Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 3/20/2017
-
Hearing On The National Science Foundation
Mar 21, 2017 | House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Research and Technology
Location: 2318 Rayburn / 10:00 AM -
Hearing On Offshore Drilling
Mar 21, 2017 | House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Interior, Energy and Environment
Location: 2154 Rayburn / 2:00 PM -
Hearing On Federal Lands Infrastructure
Mar 21, 2017 | Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Location: 366 Dirksen / 10:00 AM -
Hearing On Ozone Legislation
Mar 22, 2017 | House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment
Location: Rayburn 2123 / 10:00 AM. -
No Leadership? Delay Rules’ Implementation, Pruitt Says
Mar 20, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Five Obama-era EPA rules on issues from air quality to pesticides won't take effect until May 22 because of the lack of Senate-confirmed leadership at the agency to review them. -
Pruitt Cites Lack Of Appointees To Further Delay Series Of Obama-Era Rules
Mar 20, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is again extending the effective dates of five Obama-era final rules addressing air quality modeling, Superfund site listings, pesticide applicators, administrative procedures and formaldehyde emissions, citing a lack of political appointees in key positions as the administration struggles to fill its roster of senior managers. -
Japanese Group Seeks Extended TSCA 'Inventory Reset' Reporting Period
Mar 20, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The Japan Chemical Industry Association has requested the US EPA grant joint submitters additional time to fulfil the proposed TSCA 'inventory reset' reporting requirements. -
Fluoride Critics Eye Court Challenge To EPA's Denial Of TSCA Ban Petition
Mar 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Groups opposed to fluoridating drinking water are planning to sue EPA over its denial of their petition asking it to use Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) authority to prohibit fluoridation, which will pose a test of the agency's novel rationale for rejecting the request as falling short of what is required under the recently revised TSCA. -
Mixed Review of Glyphosate Links to Cancer Frustrates Some
Mar 20, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
A report summarizing scientists’ views on whether Monsanto Co.'s herbicide Roundup could be linked to cancer is leaving some with more questions than answers. -
Panel Fails to Endorse EPA Decision on Herbicide Cancer Risk
Mar 20, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Lydia Mulvany
A report on glyphosate, the world's most popular weedkiller, from a panel advising the Environmental Protection Agency failed to reach a consensus on whether the agency was right to say the chemical isn't likely to cause cancer. -
Sen. Inhofe, Environmentalists Spar Over EPA's Oversight Of Glyphosate
Mar 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Sen. James Inhofe and environmentalists are sparring over EPA's review of the risks from the commonly used herbicide glyphosate, with the senator touting new European findings backing the agency's conclusion that it is not likely to cause cancer but environmentalists saying EPA advisors have issued a “sharp rebuke” to the agency's analysis. -
Foster Wheeler Faces Trial in Asbestos Exposure Case
Mar 20, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
Foster Wheeler LLC must prove to a jury that it has defenses to asbestos exposure claims brought by a U.S. Navy technician, the District of Rhode Island ruled March 16 (Stevens v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp., 2017 BL 83281, D.R.I., No. 14-cv-00157, 3/16/17). -
Toy Industries Of Europe Calls For Chemicals Legislation 'Referee'
Mar 20, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Industry group Toy Industries of Europe (TIE) has called for an 'EU referee' to intervene when member states disagree on chemical restrictions. -
Engaging Downstream Sectors In Saicm Talks
Mar 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
When attending international meetings on the sound management of chemicals, the absence of representatives from sectors outside the chemicals industry is very apparent. Historically, industry has been represented by the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) – an important participant in the discussions. -
Sources: Trump Expected To Sign Energy Executive Order On Monday
Mar 17, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Anthony Adragna, Andrew Restuccia and Nick Juliano
President Donald Trump is expected to sign a broad executive order rolling back a host of Obama-era actions on climate change on Monday, two sources familiar with its timing tell POLITICO. -
Maryland Governor Endorses State Fracking Ban
Mar 20, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Kathy Lundy Springuel
Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) endorsed legislation that would ban hydraulic fracturing in the state, surprising people on both sides of the issue. -
The Importance Of U.S. Oil And Natural Gas Exports
Mar 19, 2017 | Forbes
By Jude Clemente
According to the International Energy Agency's (IEA) latest World Energy Outlook (released in November), oil and natural gas will still supply over 50% of the world's energy in 2040. But, given the tendency to overestimate the ability of naturally intermittent renewables to displace (not simply supplement) conventional fuel systems, the contribution of oil and gas is likely to be even higher than anticipated. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Storage, Safety Rule Delayed
Mar 17, 2017 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
Facilities that store chemicals will have more time to comply with on-site safety and storage regulations now that the EPA has agreed to delay and review a chemical safety rule enacted by the Obama administration. -
Names of Thousands of Formerly Regulated Chemical Plants Sought
Mar 20, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
A public interest advocacy group is suing the Department of Homeland Security to force the release of documents on chemical plant operations three years after the agency failed to provide the information under a public records request. -
States Seek 15-Month Delay For RMP Rule Pending EPA Revision Or Repeal
Mar 20, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
A coalition of GOP states is petitioning EPA to delay by an additional 15 months the effective date of the Obama administration's final rule updating the agency's facility accident prevention program, saying more time is needed beyond the current delayed June deadline for EPA to weigh whether to revise or outright repeal the regulation. -
Commentary: Rail Regulation Must Recognize Vital Service
Mar 19, 2017 | The Daily Herald
By Ian Jefferies
Amazon reportedly has ambitions to develop its own delivery fleet to round out its already massive sales operation. Under the theoretical business model Amazon won’t need UPS, FedEx or the U.S. Postal Service to deliver the diverse set of goods consumers now receive at their doorstep. -
Week ahead: Anticipation Builds For Trump Climate Order
Mar 20, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The coming week could finally bring President Trump's long-awaited executive order on climate change. -
Panel Kicks Off Clean Air Act Rewrite Push
Mar 20, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
A renewed push to rewrite a key part of the Clean Air Act formally kicks off Wednesday with a hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment. -
Pennsylvania to Pruitt: EPA Cuts ‘Devastating’
Mar 20, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
President Donald Trump's proposed fiscal 2018 budget would have “immediate and devastating” impacts on Pennsylvania's ability to ensure clean air, safe water and a prospering economy, the state's acting environmental secretary says. -
Study Finds Ammonia Levels Rising In Agricultural Areas
Mar 20, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
Levels of atmospheric ammonia increased substantially during a 14-year period over some of the world's most productive agricultural areas, a new study has found, giving rise to "deleterious effects on vegetation and ecosystem health." -
Coastal Agencies Urge Delegation Help In Thwarting NOAA Cuts
Mar 20, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Anne C. Mulkern
Three California coastal agencies are asking the state's congressional delegation to help block budget cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. -
Global Emissions and Economic Growth Parting Ways, Trend Finds
Mar 20, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rick Mitchell
Global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions remained flat a third-straight year in 2016 even as economic output expanded, suggesting that economic growth's marriage with emissions may be weakening. -
G-20 Finance Chiefs Said to Drop Climate Reference in Document
Mar 20, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alessandro Speciale and Rainer Buergin
Finance ministers from the world's biggest economies dropped a reference to climate change in a draft of their statement at a Group of 20 meeting, frustrating plans by Germany to devote a section to the topic, according to people familiar with the talks. -
Carbon Tax: Solution to Nonexistent Problem
|
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Hearing On The National Science Foundation
Mar 21, 2017 | House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Research and Technology
-
Mar 21, 2017 | House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Interior, Energy and Environment
-
Hearing On Federal Lands Infrastructure
Mar 21, 2017 | Senate Energy and Natural Resources
-
Mar 22, 2017 | House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment
-
No Leadership? Delay Rules’ Implementation, Pruitt Says
Mar 20, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Five Obama-era EPA rules on issues from air quality to pesticides won't take effect until May 22 because of the lack of Senate-confirmed leadership at the agency to review them.
This is the second time the Environmental Protection Agency is delaying implementation of these rules, a notice to be published March 20 in the Federal Register said. The rules were initially delayed through March 21 as part of a regulatory freeze between administrations to conduct “a substantive review” of them.
“The EPA believed 60 days would be sufficient time for incoming Agency officials to review rules recently promulgated by the EPA,” the public inspection notice said. “However, given the length of the confirmation process for the EPA Administrator and the fact that the Agency lacks Senate-confirmed officials elsewhere, the new Administration has not had the time contemplated by the [regulatory freeze] Memo for this review.”
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is the only Senate-confirmed official at the agency now. The notice, signed by Pruitt on March 14, also said it is “difficult to predict when the appropriate officials might assume their responsibilities.”
The five rules affected by this notice:
• Addition of a Subsurface Intrusion Component to the Hazard Ranking System (82 Fed. Reg. 2,760);
• Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products (81 Fed. Reg. 89,674);
• Revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: Enhancements to the AERMOD Dispersion Modeling System and Incorporation of Approaches to Address Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter (82 Fed. Reg. 5,182);
• Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators (82 Fed. Reg. 952); and
• Consolidated Rules of Practice Governing the Administrative Assessment of Civil Penalties, Issuance of Compliance or Corrective Action Orders, and the Revocation/ Termination or Suspension of Permits; Procedures for Decisionmaking (82 Fed. Reg. 2,230).
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107421965&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107421965&jd=107421965
-
Pruitt Cites Lack Of Appointees To Further Delay Series Of Obama-Era Rules
Mar 20, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is again extending the effective dates of five Obama-era final rules addressing air quality modeling, Superfund site listings, pesticide applicators, administrative procedures and formaldehyde emissions, citing a lack of political appointees in key positions as the administration struggles to fill its roster of senior managers.
“The agency has been faced with circumstances beyond its control,” Administrator Scott Pruitt says in a Federal Register notice slated for publication March 20, one day before the rules are slated to take effect.
“As was the case on January 26 [when the rules' effective dates were first extended], it is difficult to predict when the appropriate officials might assume their responsibilities,” he said, adding that “even today the EPA has only one Senate-confirmed official in place.”
Pruitt's reasoning underscores fears among some of his supporters that he may have to wait months to have his senior leadership team in place even as he is slated to be running a large federal agency that he does not understand.
The administration has yet to name a single sub-cabinet level official for EPA, though press reports indicate officials appear poised to tap Andrew Wheeler, a former staffer for Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), to be the EPA deputy administrator after a “vigorous” debate among top White House officials.
The five rules at issue in the upcoming Federal Register notice were among a list of 30 rules that had their effective dates extended through March 21 shortly after President Donald Trump was sworn in. The rules had already appeared in the Federal Register by the time Trump took office but had not yet taken effect.
But under the terms of a Jan. 20 memo issued by White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, the administration extended their effective dates for 60 days. Priebus' memo also opened the door to agencies taking additional action to further delay rules for review, reconsideration or repeal -- and the administration is now taking steps to do so for some of the original 30 rules.
The five rules that will have their effective dates extended through May 22 include a Superfund rule that allows sites to be listed based solely on the presence of “subsurface intrusion”; formaldehyde emissions standards for composite wood products; revisions to air quality modeling guidelines for ozone and particulate matter; and revised administrative rules governing civil penalties, compliance orders and permit revocations or terminations.
In addition, Pruitt took separate action earlier this week to extend the effective date of revisions to its Risk Management Plan facility safety rule, another regulation that was on the original list of 30 that were delayed, agreeing to an industry petition that asked the agency to reconsider or rescind the regulation.
But that still leaves two substantive rules from the list of 30 unaddressed: a rule setting blending mandates for the Renewable Fuel Standard for 2017 and biofuel volumes for 2018, as well as revisions to air toxics standards for radon emissions for operating uranium mill tailings.
In addition, the remaining 22 rules were measures approving various state delegated programs, including Arizona's air plans, Kentucky's underground injection program and Washington's municipal waste landfill program.
It is not clear whether EPA is planning to let these rules take effect after March 21 or whether the agency will take further action to review them.
'Good Cause' Exemption
While EPA's Jan. 26 notice promised that any further delays would be subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, the agency is not doing so, citing a “good cause” exemption in order to act without public notice. “Given the imminence of the effective date, seeking prior public comment on this further temporary delay would be impractical, as well as contrary to the public interest in the orderly promulgation and implementation of regulations,” the agency says.
The agency warns that “allowing these regulations to go into effect without first deciding whether to undertake a substantive review may create public confusion.”
EPA adds, “given the length of the confirmation process for the EPA Administrator and the fact that the Agency lacks Senate-confirmed officials elsewhere, the new Administration has not had the time contemplated by the January 20 Memo for this review.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/pruitt-cites-lack-appointees-further-delay-series-obama-era-rules
-
Japanese Group Seeks Extended TSCA 'Inventory Reset' Reporting Period
Mar 20, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The Japan Chemical Industry Association has requested the US EPA grant joint submitters additional time to fulfil the proposed TSCA 'inventory reset' 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. This will inform the agency's prioritisation of substances for risk evaluation, and also ensure that confidential business information (CBI) claims are current.
The draft rule proposes to allow joint submissions when an importer, domestic manufacturer or processor cannot provide the specific chemical identity of a reportable substance because the information is claimed confidential by a supplier. Similarly to how these situations are treated under the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule, the supplier could provide the confidential chemical identity information directly to the agency in a joint submission with the notifier.
But the JCIA says the EPA should extend the timeline for these submissions beyond the 180 days currently proposed. It recommends using the 360-day reporting window currently proposed for processors.
The group also asks that reporting forms can be used to notify of several substances used in one mixture in a single joint submission.
In addition to these joint submission considerations, it argues that substances manufactured or imported during the ten year 'lookback period', but that will not be manufactured or imported in future, be "totally or partially exempt from retrospective notification".
In the absence of this accommodation, it says, "especially [confidential business information] CBI substances will cause a burden for both importers and non-US suppliers, because they must file a joint submission even if they have no business anymore with each other".
The JCIA also recommends:excluding the first and last date of manufacture reporting requirement. This is a sentiment echoed by industry groups in the US;exempting polymers from the regulation's requirements; andnot mandating notification for new substances for which a pre-manufacture notice (PMN) was submitted, and the substance added to the non-confidential portion of the inventory, during the lookback period.
The JCIA says inventory refinement exercises in other countries have shown them to be "incomplete at the first time". This has resulted in additional rounds of notifications: six in China and three in Taiwan, for example.
It requests opportunity for additional notifications to address similar issues.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54519/japanese-group-seeks-extended-tsca-inventory-reset-reporting-period
-
Fluoride Critics Eye Court Challenge To EPA's Denial Of TSCA Ban Petition
Mar 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Groups opposed to fluoridating drinking water are planning to sue EPA over its denial of their petition asking it to use Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) authority to prohibit fluoridation, which will pose a test of the agency's novel rationale for rejecting the request as falling short of what is required under the recently revised TSCA.
Michael Connett, a legal advisor to Fluoride Action Network -- one of the groups that filed the petition -- told Inside EPA in a recent interview that the agency justified its rejection by saying the petition failed to assess all uses of fluoride, but that this is a new position that prior petitions never had to meet.
Connett said that the denial sets a precedent which could create hurdles for similar petitions because it means "that in order to obtain relief of a particular use of a chemical, petitioners are now required to [evaluate] all uses of the chemical. That's new, that has not been required in the past. It's not dictated by the statute."
EPA in its Feb. 27 denial said that the request to prohibit drinking water fluoridation -- a single use of a chemical -- was inconsistent with the agency's obligation under the updated TSCA to conduct comprehensive reviews of specific chemicals and address risks from all uses.
But Connett said that the agency's new requirement is "shifting the burden" from the agency to anyone petitioning EPA under TSCA section 21 for action. "That shouldn't be our obligation," he said, adding that regarding other uses of fluoride, "EPA is in a better position to know that information."
Connett vowed the groups would sue over the denial, and noted that TSCA section 21 is unusual in that it allows petitioners to challenge EPA's response in federal district court de novo, meaning that the petitioners' case is presented before a judge, "who will independently review the evidence without deference to the agency," he said. At press time the groups had not yet filed suit, though they face a mid-April deadline for filing a challenge.
"De novo review is very rare in administrative law," Connett said in the interview, adding that most legal challenges to final agency decisions are governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, where judges review agency responses using the standard of whether they are unlawfully arbitrary and capricious.
"One of the reasons I was interested in the TSCA petition was to obtain a different forum" for fluoride and its risks, Connett said. "It will be good to get the issue considered by people not entrenched in the issue," he added. "EPA never really applied its own risk assessment procedures to fluoride. We believe if EPA does, then it will see the . . . that fluoridation would be incompatible with the dose that would be appropriate."
The upcoming lawsuit will therefore test EPA's novel claim that the revised TSCA requirements warrant rejecting the fluoride petition. Should the federal district court judge that ultimately hears the groups' challenge agree with the petitioners, the court could issue a ruling that orders EPA to take action on the fluoride ban request.
'Rare' Relief
But Lynn Bergeson of the law firm Bergeson & Campbell told Inside EPA in a March 10 email that de novo review "would pose considerable challenges for parties and explains why invoking this relief is rare."
Bergeson and colleagues in a March 7 blog post said that if the petitioners file their suit, "there is potentially more than a disagreement over possible risks of fluoride; there might also be arguments over what is or is not sufficient for Section 21 petitions to be granted, or possibly about EPA's general interpretation, as elaborated in the denial notice and in the risk evaluation procedural rule, that new TSCA does not provide discretion for EPA to evaluate less than all conditions of use in new actions under Section 6."
Bergeson & Campbell in the blog post notes that EPA explicitly states that if a petition showed that a chemical use clearly exceeds the TSCA risk standard, and did not include all the conditions of use, EPA would still deny the petition to initiate action to control the risk. . . . So even if a chemical use is shown to cause great harm, it would not merit EPA granting the petition since it is not a complete risk evaluation as EPA wishes to define it."
EPA's rationale is "essentially arguing that since EPA must assess 'all conditions of use' in any control rule they might promulgate, then any outside petition must include all of the same homework before it can be granted. This seems to obviate the very purpose of section 21 petitions for section 6 action, which in the past has been viewed as one way for the public to identify risks of concern to EPA which, for whatever reason, may not be on EPA's radar. This asserted view, that only a comprehensive risk evaluation considering all conditions of use will suffice, presents a very high threshold for action -- and seemingly an impossibly high threshold to move EPA to act," the firm says.
One of the authors of the post, former EPA official Jim Aidala, said in a March 10 interview that one explanation for EPA's motivation is that the rationale is consistent with its "current firefight on all uses have to be part of the soup, even though it leads to absurd construction on section 21. . . My most generous assessment is that they are protecting the greater good [by requiring addressing all uses.] But it obviates the point of section 21."
Aidala added that risk analyses considering all uses of chemicals will be very expensive, particularly for non-governmental organizations, potentially creating another hurdle for new TSCA citizens' petitions.
As one example of TSCA risk evaluation cost estimates, EPA in its January report to Congress on its capacity to perform risk evaluations and the necessary resources to do so as required under new TSCA authorities estimated costs of $3.7 million per chemical, and taking two to three years to complete.
TSCA Petition
The Fluoride Action Network, together with the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology and Food and Water Watch last November filed their petition asking EPA to ban the decades-old practice of adding fluoride to drinking water to reduce cavities.
Petitioners argued that fluoride in drinking water often exceeds doses repeatedly linked to IQ loss and other neurotoxic effects, and that TSCA allows for a "more targeted" ban than under federal drinking water law. EPA, in its most recent six-year review of drinking water contaminants as required by the Safe Drinking Water Act did not consider fluoride a candidate for review of its drinking water standard.
The groups' petition did not mention that water fluoridation is a local decision, made by individual water utilities and localities upon decades-old recommendations from the Public Health Service to promote dental health.
Instead, they urged EPA to use its TSCA section 6 authority to prohibit the use of fluoride as a drinking water additive because they said that use presents an unreasonable risk. The pointed to new studies published in the decade since the National Academy of Sciences reviewed fluoride health risks in drinking water at the agency's request, and recommended that EPA halve its fluoride standard.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/fluoride-critics-eye-court-challenge-epas-denial-tsca-ban-petition
-
Mixed Review of Glyphosate Links to Cancer Frustrates Some
Mar 20, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
A report summarizing scientists’ views on whether Monsanto Co.'s herbicide Roundup could be linked to cancer is leaving some with more questions than answers.
An advisory committee tasked with weighing in on contentious pesticide decisions published the synopsis of a three-day December meeting on March 16. The Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) report is non-binding, but offers recommendations to the Environmental Protection Agency as it moves forward in renewing the registration for glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto's well-known weedkiller.
While most of the scientists on the panel agreed with EPA's finding that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” some panel members recommended that the agency say that it “cannot exclude the possibility” the herbicide could contribute to Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma, a relatively common type of cancer.
The question is timely: More than 70 patients with Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma and their relatives are suing Monsanto in federal court, claiming the herbicide caused their disease.
But unlike past reports, the panel's review of glyphosate offers little clarity on the next steps in the EPA's registration review, said those who are watching it closely.
“My overall reaction to the report was that it was really uninformative,” Jim Aidala, a consultant with Bergeson & Campbell PC who served as the EPA's chemical office chief under President Bill Clinton, told Bloomberg BNA. The report goes back and forth between “some say this, and some say that,” which offers little weight to one side or the other of the debate, he said.
Epidemiological Studies Questioned
The report's level of uncertainty is based on comments that the agency discounted epidemiological studies—surveys of people exposed to glyphosate, like farmers, over a period of time—and meta-analyses, in which many different studies are assessed together. The field of epidemiology has a growing role in assessing environmental hazards, but is doubted by scientists who say that it is difficult to control unrelated factors in these studies.
Indeed, some scientists strongly disagreed that the EPA neglected these studies, saying the studies finding incidences of Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma (NHL) in farmers are too weak and too likely to be confounded by other aspects of living or working on a farm. They argued the NHL findings in farmers preceded the development of glyphosate.
The SAP report nevertheless received praise from backers of glyphosate, who also hailed this week's decision from the European Chemical Agency not to list it as a carcinogen as the latest justification in favor of not restricting the chemical.
“I applaud EPA for posting the Scientific Advisory Panel report and am not surprised it did not find glyphosate to be carcinogenic. I now encourage EPA to quickly reauthorize the use of glyphosate as an herbicide,” Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said in a statement. “This product is essential to Oklahoma's farmers, who use it to ensure American-produced food remains both abundant and affordable.”
The EPA is expected to complete its review of the weedkiller later this year as part of its periodic re-evaluation of pesticides.
Glyphosate has undergone a high level of scrutiny in the last two weeks. While the European chemicals authority cleared glyphosate of carrying a carcinogenic risk, a California court denied Monsanto's attempt to block the state from listing it as a carcinogen under the state's Proposition 65 law (Sierra Club vs. OEHHA, Cal. Super. Ct., No.16CECG00183, 3/10/17).
The panel did pan the EPA for not following the agency's own 2005 guidelines for conducting cancer risk assessments for animal carcinogenicity studies, notably for use of historical control data and statistical testing requirements.
Out of Step?
This criticism of the EPA's methodology reflects “outrageous” choices, Jennifer Sass of the Natural Resources Defense Council said.
“The Pesticide Office is so out of step with the rest of EPA science,” Sass, a senior scientist with the environmental organization, told Bloomberg BNA.
The EPA, however, does have leeway in how it interprets the cancer guidelines, Lianne Sheppard, one of the SAP members, said.
The agency can't “anticipate every situation,” she said. “There does need to be some room for discretion.”
While there is little evidence that the chemical manipulates genes to cause cancer, the panel discussed how it could act as a “promoter” of spontaneously developing tumors.
“Some panel members believed that differences in study designs could explain some of the tumor response discrepancies, and that, overall, the rodent bioassay data were consistent with glyphosate acting as a weak tumor promoter.” Others differed from that view.
The panel also urged the agency to look at the chemical's impact on the immune system.
—With assistance from Steve Gibb.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107421971&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107421971&jd=107421971
-
Panel Fails to Endorse EPA Decision on Herbicide Cancer Risk
Mar 20, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Lydia Mulvany
A report on glyphosate, the world's most popular weedkiller, from a panel advising the Environmental Protection Agency failed to reach a consensus on whether the agency was right to say the chemical isn't likely to cause cancer.
The Scientific Advisory Panel for the EPA released a final report and meeting minutes on March 16. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup Ready, Monsanto Co.’s bestselling herbicide that's known for its use in genetically-modified crop production.
The EPA in its most recent evaluation said glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” at current exposure levels. While some panelists agreed, others said a better descriptor was “suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential,” according to the report. Many panelists said more data is “desirable.”
The panel serves as the main scientific reviewer of pesticide policies for the EPA. While its report will inform the agency's decisions about glyphosate, the panel's conclusions and findings don't impose any requirements on the EPA.
Monsanto said March 16 in a statement that regulatory agencies globally have concluded that glyphosate isn't a carcinogen, and that the company is “confident the EPA will stand by its conclusion that glyphosate is not carcinogenic.”
Price Consequences
Glyphosate, which has been used for four decades on everything from farms to gardens, has become a mainstay of global agriculture. Farmers spray it on genetically-modified crops that are resistant to the chemical. Biotech crops make up the majority of U.S. corn and soybean production.
Because it is so widely used, reining in glyphosate could have “massive” consequences on output and food prices, according to Christopher Perrella, an analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence.
The EPA's assessment is similar to that of the European Chemicals Agency, which said March 15 it wouldn't classify glyphosate as cancerous, and also that of the European Food Safety Authority. It's at odds with a 2015 World Health Organization review that said the chemical probably does cause cancer, a finding that has led to multiple lawsuits against Monsanto filed by farmers suffering from cancer.
Court Ruling
This isn't the first of Roundup's woes. Earlier this week a federal judge unsealed documents allegedly showing an EPA official boasting to a Monsanto executive that he could “kill” another agency's investigation into the chemical. Monsanto said in an email that its understanding of the comment was that the EPA was concerned about another agency starting a duplicate safety analysis.
The other agency, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, part of the U.S. Health and Human Service Department, said in a statement that it is in the process of developing a toxicological profile for glyphosate. A draft of the profile will be released for public comment by year-end.
Also, in a final ruling on March 10, Monsanto lost a court bid to keep glyphosate off California's list of cancer-causing chemicals. The company said it will continue to challenge the California disclosure requirement, which it called flawed and baseless.
The EPA has been reviewing glyphosate's registration since 2009. The agency reviews registrations for pesticides at least once every 15 years.
--With assistance from Peter Waldman.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107421961&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107421961&jd=107421961
-
Sen. Inhofe, Environmentalists Spar Over EPA's Oversight Of Glyphosate
Mar 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Sen. James Inhofe and environmentalists are sparring over EPA's review of the risks from the commonly used herbicide glyphosate, with the senator touting new European findings backing the agency's conclusion that it is not likely to cause cancer but environmentalists saying EPA advisors have issued a “sharp rebuke” to the agency's analysis.
The opposing claims over glyphosate will pose a challenge for EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and the Trump administration as it weighs how to proceed with the ongoing and long-running Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) review of the substance. Inhofe and others are seeking quick re-registration of the herbicide while environmentalists try to block its use.
In a March 10 letter to Pruitt, Inhofe suggests that political interference during the Obama administration stalled EPA's registration review of glyphosate. He asks Pruitt when EPA will complete the review, which has already taken “reams of science” and “years of manpower.”
Then, in a March 16 letter, Inhofe followed up, noting the European Chemicals Agency's March 15 determination that available scientific evidence does not warrant classifying glyphosate as a human carcinogen.
“This finding is consistent with many other government regulators, including the EPA's own cancer assessment review committee,” Inhofe says in the second letter. “I believe EPA can safely move forward and complete their registration review soon."
Environmentalists have long pressed EPA for stricter oversight of glyphosate, arguing that heavy use of the substance, particularly since the advent of genetically-modified crops designed to withstand glyphosate in the 1990s, poses significant ecological and human health risks.
Those calls picked up in March 2015 when the World Health Organization's (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer found glyphosate probably causes cancer, a conclusion that conflicted with other risk findings, even from within the WHO.
But pesticide producers and growers have argued that EPA's September issue paper finding that glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer is backed by overwhelming scientific evidence, and that glyphosate is vital to modern agriculture. Industry officials have also urged EPA to speed its glyphosate re-registration decision.
Cancer Risk
On March 16, EPA released the final report of Dec. 13-16 FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) review of glyphosate's potential cancer risk. The agency plans to issue human health and ecological risk assessments of glyphosate for public comment in the third quarter of 2017, according to its website.
The advisors' report reflects the panel's split on the critical question of whether to back EPA's conclusion that available evidence does not support a cancer risk finding for glyphosate, with some panel members backing the conclusion and others arguing that EPA's determination does not accurately reflect current science.
“Using a weight-of-evidence approach, the [EPA] Issue Paper concludes that glyphosate is 'not likely to be carcinogenic to humans,' especially at reasonably foreseeable dose-rates,” the report says. “Some Panel members agreed with this characterization, while other Panel members felt that the better descriptor for glyphosate is 'suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential.'”
Additionally, panelists fault EPA's glyphosate analysis as failing to adequately adhere to the agency's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. Specifically, advisors fault EPA's use of historical control data and statistical testing requirements.
In a March 17 statement, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) points to the advisors' criticism in faulting EPA's review of glyphosate's cancer potential and backing IARC's finding that the substance probably causes cancer as the most appropriate conclusion.
“When the pesticide office doesn’t even follow its own guidelines in determining the safety of glyphosate, how can we trust its conclusions?” CBD says. “The 2015 finding of the World Health Organization’s cancer arm that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen remains the most credible and scientifically supported finding on the carcinogenicity of glyphosate.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/sen-inhofe-environmentalists-spar-over-epas-oversight-glyphosate
-
Foster Wheeler Faces Trial in Asbestos Exposure Case
Mar 20, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
Foster Wheeler LLC must prove to a jury that it has defenses to asbestos exposure claims brought by a U.S. Navy technician, the District of Rhode Island ruled March 16 (Stevens v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp., 2017 BL 83281, D.R.I., No. 14-cv-00157, 3/16/17).
The ruling denied Foster Wheeler a summary judgment on three defenses it invoked to bar claims of James Stevens and his wife. The court also rejected Foster Wheeler's claim that federal maritime laws bar a loss of consortium claim in the case.
Stevens, a boiler technician on the USS Allagash in the 1950s, died of mesothelioma in 2015. His complaint against Foster Wheeler and other companies contends the illness was caused by exposure to asbestos-containing materials in the boilers he serviced.
Foster Wheeler's assertion that it should prevail on a “bare metal” defense—that it can't be held liable for components it didn't manufacture—is subject to exception in Rhode Island, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island said.
That exception permits claims where asbestos-containing materials are essential to the function of a product. Here, there is a triable issue as to whether Foster Wheeler had a duty to warn Stevens about asbestos dangers in its boilers, the court said.
The same was true of Foster Wheeler's claim that the Navy was a “sophisticated user” of a product who therefore bore the burden of warning of its dangers, the court said.
The company's claim that it was immune from civil liability as a government contractor, and followed U.S. Navy specifications, also required more facts, the court said.
The loss of consortium claims were brought under state common law, and so decisions barring the claim under the Death on the High Seas Act and the Jones Act don't apply, the court said.
U.S. District Judge WIlliam E. Smith wrote the opinion.
The Deaton Law Firm and Levy Konigsberg represented James Stevens and Suzann Stevens.
Adler Pollock & Sheehan represented Foster Wheeler LLC.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107421974&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107421974&jd=107421974
-
Toy Industries Of Europe Calls For Chemicals Legislation 'Referee'
Mar 20, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Industry group Toy Industries of Europe (TIE) has called for an 'EU referee' to intervene when member states disagree on chemical restrictions.
TIE says that decision making is "seriously undermined" by political considerations and interferences that have "nothing to do" with sound science. It says it frequently sees compromise decisions that are not based on evidence and end up being a "burden" for the industry.
The association is one of several industry groups, NGOs and member states, to submit comments to the European Commission's consultation on the regulatory fitness of chemicals legislation excluding REACH.
The Commission, or an independent party, could act as referee, it suggests. This would ensure "official expert understanding of EU law prevails".
For example, TIE says France has made attempts to impose diverging toy safety requirements, which it says are unscientific, breach EU legislation and the internal market and can cause an "enormous economic impact on industry without improving safety".
In such instances, it says, the Commission should "call member states to order before it is too late" to ensure consistent implementation and enforcement.
Enforcement of regulations on toys is challenging when it comes to online sales, TIE says. "It is clear that market surveillance here is more difficult, and it is important that authorities enforce the toy safety Directive (TSD) also by checking internet channels."
It says that EU toy safety requirements are the strictest in the world, but they become "useless" without proper enforcement. Statistics from Rapex – the EU's rapid alert system for dangerous consumer products – show "around 96% of notifications of toys come from rogue traders, who will always try to circumvent the rules regardless of how strict they are".
https://chemicalwatch.com/54521/toy-industries-of-europe-calls-for-chemicals-legislation-referee
-
Engaging Downstream Sectors In Saicm Talks
Mar 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
When attending international meetings on the sound management of chemicals, the absence of representatives from sectors outside the chemicals industry is very apparent. Historically, industry has been represented by the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) – an important participant in the discussions.
But there is broad agreement that in order to achieve that aim, downstream sectors must get on board and participate in international discussions.
During the fourth international conference on chemicals management (ICCM4) in Geneva in 2015, a document called the Overall Orientation and Guidance (OOG) was adopted. This sets out actions and objectives towards the goals of the UN’s voluntary chemicals programme, the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Managements (Saicm).
It clearly states that in order to meet the 2020 goal of achieving sound chemicals management globally, “there is a need for stronger engagement and increased assumption of responsibility by downstream entities, in particular industries, to address the distribution and use of chemicals in the manufacture of products and throughout their lifecycle, and for a more extensive approach to stewardship.”
It adds that extending the stewardship of chemicals, under Saicm, to their full lifecycle will require involvement from primary chemicals producers, the downstream manufacturing sector, through to distributors and vendors. “Both sector-specific and cross-sectoral strategies could be used to engage chemical producers and users in pursuing the 2020 goal.”
However, it has since been agreed that the goal will not be achieved by the deadline and Saicm participants are now looking to how the world should manage chemicals beyond it.
At a recent meeting on this topic in Brazil, the message was further endorsed. There was a resounding call for broader engagement from industry, outside of the chemicals sector, to help develop and adopt an effective framework for the future.What are the benefits?
One of the only representatives from a downstream sector, at the meeting in February, was Al Kaufman of the US trade body the Toy Industry Association (TIA). Speaking to Chemical Watch afterwards, Mr Kaufman said that downstream sectors can benefit from participating in the talks between Saicm stakeholders because “it is important [for all sectors] that sound chemicals management is practiced around the world”.
“Many downstream sectors have products manufactured in developing countries and therefore it is of interest to them that chemicals going into their products are safely managed globally.”
Safer chemicals management in these countries, he said, could ease the supply chain challenge of knowing all chemicals in products. “For example, driving better chemical management worldwide would likely lead to improved chemical information up and down the supply chain, enabling companies to better manage what goes into their products.”
He added that in tackling these challenges, through Saicm’s efforts, consumers would have more confidence in companies and the products they buy.
Speaking to Chemical Watch on the sidelines, David Azoulay, environmental health programme director for the Centre for International Environmental Law (Ciel), said the benefits go both ways.
A number of sectors could add value to the Saicm process, he said, particularly companies developing safer alternatives to existing chemicals and distributors of products which are in contact with the public.
“A lot of the companies in these sectors have very different perspectives on how to deal with chemicals, which aren’t represented and are therefore left out of these global discussions. Hearing them would be beneficial to the process, particularly towards the post-2020 global chemicals framework discussions.”
Such companies, he said, have strong experience in producing safer chemicals or coming up with non-chemical alternatives, which “address the societal issues that we’re trying to solve during these global talks”.
It would also be beneficial to them, he added, because they could receive stronger support with their activities from a global framework.
“Currently, there are very strong market obstacles, such as bringing new alternatives to the market. Making sure the global framework actively supports their initiatives and helps them overcome certain obstacles would be useful to these sectors.”
Another benefit is that it would help draw attention to the issue of chemicals management and raise it as a political priority.
“For years, many Saicm stakeholders have repeated the fact that the sound management of chemicals is still a low political priority, which is why a lot of the actions that we’re trying to put in place are watered down and not as effective as they could be,” said Mr Azoulay.
“Because these downstream companies have far more exposure to consumer demands, we believe that their participation could very much help raise the level of attention,” he said.
The real challenge, he concludes, is what form will this outreach take and how can we convince these organisations of the benefits of participating.
Some downstream sector representatives, which have not participated, told Chemical Watch that a lack of awareness has been a common reason for not getting involved. Others said there is a feeling that these high level efforts do not relate to their day-to-day business activities and because Saicm is not legally binding, it is a lower prioirty than the national and regional regulations coming into force around the world.Saicm outreach
But an outreach project is underway and was made official when, in 2015, the ICCA agreed to provide its first significant funding to the Saicm secretariat. The organisation committed to providing $150,000/year for two years, which has now been extended to 2020.
The secretariat chose to use the money to strengthen its broader outreach to industry, in particular, to downstream sectors. And the ICCA helped the secretariat find a consultant – former Cefic head of international chemicals management Lena Perenius – to support them in this work.
Ms Perenius told Chemical Watch that the situation today is better than it was a couple of years ago: “We are seeing an increase in interest. However, much more needs to be done.”
She said this interest is largely down to the emerging policy issues, identified through the Saicm process, such as chemicals in products (CiP), environmentally pollutant pharmaceutical products (EPPP) and lead in paint.
These issues have prompted the textiles, tyre manufacturing, pharmaceutical, toys and paint manufacturing industries, as well as chemicals distributors “who are of course an important link in the chain”, to engage in discussions on global chemicals management, said Ms Perenius.
Generally, discussions aim to identify how the sectors could contribute and get involved, mutually reinforcing Saicm and their own sector initiatives. One example of strengthening participation, said Ms Perenius, could be for the pharma industry to provide tools and knowledge to identify environmental concerns at an early stage in product development.
But, she added, there is a level of groundwork that needs to be done to get more companies and sectors involved in Saicm projects, such as overcoming the cultural and language barriers. “There is a certain ‘language’ spoken by the international organisations and another by industry. So the first phase is to communicate and explain what Saicm is in their language, as well as communicate the mutual benefits of collaborating on the sound management of chemicals globally.”
One benefit for sectors, she said, could be that they use the Saicm platform to broaden participation in a voluntary initiative by including other stakeholders, such as governments, and thereby increasing its impact.Adaptive markets
Stirring interest in sound chemicals management is a hot topic this year, particularly as businesses grapple with the UN’s 2030 sustainable development agenda and its 17 goals. These goals, which came into force in January 2016, have highlighted the important role chemicals will play in achieving them, in terms of their application and safe management.
Because of this, Saicm stakeholders have agreed that one way to advance and raise global chemicals management as a priority, is to make links to other agendas, such as biodiversity and climate change.
A session at this year’s Helsinki Chemicals Forum (HCF), in May, will focus on the business case for managing chemicals safely and contributing to the SDGs. It will tackle the question: how should businesses engage with the SDGs and what are the bottom-line risks of not doing so? A panel will debate this by using examples of product successes and failures.
Delving further, another session looks at how markets will adapt to the economic and environmental challenges business and society as a whole are facing. It will examine macro-economic forecasts, global market trends and supply chain needs. And the discussion will raise issues around the need for more attention and stakeholder participation as the panel debates what the products of tomorrow will look like and the implications of trying to achieve safer chemicals in products.
Unep’s head of chemicals and waste branch, Achim Halpaap, who will be moderating the session on SDGs at HCF, told Chemical Watch that the challenge in developing a post-2020 framework will be to move beyond traditional chemicals management topics and agree on actions, covering areas such as research and innovation, business models, economic incentive and sustainable chemistry education.
“To advance these new topics and leverage impact, new actors from different government sectors and downstream industries which use chemicals need to be engaged.”Targets?
Jacob Duer, Saicm secretariat principal coordinator, said the programme of work that was approved at ICCM4 does not set any specific goals for engaging more stakeholders other than “enhancing industry involvement in the broader sense”.
But internally, he said, the secretariat has set an informal goal of bringing two to three sectors on board and strengthening communication through trade associations. He did not say which sectors would be the focus of this.
“A lot of our industry engagement has come through the ICCA but we recognise that industry is significantly broader and so we are looking to engage with other associations, both in the chemicals producing industry as well as some of the downstream sectors.”
However, he said this one way communication is beginning to change course. “Historically, we have been the one reaching out to these sectors but we are starting to receive interest and are now being approached.”
Mr Duer said that as the Saicm message starts to resonate more broadly, some companies and sector associations are becoming interested in what it is and how they can collaborate to achieve their own goals, while at the same time advancing the Saicm objective.
“What we are hoping is that industry sees that it needs to play a much stronger role in discussions around sustainability and the sound management of chemicals. Ultimately they may be marginalised over time if they don’t engage in these processes that make efforts to find solutions to achieve the UN’s SDGs.”Why are downstream sectors not engaged? One toy industry perspective
Alan Kaufman, TIA: “A lack of awareness on the part of many businesses, especially SMEs, is the major reason for the lack of participation in Saicm talks. Unep - due to limited resources - has not been able to adequately inform potential stakeholders about the programme and its benefits.
“While the programme is at a greater remove than national or regional regulations from the day-to-day operations of most companies, and is non-binding, I don’t think businesses who are aware of it find it unimportant, but given that every organisation operates within resource constraints and with finite bandwidth, resources must first be allocated to mandatory requirements that are specific to a particular industry (and for toys, there is an existing network of mandatory requirements, so it is a sector already particularly well protected).”
https://chemicalwatch.com/54503/engaging-downstream-sectors-in-saicm-talks
-
Sources: Trump Expected To Sign Energy Executive Order On Monday
Mar 17, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Anthony Adragna, Andrew Restuccia and Nick Juliano
President Donald Trump is expected to sign a broad executive order rolling back a host of Obama-era actions on climate change on Monday, two sources familiar with its timing tell POLITICO.
A draft summary of the executive order POLITICO obtained earlier this week indicated Trump would direct the EPA to “rewrite” the Clean Power Plan and a similar rule setting carbon dioxide emission limits for new power plants. And it calls for repealing four Obama-era executive orders on climate change and for an interagency working group to “reconsider” the social cost of carbon figure, an estimate of the damage caused by climate change.
A White House spokeswoman declined to comment on the timing of the order, which has been pushed back several times.
Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), who is close to the Trump administration, suggested the scope of the order is expanding and that it may direct EPA to rewrite its 2015 air quality standard for ozone, which Republicans and industry groups criticized nearly as much as Obama’s climate change rules. But he was unsure when the order would be released.
“The other thing I’m not sure about is what all is going to get involved in it … including ozone and other things like that,” Cramer said.
The summary of the order did not explicitly mention the ozone rule, but hinted at its possible inclusion. The order will direct EPA to review existing policies “that result in impediments to domestic energy production and the expansion of energy production facilities,” according to the document.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Maryland Governor Endorses State Fracking Ban
Mar 20, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Kathy Lundy Springuel
Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) endorsed legislation that would ban hydraulic fracturing in the state, surprising people on both sides of the issue.
“Because of Maryland's unique position and our wealth of natural resources, our administration has concluded that the possible environmental risks of fracking simply outweigh any potential benefits,” the governor said during a hastily arranged press conference late March 17.
Calling this a bipartisan effort, Hogan urged “lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in both chambers to come together and finally put this issue to rest once and for all.”
The current moratorium is slated to expire Oct. 1 if the General Assembly takes no further action.
Sen. Bobby A. Zirkin (D), lead sponsor of the Senate version of the ban, said during the news conference that a majority of senators back his bill. He expressed confidence that it would pass, now that concerns about ensuring enough votes to override any potential Hogan veto are moot.
House Already Voted for Ban
The Maryland House of Delegates passed legislation March 10 that would ban all fracking in the state, with supporters outnumbering opponents by a veto-proof 97-40.
Focus had shifted to the Senate, where there was some concern about passing a fracking ban without enough votes to override a veto should Hogan choose to reject such a bill, thus prompting the alternate approach of allowing the counties to decide on fracking by referendum.
No fracking has been conducted in Maryland while the debate has gone through various stages for nearly six years.
Hogan noted that his administration recently proposed what would have been the toughest fracking regulations in the nation—rules that he said “would have made it virtually impossible for anyone to ever frack in Maryland.”
Those regulations have not been finalized, however, because a legislative review panel in late December exercised its authority to put the proposal on hold out of concern that it was not as strong as rules proffered by Hogan's Democratic predecessor. While chiding lawmakers for stalling those regulations, Hogan said the legislature's hold is “why I've decided that we must take the next step and move from virtually banning fracking to actually banning fracking.”
Scoffs at Referendum Proposal
The governor also said he learned on March 17 that several key senators were “working on a plan that would open the door to fracking in Maryland.” He said their efforts were another reason for his decision.
Hogan said that Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller (D) had a plan to allow fracking under S.B. 862. He was referring to a measure that would extend an existing fracking moratorium for two more years while requiring each county to vote by referendum in 2018 whether to allow fracking—an election in which Hogan and the entire General Assembly will be up for reelection.
For any county that approved fracking, S.B. 862 would allow the process only under the “most protective standards” possible, starting no sooner than Oct. 1, 2019.
Miller took issue with Hogan's suggestion that he backed a plan that would lead to fracking.
“I am not for fracking, never have been for fracking, never will be for fracking,” he said in a statement.
He said he supported legislation that would have banned fracking “but let the people of Garrett and Allegany County have their voice,” referring to the only two counties in Maryland that sit atop the gas-rich Marcellus Shale formation.
The largely rural area in the western portion of the state is home to rivers, lakes and state parks, prompting concerns about fracking's potential impact on the tourist trade. Others have touted the potential economic benefits from allowing fracking under proper regulations, including the legislative delegation from western Maryland.
“The advocates for fracking have claimed that the people of Western Maryland are for fracking, and I believed it was important to let those residents’ opinions be heard,“ Miller said in the statement.
Hogan said during the press conference that he did “not see much job potential from fracking in Maryland.” He said that other proposals he has before lawmakers would do more to foster job growth.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107421970&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107421970&jd=107421970
-
The Importance Of U.S. Oil And Natural Gas Exports
Mar 19, 2017 | Forbes
By Jude Clemente
According to the International Energy Agency's (IEA) latest World Energy Outlook (released in November), oil and natural gas will still supply over 50% of the world's energy in 2040. But, given the tendency to overestimate the ability of naturally intermittent renewables to displace (not simply supplement) conventional fuel systems, the contribution of oil and gas is likely to be even higher than anticipated.
In short, even with Herculean growth for wind and solar, oil and gas will remain integral to the world's energy economies for "as far as the eye can see." Moreover, you must know that wind and solar only compete in the electricity sector, and electricity accounts for less than 45% of global energy demand. So, an energy system built on wind and solar isn't practical: they don't compete in the majority of the world's energy economy.
To me, our most obvious energy fact is that global oil demand simply cannot peak anytime soon. Oil, after all, is the world's most vital fuel with no significant substitute whatsoever. And because 6 in every 7 humans today live in undeveloped nations, global oil consumption has really just started. The numbers in oil's favor are overwhelming: over 90,000,000 vehicles were sold last year, and about 1% of them run on something other than oil.
Natural gas, meanwhile, is the world's fastest growing major fuel, and the increased use of natural gas is a climate necessity: more gas is the primary reason why the U.S. is set to meet CO2 emission reduction goals set in the Clean Power Plan nearly 15 years early (here).
Given all this, our expanding capacity to export more oil and natural gas is not just great to lower our trade imbalance, but to also improve human development. I've already documented how it's a moral imperative to export modern fuels to a mostly poor world (here, here), and oil and gas exports also lower the widening influence of OPEC and Russia.
The foundation of my work stands on solid moral footing: poor people deserve the same privileged lives that you, me, and Al Gore have, and shouldn't have to only rely on the less reliable, more expensive energy systems that rich people in San Francisco demand that they do.
As U.S. crude oil production has rebounded to levels not seen since the early 1970s, our petroleum and oil products exports have surged. We have a saturated market demand wise, so although demand will remain buoyantly very high, our ability to export is increasing as our industry recovers from sunken prices. And our shale oil is a lighter, higher quality oil that isn't a perfect match for our own refinery system built on processing heavier crudes.
In 2018, the U.S. is set to become a net gas exporter on an annual basis for the first time ever. The coming U.S. LNG export surge means that we could someday soon become the largest LNG exporter. Countries want our gas given more flexible contracts and our use of hub pricing, where the more clear fundamentals of supply and demand reign. LNG and Mexican exports increases could total over 4 Bcf/day of new U.S. demand this year.
Domestic electricity and industrial use is not growing fast enough, so the U.S. gas business is shifting the focus toward international buyers. Our representatives should know that in times of slow domestic demand, exports allow our producers to maintain high employment levels. To illustrate, gas for power generation demand is expected to actually decline this year, after increasing by more than 3% last year. And IEA is encouraging us to export gas to displace coal in Asia, where gas prices 3-5 times higher give our companies huge arbitrage opportunities.
Mexico now accounts for over 60% of U.S. natural gas and gasoline exports, with much more to come. Given that two Houston oil and gas dudes in Rick Perry and Rex Tillerson hold powerful roles in the Trump administration, know that our energy relationship with Mexico will become stronger, not weaker. Houston is by far the most important trading city with Mexico, and the energy trade is perhaps the fastest growing. Natural gas prices, for instance, would be about 35-40% lower without the critical Mexico release valve for our producers.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2017/03/19/the-importance-of-u-s-oil-and-natural-gas-exports/2/#bed56f53ac70
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Storage, Safety Rule Delayed
Mar 17, 2017 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
Facilities that store chemicals will have more time to comply with on-site safety and storage regulations now that the EPA has agreed to delay and review a chemical safety rule enacted by the Obama administration.
Several industry groups had petitioned the EPA to toss the rule, which updated requirements for industry-prepared risk management plans. The EPA said the new regulations, created in response to a Texas explosion at a fertilizer plant that killed 15 people, will reduce the likelihood of accidental releases at sites that store and use chemicals. The rule is also intended to improve emergency response activities when those releases do occur.
The the American Chemistry Council and the National Association of Manufacturers said the regulations would “add burdensome and often duplicative requirements” on companies across sectors, including including pulp and paper, refining, chemical manufacturing and distribution, wholesalers, iron and steel, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers, coal products, water treatment, food manufacturing, plastics, cement, auditing and energy producers and utilities. The trade organizations called on the Trump administration to rollback the rule.
Earlier this week EPA administrator Scott Pruitt signed an administrative stay to delay the effective date of the chemical safety rule until June 19. He said the 90-day extension was in response to industry concerns and will give the agency time to review the rule.
“As an agency, we need to be responsive to concerns raised by stakeholders regarding regulations so facility owners and operators know what is expected of them,” Pruitt said.
Legislation is also working its way through the House and Senate that would overturn the rule and prevent the EPA from issuing a similar one.
-
Names of Thousands of Formerly Regulated Chemical Plants Sought
Mar 20, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
A public interest advocacy group is suing the Department of Homeland Security to force the release of documents on chemical plant operations three years after the agency failed to provide the information under a public records request.
If disclosed, the documents, which could include the identities of more than 3,000 facilities that reduced their chemical holdings to avoid DHS oversight, could prompt greater scrutiny of plants that declined to take the same steps.
The suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeks 123 pages of records a Coast Guard administrative law judge ordered disclosed in June 2014 in processing Freedom of Information Act appeals under agreement with DHS (Greenpeace, Inc. v. Department of Homeland Security et al, Dist. Ct. D.C., 17-cv-00479, 3/16/17).
Despite the order, advocates say DHS never turned over the information, and the Coast Guard judge told them he had no authority to enforce his decision.
“We think it's pretty outrageous,” Scott Nelson, an attorney at the Public Citizen Litigation Group who is representing Greenpeace in the case, told Bloomberg BNA March 17.
He added, “I have never seen anything like this.”
Under DHS’ Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Program (CFATS), plants holding 332 specified chemicals above certain quantities are required to complete security assessments, write site security plans and put in place security measures to meet the department's risk-based performance standards.
A DHS spokesman didn't respond to a request for comment March 17. The agency has yet to file a response to the complaint.
Could Be Thousands of Plants
The Greenpeace request sought “all releasable documents and records that contain the most complete listing of chemical facilities that have reduced their holdings of threshold quantities of ‘chemicals of interest’... rendering them no longer ‘high risk’ facilities under CFATS.”
DHS officials have given different estimates of the number of facilities that might be subject to the request. In 2012, Rand Beers, then the undersecretary of the National Protection and Programs Directorate, told a House committee “more than 1,600 facilities completely removed their chemicals of interest, and more than 700 others” reduced their holdings to levels not requiring participation in CFATS.
More recently, Caitlin Durkovich, then DHS’ assistant secretary for infrastructure protection, said at a hearing of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection and Security Technologies in 2014 “more than 3,000 facilities have eliminated, reduced or modified their holdings of chemicals of interest.”
Under federal law, the identities of sites in the program are exempt from public disclosure requirements. Greenpeace has argued that the names of plants no longer in the program because their chemical holdings do not pose sufficient risk are not a safety threat.
“This kind of secrecy is as senseless as keeping fireproof materials a secret from the construction industry,” Charlie Cray, senior research specialist at Greenpeace, said in a statement March 16.
The administrative law judge, Coast Guard attorney adviser Timothy O'Connell, agreed. O'Connell wrote in 2014 that DHS was keeping the information private in a way “that is not in accordance with applicable case law” and rejected the agency's claims the disclosure would harm the public.
Though DHS delegated authority to hear the appeal to the Coast Guard, O'Connell later wrote to Greenpeace he had “no ability to force compliance if an agency does not obey our appellate decisions.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107421968&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107421968&jd=107421968
-
States Seek 15-Month Delay For RMP Rule Pending EPA Revision Or Repeal
Mar 20, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
A coalition of GOP states is petitioning EPA to delay by an additional 15 months the effective date of the Obama administration's final rule updating the agency's facility accident prevention program, saying more time is needed beyond the current delayed June deadline for EPA to weigh whether to revise or outright repeal the regulation.
The states in their March 14 petition support EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's recent delay of the rule and argue that the regulation's disclosure requirements make facilities more vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
The petition, from 10 Republican attorneys general (AG) and one GOP governor, asks Pruitt to issue a rule to delay the effective date of EPA's Jan. 13 Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility safety an additional 15 months beyond the current extended mid-June deadline, while also pushing back compliance dates.
Pruitt March 13 announced EPA plans to reconsider the rule and delayed its effective date three months, from March 21 to June 19. Pruitt's announcement responded to a Feb. 28 petition from a coalition of petrochemical and other industry groups for EPA to reconsider or rescind the rule that industry says raises costs and heightens security risks without improving safety.
Most of the state AGs that filed the new March 14 petition supported Pruitt last summer, when as Oklahoma's AG he led a letter from state officials arguing that proposed RMP requirements for disclosure of facility data to emergency planners and the public would help terrorists target industrial facilities.
The petition is from the office of Louisiana AG Jeff Landry and signed by AGs from Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and the governor of Kentucky.
“The States strongly believe and have previously commented that the new RMP Rule is a deeply flawed approach that is detrimental not only to chemical safety but also to the safety of our communities as a whole,” the petition says. “The rule changes, developed with a goal of ensuring greater safety, instead create significantly greater risk."
EPA's Jan. 13 final rule overhauls its RMP facility accident prevention program with new requirements for auditing, hazard analysis and disclosure of facility data. EPA issued the rule under former President Barack Obama's August 2013 executive order (EO) on improving the safety and security of industrial plants.
Obama issued the order in response to an explosion at a fertilizer plant in West, TX, that killed 15 people, including first responders. While the explosion and subsequent EO triggered EPA's overhaul of its RMP accident prevention program, authorized under the Clean Air Act, investigators later blamed arson for the fire that led to the explosion.
Rule Reconsideration
In his March 13 announcement that the Trump EPA will reconsider the rule, Pruitt backed industry arguments that the rule was issued without adequate notice and comment on all aspects of the final rule. In particular, Pruitt noted that federal investigators' determination that arson caused the fire that ignited the West explosion came days before the deadline for public input on the proposed rule.
Environmental, labor and other advocacy groups have argued that the Obama-era rule provides a modest improvement to the RMP safety regulation, and that the disclosure requirements merely facilitate release of data to the public but do not require release of information that is not already in the public domain.
In the petition, the states note that they are home to numerous refining, oil and gas, chemical, agricultural, and general manufacturing facilities, and the AGs back industry assertions that the RMP rule imposes significant burdens without clear benefits.
The states say they raised concerns throughout the rulemaking process, citing Pruitt's July 27, 2016 letter to former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, faulting disclosure requirements in the proposed rule, which the agency modified slightly in the final version.
After EPA did not reach out to states after Pruitt's letter last summer, state officials argued on a November conference call with White House Office of Management & Budget officials that the rule failed to adequately consider security risks and imposed unfunded mandates on states as well as unnecessary costs.
“The States believe that the rule would not streamline regulation and would not make it more efficient,” the petition says. “The States appreciate EPA's recent decision to reconsider the RMP Rule, and we urge the Agency to repeal or significantly revise the rule on reconsideration.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/states-seek-15-month-delay-rmp-rule-pending-epa-revision-or-repeal
-
Commentary: Rail Regulation Must Recognize Vital Service
Mar 19, 2017 | The Daily Herald
By Ian Jefferies
Amazon reportedly has ambitions to develop its own delivery fleet to round out its already massive sales operation. Under the theoretical business model Amazon won’t need UPS, FedEx or the U.S. Postal Service to deliver the diverse set of goods consumers now receive at their doorstep.
The idea is novel, and perhaps even doable for the Seattle-based company. But until then, and even when implemented, a fundamental truth remains: Amazon — like other corporate titans such as Boeing and Microsoft — will need an integrated shipping network to seamlessly move goods from production to warehouses before last-mile delivery.
And for that to be feasible, another truth remains: Our nation’s most storied means of moving goods — freight railroads — will play an integral role, moving finished consumer goods between boats and trucks, as well as the variety of goods that help make the products we use daily without always remembering what occurred to create them.
However, against the backdrop of structural market and traffic shifts — namely the steep decline of a coal sector that railroads invested to support (sometimes at the government’s behest) — this will only occur if policymakers forgo measures that induce uncertainty and threaten revenues required for investments to maintain and upgrade infrastructure and equipment.
Freight rail is part of a network that together moves some 54 tons of good per American each year. This includes basic goods — food, consumer goods, automobiles — as well as critical resources — water treatment materials, agricultural fertilizer and home-powering energy resources.
The movement of these goods profoundly impacts the economy and communities. Major U.S. rail carriers supported 1.5 million jobs, generated $33 billion in local, state and federal taxes and produced $274 billion in economic activity in 2014 alone.
Sustaining this positive force depends on investment — railroads spent more than $30 billion alone in 2015 — which rests on economic freedom to earn necessary revenue.
So it is especially troubling that members of an independent agency known as the Surface Transportation Board want to disregard Congressional intent and reregulate railroads through a series of questionable measures.
Just last year, in a praiseworthy effort led by the Senate Commerce Committee — on which Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, serves — Congress plotted a path for the board. It expanded membership from three board members to five and allowed greater autonomy.
It did not, however, direct the board to reregulate commodities such as iron and steel without any request to do so from these industries. Nor did Congress hope the board would consider capping rates of return that railroads can earn.
But most importantly, reauthorization in no way advocated for “forced access,” a rule that would require railroads to open their lines to competitors.
Under this framework, Railroad A gets access to Railroad B’s infrastructure and customer because the government forces Railroad B to do so — not because it is the optimal route.
It is a radical approach that disregards property rights, ignores the time-consuming nature of railroad switches and forces carriers to provide access at below-market rates. It would create chaos as railroads deal with widespread orders to switch traffic and would lessen railroad efficiencies and it would reduce railroads’ abilities to invest in their networks. This, despite the clear correlation between partial deregulation in 1980, $600 billion in investments since, and historic improvements in safety, service and pricing.
Federal reregulatory efforts occur amid a steep drop in coal production, permitting red tape and an uptick in bullish state and local governments. Just this year, in a measure that was ultimately withdrawn but may now re-emerge, the Spokane City Council proposed fining rail cars carrying crude oil or coal. The unprecedented move is a microcosm of what the larger business community faces: unfounded opposition.
The collective result of these factors, particularly if the proposed regulations are enacted, is a slowed rail and logistics network and a lack of needed dollars for private infrastructure that helps the Washington and U.S. economies. Railroads are as safe, resourceful and reliable as ever in 2016 because they are treated the same as other private businesses. This should remain the case, as positive public impact rests on public policy pillars that allow for differential pricing, nimble operations and a respect for private property rights.
The Senate Commerce Committee continues to recognize the need for a healthy and financially viable freight railroad sector. That is why the committee passed a balanced reauthorization that kept in place the economic framework that has worked so well over the years. Leadership is as paramount as ever today.
Ian Jefferies is senior vice president of government affairs at the Association of American Railroads.
https://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/commentary-rail-regulation-must-recognize-vital-service/
-
Week ahead: Anticipation Builds For Trump Climate Order
Mar 20, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The coming week could finally bring President Trump's long-awaited executive order on climate change.
The White House has promised an executive order undoing large swaths of President Obama's work on climate change.
On Friday, Politico reported Trump could sign such an order on Monday. An administration official declined to comment on the report.
But the timing of Trump's order isn't the only question surrounding it. The exact breadth of the actions remains an open question for everyone in the energy and environment sphere.
What's most likely is that Trump's order will first begin the process of undoing the Clean Power Plan, the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) rule to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.
That rule was the key climate regulation of the Obama administration, and by directing his EPA to begin unraveling it, Trump would be making good on a key campaign promise to cut back on energy industry regulations.
During the campaign, he also promised to lift a moratorium on coal leasing on public land, something that's likely to happen within his executive order as well.
But the question remains just how broad the order will be.
Reports this week suggested the White House could expand the order, taking aim at methane regulations, Obama-era guidance that government agencies consider climate change in standard environmental reviews and the "social cost of carbon" metric used to measure projects' impact on climate change.
The fate of the U.S.'s involvement in the Paris climate accord is also up in the air: Trump is consulting with energy industry companies about their position on the climate pact, indicating a softening of his campaign pledge to yank the U.S. out of the landmark deal.
Regardless of the breadth of Trump's order, it will kick off a flurry of activity both inside of government and out.
Undoing the Clean Power Plan or the methane rules will take years: Trump's order, like one he recently signed about a water regulation, would simply instruct the EPA to redo the emissions rule, a lengthy process.
The coal moratorium can go away with a simple signature from Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, but actually reviving the leasing program and conducting a sale -- and attracting any interested miners -- will take months, as well.
The order will also open the door to lawsuits from environmentalists, who will certainly ask the courts to keep Obama's climate work intact.
The executive order will be the latest in a string of Trump actions aimed at Obama's climate work.
His budget plan, released this week, proposes to slash the EPA's budget by 30 percent and cut several climate programs around the government.
On Wednesday, the EPA and the Department of Transportation formally reopened a review of fuel emissions standards for vehicles finalized during the Obama administration.
Trump has signed executive actions opening the door to the construction of oil pipelines denied by Obama, and Congress has so far sent him three resolutions undoing Obama rules dealing with water quality, land planning and the fossil fuel industry.
But the executive order, when it comes, will be Trump's biggest foray yet into reversing federal efforts targeting climate change.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/324563-week-ahead-anticipation-builds-for-trump-climate-order
-
Panel Kicks Off Clean Air Act Rewrite Push
Mar 20, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
A renewed push to rewrite a key part of the Clean Air Act formally kicks off Wednesday with a hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment.
The topic will be H.R. 806, introduced last month by Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) with the immediate goal of halting further implementation of U.S. EPA's 2015 ozone standard until 2025. Olson, who sits on the subcommittee, has touted the legislation as a means of giving states and local governments time to "properly" meet tighter standards. Environmentalists and public health advocates have dubbed his bill "the smoggy skies act."
But the measure would also make lasting changes to the Clean Air Act's cycle for future reviews of ambient air quality standards for ozone, particulate matter and four other criteria pollutants.
Under the law, those reviews — which are essentially examinations of the latest scientific research on a particular pollutant's effects on human health and the environment to determine whether changes are warranted — are supposed to happen every five years. Olson's bill would change that timetable to once a decade.
It would also allow EPA to take technological feasibility into account as a secondary factor if confronted with a range of options for tightening a particular standard; in addition, the agency would have to report back on any potential adverse consequences of tighter standards for the energy sector and the broader economy.
A similar bill, H.R. 4775, passed the House last June, only to wither in the Senate following a White House veto threat and opposition from key Democrats.
While EPA is now nine months further along in implementing the 2015 ozone standard of 70 parts per billion, Republicans argue that a lengthy timeout is nonetheless needed.
Significant chunks of the country are still out of compliance with the previous 75 ppb threshold set in 2008, and EPA only issued the implementation guidance for that benchmark two years ago, GOP lawmakers note.
While ozone levels are down by one-third since 1980 and continue to decline, states are supposed "to divert resources from these ongoing efforts in order to simultaneously implement duplicative, stringent standards," Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), the Environment Subcommittee's chairman, said in a news release last week.
Olson's bill, he added, would give states "time and flexibility" to implement the standards while also protecting jobs and economic growth.
Ozone, the main ingredient in smog, is produced by the reaction of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds in sunlight. It is associated with asthma attacks and can make breathing more difficult for emphysema sufferers.
One source of NOx emissions is coal combustion; the oil and gas industry is a key emitter of volatile organic compounds. Among other requirements, Olson's bill would instruct EPA to study the impact of foreign air pollution sources on problem areas in the United States. A recent study found that emissions from Asia are undercutting efforts to reduce ozone levels in the western United States (Greenwire, March 1).
As of Friday, the bill had 21 co-sponsors, three of them Democrats. Both Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the ranking member on the full Energy and Commerce Committee, and Rep. Paul Tonko of New York, the subcommittee's top Democrat, remain opposed.
"Our country has a proven record of growing the economy while improving our air quality and protecting public health," Tonko said in a statement Friday to E&E News. "I will not support efforts that seek to delay or undermine EPA's ability to set or implement health-based standards for criteria pollutants."
For their witnesses, Democrats have asked a top California air quality regulator and an expert in pulmonary medicine to testify. As of late Friday, Republicans had not publicly named their witnesses.
Schedule: The hearing is Wednesday, March 22, at 10 a.m. in 2123 Rayburn.
Witnesses: Dr. Homer Boushey, professor of medicine for the Division of Pulmonary/Critical Care Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco; and Kurt Karperos, deputy executive officer at the California Air Resources Board. Others TBA.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/03/20/stories/1060051695
-
Pennsylvania to Pruitt: EPA Cuts ‘Devastating’
Mar 20, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
President Donald Trump's proposed fiscal 2018 budget would have “immediate and devastating” impacts on Pennsylvania's ability to ensure clean air, safe water and a prospering economy, the state's acting environmental secretary says.
“Put simply, cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency signal the Trump administration's disregard for its responsibility to protect the health and safety of American citizens,” Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Acting Secretary Patrick McDonnell told EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in a March 16 letter.
The DEP relies on federal funding to administer a variety of mandated programs that protect the safety of coal miners, address lead contamination, prevent air pollution and clean up industrial sites, McDonnell wrote. Pennsylvania has benefited from a long partnership with “the agency you seem intent on hobbling,” McDonnell wrote.
Trump has called for a 30 percent cut in EPA's budget. A 30 percent cut in federal funding would cut inspections of the state's 8,500 public water systems by 30 percent, stifle job creation under Pennsylvania's Brownfields program, abandon small farmers and local governments trying to improve water quality and eliminate free radon testing kits for new parents, the letter said.
McDonnell also called it “beyond disappointing” that Pruitt has said he does not believe carbon emissions are a primary contributor to climate change: “I urge you to take seriously your responsibility to provide leadership in the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions—not to spread doubt and falsehoods about the existence of the problem.”
The EPA did not respond to an email March 17 from Bloomberg BNA seeking comment. Pennsylvania DEP spokesman Neil Shader told Bloomberg BNA in an email that the state had not yet received a response from the federal agency.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107421967&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107421967&jd=107421967
-
Study Finds Ammonia Levels Rising In Agricultural Areas
Mar 20, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
Levels of atmospheric ammonia increased substantially during a 14-year period over some of the world's most productive agricultural areas, a new study has found, giving rise to "deleterious effects on vegetation and ecosystem health."
The study, published online yesterday in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, found "hot spots" of gaseous ammonia over the midwestern United States, as well as parts of China, South Asia and Western Europe, from 2002 to 2016, according to an accompanying news release.
An array of factors appeared to be driving the increases, including climate change, growing fertilizer use and — in the United States and Europe — successful efforts to curb the power plant pollution that contributes to the creation of acid rain, researchers at the University of Maryland, NASA and other institutions concluded.
By 2012, power industry emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the United States had dropped to their lowest levels since passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, the study said. As those pollutants rise in the atmosphere, they react with water and other chemicals to form acid rain. But the resulting acids also scrub ammonia from the atmosphere; much of the increase in airborne ammonia in the United States, particularly after 2011, "is thus an unintended consequence of the successful measures to control acid deposition," the paper said.
Similar forces appeared to be at work in Western Europe, but in China and India, researchers also highlighted greater reliance on fertilizers. Worldwide, rising temperatures, at least partly attributable to climate change, also played a role because ammonia "vaporizes more readily" from warming soil, the release said.
Ammonia, a nitrogen compound that's probably best known as a household cleaning agent, ends up in the atmosphere mainly because of livestock waste and fertilizer use. It can then combine with NOx and sulfates to form fine particles linked to a wide range of health problems, including aggravated asthma symptoms, irregular heartbeat, and premature death in people with heart and lung disease.
A study last year highlighted ammonia emissions as the main reason that farming operations had become the biggest single source of fine particle pollution in the United States, Europe and China (E&E News PM, May 16, 2016).
Gaseous ammonia can also drop back to earth, where it can help lead to damaging algae blooms and low-oxygen "dead zones" in lakes and other bodies of water.
For the study, researchers tapped data from NASA's satellite-based Atmospheric Infrared Sounder; the team also included participants from the University of Houston and the Universities Space Research Association.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/03/17/stories/1060051670
-
Coastal Agencies Urge Delegation Help In Thwarting NOAA Cuts
Mar 20, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Anne C. Mulkern
Three California coastal agencies are asking the state's congressional delegation to help block budget cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The California Coastal Commission, California State Coastal Conservancy, and San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission sent a letter Friday to the delegation calling cuts that would result from President Trump's proposed budget "ill-considered."
"The state's $44 billion ocean-based economy and the entire Bay Area shoreline face unprecedented natural challenges," the letter said. "Eliminating NOAA's core state grants program when California and all other coastal states are at increasing risk from these growing threats is shortsighted at best. Most important, it will put California's economy, coastline, and quality of life for millions of residents at risk."
Trump's "skinny" budget released last week did not outline the exact nature of the cuts to NOAA. But the Commerce Department — which houses NOAA — would lose $1.5 billion, or 16 percent of its current funding. NOAA accounts for 60 percent of Commerce's current $9.2 billion budget.
The administration has considered cutting NOAA 17 percent, or about $990 million, according to a four-page memo obtained earlier this month by The Washington Post (Greenwire, March 16). That would include grants and programs worth $250 million, according to the budget proposal. Those programs — which the proposal "zeros out" — support "coastal and marine management, research, and education."
All members of the California delegation have a stake in defending NOAA, the letter said.
"Whether your constituents live along the coast, in valleys, or on mountains, we all benefit from the environmental and economic strength of California's coast," the agencies said. "Residents of the Inland Empire are frequent visitors to the coast, especially during hot summer months, farmers in the Central Valley ship billions of dollars of agricultural products through the state's major ports, and tourists ski in the Sierras during the morning, buy fruit in the Central Valley in the afternoon, and relax along the coast at night."
The federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) requires the federal government, through NOAA, "to align its priorities with those of individual states," the letter from the agencies said. The CZMA, it added, "ensures recreational opportunities for all Californians, and its success helps entice the rest of the country to visit California's amazing coastline and shoreline."
The agencies asked that federal funds provided through the CZMA State Grants program remain at $70 million in fiscal 2017-18. The grants are matched on a 1-to-1 basis by state funds, the letter said, and "our state relies on these funds to help implement the core work of our federally approved programs."
The letter also defended the National Sea Grant Program, saying it is "an incredibly successful training ground for scientists and applies scientific research from universities to coastal management issues." The National Estuarine Research Reserves and Regional Coastal Resilience Grants programs also are needed, it said, while NOAA's satellite data ocean monitoring system "is peerless."
"Indeed, the satellite monitoring system is critical both to public safety and security and to California's ability to withstand the effects of rising sea level and extreme storm events of the kind we have seen this past winter," the coastal agencies said.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/03/20/stories/1060051696
-
Global Emissions and Economic Growth Parting Ways, Trend Finds
Mar 20, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rick Mitchell
Global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions remained flat a third-straight year in 2016 even as economic output expanded, suggesting that economic growth's marriage with emissions may be weakening.
Carbon emissions from the energy sector tallied 32.1 gigatons last year, the same as the two years before that, while global gross domestic product expanded 3.1 percent, according to International Energy Agency estimates published March 17.
“These three years of flat emissions in a growing global economy signal an emerging trend and that is certainly a cause for optimism, even if it is too soon to say that global emissions have definitely peaked,” said Fatih Birol, IEA's executive director.
In addition, the agency said carbon emissions declined in 2016 in the U.S. and China, the world's two-largest energy users and polluters, and were stable in Europe, offsetting increases in most of the rest of the world.
The U.S. had the biggest drop, at 3 percent, or 160 million tons, their lowest since 1992, while the U.S. economy grew 1.6 percent. China's emissions slipped 1 percent, amid falling coal demand among other factors, while its economy expanded 6.7 percent, the IEA said.
‘Technological Improvements Matter’
Despite the global data on emissions remaining flat, scientists say atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have climbed at record levels. The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said carbon dioxide levels rose by three parts per million in both 2015 and 2016 to reach about 405 parts per million.
Renewables last year supplied more than half the world's electricity demand growth, with hydropower accounting for half of that, while energy efficiency improved and nuclear net capacity increased, according to the IEA.
The Paris-based agency credited the trend of emissions “decoupling” from economic activity first observed two years ago to the growing use of renewables, falling use of coal and other factors.
The decoupling trend also shows that “market dynamics and technological improvements matter,” especially in the U.S., where abundant shale gas supplies have become a cheap power source and “more attractive” renewable power has displaced coal, Birol said.
Coal demand fell worldwide, with U.S. demand down 11 percent. In a first, last year U.S. electricity generation from natural gas outstripped generation from coal.
The IEA said strong policies also are needed from the energy sector, which accounts for more than two-thirds of the carbon emissions responsible for global warming. The head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, has said he does not believe carbon emissions are a primary contributor to climate change.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107421953&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107421953&jd=107421953
-
G-20 Finance Chiefs Said to Drop Climate Reference in Document
Mar 20, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alessandro Speciale and Rainer Buergin
Finance ministers from the world's biggest economies dropped a reference to climate change in a draft of their statement at a Group of 20 meeting, frustrating plans by Germany to devote a section to the topic, according to people familiar with the talks.
Deputies concluded crafting the communique March 16, and ministers and central-bank governors were to debate the document in the German town of Baden-Baden March 17. The language may still change before the final version is released the next day.
Germany is using its year as G-20 president to push for the group to support climate protection. That effort has run into resistance from countries including the U.S., China, India and Saudi Arabia, one G-20 official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the talks were private.
“There can be a way to overcome disagreements today—that is, not writing about it in the communique,” French Finance Minister Michel Sapin told reporters in the southwestern German spa town March 17. “But not writing about it doesn't mean not talking about it. Not writing about it means that there are difficulties, that there is a disagreement and that we must work on them in the coming months.”
At their last meeting in Chengdu, China, G-20 finance chiefs urged governments to “help bring the Paris Agreement on Climate Change into force as soon as possible” and called for “timely implementation” of the agreement. The document also made a reference to climate finance and reaffirmed a commitment to phase out fuel subsidies.
Changing Paths
The government of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who was scheduled to meet President Donald Trump in Washington March 17, may take a different route in its push for climate protection. It is set to present a plan the following week as energy and environment officials gather in Berlin for a meeting of the G-20 Sustainability Working Group.
The 23-page draft, obtained by Bloomberg News, outlines how the most prosperous nations can lead by example, cutting their own greenhouse-gas emissions, financing efforts to curb pollution in poorer countries and take other steps to support the landmark Paris climate accord.
“The link between global warming and the organization of financial markets and even the organization of the global economy” is particularly important for France, Sapin said in Baden-Baden. “We'll see whether there'll be agreement with the U.S. administration, but there can be no going back on this for the G-20.”
Germany remains committed to using the G-20 leaders’ meeting in Hamburg in July to promote efforts to combat global warming, Nina Wettern, a spokeswoman for the German Environment Ministry, said by email. “Climate protection is a core issue of Germany's G-20 presidency,” she said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107421940&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107421940&jd=107421940
-
Carbon Tax: Solution to Nonexistent Problem
|
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested