poised to significantly increase due to rising feedstock demand for HFOs, as refrigerant replacements with a lower global warming potential.
In preparing their comments, the organizations — Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, Healthy Building Network and Environmental Health Strategy Center – conducted an extensive review of sources of information either not included or not fully characterized in the EPA’s use profiles on the chemicals released in February, including international trade databasesand chemical industry sources.
In the 2016 amendments to TSCA, Congress directed EPA to ensure that risk evaluations were initiated within six months of the law’s enactment on 10 substances drawn from the 2014 TSCA Work Plan list. EPA designated these 10 substances on December 19, 2016, and must publish its scope of the risk evaluation by June 19, 2017 and make a determination based on the completed risk evaluation as to whether each chemical poses an unreasonable risk to human health and the environment within three years.
The groups maintain that EPA’s risk evaluations should:
Include all uses of the chemical and all vulnerable groups in their evaluation, such as pregnant women, children, workers, and communities of color; and
Assess the aggregate risk of all exposures to the chemical, and the cumulative risk of added exposure to similar chemicals and other risk factors.
http://saferchemicals.org/newsroom/new-research-shows-increased-imports-of-dangerous-chemicals/
-
Monsanto and the EPA Have Been Lying to Us for Years About Roundup
Mar 17, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Zen Honeycutt
Yesterday's groundbreaking news of a new lawsuit regarding Monsanto's collusion, cover ups, and corruption inside the EPA is a part of a long string of unraveling safety claims.
Decades of faulty chemical review procedures are beginning to be overturned. Last week, after years of asking, I received an email from the EPA confirming that the National Toxicology Program is currently reviewing glyphosate and glyphosate formulations.
This is incredibly welcome news because it has long been the EPA’s policy to only require long term safety studies on the one declared “active” chemical, for approval, not on the final formulation. This means that any claims that the final formulation of Roundup and other pesticides, are safe, are unfounded.
The current approval process is similar to the FDA saying that a cookie is safe for a child to eat based on assessing the safety of just one ingredient, like vanilla in the cookie, regardless of the contents or safety of all the other ingredients, which could be fatal food allergies.
Obviously the assessing of only one chemical in a chemical product is a faulty system, as even third grade science shows that when one chemical is added to another chemical, the effects are completely different.
The significance of this response from the EPA, that they and the NTP are finally looking into the full formulation of a chemical product rather than just one ingredient, is enormous.
80 percent of genetically modified foods are engineered to withstand Roundup or glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) in the USA. Non organic crops are also sprayed with GBH as a drying agent, making it the most widely used herbicide in the world.
The implications of this final formulation review and the possibility of the EPA pulling the license for glyphosate and Roundup could be the beginning of the end of Monsanto. Over 76.7 percent of Monsanto sales comes from genetically modified seeds and 23.3 percent comes from herbicides, the leading seller being Roundup brands.
In 2015, Monsanto made nearly $4.76 billion in sales of Roundup. Currently, 300 million pounds of glyphosate are applied each year to American farms.
In a meeting I attended with a panel of scientists and consumer groups last year, the EPA Pesticide Review Board admitted to me that they didn't have a single long term study of the final formulation of Roundup. “Then how can you claim that it is safe?” I asked...and they refused to answer.
Because they couldn’t.
So, how did it come to an actual review of the final formulation of glyphosate-based herbicides? One can only speculate that massive public pressure from mothers and activists with sick family members, along with alarming results of scientific and citizen-funded glyphosate testing in food have made a difference. Additionally, several European countries have either banned or voted against the renewal of glyphosate-based herbicides.
Just this January, Anne Temple and I attended the Monsanto shareholder meeting. Two years ago there were around 1,200 people in attendance, but this year there might have been 60. Anne asked a question that was brought to our attention by Carey Gillam of US Right to Know. She asked:
“The EPA said in September that it wants the National Toxicology Program to research the toxicity of the complete formulated product, not just the active ingredient. We are not aware of Monsanto or Bayer going on the record yet about this, though CropLife and Syngenta recently have.
If Roundup is so safe, why not evaluate the whole formulated product and present the information to the public? Does Monsanto support this effort, or will it try to block such research?”
In the meeting, the CEO of Monsanto, Hugh Grant's response was to claim that "numerous regulatory agencies have assessed glyphosate and all of them have found glyphosate to be safe.”
Although this statement is debatable all on it’s own, notice, that he did not say glyphosate-based herbicides. Also note that glyphosate is never used alone. “Safe” has a different meaning in the world of chemical companies as well. In general, chemical companies can claim “safe” equals “not toxic,” meaning it won’t kill a human in 96 hours.
However, the other formulants in Roundup and 750 other generic glyphosate based herbicides, have been found to be 1000X more toxic.
Regardless of Monsanto’s definition of safe, hundreds of studies have recently shown a wide variety of harm from glyphosate-based herbicides, including neurotoxicity, liver disease, thyroid disorders, endocrine disruption, birth defects, testes and sperm damage, growth of breast cancer cells, increased non Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, the destruction of gut bacteria which leads to numerous autoimmune diseases and autism symptoms, and more.
It should be noted that the EPA staffer refuted the statement that the EPA requested the National Toxicology Program to review the final formulations of glyphosate-based herbicides. I wonder why the EPA would not initiate such a study.
With Roundup and glyphosate-based herbicides in the hot seat of the National Toxicology Program, one can only hope the truth about the final formulations will be acknowledged by our regulatory agencies and glyphosate-based herbicides and toxic chemicals will be removed from the market.
President Trump’s recent announcement to cut the EPA budget means that getting a swift answer regarding the final formulation review of glyphosate-based herbicides is critical.
Zen Honeycutt is Founder of Moms Across America, a National Coalition of Unstoppable Moms with the motto "Empowered Moms, Healthy Kids." Moms Across America has over 400 leaders who have organized over 700 community events in all 50 states. Moms Across America empowers and amplifies the voice of the mom locally and nationally to create healthy communities by raising awareness about GMOs and related pesticides in our food.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/324386-monsanto-and-the-epa-have-been-lying-to-us-for-years
-
Cosmetics Industry Backs US FDA Lead Limit
Mar 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
The Personal Care Products Council (PCPC) has voiced support for the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) proposed guidance to limit lead in cosmetic lip products to 10parts per million (ppm). This limit, it says, "is safe for humans and is a level reasonably achievable by industry". It also harmonises with international regulatory bodies and agencies.
By placing an emphasis on good manufacturing practices (GMPs), the PCPC said it is feasible for manufacturers to meet the 10ppm standard. And it says this is consistent with the recommendation developed under the International Cooperation of Cosmetic Regulation (ICCR), a group of global cosmetic regulatory agencies that works with cosmetic trade associations to align regulations to minimise trade barriers.
"Uniformity in this regard helps streamline the manufacturing processes for our companies, and promotes common global consumer expectations," the PCPC wrote in a comment letter responding to the proposed guidance, released in December.
NGOs advocate for stricter standard
But despite the industry's backing, NGOs the Breast Cancer Fund and the Environmental Working Group (EWG) said the 10ppm standard is not stringent enough.
The EWG said it strongly opposes the FDA’s proposal, as even trace elements of lead can cause irreversible changes in developing children, including diminished IQ and behavioural problems.
The group said the FDA should:
decline to grant industry's request for a maximum level of lead greater than zero;
immediately prohibit lead in all cosmetic products marketed for children's use; and
require that any cosmetic products with lead that remain on the market include a warning that advises consumers about the dangers of lead exposure.
"EWG urges FDA to prohibit all lead in cosmetics unless and until scientific evidence supports a different position," it wrote. "At a minimum, FDA should require manufacturers to indicate the presence and risks of lead on cosmetics packaging, so that consumers can make informed purchases."
The Breast Cancer Fund recommended the FDA lower its maximum limit of lead in lip products to 1ppm or lower.
"The FDA's own tests found average lead levels just above 1ppm in lipsticks; the maximum limit the FDA is proposing is ten times the average level detected and higher than the maximum level the agency found in their own tests," it said.
A maximum limit that exceeds the levels currently found in products will disincentivise the cosmetic industry from pursuing efforts to maintain or reduce low levels of lead contamination in lipsticks and other cosmetic products, it added.
"The proposed standard has the potential to reverse the progress the industry has made and could contribute to the ongoing health issues that result from lead exposure," the NGO said.
The FDA's draft guidance was issued in response to the personal care product industry's 2011 citizen petition. Both the FDA and ICCR standards are recommendations for industry and not enforceable rules manufacturers must follow.
Lead is not an intentionally added ingredient nor is it used as an additive in lipstick. Because the substance is naturally occurring, it is routinely detected in the air, water and soil, and may be found at low levels as a trace contaminant in the raw natural ingredients used to make cosmetics.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54498/cosmetics-industry-backs-us-fda-lead-limit
-
(ACC Mentioned) PK Clean Announces Plans for Plastic-to-Oil Expansion in Coming Year
Mar 17, 2017 | Waste Dive
By Cole Rosengren
Dive Brief:
Utah-based startup PK Clean has announced a second facility using its plastic-to-oil technology is currently being built in Canada and will be operational by the end of the year.
Trimantium Capital is helping the company raise $50 million by the third quarter of 2017 to develop multiple projects in the U.S., Canada, U.K. and Australia.
This summer the company will also be collaborating with the Plastic Ocean Project on an expedition from North Carolina to Bermuda. During the trip, plastic marine debris will be collected and converted into fuel on a boat using PK Clean's technology.
Dive Insight:
PK Clean, founded by Priyanka Bakaya and Benjamin Coates, opened its initial Salt Lake City facility in 2013 with support from both the state and private funding sources. According to the company, its patented process can generate roughly 2,500 gallons of fuel from one ton of plastic, as well as natural gas which is used to heat the system.
While this sector is still relatively small, the American Chemistry Council has previously estimated that the U.S. could support up to 600 plastic-to-oil facilities (depending on size) which would require $6.6 billion in capital investments. PK Clean aims to build 50 units, each with 30 tons per day of capacity, over the next 10 years.
As these types of facilities expand they may find more interested customers among municipalities and corporations with high diversion rate goals. Aside from combustion, few viable options are available to keep hard-to-recycle plastics out of landfills. With an estimated 250 million metric tons of plastic set to enter oceans by 2025, there will also be no shortage of marine material to draw from if efficient solutions can be developed to collect it.
http://www.wastedive.com/news/pk-clean-announces-plans-for-plastic-to-oil-expansion-in-coming-year/438287/
-
'Skinny Budget' Plants a Big Flag for Energy Production
Mar 17, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
President Trump's "skinny budget" did more than slash Interior Department funding.
The proposal to trim Interior's budget by 12 percent added to the file of evidence that Secretary Ryan Zinke faces a mandate potentially at odds with his vision of himself as a Teddy Roosevelt conservationist who can strike a balance between resource development and conservation on public lands (Energywire, Feb. 28).
While the White House budget blueprint includes scant specifics on Interior spending, it offered one bullet point hinting that the scale could tip in favor of fossil fuel extraction on the lands the agency manages.
"The President's 2018 Budget strengthens the Nation's energy security by increasing funding for DOI programs that support environmentally responsible development of energy on public lands and offshore waters," the document says. "Combined with administrative reforms already in progress, this would allow DOI to streamline permitting processes and provide industry with access to the energy resources America needs, while ensuring taxpayers receive a fair return from the development of these public resources."
Yesterday's release offered just top-line numbers that reflect the president's priorities, which include opening up federal lands to energy development. Additional figures are expected this spring (E&E Daily, March 16).
"Secretary Zinke is working to ensure the president's priorities are well represented in the details of the president's budget that will be released in May," an Interior official said yesterday.
Because the budget outline is light on spending details, it should be read symbolically, ClearView Energy Partners LLC Managing Director Kevin Book wrote in a research note yesterday.
Book's read of the document hints at tension between Zinke's conservation goals and Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney's financial priorities.
"It's not clear that Ryan Zinke's outdoorsman ways have filtered all the way up to Mulvaney's office," Book said in an interview with E&E News.
The mention of "environmentally responsible development" appears to indicate that the department's "limiting" agencies — such as the Fish and Wildlife Service — won't stop their oversight of mineral development, he said. But the reference to "streamline[d] permitting" suggests that "enabling" agencies — such as the Bureau of Land Management — will grant wider latitude on extraction proposals, Book said.
"Administrative reforms already in progress" appears to refer to the expected rollback of the Council on Environmental Quality's guidance on consideration of climate impacts in National Environmental Policy Act reviews and to the withdrawal or recalibration of the social cost of methane as a public-interest justification for regulations, he said.
The latter issue has played a starring role in the cost-benefit debate over BLM's Methane and Waste Prevention Rule, which could face congressional repeal.
"There's a lot of moving parts," Book said of the blueprint bullet point.
Promises of environmentally responsible development sound appealing, but the devil is in the details — and the Trump administration's budget offers next to none, said Michael Blumm, a professor at Lewis & Clark Law School.
"It all depends on what you mean by responsible development of energy on public lands," he said. "We can all agree that's a good idea, but how we define it is different."
Including a pledge to streamline permitting indicates intention to decrease public participation in the process and to conduct less detailed environmental studies, Blumm said.
"If their real effort is to streamline permitting, that will undermine what most people's interpretation of environmentally responsible development is," he said. "I'd be worried about it, but it's hard to see exactly what they're up to."
An agenda setter
Groups that had previously expressed hope that Zinke would take a moderate stance on energy production on public lands said they haven't lost that outlook — assuming lawmakers quash Trump's spending proposal (Greenwire, March 16).
"We hope and expect that conservation programs will be invested in at the end of the day, but it's clear that this budget highlights that the administration's agenda is fossil fuel development on public lands above all other uses," said Cameron Witten, government relations and budget specialist for the Wilderness Society. "We are hopeful from the strong bipartisan reaction to the budget proposal today that it will be dead on arrival in Congress."
The Center for Biological Diversity, which pledged to keep a close eye on Zinke's Interior tenure, said a 12 percent budget cut at the agency would inevitably drain funding for habitat and wildlife protections that could potentially balance oil and gas industry interests. Coupled with the disappearance of BLM's hydraulic fracturing rule and the possible repeal of the bureau's methane rule, the agency's ability to regulate energy development on its lands is quickly evaporating, said Randi Spivak, the center's public lands program director.
"This budget is just another sign of Trump's and Zinke's agenda," she said. "They look at public lands as a source of fossil fuels extraction."
The Independent Petroleum Association of America applauded the budget proposal for its apparent sway toward oil and gas operations.
"We're pleased the Trump administration is placing a priority on permitting of oil and natural gas wells on federal lands," said Dan Naatz, IPAA's senior vice president of government relations and political affairs. "Timely permitting is critical to long-term business plans and to sustaining oil and natural gas exploration and production on federal lands."
If budget negotiations continue in this vein, companies that had previously foregone development opportunities on public lands might begin to reconsider, said Western Energy Alliance President Kathleen Sgamma.
"The message of greater regulatory certainty under this administration is causing many companies that had abandoned public lands to consider a return," she said.
In Sgamma's view, a streamlined permitting process does not preclude environmentally responsible development.
"Regulatory certainty and efficient processing don't mean companies aren't following environmental law; it just means the process is more rational and predictable," she said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/03/17/stories/1060051632
-
'More to Come' from Trump, GOP on Energy — Gerard
Mar 17, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
Jack Gerard, the nation's top oil and gas lobbyist, foresees lots of action from the Trump administration and Congress on energy issues in the next six weeks.
Speaking today at a St. Patrick's Day-themed Capitol Hill event that is part of the American Petroleum Institute's campaign counting down the first 100 days of the new GOP-controlled Congress and the Trump presidency, API CEO Gerard homed in on the regulatory arena.
"I think there's more to come there, and I think it fits into that broader vision the president has made abundantly clear," Gerard said. "Energy is part of his agenda from an economic, job creation function, so there's more to come."
Gerard expressed support for a Senate resolution to rescind a Bureau of Land Management regulation curbing greenhouse gas emissions from oil and gas flaring, venting and leakage on public and tribal lands that could get a vote in the Senate next week (E&E Daily, March 16).
"I think there's still a few others to come," Gerard said of Republicans' use of the Congressional Review Act to roll back Obama-era regulations on energy and environmental issues.
While punting on the question of which rules he would like to see revisited, Gerard praised the White House budget blueprint that would eliminate funding for U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan and gut programs addressing climate change (Climatewire, March 16).
Gerard emphasized the industry's climate pitch that greenhouse gas emissions have dropped thanks to the shift to natural gas production (Greenwire, Nov. 10, 2016).
Data released today by the International Energy Agency showed that energy-sector emissions in the United States fell by 3 percent last year to their lowest level since 1992, a development helped by a shift away from coal in the energy sector toward natural gas and renewables.
FERC and tax reform
API is anxious for Trump to tap three new members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
E&E News has reported on several people considered in the running for spots on the five-member commission (Greenwire, March 8).
Those include Kevin McIntyre, a co-head of Jones Day's global energy practice; Neil Chatterjee, a longtime energy aide to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.); Patrick McCormick, chief counsel for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee; Robert Powelson, a Pennsylvania utility regulator; and Ellen Nowak, chairwoman of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission.
"All the speculation we've read today, that's positive — people with experience, people with know-how, people with understanding about FERC," Gerard said.
Gerard was asked about the "border adjustment tax" that Republicans in Congress are mulling as part of a broader plan that would also cut corporate tax rates. It would impose a new tax on oil and gas imports.
House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) and Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) understand "we are a key lifeblood of this economy, and so what you want to do is encourage constant reinvestment," Gerard said.
Gerard emphasized support for the broader framework of the tax plan. On the border adjustment mechanism, API is "still doing further analysis" and trying to get more clarity from lawmakers, he said. So far, it's been a "very constructive dialogue," he said.
"We need tax reform, and we can work out those details. The process has just begun," Gerard told reporters.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/03/17/stories/1060051661
-
Study: Emissions from Power Plants, Refineries May Be Far Higher Than Reported
Mar 16, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Joe Rudek and David Lyon
A new peer-reviewed paper in Environmental Science and Technology suggests that methane emissions from natural gas power plants and oil refineries may be significantly higher than accounted for in current inventories. The report estimates average hourly methane emissions 11 to 90 times higher for refineries, and 21 to 120 times higher for natural gas power plants than those calculated from data provided by facility operators to Environmental Protection Agency’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program.
By multiplying total CO2 emitted annually by all US natural gas power plants and refineries (as tallied by EPA) by the methane-to-CO2 emission ratio determined in the study, the authors estimate yearly methane emissions from the nation’s refineries and gas-fired power plants are twenty times higher than currently reported.
The new findings are important, because methane – the main ingredient in natural gas – is a powerful contributor to short term climate change. Methane lost to the atmosphere is also a waste of a valuable energy resource.
Researchers from Purdue University flew an airborne chemistry laboratory over natural gas-fueled power plants and refineries to measure greenhouse emissions, using a mass balance technique to quantify methane and carbon dioxide emissions at three natural gas power plants and three refineries. Although the results are based on a relatively small number of samples, the findings point out a need for more focus on leak detection and repair efforts.
Surprising Result
Most of the methane emissions were associated not with the CO2 plumes from the combustion stacks, but rather from other parts of the facilities (such as compressors, steam turbines, stream boilers and condensers), which indicates that natural gas is leaking before it is burned to generate power. The combustion stack sources, which the EPA GHG Inventory currently estimates to have only minor emissions, may actually contribute only about ten- to twenty percent of the total methane emissions from the facility.
Reasons for the variation in hourly rates are not known, but there was a strong correlation between power plant operating capacity during the time of measurement (as indicated by hourly EPA Air Markets Program Data) and the methane and CO2 emissions rates measured in this study.
What does this mean for natural gas?
Natural gas has been touted as a cleaner replacement fuel for coal, and is an important tool in moving to a lower-carbon energy mix. Power plants currently use more than one third of natural gas consumed in the US and the volume used is expected to increase as market forces drive the replacement of coal with cheaper natural gas. But if natural gas is going to deliver on its promise, methane emissions due to leaks, venting, and flaring need to be kept to a minimum. Finding and fixing leaks from all points in the oil and gas value chain continue to offer the most bang for the buck in achieving this goal.
Next steps
While the findings are based on a small data set, they do show the potential for significant emissions not recognized in official inventories. Some additional natural gas power plant emission measurements are currently being made by the Purdue researchers who published this report. But more measurements will be needed to understand if the findings are representative of the industry profile.
Those measurements and others would be greatly improved if done in collaboration with industry to correlate emissions with plant operations and possibly with onsite measurements.
Along with the potential of higher emissions shown in this report, comes the potential to reduce waste from natural gas value chain and eliminate more of the dangers from methane pollution. EDF has coordinated a number of studies over the last few years with industry leaders resulting in the measurement of methane emissions from the natural gas supply chain from the well through gathering and processing to distribution. We invite leaders in the power and refinery sectors to collaborate with us and our partners to gather more data and innovate solutions.
http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2017/03/16/study-emissions-from-power-plants-refineries-may-be-far-higher-than-reported/
-
Court Delays Fracking Rule Proceeding as Interior Plans Rollback
Mar 17, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A federal court has scrapped upcoming oral arguments over the Obama administration's landmark effort to regulate hydraulic fracturing.
In a blow to supporters of the rule, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday agreed to delay proceedings that were scheduled for Wednesday in Denver. The move comes after Trump administration lawyers notified the court this week that the Interior Department is launching an effort to rescind the regulation.
A panel of judges granted the administration's request to put off oral arguments but denied its motion to put the case on hold indefinitely. Instead, the court will order the parties to file supplemental briefs and will reschedule oral arguments after those are filed.
The court has not yet specified what it wants the litigants to address in the new round of briefing. Environmental groups supporting the rule recommended that supplemental briefs address whether the case should be held in abeyance; what the status of the fracking rule should be while Interior works to rescind it; and whether a lower court's decision invalidating the rule should stand during that process.
Environmental lawyers hope the court allows them to continue defending the fracking rule even if Interior no longer supports it.
"We look forward to the chance to continue to press our case at the 10th Circuit," Earthjustice attorney Mike Freeman said yesterday.
The stakes are high. The 10th Circuit appeal centers on a lower court's ruling that Interior lacks authority to regulate fracking at all. The ruling was panned last year by the Obama administration, environmental groups, many law professors and former agency officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations, who said the decision undermines Interior's Bureau of Land Management's ability to oversee public lands (Energywire, March 16).
"[S]hielding the district court's ruling from appellate review could have far-reaching impacts to the Citizen Groups and public interest that extend well beyond just this Rule," environmental groups told the court earlier this week. "For example, much of the court's reasoning — such as its view that BLM lacks authority under the Mineral Leasing Act to issue rules protecting groundwater on public lands — would invalidate BLM's existing regulations."
The embattled rule was the Obama administration's most visible effort to address fracking impacts, setting new requirements for well construction, wastewater management and chemical disclosure for fracked wells on public and tribal lands.
The latest legal drama follows years of uncertainty for the fracking rule. First contemplated in 2010, the rule underwent several revisions before being finalized in March 2015. Industry groups, four Western states and two American Indian tribes swiftly challenged it as a costly regulatory overreach.
A district court in Wyoming temporarily sidelined the rule before ultimately striking it down in June 2016. Interior and environmental groups went to the 10th Circuit, where an appeal has been churning forward ever since. Though oral arguments were originally scheduled for Jan. 17, the court pushed proceedings to March to give lawyers more time to make their case.
Finally, without any prodding from the new administration or any indication of a change in position, the court last week ordered Interior to declare whether it still planned to defend the rule (Energywire, March 10).
Interior says it will initiate a rulemaking process within 90 days to rescind the regulation.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/03/17/stories/1060051625
-
Phillips 66 Announces Rodeo Pipeline in the Permian
Mar 17, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Jordan Blum
Houston’s Phillips 66 hopes to take advantage of West Texas’ booming Permian Basin by building the 130-mile Rodeo pipeline to the Midland area.
The project would focus on transporting oil from the surging Delaware Basin portion of the Permian that’s west of Midland. The pipeline would run from the northern portion of Reeves County and run through Loving and Winkler counties en route to terminals in the Odessa-Midland area.
The Reeves-Odessa Origination Project, nicknamed Rodeo, is slated for completion in the second half of 2018. Phillips 66 is not revealing project costs.
The pipeline initially would transport 130,000 barrels of crude daily and eventually ramp up to 450,000 barrels a day. The pipeline would be 130 miles long, but that’s not counting various laterals built off of the mainline.
Phillips 66 will build a new storage terminal near Odessa and Midland to service the pipeline. Phillips 66 currently is seeking oil producing customers in need of West Texas pipeline services.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2017/03/17/phillips-66-announces-rodeo-pipeline-in-the-permian/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Donald Trump’s Proposal to Scrap Chemical Safety Board Draws Criticism
Mar 17, 2017 | The Indian Express
By Reuters
US President Donald Trump’s proposal to do away with the federal agency that investigates chemical accidents drew sharp criticism from environmental, labour and safety advocates, who said that eliminating the watchdog would put American lives at risk. Christine Todd Whitman, the former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency head, on Thursday called the proposal to get rid of Chemical Safety Board (CSB) and cut EPA funding short-sighted, saying both have long been an industry target for advocating greater public information on chemicals.
“If you want to put the American people in danger this is the way to do it,” she said of the president’s proposal to cut the CSB’s funding entirely from the 2018 federal budget. “The chemical industry has fought back from the beginning.”
The CSB investigates major chemicals accidents to search for their causes and makes recommendations that could prevent a recurrence. It has no regulatory power, but is influential because its recommendations are often adopted by industry, labor, government officials, the EPA and Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
The president on Thursday outlined a plan for fiscal 2018 discretionary spending, which exclude programs like Social Security, that removes allocations for 19 independent bodies, including the CSB and Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
The CSB, which has an annual budget of about $12 million, defended its work, saying its work has broadly improved safety. “As this process moves forward, we hope that the important mission of this agency will be preserved,” the agency said in a statement.
Chemical and energy industry officials offered limited comment on the proposal. Petroleum and refining industry groups, Exxon Mobil Corp, BP plc and Tesoro Corp did not respond or declined to
comment directly on the potential phase out. The American Chemistry Council, a trade group that represents major chemicals producers, said in a statement it would work with the administration and Congress to “ensure EPA has funding to carry out essential responsibilities.” It did not comment directly on the CSB.
The American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry trade group, said it looked “forward to working with the administration and Congress as all of these issues work their way through the budget process.”
Michael Wright, director of health, safety and environment at the United Steelworkers union, said the CSB’s recommendations generally have been welcome by labor and industry. One such recommendation that stemmed from a fatal 2005 refinery incident included barring portable trailers that cannot withstand an explosion.
The board’s reviews of major accidents have proved significant. Its probes have led to industry standards on worker fatigue, greater reporting of hazardous chemicals to first responders, and have prompted companies to keep workers not directly involved in projects out of harm’s way.
In California, many of the board’s safety recommendations have been drafted into law. For example, the state worker safety agency, known as Cal/OSHA, has doubled its investigative staff based on CSB recommendations.
“This is one of the best bargains in Washington,” said the USW’s Wright. “If it has prevented even one accident, it has saved far more money than its budget over its entire history.” Its probe of the fatal Deepwater Horizon rig explosion was controversial because of its two-year length and extensive need for outside help. The work led to new standards for safety in the offshore oil industry and in well equipment.
But some recommendations have not been yet been implemented. After a fatal 2013 explosion in West, Texas, that killed 12 first responders the CSB proposed facilities that store large amounts of fertilizer be covered by emergency planning laws that give first responders more information. That remains open.
Beth Rosenberg, a former CSB board member and now an assistant professor at Tufts University School of Medicine, said the CSB “does excellent work; other countries admire this agency.” She said opponents “don’t know what they’re doing here or how useful this board is.”
http://indianexpress.com/article/world/donald-trumps-proposal-to-scrap-chemical-safety-board-draws-criticism-4573315/
-
CSB to Trump — Don't Eliminate Us
Mar 17, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board jumped to defend its work as news came yesterday that President Trump wanted to completely ax the agency.
The annual $12 million budget for the agency, which investigates chemical accidents and makes preventive recommendations, dropped to zero in the president's fiscal 2018 budget request (Greenwire, March 16).
And the agency isn't pleased.
"For over 20 years, the CSB has conducted hundreds of investigations of high consequence chemical incidents, such as the Deepwater Horizon and West Fertilizer disasters," the agency said in a statement, referring to the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill that killed 11 rig workers and the 2013 explosion at a Texas fertilizer plant that killed 15 people. "Our investigations and recommendations have had an enormous effect on improving public safety."
The board in recent years has dealt with mismanagement and whistleblower retaliation. In 2015, then-Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso resigned at the request of the White House (E&E Daily, March 27, 2015).
But it's unclear why Trump proposed to zero out the agency.
"We have always wanted the entity to be of function, not dysfunction, and conduct itself in such a professional manner that its results have credibility," said Stephen Brown, a lobbyist at Tesoro Corp., adding that there's little support for abolishing the agency among refiners.
Tesoro has confidence in the current chairwoman, Vanessa Allen Sutherland, to "right the ship," he said.
The proposed cut could be a signal from the Trump administration that the agency's "sins of the past should not be revisited," said Brown, who is also a former House Democratic staffer.
Sutherland called the proposed cut at the agency an "attack on the safety and security of America's workers." In a statement, she reiterated that CSB is the only independent agency that conducts investigations on industrial chemical accidents.
Eliminating an entire agency can be difficult to do. In 1981, President Reagan approved a plan to eliminate the Energy Department and transfer most of its responsibilities to the Commerce Department. The proposal fell through when it was met with staunch opposition in Congress (Greenwire, March 7).
CSB was authorized by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
Despite the proposed budget, the agency is likely to survive in some way, said Brown. "You can starve it of funding, but you can't make it go away," he said.
The board does not have regulatory power, but its recommendations are often influential on industry standards.
Congressional appropriators whose committees have jurisdiction over CSB did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/03/17/stories/1060051665
-
President Trump’s Budget Request Sidelines Science
Mar 17, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jessica Morrison and Britt E. Erickson
President Donald J. Trump’s proposed fiscal 2018 budget would slash federal support for biomedical research, defund the U.S. Chemical Safety & Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) and the Department of Energy’s advanced energy research, and lop funding for EPA by nearly a third.
Overall, the White House plan would offset discretionary funding increases for the military, homeland security, and veterans affairs in part with steep cuts to environmental, energy, and health agencies.
In addition, the budget blueprint unveiled on March 16 would restart funding for a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev., and calls for $120 million to restart licensing of the facility. It also proposes a $1.4 billion increase—an 11% boost—for DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration to “strengthen the Nation’s nuclear capability.”
In response, the American Chemical Society, which publishes C&EN, called for federal science funding stability. “Sustained, predictable and robust funding is an essential ingredient in boosting our nation’s future in the form of discoveries, processes and knowledge, all of which lead to new products, services, industries and jobs,” says ACS Executive Director and CEO Thomas Connelly.
A detailed budget, which would generally include figures for specific agency programs and tax proposals, will come later in the spring, the White House says. The 2018 fiscal year begins on Oct. 1.
In his initial budget request, Trump does not mention the National Science Foundation. The federal agency that funds basic research would receive $7.4 billion in fiscal 2017 if Congress simply extends its 2017 continuing resolution (CR), a stopgap funding law that expires on April 28.
Trump’s budget proposal includes a $5.8 billion, or 18%, cut to the 2017 CR level for the National Institutes of Health. Under the President’s plan, NIH would receive only $25.9 billion, a funding level that hasn’t been seen since the early 2000s.
The biomedical community is dismayed by the proposed reduction for NIH, which would receive $31.7 billion in 2017 if the CR is extended.
“A $6 billion cut to NIH is unacceptable to the scientific community, and should be unacceptable to the American public as well,” says Benjamin Corb of the American Society for Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, a scientific group. “Cuts this deep threaten America’s ability to remain a leader” of biomedical innovation, he says.
In addition, Trump is proposing a major reorganization of NIH’s 27 institutes. The budget plan provides scant details about plans for revamping NIH.
Among the 19 independent agencies that Trump wants to shut down through elimination of funding is CSB, which investigates and aims to prevent chemical-related accidents.
At DOE, Trump would cut the Office of Science by $900 million, a decrease of nearly 17% of its $5.4 billion at the 2017 CR level. The plan would eliminate the department’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy.
The budget proposal would trim EPA funding steeply, reducing the agency’s spending to $5.7 billion, or 31% below the CR level of $8.3 billion. The cuts would eliminate 3,200 jobs in the agency, the White House says.
Trump’s plan would eliminate funding for implementation of former president Barack Obama’s cornerstone greenhouse gas reduction strategy called the Clean Power Plan as well as EPA climate change research programs. Trump is also proposing to prune climate change research programs throughout the government.
EPA’s Office of Research & Development would lose nearly half its budget, down to $250 million from $483 million in the CR. The Superfund program for cleanup of hazardous waste sites would receive $762 million, a decrease of $330 million, or 30%, from the CR level.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i12/President-Trumps-budget-request-sidelines.html
-
Climate Diplomacy Fund Dies in Budget Blueprint
Mar 17, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
Climate change advocates say they are not optimistic about being able to save the $1.3 billion in international global warming assistance that President Trump would ax from the budget.
The fiscal 2018 blueprint that the Office of Management and Budget released yesterday would kill the Global Climate Change Initiative. The GCCI has been home for seven years to the most important U.S. climate diplomacy programs, from the Green Climate Fund to participation in the Clean Energy Ministerial (CEM) for advanced energy technologies, the scientific Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Some programs, observers and former administration officials said, might be salvaged during the appropriations process or crowbarred into the already-tight budgets of regional offices at the State Department. But with the agency facing a 28 percent overall cut from enacted levels and Republicans antagonistic to climate change controlling the purse strings, the odds appear long.
"I think anything that has the two c's in it is done," predicted one source.
The White House blueprint is sketchy, stringing together a few pieces of guidance with a spotlight-grabbing proposal to cut overall State Department funding by $10.1 billion.
It is not definitive about eliminating dues to the U.N. science and negotiating bodies, stating only that the budget "fulfills the President's pledge to cease payments to the United Nations' (UN) climate change programs by eliminating U.S. funding related to the Green Climate Fund and its two precursor Climate Investment Funds."
It confirms what has long been expected: that the United States under Trump will not provide the remaining $2 billion it has promised by 2020 toward the GCF, which supports adaptation and clean energy projects in the developing world.
A small group of GOP senators helped President Obama funnel $1 billion in contributions to the fund over the last two years, but in the current political environment few thought more would be provided. The Climate Investment Funds are run by the World Bank and were created to provide interim funding ahead of the 2015 Paris Agreement.
The fate of the UNFCCC and IPCC dues could be more complicated, though failure to contribute to the U.N. negotiating body would not mean the United States would cease to be party to it. That's a solution some conservatives have floated as a way to exit the Paris Agreement more quickly.
Mark Toner, acting spokesman for the State Department, said yesterday in response to a question by E&E News that more details would be available when the administration releases its final budget in May.
"We're still going through all this and figuring this out, to be perfectly honest," he said on a call with reporters.
The United States provides 22 percent of the operating budget for the Bonn, Germany-based UNFCCC secretariat, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson declined to meet with Executive Secretary Patricia Espinosa when she was in town last month — a decision she attributed to his busy schedule.
State Department: Others should 'do more'
Paul Bledsoe, a former Clinton White House climate adviser and now a senior fellow on energy with the Progressive Policy Institute, noted that letting UNFCCC dues lapse would be out of keeping with a 25-year history of steady support for the body.
"From Rio in '92 until now there has never been a doubt about the underlying funding of the UNFCCC process, even under 'W' and even under 18 years of Republican Congress," he said, referring to former President George W. Bush.
Nick Loris of the Heritage Foundation, meanwhile, said stopping payments to the UNFCCC would send "a strong signal" about its legitimacy.
The United States also provides the same percent of the overall U.N. regular budget, but the Trump budget calls for an unspecified reduction. Asked about that during yesterday's call, Toner argued that other countries should step up.
"We already carry our weight significantly in the U.N. with respect to humanitarian assistance, with respect to peacekeeping, but we're also going to be looking for other countries to stand up and do more," he said. "And that's been a very clear message in this budget."
The share of dues the United States pays is tied to its economic might. U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in a statement yesterday urged against "abrupt funding cuts" for the United Nations, which he said would hamper reforms.
He also took aim at the president's "hard power" budget, which seeks to boost military funding by 54 percent even as it cuts nonmilitary discretionary budgets. Guterres, who is the former U.N. chief for refugees, argued that while military spending is needed to combat terrorism, there is also the need to address underlying drivers "through continuing investments in conflict prevention, conflict resolution, countering violent extremism, peacekeeping, peacebuilding, sustainable and inclusive development, the enhancement and respect of human rights, and timely responses to humanitarian crises."
Heritage: Poor countries better off without climate regs
Andrew Light, of the World Resources Institute and a former State Department climate team member, said the agency should continue to address climate-related instability head on. He noted that researchers have established a link between climate change and the Syrian drought that precipitated a six-year civil war in that country and a refugee crisis.
"Climate change was a necessary condition for the instability that created this crisis, and we are now saying some combination of 'we don't think that's true' with no proof and 'even if it's true, we don't care,'" he said.
The death of GCCI would also throw into serious doubt future U.S. contributions to a host of aid and lending programs, including the United Nations' Adaptation Fund, assistance to small island states to help with loss and damage related to climate change, and U.S. contributions to programs administered by multilateral lending institutions.
Thoriq Ibrahim, environment and energy minister for the Maldives and chairman of the Alliance of Small Island States negotiating bloc, said the Paris Agreement couldn't be implemented without rich countries' support.
"Budget gaps in these areas, if not filled by other means, would damage the work communities are doing on the ground to cut emissions and adapt to climate impacts that can no longer be avoided," he said.
But Loris said the demise of GCCI would mean the United States could no longer dictate to other countries how they should develop.
"The best way developing countries will adapt to a changing climate and become more resilient is through higher levels of wealth and prosperity," he said. "These programs do little to address that."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/03/17/stories/1060051638
-
Pruitt, Citing Staff Shortage, Puts Off 5 Rules
Mar 17, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, citing a lack of Senate-confirmed staff, is imposing an added two-month delay in the effective dates of five final rules issued in the waning days of the Obama administration.
The rules, pertaining to air quality modeling, civil enforcement procedures and other issues, had all been set to take effect within the last month or so but were blocked by the Trump administration's blanket two-month regulatory freeze, which was issued Jan. 20 and is scheduled to end Tuesday.
In a notice set for publication in Monday's edition of the Federal Register, Pruitt resets the effective dates for the five regulations in question until May 22.
The added time will give "recently arrived agency officials the opportunity to decide whether they would like to conduct a substantive review" of any of the rules, the notice says.
Any such reviews will be noted in the Register, EPA said. While the administration had thought the two-month freeze would suffice to review recently promulgated rules, Pruitt's slow confirmation process, coupled with the lack of any other Senate-approved officials at the agency, means more time is needed, the notice said.
Not clear, however, is when Pruitt will get the help he's waiting for. Apart from his own job, EPA has more than a dozen posts requiring Senate confirmation, according to a Congressional Research Service report from last year.
Those include the positions of deputy administrator, assistant administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation, and assistant administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
As of this morning, President Trump had yet to formally name anyone for those positions, according to the Congress.gov website, which lists all pending nominations with the Senate. The White House's own "nominations & appointments" page was blank.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/03/17/stories/1060051664
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested