Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 3/22/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Activity Barometer Sees Strongest Y/Y Gain in Years, ACC Says
Mar 21, 2017 | Chemical Engineering
By Scott Jenkins
The Chemical Activity Barometer (CAB), a leading economic indicator created by the American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com), posted its strongest year-over-year gain in nearly seven years. -
(ACC Mentioned) Plastic Film Recycling Research Group Seeking MRF Help
Mar 21, 2017 | Plastics News
By Jim Johnson
Flexible packaging can be a nightmare for some material recovery facilities. The material can tangle in sortation equipment and contaminate paper fiber separation. -
Chemical Execs Optimistic Sanity Prevails on Border Taxes, Protectionism
Mar 21, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Jordan Blum
Petrochemical executives and analysts expressed optimism the Trump administration won’t launch any broad trade wars and will instead compromise on business-friendly tax breaks and laxer regulations instead. -
Getting the Framework Right for the New TSCA: EDF Comments Filed on Key EPA Proposed Rules
Mar 21, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) filed extensive comments yesterday on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposals for the two most central “framework” rules mandated by last year’s Lautenberg Act amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
(ACC Mentioned) Report: EPA Cuts Could Boost Stricter European Chemical Standards
Mar 21, 2017 | Chem.Info
By Andy Szal
A provision in President Donald Trump's budget proposal could inadvertently lead to harsher international standards for chemical companies, a consultant warned last week. -
European Countries to Evaluate 22 Suspected Hazardous Substances
Mar 22, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
Authorities in Europe this year will start to evaluate 22 suspected hazardous substances, a process that could lead to recommendations for stricter controls, the European Chemicals Agency announced March 21. -
Echa Publishes Final 2017-19 Corap List
Mar 22, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
Echa has adopted its updated Community Rolling Action Plan (Corap) for the period 2017-19. It adds 22 new substances for evaluation this year. -
EU Court Rejects Hitachi, Polynt Candidate List Appeal Case
Mar 22, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has dismissed an appeal by two chemical companies to stop respiratory sensitisers HHPA and MHHPA from being included in the REACH candidate list as SVHCs. -
Do You Live Near Toxic Waste? See 1,317 of the Most Polluted Spots in the U.S.
Mar 22, 2017 | TIME
By David Johnson
Hazardous waste sites are scattered all across the country, from a Brooklyn canal once surrounded by chemical plants to a shuttered garbage incineration facility in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. -
3D Printing at Center of Respirator Mask Suit
Mar 22, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
3M Co. failed to shoot down expert witness testimony in a suit alleging failure of a respirator mask resulted in a technician's lung disease, a federal district court said (Coene v. 3M Co., 2017 BL 85750, W.D.N.Y., 10-CV-6546, 3/20/17). -
Trump Admin May Tinker with 5-year Obama Plan — Official
Mar 22, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Emily Yehle
The Trump administration is considering changes to the five-year oil and gas leasing plan finalized under President Obama, according to a top Interior Department official. -
Senators Try to Pull Together Votes to Kill Methane Rule
Mar 22, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski, Dean Scott and Rachel Leven
The effort to rescind new federal regulations on the venting and flaring of natural gas from oil and gas operations on federal and Indian lands is still uncertain, with Republican leaders looking to pull together the last few Senate votes needed. -
Growth of EVs Hits Petrochemicals, Not Just Oil
Mar 21, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Jordan Blum
The potential growth of electric vehicles and driverless cars wouldn’t only hurt oil and gasoline demand, it could also put a dent in the growing petrochemical sector. -
Oil Giants Upending Shale Turf Where Wildcat Drillers Once Ruled
Mar 22, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Javier Blas
Big Oil is muscling in on shale country. -
Dakota Access Pipeline Vandalism Highlights Sabotage Risks
Mar 22, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Blake Nicholson and Steve Karnowski
The developer of the Dakota Access pipeline has reported “recent coordinated physical attacks” on the much-protested line, just as it’s almost ready to carry oil. -
Watchdog Piles on Criticism of Offshore Drilling Regulator
Mar 22, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A watchdog is alleging numerous problems at the federal government’s offshore drilling regulator, including in its inspection and environmental stewardship programs. -
Texas, Natural Gas Industry Contest Storage Safety Rule
Mar 22, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
A new federal natural gas regulation is taking away states’ abilities to regulate their storage caverns, Texas’ attorney general argues in an appeals court review of the rule. -
Two Ethanol Trains Derail — and One Explodes — as Industry Embraces Riskier Practices
Mar 21, 2017 | DeSmog
By Justin Mikulka
On March 8, a train pulling 80 tank cars of ethanol derailed in Providence, Rhode Island. Luckily, no ethanol was spilled and no one was injured. -
(ACC Mentioned) Administration Critics Charge EPA Rule Delays May Violate 'Procedure' Act
Mar 21, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Amanda Palleschi
House Democrats and other administration critics are warning top officials that recent actions by EPA and other agencies delaying implementation of almost a dozen Obama-era environmental and energy efficiency rules may violate the Administrative Procedure Act... -
Trump Lays Plans to Reverse Obama’s Climate Change Legacy
Mar 21, 2017 | New York Times
By Coral Davenport
President Trump is poised in the coming days to announce his plans to dismantle the centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s climate change legacy, while also gutting several smaller but significant policies aimed at curbing global warming. -
Industries Push for Settlement Talks on Obama-Era Air Policy
Mar 22, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
New leadership at the EPA could offer an opportunity to settle litigation over an Obama-era regulation governing regional application of the Clean Air Act, according to a coalition of industry associations. -
The Trump administration’s Attack on the Chesapeake Bay
Mar 21, 2017 | Washington Post
By Editorial Board
The Trump administration’s mindless attempt to scrap federal funding to clean up the Chesapeake Bay is a stroll down memory-impaired lane. -
N.Y. Attorney General Renews Objections to EPA Budget Plan
Mar 22, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By John Herzfeld
Budget cuts proposed for the EPA would slow, halt or set back progress made by the states to address major pollution threats, New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman (D) said March 21.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Activity Barometer Sees Strongest Y/Y Gain in Years, ACC Says
Mar 21, 2017 | Chemical Engineering
By Scott Jenkins
The Chemical Activity Barometer (CAB), a leading economic indicator created by the American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com), posted its strongest year-over-year gain in nearly seven years. The 5.5 percent increase over this time last year reflects elevated consumer and business confidence and an overall rising optimism in the U.S. economy. Speaking last week, Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen also referenced a “confidence in the robustness of the economy” as a reason to move forward with an interest rate hike.
The barometer posted a 0.5 percent gain in March, following a 0.5 percent gain in February and 0.4 percent gain in January. All data is measured on a three-month moving average (3MMA). Coupled with consecutive monthly gains in the fourth quarter of 2016, the pattern shows consistent, accelerating activity. On an unadjusted basis, the CAB climbed 0.4 percent in March, following a 0.4 percent gain in February and a 0.6 percent increase in January.
The Chemical Activity Barometer has four primary components, each consisting of a variety of indicators: 1) production; 2) equity prices; 3) product prices; and 4) inventories and other indicators.
In March, production-related indicators were positive, with U.S. exports improving. Equity prices and inventory indicators were also positive while product prices remained stable. Overall the barometer suggests accelerating gains in U.S. business activity through the fourth quarter.
The Chemical Activity Barometer is a leading economic indicator derived from a composite index of chemical industry activity. The chemical industry has been found to consistently lead the U.S. economy’s business cycle given its early position in the supply chain, and this barometer can be used to determine turning points and likely trends in the wider economy. Month-to-month movements can be volatile so a three-month moving average of the barometer is provided. This provides a more consistent and illustrative picture of national economic trends.
http://www.chemengonline.com/chemical-activity-barometer-sees-strongest-yy-gain-in-years-acc-says/?printmode=1
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastic Film Recycling Research Group Seeking MRF Help
Mar 21, 2017 | Plastics News
By Jim Johnson
Flexible packaging can be a nightmare for some material recovery facilities. The material can tangle in sortation equipment and contaminate paper fiber separation.
But one group is looking to change all of that and is looking for a MRF and its community partners in the United States willing to partner on continuing research.
MRFs, depending on their age and types of equipment used, typically have been set up to sort paper, metal containers, rigid plastic packaging, and even glass in some cases. But the explosive use of flexible plastic packaging, and the growing popularity of single-stream recycling, has created angst for many sorting locations not designed to handle so much flexible plastic.
The Materials Recovery for the Future (MRFF) research program is working to find a solution.
"We aim to demonstrate the potential to capture flexible film packaging and use the material as a feedstock for U.S. manufacturing while improving the quality of other recycling streams processed at MRFs," said Steve Sikra, section head of Global Research and Development at Procter & Gamble Co. P&G is one of several companies and associations sponsoring the research.
Those interested in participating in the project — either communities or MRF managers — can contact Susan Graff, vice president of Resource Recycling Systems at sgraff@recycle.com by April 7 for more information. Her Ann Arbor, Mich.-based consulting firm is conducting the research.
Candidate MRFs must process at least 20 tons of material per hour and are subject to additional criteria.
Along with seeking a MRF and its communities, RRS is conducting what is being described as "advanced optical sorter testing" to help create a solution. Researchers also are examining end markets to help create recycled film bale specifications.
"The intent of the pilot is to help communities that want to recover potentially valuable materials instead of landfilling them and partner with innovators in the MRF industry to recycle this material," said Jeff Wooster, chairman of the MRFF project, in a statement. He also is global sustainability director at Dow Packaging and Specialty Plastics, a unit of Dow Chemical Co.
MRFF grew out of the Foundation for Chemistry Research and Initiatives, a non-profit established by the American Chemistry Council.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20170321/NEWS/170329972/plastic-film-recycling-research-group-seeking-mrf-help
-
Chemical Execs Optimistic Sanity Prevails on Border Taxes, Protectionism
Mar 21, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Jordan Blum
Petrochemical executives and analysts expressed optimism the Trump administration won’t launch any broad trade wars and will instead compromise on business-friendly tax breaks and laxer regulations instead.
Speaking Tuesday at the World Petrochemical Conference by IHS Markit, Houston-based LyondellBasell Industries CEO Bob Patel said he expects business-oriented practicality to win out over controversial border adjustment taxes or massive new tariffs.
“My sense is that people are going to pragmatic at the end of the day and recognize that global trade is important for the American economy,” Patel said, noting that he met last week with new Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and some congressional leaders.
IHS Markit Chief Economist Nariman Behravesh said any border adjustment tax that only taxes imports more — by about 20 percent — without punishing exports is unpopular with most Senate Republicans and is unlikely to go anywhere.
Such protectionist policies only slow growth, punish U.S. consumers and importers, and lead to global trade wars, Behravesh said. Instead, he believes corporate tax cuts combined with updated, not redrawn, trade deals with Mexico and others will win out.
At least 75 percent of lost American manufacturing jobs are the result of increased automation technology, not unfair trade deals, he said.
“We’re going after the wrong problem here,” Behravesh said.
IHS Markit Senior Vice President Dave Witte agreed a border adjustment tax is unlikely, but he added a caveat.
“There’s a low probability of being enacted, but I heard that about Brexit and President Trump as well,” Witte said.
Even if the U.S. does approve such policies and suffer as a result, life will go on in the rest of the world, said Mutlaq Al-Morished, CEO of Saudi Arabia-based Tasnee petrochemical company. Saudi Arabia would just end up trading more with growing Asian nations instead, he said.
“The U.S. was the champion of it (free trade), and now the U.S. is almost 180 degrees,” he said.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2017/03/21/chemical-execs-optimistic-sanity-prevails-on-border-taxes-protectionism/
-
Getting the Framework Right for the New TSCA: EDF Comments Filed on Key EPA Proposed Rules
Mar 21, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) filed extensive comments yesterday on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposals for the two most central “framework” rules mandated by last year’s Lautenberg Act amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Our comments address these proposed rules:
· TSCA Procedures for Prioritization of Chemicals for Risk Evaluation, the rule that sets up the process EPA will use to identify high-priority chemicals for risk evaluation and low-priority chemicals that do not require risk evaluation.
· TSCA Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation, the rule that sets up the process EPA will use to conduct risk evaluations on high-priority chemicals and make risk determinations as to whether or not the chemicals present unreasonable risk to human health or the environment
Both sets of comments address many different provisions of the proposed rules. EDF indicated our strong support for many aspects of the proposals, but urged changes to a number of provisions that we cannot support as proposed. In addition, we identified provisions we believe need to be added to EPA’s rules to be consistent with or meet the requirements of the Lautenberg Act.
EDF emphasized how vital it is for EPA to meet its June 22, 2017, statutory deadline for promulgating these rules. Because they establish processes that will require several years to begin to yield decisions on specific chemicals, delays in promulgating them in final form so that the processes can commence in the timeframe Congress intended will only serve to undermine public confidence in the new law, counter business interests to restore confidence in the chemicals marketplace, and hamper EPA’s ability to carry out its new mandates. This is especially the case, given EPA’s appropriate recognition in both proposed rules that it will need to initiate measures as soon as possible to ensure that sufficient information will be available to inform prioritization and risk evaluation decisions.
As discussed in more detail in the comments, EDF strongly supports EPA’s decision not to codify specific scientific policies, procedures and guidance in these rules. To do so would not be consistent with the law and would more generally represent bad policy. EDF also agreed with EPA’s proposal not to define in its rules complex, science policy-laden terms such as “weight of the scientific evidence,” “best available science,” and “unreasonable risk.” These concepts are best elaborated on in guidance and policy statements and best understood in the context of specific decisions on chemical substances.
Some other highlights from each set of EDF’s comments follow.
Prioritization:
EPA appropriately proposes a rule that:
· is procedural in nature and avoids specifying science policy issues that are better addressed in guidance and policy statements;
· provides the right level of detail on the prioritization process and does not propose an exact scoring or ranking process;
· includes a “pre-prioritization” stage to gather needed data and meet the statutory requirements of the Lautenberg Act, which EDF urges the agency to keep simple and informal;
· makes clear that chemical substances, not specific uses or subsets of uses, are to be prioritized; and
· sets a higher bar for low-priority than for high-priority designations
EDF raised concerns about several other aspects:
· EPA’s proposal to “cut off” comments on proposed low-priority designations after the public comment period, which requires several conditions to be acceptable;
· EPA’s proposal to consider substitutes in the pre-prioritization process;
· insufficient incorporation of measures to ensure public access to information EPA uses to make prioritization decisions, including Lautenberg Act requirements governing industry confidential business information (CBI) claims;
· the need to make full studies on which EPA bases prioritization decisions publicly accessible; and
· the need to incorporate the definition of “potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations” from the statute, with the refinements EPA has made to it in its proposed risk evaluation rule.
Risk Evaluation
EPA appropriately proposes a rule that:
· is procedural in nature and avoids specifying science policy issues or defining related terms that are better addressed in guidance and policy statements;
· establishes a risk evaluation process that is compatible with reasonably available information and applicable deadlines;
· provides EPA with means by which to collect and require the development of information early and often in the “pipeline” of prioritization and risk evaluation;
· makes clear that chemical substances, not specific uses or subsets of uses, are to be subject to risk evaluations and risk determinations; and
· balances the need to consider all conditions of use of a chemical with the ability to:
o apply different levels of analysis to different conditions of use; and
o expedite particular conditions of use that clearly present unreasonable risk in order to expedite needed risk management;
· requires that a manufacturer requesting a risk evaluation must demonstrate there is sufficient information available for EPA to complete the risk evaluation for all conditions of use; and
· makes clear that risk determinations are policy decisions not subject to peer review.
However, EDF also raised concerns with or called for changes in several aspects of EPA’s proposal, including the need to:
· more clearly assert and utilize its authorities under amended TSCA to collect and require development of information needed to inform risk evaluations;
· establish a firm opportunity for public comment on risk evaluation scopes, and to provide more time for public comment on draft risk evaluations;
· add several conditions to its proposals that any issues not raised during public comment periods on risk evaluation scopes and draft risk evaluations could not be the basis for later objection or challenge, and close a loophole that would allow industry to get around this limitation;
· broaden the applicability of the provisions that implement Lautenberg Act requirements governing industry confidential business information (CBI) claims;
· clarify that EPA’s authority to revisit a risk determination only applies after final agency action based on the determination;
· delineate requirements for EPA consideration of third-party risk evaluations;
· clarify opportunities for public comment on industry requests for risk evaluations and EPA decisions on those requests;
· require that full studies on which EPA or third parties rely in risk evaluations be publicly accessible;
· in applying or updating guidance used to conduct risk evaluations (which should not be codified in this rule):
o generally employ an aggregate approach to exposure assessment;
o further integrate systematic review;
o move away from EPA’s traditional margin-of-exposure approach for noncancer endpoints, as recommended by the National Academy of Sciences; and
o avoid assigning greater weight to guideline studies over the peer-reviewed literature.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/03/21/getting-the-framework-right-for-the-new-tsca-edf-comments-filed-on-key-epa-proposed-rules/#more-6328
-
(ACC Mentioned) Report: EPA Cuts Could Boost Stricter European Chemical Standards
Mar 21, 2017 | Chem.Info
By Andy Szal
A provision in President Donald Trump's budget proposal could inadvertently lead to harsher international standards for chemical companies, a consultant warned last week.
Daniella Taveau, a chemical and pesticide expert with the Washington, D.C., office of King & Spalding, told Bloomberg that eliminating a U.S. program examining hormone-disrupting chemicals could pave the way for broader adoption of a harsher program backed by some European nations.
The Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program is one of dozens of Environmental Protection Agency programs reportedly on the chopping block in Trump's budget. The preliminary document calls for a 31 percent cut in EPA funding and a 19 percent reduction in the agency's workforce; details on specific cuts are scheduled to be released in May.
Bloomberg reported that the program, which received $7.5 million in the 2016 fiscal year, provides an initial screening of chemicals before conducting more detailed tests for substances that could affect the endocrine system.
It is also risk-based, which requires authorities to determine an exposure threshold for potentially harmful effects.
Denmark, France and Sweden are among EU nations that instead back a hazard-based approach, which would not mandate an exposure threshold. Taveau warned that without the U.S. program, a hazard-based approach could gain favor internationally.
Trump vowed to curb the EPA — and business regulations overall — during his bid for the presidency, but Taveau suggested that the endocrine disruptor program and other EPA initiatives are actually supported by industry.
As environmental and health groups warned of dire consequences from slashing the EPA budget, the American Chemistry Council said that it is committed to ensuring that the agency can carry out its "essential responsibilities."
“Ensuring the safe development, use and disposal of chemicals in commerce is a top priority for our industry," the ACC told Bloomberg in a statement. "We encourage Congress and the administration to implement a national budget that ensures that the best available science and transparency are at the heart of agency decision making.”
Congressional Republicans, meanwhile, previously suggested that the initial EPA cuts were unlikely to survive the appropriations process.
http://www.chem.info/news/2017/03/report-epa-cuts-could-boost-stricter-european-chemical-standards
-
European Countries to Evaluate 22 Suspected Hazardous Substances
Mar 22, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
Authorities in Europe this year will start to evaluate 22 suspected hazardous substances, a process that could lead to recommendations for stricter controls, the European Chemicals Agency announced March 21.
The substances to be evaluated during 2017 include industrial chemicals used in the manufacture of some plastics, adhesives, lubricants, machinery and electrical and electronic equipment.
The chemicals agency said the evaluations—which will be shared among 11 European Union countries and non-EU state Norway—would assess the substances for “suspected serious hazard properties.” This includes reviews of whether they might be persistent and bioaccumulative, that they might cause cancer or harm to unborn children, or that they might be disruptive to the endocrine, or hormone, system.
Evaluations can result in the chemicals agency sending binding information requests to companies that manufacture or import the substances. Requests can include requirements for companies to carry out toxicity tests to clarify the hazards of a substance.
Tighter Controls
Ultimately, if substances are judged to be hazardous, they could be made subject to EU-wide controls. The most hazardous chemicals could be listed as “substances of very high concern” under the EU's REACH law (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals), a designation that could lead to their prohibition in the bloc.
The 22 substances were listed in an updated version of the so-called Community Rolling Action Plan (CoRAP) of chemicals slated for evaluation of suspected hazards under REACH. The current edition of the CoRAP lists a total of 115 substances, with 93 set to be evaluated in 2018 and 2019.
Of the 22 substances for evaluation in 2017, Germany's Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health will evaluate seven, and will evaluate one additional substance jointly with the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment. Other participating countries will each evaluate between one and three substances.
The European Chemicals Agency said companies that have registered the substances under REACH, which is a condition of access to the EU market, should ensure their registration dossiers are up to date and should contact the authority responsible for evaluating their substances.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107620472&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107620472&jd=107620472
-
Echa Publishes Final 2017-19 Corap List
Mar 22, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
Echa has adopted its updated Community Rolling Action Plan (Corap) for the period 2017-19. It adds 22 new substances for evaluation this year.
The plan includes a total of 115 substances, 93 of which were already on the adopted list covering 2016-18.
There were 117 substances on the draft plan Echa released in October but it says it has removed three substances:
· bis(2-ethylhexyl)amine;
· 1H-Imidazole-1-ethanol, 4,5-dihydro-, 2-nortall-oil alkyl derivs; and
· benzoic acid.
The evaluating member states reconsidered prioritising these substance evaluations, due to, for example, a tonnage downgrade which lowered exposure, the agency says.
And one substance, potassium permanganate, has been added since release of the draft.
The member states now have 12 months to evaluate the 22 substances specified for 2017. Registrants of the listed substances may have to submit additional data if the evaluating member state finds it necessary. This would happen through an Echa decision to request further information.
Meanwhile, the agency has advised registrants to contact their evaluating member states and submit up-to-date use and exposure scenarios. It also encourages companies backing the same chemical to coordinate their actions.
Any draft decision on a substance will be opened for comments, and a review by all the member states and Echa, before it is finalised.
The agency expects 22 substances to be evaluated in 2017, 46 in 2018 and 47 in 2019.
The number of substances to be evaluated in 2017 is lower than in previous plans, Echa says. Last year, 53 substances were added.
It says several substance evaluations have been postponed to 2018 and 2019 because of pending compliance checks. Once these are complete, they will be reviewed to see if remaining concerns warrant such.
The 22 newly added substances were added for being potential endocrine disruptors, or for having carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic (CMR), or persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) properties.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54590/echa-publishes-final-2017-19-corap-list
-
EU Court Rejects Hitachi, Polynt Candidate List Appeal Case
Mar 22, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has dismissed an appeal by two chemical companies to stop respiratory sensitisers HHPA and MHHPA from being included in the REACH candidate list as SVHCs.
In its judgment on 15 March the court upheld a 2012 decision by Echa to add the substances to the list, rejecting Hitachi and Polynt's appeal which was on the grounds that the General Court, in dismissing their request to annul the decision, breached EU law and made a number of errors.
The ruling had opened the door for inclusion in the candidate list of hazardous substances for which there is scientific evidence of probable serious health or environmental effects.
The ECJ rejected three of the grounds of appeal put forward by the firms as "ineffective", while a fourth – that the General Court misapplied the law relating to worker and consumer exposure – was dismissed as being "inadmissible".
Quashing the appeal, it said that since Hitachi and Polynt had not claimed that the court's findings were substantively incorrect, or that the evidence it used distorted, "it must be concluded that the fourth ground of appeal is directed against findings of a factual nature, which fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the General Court."
The companies claimed that the basis for dismissing their argument "departed from the settled case law that zero risk does not exist in the context of a risk assessment which applies the precautionary principle."
The judgment said, however, the General Court did not require proof of ‘zero risk', but observed that the firms had accepted that "it was not possible completely to exclude human exposure to MHHPA" and that it "causes respiratory health problems for workers, even at relatively low exposure levels."
The ECJ ordered the companies to pay the legal costs of both sides.
Echa proposed HHPA and MHHPA, used as hardeners in epoxy resins, for inclusion in the REACH authorisation list in 2015. They removed them from its final recommendation a year later, "due to a change in their priority". Echa says the substances will be reconsidered in future recommendation rounds.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54587/eu-court-rejects-hitachi-polynt-candidate-list-appeal-case
-
Do You Live Near Toxic Waste? See 1,317 of the Most Polluted Spots in the U.S.
Mar 22, 2017 | TIME
By David Johnson
Hazardous waste sites are scattered all across the country, from a Brooklyn canal once surrounded by chemical plants to a shuttered garbage incineration facility in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
There are more than 1,300 of these spots in all — dubbed "Superfund sites" by the federal government — where toxic chemicals from factories and landfills were dumped for decades, polluting the surrounding soil, water and air.
“The Superfund list contains the worst of toxic sites in the U.S. — it’s really the nasty places," says Chris Portier, former director of the Agency for Toxic Substances, a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services which is responsible for assessing each site’s hazard level.
Click on the map below to see the Superfund sites near you:
The name "Superfund site" comes from legislation Congress passed in 1980 creating a "Superfund" program at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to identify and clean up hazardous waste sites. Since industry and waste tend to follow people, Superfund sites are often concentrated in highly populated areas. New Jersey — the densest state by population — has more toxic sites than any other state in the country, at 114, with California and Pennsylvania close behind.
The cleanup program may face cuts under President Trump, whose proposed budget includes slashing EPA's funding by 31%. That would include reducing the Superfund program from over $1 billion to $762 million in funding, though the cuts are still preliminary and would need to go through Congress for approval.
In Florida, a study published in the journal of Statistics and Public Policy recently found that people living in counties containing Superfund sites were 6% more likely to be diagnosed with cancer than people living in counties without the sites. There have also been findings of increased cancer rates near specific Superfund sites in other states, though none of the results can be applied to all sites nationwide. (For those living near Superfund sites, experts suggest checking out published health investigations on each site for more information.)
People often don't think about Superfund sites unless they happen to live or work near one. It was a Superfund site 3 miles from campus in Gainesville Fla. that piqued Emily Leary's interest in cancer research. Then a graduate student at the University of Florida, Leary went on to co-author the recent study finding elevated cancer levels in Florida counties with Superfund sites.
"A lot of cancer research has looked at air pollution and cancer, but very few have looked at other modes of transportation for toxins," said Leary, who believes Superfund sites are spreading chemicals through Florida's surface water.
Still, it is complex to measure the impact of exposure to chemicals like arsenic, lead and mercury. Since cancer registries do not routinely include where someone lived when they were diagnosed, it's difficult to draw conclusions about proximity to toxic sites. There are also plenty of other factors that could lead to cancer, including behaviors like smoking and drinking. Leary's findings recommend additional studies with more detailed data.
Portier, the former Agency for Toxic Substances founder, said Leary's findings echo earlier studies. He gave the example of Base Camp Leujune in North Carolina, where Marines and their families drank water contaminated by chemicals dumped near wells on base for three decades. The agency later found elevated cancer risks in those exposed, compared to unexposed Marines. In 2012, Congress mandated care for thousands of affected veterans and their families through the Janey Ensminger Act, named after a 9-year old who died of leukemia after growing up on Camp Leujune.
Those living near Superfund sites can find information online or contact one of the Agency for Toxic Substances' regional offices
http://time.com/4695109/superfund-sites-toxic-waste-locations/.
-
3D Printing at Center of Respirator Mask Suit
Mar 22, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
3M Co. failed to shoot down expert witness testimony in a suit alleging failure of a respirator mask resulted in a technician's lung disease, a federal district court said (Coene v. 3M Co., 2017 BL 85750, W.D.N.Y., 10-CV-6546, 3/20/17).
A doctor's testimony linking the technician's lung disease to his workplace exposure to toxic dust was reliable, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York said March 20.
While the doctor only encounters silicosis “episodically” and has knowledge of the 3D printing industry, it's not necessary that an expert witness be “the best possible person to opine on the precise issue at hand,” the court said.
Robert Coene alleges he developed silicosis while doing 3D printing for Eastman Kodak. During that time, he alleges he wore a 3M disposable respirator.
Judge Frank P. Geraci, Jr. issued the ruling.
McCallion & Associates LLP in New York, N.Y., and Martin Walton Law Firm in Houston represent Coene.
Lavin O'Neil Ricci Cedrone & DiSipio in Rochester, N.Y., and Thompson Coe Cousins and Iron, LLP in St. Paul, Minn. represent 3M.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107620477&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107620477&jd=107620477
-
Trump Admin May Tinker with 5-year Obama Plan — Official
Mar 22, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Emily Yehle
The Trump administration is considering changes to the five-year oil and gas leasing plan finalized under President Obama, according to a top Interior Department official.
Richard Cardinale, acting assistant secretary for lands and minerals management, told lawmakers yesterday that the administration is looking at the plan, in response to a question from Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.).
"At this point I don't know the specifics, but I do know that the administration is in fact taking a look at the plan that was finalized at the end of the last administration," Cardinale said.
The current plan does not include Arctic and Atlantic leases, limiting new sales to the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska's Cook Inlet until 2022. The oil industry has roundly criticized it as shortsighted, and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has emphasized the need to open more waters to drilling.
It can take years to complete a five-year plan, which must follow the National Environmental Policy Act. The administration could also be hampered by Obama's decision to use his authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently withdraw much of the Arctic and areas in the Atlantic Ocean from future oil and gas leasing (E&E News PM, Dec. 20, 2016).
Cardinale's comments came during an oversight hearing on Interior's Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. In a new report — released during the hearing — the Government Accountability Office found leadership problems at the agency, which was created after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion.
Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas), who presided over the hearing as chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on the Interior, Energy and Environment, said leadership is a "continual problem at BSEE."
"The GAO has found a disconnect and more importantly a distrust between BSEE headquarters and its region," Farenthold said. "BSEE leadership has consistently hired contractors to try to fix its problem rather than using its own knowledgeable and experienced personnel. This distrust has caused significant duplication and reduced the agency's efficiency."
The GAO report emphasizes the disconnect of BSEE leadership, citing the failure of a pilot program to conduct risk-based inspections of offshore facilities. The agency's leaders failed to get input from experienced regional personnel, who could have pointed out problems earlier, according to the report.
Frank Rusco, director of natural resources and environment at GAO, said regional management and staff are doing an "excellent job." But BSEE leaders have hampered those employees, he said, in their efforts to improve oversight.
"Time and again, BSEE has chosen consultant studies and headquarters-led projects instead of in-house expertise and experience," Rusco said. "This has cost the Bureau precious time and the taxpayers precious dollars to achieve very little of substance in the past five years."
Among his examples of failed leadership, Rusco pointed to BSEE's decision to move its environmental compliance unit from a national to a regional reporting structure. The agency also left numerous positions in that unit unfilled for years — despite the fact that Congress had funded them. The Gulf of Mexico was thus left without needed staff to oversee compliance, Rusco said.
Cardinale said the compliance inspection team is now fully staffed. BSEE is also working to improve its engagement with regional staff, he said; a federal survey last year showed that employees have little faith in their agency's leadership.
"I think part of the issue had been lack of engagement of subject matter experts from the field," Cardinale said. "That, as I understand it, has changed specifically with Secretary Zinke's leadership. [He] wants to empower and engage, as he calls it, people on the front lines."
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/03/22/stories/1060051853
-
Senators Try to Pull Together Votes to Kill Methane Rule
Mar 22, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski, Dean Scott and Rachel Leven
The effort to rescind new federal regulations on the venting and flaring of natural gas from oil and gas operations on federal and Indian lands is still uncertain, with Republican leaders looking to pull together the last few Senate votes needed.
The House passed a Congressional Review Act resolution Feb. 3 to nullify the regulations (H.J. Res. 36). Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) proposed the Senate version (S.J. Res. 11) and has had a lead role in trying to round up the votes needed for passage.
“We're going to get all of the Republicans here to vote, and not all of them are here yet this week,” Barrasso said March 21.
Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who holds the number three position in Senate leadership, said Senate Republicans are simply making sure they have the votes before scheduling floor time to roll back the methane limits.
“I think a lot of this is just scheduling—and making sure, checking whip counts and talking to our members,” Thune said. The leaders want to make sure “everybody is in the same place” before bringing the resolution to the floor, he said.
Asked if he is still confident opponents of the federal regulations have the edge, Thune said, “I do.”
Counting Senate Heads
The Bureau of Land Management issued the regulations in a final rule in November and defended the rule as an effort to reduce waste and boost royalties (RIN:1004-AE14). Industry critics said the BLM rule actually would reduce royalties by forcing the closure of many wells to avoid unjustified, redundant additional layers of expense.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) is widely expected to vote against the rollback, as is Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), said the American Council for Capital Formation, a business advocacy organization, in an update emailed March 21.
“If those votes hold, the Senate leadership can't afford to lose any more Republican votes. And, more importantly, they will need to sway some Democrats to support repeal,” the council said.
The unofficial vote count in the Senate has been hovering around 49, Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) told Bloomberg BNA a week earlier. He expressed no doubt that the rollback resolution would pass with 51 or 52 votes and suggested the Senate simply proceed and schedule floor action.
Looking for Last Support
The most obvious possibility for a supporting vote among Democrats is Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), whose state has extensive oil and gas production and its own rules to limit venting and flaring of gas. The BLM rule is aimed right at the heart of North Dakota, Cramer said.
Heitkamp has not said how she will vote.
One Republican has been out of action recently. Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) has missed votes in March in the aftermath of back surgery and may be needed to assure passage of the rollback resolution.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), when asked about the rollback effort March 21, expressed little concern about whether it would be approved. Murkowski chairs the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the committee's ranking member, sounded a note of pessimism when asked about the prospect of another deregulatory action passing the Senate.
“Every day is just a lot of running over good policy that we try to fight,” Cantwell told Bloomberg BNA.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107620493&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107620493&jd=107620493
-
Growth of EVs Hits Petrochemicals, Not Just Oil
Mar 21, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Jordan Blum
The potential growth of electric vehicles and driverless cars wouldn’t only hurt oil and gasoline demand, it could also put a dent in the growing petrochemical sector.
Vehicles’ bumpers, consoles, rubbers, paints and much more are all derived from petrochemicals, and the shift from steel to plastics in cars has driven a lot of the growing petrochemical demand, experts said Tuesday at the World Petrochemical Conference by IHS Markit in Houston.
Smaller vehicles being shared by more people and getting into fewer accidents — less replacement parts and longer-lasting vehicles — all result in shrinking petrochemical demand per vehicle. That’s more than offset though by the growing global demand overall for new vehicles, especially in the developing nations where most people have never experienced car ownership.
“It’s that revolutionary potential to change mobility that really could drive the EVs,” said Kurt Barrow, IHS Markit vice president for oil markets, midstream and downstream insights.
It takes a while to make this major shift because vehicles typically last about 12 years. But the changes can occur faster in emerging countries than in the U.S. where they don’t have the prolonged history of personal car ownership. They can shift right to ride-sharing and maybe even driverless cars.
The effects are at least 20 years away from making substantial impacts, Barrow said. “It’s kind of a snowball rolling downhill,” he said.
IHS Markit Senior Vice President Dave Witte said the potential exists for “pretty rapid change” with Americans already embracing ride-sharing technologies with companies like Uber and Lyft. Most American cars sit idle the vast majority of the time, and the shift already is beginning, he said.
For his part, Barrow acknowledged he’s part of the grand experiment.
“I do drive a Tesla,” he acknowledged with a laugh. “You have to understand your competition.”
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2017/03/21/growth-of-evs-hits-petrochemicals-not-just-oil/
-
Oil Giants Upending Shale Turf Where Wildcat Drillers Once Ruled
Mar 22, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Javier Blas
Big Oil is muscling in on shale country.
Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Chevron Corp., are jumping into American shale with gusto, planning to spend a combined $10 billion this year, up from next to nothing only a few years ago.
The giants are gaining a foothold in West Texas with such projects as Bongo 76-43, a well which is being drilled 10,000 feet beneath the table-flat, sage-scented desert, and which then extends horizontally for a mile, blasting through rock to capture light crude from the sprawling Permian Basin.
While the first chapter of the U.S. shale revolution belonged to wildcatters such as Harold Hamm and the late Aubrey McClendon, who parlayed borrowed money into billions, Bongo 76-43 is financed by Shell.
If the big boys are successful, they'll scramble the U.S. energy business, boost American oil production, keep prices low, and steal influence from big producers, such as Saudi Arabia. And even with their enviable balance sheets, the majors have been as relentless in transforming shale drilling into a more economical operation as the pioneering wildcatters before them.
“We've turned shale drilling from art into science,” Cindy Taff, Shell's vice president of unconventional wells, said on a recent visit to Bongo 76-43, about 100 miles (160 kilometers) west of Midland, Texas, capital of the Permian.
Bongo 76-43, named after an African antelope, is an example of a leaner, faster industry nicknamed “Shale 2.0” after the 2014 oil-price crash. Traditionally, oil companies drilled one well per pad—the flat area they clear to put in the rig. At Bongo 76-43, Shell is drilling five wells in a single pad for the first time, each about 20 feet apart. That saves money otherwise spent moving rigs from site to site. Shell said it's now able to drill 16 wells with a single rig every year, up from six in 2013.
With multiple wells on the same pad, a single fracking crew can work several weeks consecutively without having to travel from one pad to other. At Bongo 76-43, Shell is using three times more sand and fluids to break up the shale, a process called fracking, than it did four years ago. The company said it spends about $5.5 million per well today in the Permian, down nearly 60 percent from 2013.
“We're literally down to measuring efficiency in minutes, rather than hours or days,” said Bryan Boyles, Bongo 76-43's manager.
Independent companies are watching the big three's arrival with ambivalence. Exxon, Shell, and Chevron will be able to spend more than independents can for service contracts and prime drilling acreage. But if the majors pursue acquisition deals, as they've done before, the wildcatters stand to reap the benefits.
Exxon invested big in shale in 2010 when it bought XTO Energy Inc. in a deal valued at $41 billion. For years, however, the major companies spent little on shale, instead focusing on their traditional turf: multibillion-dollar engineering marvels in the middle of nowhere that took years to build. The wells that Big Oil drilled were mostly in deep water, where a single hole could cost $100 million, rather than shale wells that can be set up for as little as $5 million each.
All that changed after oil prices crashed in 2014. Big companies were forced to cut costs and focus on projects that delivered cash quickly and could easily be sped up or slowed down. Shale was the solution.
“The arrival of Big Oil is very significant for shale,” said Deborah Byers, U.S. energy leader at consultant Ernst & Young in Houston. “It marries a great geological resource with a very strong balance sheet.”
The big three have all hatched ambitious catch-up strategies. Shell plans to spend about $2.5 billion a year, or about one-tenth of its total spending—a bet that's bigger than those of some pure-play shale companies such as Hamm's Continental Resources Inc.
“The majors arrived late,” said Greg Guidry, who runs Shell's shale business. “We want to be as nimble as the independents but levering the capabilities of a major.”
Chevron said it estimates its shale output will increase as much as 30 percent per year for the next decade, with production expanding to 500,000 barrels a day by 2020, from about 100,000 now.
“We can see production above 700,000 barrels a day within a decade,” Chevron Chief Executive Officer John Watson told investors this month.
Exxon said it plans to spend one-third of its drilling budget this year on shale, with a goal to lift output to nearly 800,000 barrels a day by 2025, up from less than 200,000 barrels now. The company doubled its Permian footprint with a $6.6 billion acquisition of properties from the billionaire Bass family. Darren Woods, Exxon's new CEO, said shale isn't “on a discovery mode, it's in an extraction mode.”
The price of oil is starting to reflect rising U.S. output. West Texas Intermediate, the national benchmark, this month dropped below $50 a barrel for the first time this year, down 10 percent from its 2017 peak.
Big Oil's dive into shale could weaken the hand of Saudi Arabia and other big exporters by raising U.S. output. Economically, the countries would have to contend with lower oil prices. Geopolitically, their share of the global energy market would fall, and the U.S. would depend less on foreign supplies.
U.S. domestic production is likely to top 10 million barrels a day by December 2018, a level surpassed only twice, in October and November 1970, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Some investors remain unconvinced. Shale, they argue, is a very different business for the big companies. Huge projects, their mainstays, require a big upfront investment before becoming cash cows for decades with relatively little spending. Shale, on the other hand, requires ongoing spending because output quickly falls after an initial burst.
Guidry, head of Shell's shale, said the company could make money in the Permian with oil at $40 a barrel, with new wells profitable at about $20 a barrel.
A lesson of the oil-price crash was how important it was to keep cash on hand. The independents typically overspent, taking on debt to keep drilling, so when prices fell, they slowed their operations. The big three will experience no such pinch, said Bryan Sheffield, the billionaire third-generation oilman who heads Parsley Energy Inc.
“Big Oil is cash-flow positive, so they can take a longer-term view,’’ Sheffield said. “You're going to see them investing more in shale.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107620467&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107620467&jd=107620467
-
Dakota Access Pipeline Vandalism Highlights Sabotage Risks
Mar 22, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Blake Nicholson and Steve Karnowski
The developer of the Dakota Access pipeline has reported “recent coordinated physical attacks” on the much-protested line, just as it’s almost ready to carry oil.
Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners didn’t give details, but experts say Dakota Access and the rest of the nearly 3 million miles of pipeline that deliver natural gas and petroleum in the U.S. are vulnerable to acts of sabotage.
It’s a threat that ETP takes seriously enough that it has asked a court to shield details such as spill response plans and features of the four-state pipeline that the company fears could be used against it by activists or terrorists.
Here is a look at some pipeline security issues:
___
RECENT ATTACKS
Authorities in South Dakota and Iowa confirmed Tuesday that someone apparently used a torch to burn a hole through empty sections of the pipeline at aboveground shut-off valve sites.
Mahaska County Sheriff Russell Van Renterghem said the culprit in Iowa appeared to have gotten under a fence around the facility, but Lincoln County Sheriff’s Deputy Chad Brown said the site in South Dakota wasn’t fenced.
The Iowa incident was discovered March 13 and the South Dakota incident Friday.
Pipeline operators are asked to report security breaches to the National Response Center. Data on the center’s website show no reports from ETP this month.
The $3.8 billion Dakota Access pipeline runs 1,200 miles through the Dakotas, Iowa and Illinois.
___
HOW DO YOU ATTACK A PIPELINE?
Because pipelines mainly run underground, aboveground shut-off valves are natural targets, according to Jay O’Hara, a spokesman for the environmental group Climate Direct Action. That group targeted valves on pipelines in October in North Dakota, Minnesota, Montana and Washington state, though the pipeline companies said activists didn’t succeed because none of the sites were operating when the attacks happened.
Explosives, firearms and heavy machinery also have been used to try to sabotage pipelines.
Securing pipelines is difficult because they often travel long distances through remote and even uninhabited territory, said Kerry Sundberg, a professor at Mount Royal University in Calgary, Alberta, who studies energy infrastructure security and environmental crime.
___
THE DANGER
Sundberg said “it’s stupid and dangerous” to tamper with pipeline shut-off valves.
Modern oil pipelines are “incredibly sophisticated” systems that move huge volumes of petrochemicals at high pressures, he said. Simply closing a valve can cause the pressure upstream to increase quickly, creating a significant risk of a spill that endangers the environment and anyone in the area where the pipe suddenly bursts, he said.
In response to the October incidents, federal regulators issued a bulletin warning that tampering with pipeline valves “can have significant consequences such as death, injury, and economic and environmental harm.”
Sundberg also said that it’s ironic for people who say they’re concerned about the environment to take an action that could cause an environmental disaster.
But O’Hara said: “The hypocrisy really lies in the pipeline corporations who say their pipelines are safe, say leaks don’t happen. They blame activists who are trying to stop global cataclysm by taking action to point out what they do every day, which is leak and spill.”
Someone who targets a pipeline facility in the U.S. could face up to 20 years in prison.
___
WHO’S RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RECENT ATTACKS?
No suspects have been identified in either state and no group has claimed responsibility
O’Hara told The Associated Press that Climate Direct Action wasn’t involved in any actions against the Dakota Access pipeline.
Attorneys for the Standing Rock and Cheyenne River Sioux tribes, which are leading the legal battle against the pipeline, said the tribes don’t condone acts of violence against pipeline property.
___
HOW FREQUENTLY DOES PIPELINE SABOTAGE OCCUR?
Not very often, Sundberg said. It happens more frequently in Canada than the U.S. It’s generally committed by people trying to make an environmental point. It would be “very scary” if terrorist groups tried it in North America, he said.
Some of the worst incidents in the U.S. were on the Trans Alaska Pipeline. Vandals blew up a section in 1978, spilling about 16,000 barrels of oil near Fairbanks. In 2001, a drunken man fired a hunting rifle into the pipeline near Livengood, causing more than 6,000 barrels to spray out.
Some of the most notable incidents in Canada happened in the 1990s and 2000s in Alberta and British Columbia. A series of bombings in 2008-09 targeted pipelines in British Columbia. Weibo Ludwig, an Alberta man who crusaded against the extraction of “sour gas” containing high amounts of hydrogen sulfide, was convicted in several of the 1990s acts of vandalism. He was arrested but never charged in the later attacks.
Pipeline sabotage happens with some regularity in war zones. Iraqi insurgents, Colombian rebels and Mexican guerrillas all have claimed responsibility for pipeline attacks in recent decades.
Karnowski reported from Minneapolis. Associated Press news researcher Jennifer Farrar contributed to this story from New York, and reporter David Pitt contributed from Des Moines, Iowa.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/energy-environment/dakota-access-pipeline-vandalism-highlights-sabotage-risks/2017/03/21/ad293790-0eab-11e7-aa57-2ca1b05c41b8_story.html?utm_term=.5eb7e1901124
-
Watchdog Piles on Criticism of Offshore Drilling Regulator
Mar 22, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A watchdog is alleging numerous problems at the federal government’s offshore drilling regulator, including in its inspection and environmental stewardship programs.
A new report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is the latest on the Interior Department’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) from Congress’s watchdog, which previously identified problems ranging from revenue collection to employee retention and organizational restructuring.
BSEE was created in 2011 as part of the reorganization of offshore drilling oversight following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster at a BP-operated well.
Since its creation, GAO has issued numerous reports finding deficiencies at the agency, which largely revolve around significant leadership problems and communication problems with lower-level employees.
“Leadership seems to be a continual problem at BSEE since its formation after the Deepwater Horizon incident,” Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas), chairman of the House Oversight Committee subpanel with authority over Interior, said at a Tuesday hearing on the report.
“The GAO has found a disconnect — and more importantly, a distrust — between BSEE headquarters and its region,” he said. “This distrust has caused significant duplication and reduced the agency’s efficiency.”
The watchdog in its Tuesday report concluded that BSEE has made “limited progress” in the last five years in implementing reforms in how it oversees offshore safety and environmental compliance, including developing a “risk-based” approach to drilling inspections.
“Without establishing a mechanism for BSEE management to obtain and incorporate input from bureau personnel and any external parties, such as Argonne [National Laboratory], that can affect the bureau’s ability to achieve its objectives, BSEE’s risk-based inspection program is likely to experience continued delays and implementation problems,” GAO said of the inspection program."
On the environmental program, BSEE implemented two programs to reduce environmental risk, but they were both overlapping and ineffective, GAO found.
Richard Cardinale, Interior’s acting assistant secretary for land and minerals, told the House panel that the agency takes the challenges seriously.
“We appreciate that BSEE still faces challenges internally in how it develops and communicates management initiatives,” he said.
“During the past 5.5 years, BSEE has taken many constructive steps toward creating a stable and mature organization, while continuing to carry out its mission-critical goals of promoting safety, environmental responsibility and resource conservation on the outer continental shelf.”
Cardinale said that of the numerous GAO and internal Inspector General reports since BSEE’s formation, the agency has completed dozens of recommendations.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/325051-watchdog-faults-offshore-drilling-regulators-inspection-protocol
-
Texas, Natural Gas Industry Contest Storage Safety Rule
Mar 22, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
A new federal natural gas regulation is taking away states’ abilities to regulate their storage caverns, Texas’ attorney general argues in an appeals court review of the rule.
The state of Texas has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to review a Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration rule (State of Texas v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 5th Cir., 17-60189, 3/17/17).
Natural gas industry groups also are challenging the same PHMSA rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (Interstate Natural Gas Assoc. v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., D.C. Cir., 17-1096, 3/20/17), (Amer. Gas Assoc. v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., D.C. Cir., 17-01095, 3/20/17).
The rule, which addresses safety issues for underground natural gas storage facilities, went into effect Jan. 18. The rule is part of the agency's response to the massive 2015 leak of natural gas at Southern California Gas Co.'s storage facility at Aliso Canyon in California.
The petitioners are challenging the rule under various statutes, including the Administrative Procedure Act.
In a news release, Texas’ attorney general argued the rule “unilaterally and impermissibly” adopted the American Petroleum Institute's underground storage design and safety guidance as regulations, stripping Texas of its authority over underground natural gas facilities.
PHMSA responded to the petitions March 21 and said the rule established minimum federal standards for about 200 interstate facilities and serves as a baseline for state regulations. States are free to enact more stringent regulations, the agency said.
States Make Case for Experience
Texas stores natural gas in salt caverns and depleted reservoirs, which the state's railroad commission has regulated for decades.
“PHMSA failed to reach out to the [Texas railroad commission] to learn from its long-term experience regulating underground storage. As a result, PHMSA is embarking on a path of regulating an industry with which it has little familiarity,” the commission told the agency in its public comments.
The Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association argued in its public comments on the rule that PHMSA should permit states to regulate their underground storage facilities by allowing them to request delegation of authority.
The association pointed to the Environmental Protection Agency as an example of delegating authority to states. The agency “place(s) decision-making authority to a level of government closer to the people whose lives are touched by these decisions,” the Louisiana association said.
Abiding by state and federal regulations will require operators to pay two sets of fees, the Louisiana association said, which would be an “unnecessary burden.”
Cathy Landry, spokesperson for the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, said the association thinks it is “imperative” for PHMSA, not individual states, to set baseline standards.
Industry Disputes Deadlines
In the rule, PHMSA argues that “rapid incorporation” of the American Petroleum Institute's guidance will require operators to assess and document changes to the operational safety of their underground storage facilities.
For this rule, the American Gas Association filed joint public comments with the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, the American Public Gas Association and the American Petroleum Institute. Their concerns were generally about making non-mandatory guidance into mandatory regulation, and not having enough time to implement the new regulations once the rule went into effect.
“The Associations do not believe this was the intent of the (rule), as this time frame is not just unreasonable, but simply not practicable,” the associations said in their public comments.
In January, the associations asked PHMSA to reconsider its rule, but did not receive a response from the agency.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107620481&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107620481&jd=107620481
-
Two Ethanol Trains Derail — and One Explodes — as Industry Embraces Riskier Practices
Mar 21, 2017 | DeSmog
By Justin Mikulka
On March 8, a train pulling 80 tank cars of ethanol derailed in Providence, Rhode Island. Luckily, no ethanol was spilled and no one was injured. However, activists immediately began calling for a halt to these “unit trains” of ethanol into and out of the city, noting the potential risks to the community. Unit trains are longer than average freight trains — often 100 cars or more — dedicated to carrying a single commodity, such as ethanol or crude oil.
These risks were on display two days later when a unit train hauling 100 cars of ethanol derailed on a bridge in Graettinger, Iowa, approximately 160 miles from Des Moines. This time, 27 of the cars left the tracks. At least eight tank cars ruptured and caught fire, and three tank cars ended up in a creek beneath the bridge, releasing about 1,600 gallons of ethanol into the waterway.
Due to multiple explosions at the derailed ethanol train, emergency responders chose to let the tank cars burn themselves out over the course of the weekend instead of risking approaching the fire. It isn’t hard to see what this type of accident could do in Providence or another populated area.
As DeSmog noted in a series last year, fewer ethanol train derailments historically have resulted in large fires and spills compared to oil trains — despite more ethanol being moved by rail over the same time.
However, after analyzing ethanol industry data and the trend toward shipping more ethanol via unit trains, DeSmog predicted an increase in fiery train derailments involving ethanol unit trains, which appear to be on the rise. No oil trains have derailed and ignited this year.
“Shippers want to utilize unit trains if they can to save money,” Tom Williamson, a broker and owner of Sarasota, Florida-based Transportation Consultants, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The paper reported that “11 of his 12 clients have switched to unit trains in the past two years.”Ethanol and the Unsafe DOT-111 Car
When federal regulators set new rules phasing out unsafe DOT-111 tank cars for shipping oil and ethanol by rail, the risk of “bomb trains” carrying flammable Bakken crude oil received most of the attention. The ethanol industry, meanwhile, was given a much longer timeline to remove these tank cars from service, allowing use of the riskiest “non-jacketed” DOT-111 cars until 2023 and of jacketed DOT-111 cars until 2025.
In addition, no regulations dictate how long these ethanol unit trains of DOT-111 cars can be. The National Transportation Safety Board has been warning about the use of DOT-111 tank cars for decades and continued to sound the alarm after the latest accident in Iowa, as reported by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
“We would like to see the shippers accelerate their schedule to get these legacy DOT-111 tank cars out of service when transporting flammable liquids — specifically crude oil and ethanol,” said Robert Sumwalt, a member of the National Transportation Safety Board and the moderator of a July 2016 roundtable on oil and ethanol train safety.
However, as DeSmog reported last year, despite the oil industry's faster phase-out deadline of 2018, it isn’t exactly hurrying to invest in retrofitting its existing fleet of tank cars. By mid-2016 the oil industry had only retrofitted 225 out of a fleet of 110,000 tank cars. And the industry is lobbying for additional loopholes to allow risky cars to remain in crude oil service indefinitely.
The Federal Railroad Administration did not respond to multiple requests for comment on the possibility of phasing out the use of DOT-111 tank cars faster than the current schedule.
Not only is the ethanol industry moving toward using more unit trains, it is using risky DOT-111 rail cars to do so. In his opening remarks to the roundtable in July, Robert Sumwalt explained that we should continue to expect many more fiery oil train derailments with the existing tank car fleet, saying, “just do the math.”
Now with the ethanol industry moving to embrace the oil-by-rail business model of longer unit trains, the same math applies. And the two accidents this month are perhaps the canary in the coal mine for the ethanol-by-rail industry. What Have We Learned?
In July of 2013, a Bakken oil train derailed in the small Quebec, Canada, town of Lac-Mégantic, resulting in explosions and fire which killed 47 people and leveled its downtown. In December 2016, a conference was held in Ottawa to review the lessons learned from the Lac-Mégantic disaster.
Brad Stevens is currently National Rail Director for Unifor, Canada’s largest private sector union. At the conference he told attendees, “Nothing has changed. The railway barons are still there. And stronger than ever.”
However, as we can see with the recent derailments of two ethanol trains, things are changing. The rail industry is adopting riskier practices in pursuit of profits. This happened first with Bakken crude oil, then with ethanol, and — as reported by DeSmog — now the rail industry wants to start moving unit trains of liquid petroleum gas.
And all of this is happening as the Trump administration is poised to roll back safety regulations.
After the ethanol train accident in Providence, Cristina Cabrera, executive director of Environmental Justice League of Rhode Island, made a comment that echoed what we have heard after many of the oil train derailments.
“We are all very lucky that this accident did not result in a spill,” Cabrera said. “Which could have been disastrous.”
Other than the deadly disaster in Lac-Megantic, the oil, ethanol, and rail industries have been very lucky that none of the major derailments and fires have happened in populated areas. However, with the expansion of ethanol unit trains, the odds are that this luck will run out at some point, resulting in deadly consequences.
Just do the math.
https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/03/21/two-ethanol-trains-derail-industry-embraces-riskier-practices
-
(ACC Mentioned) Administration Critics Charge EPA Rule Delays May Violate 'Procedure' Act
Mar 21, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Amanda Palleschi
House Democrats and other administration critics are warning top officials that recent actions by EPA and other agencies delaying implementation of almost a dozen Obama-era environmental and energy efficiency rules may violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and urging the officials to withdraw the actions.
In a March 20 letter to Mick Mulvaney, director of the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB), Rep. Frank Pallone, the ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and other lawmakers say that actions taken by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and Energy Secretary Rick Perry delaying Obama-era rules violated the APA because their final actions were published less than 30 days before they took effect and without notice and comment as the APA requires.
“We request that you withdraw these regulations immediately,” the letter says. “With limited exceptions, the APA requires agency regulations be published at least 30 days before their effective date after public notice and comment,” says the letter, which was also signed by Reps. Bobby Rush (D-IL), Paul Tonko (D-NY) and Doris Matsui (D-CA).
“Despite these clear requirements, Administrator Pruitt issued two 'final rules' this week with no notice, no comment, and less than 30 days between publication and the effective date.”
The lawmakers say the justifications Pruitt and other officials have offered to defend their actions are inadequate and inconsistent with case law, suggesting the lawmakers or other critics will challenge the actions in federal court.
At issue are efforts by the Trump administration to further delay rules issued in the waning days of the Obama administration.
At EPA, Pruitt issued a March 20 Federal Register notice that extended until May 22 the effective date for five rules issued by the Obama administration, including 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.
Pruitt had separately taken a similar action to extend the effective date of EPA's Risk Management Plan (RMP) update rule, agreeing to an industry petition to reconsider the regulation.
And at the Energy Department, Perry March 21 extended the effective dates of a series of energy efficiency rules, including standards for ceiling fans and certain residential buildings, as well as test procedures for air conditioners and walk-in coolers and freezers.
All of the rules were initially delayed through March 21 by administration officials under the terms of a Jan. 20 order issued by White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus that urged agencies to delay rules that had already appeared in the Federal Register but had not yet taken effect.
Priebus required agencies to postpone their effective dates for 60 days “for the purpose of reviewing questions of fact, law, and policy they raise,” though he also said agencies should consider “further notice-and-comment rulemaking to further delay the rules' implementation, revise their terms or begin the process of repeal.”
'Good Cause' Exemption
With the exception of the RMP rule, Pruitt and Perry argue generally that they are entitled to further delay the rules without notice and comment because they lack Senate-confirmed appointees and, because the rules' effective dates are “imminent,” they are entitled to use the APA's “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,” Pruitt said in his March 20 notice.
But the lawmakers, as well as the Center for Progressive Reform (CPR), a group of law professors that generally favor strict environmental protections, charge that the administration's actions do not qualify for the “good cause” exemption.
The lawmakers say that measures delaying rules are themselves final rules and subject to APA requirements.
And they charge that courts have not granted use of the “good cause” exemption to delay rules.
For example, they cite NRDC v. Abraham, a 2004 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit which rejected efforts by the Bush administration to delay a Clinton-era efficiency standard that had been similarly promulgated in the Federal Register but had not yet taken effect.
The court held that because the rule had already appeared in the Register, the agency would be barred from removing the standards and the rule's “imminent effective date” did not constitute an “emergency” or “good cause” for waiving APA requirements.
“Precedent is clear on this point,” the lawmakers write. They argue that several different courts have held that the APA requirements should only be waived “if providing the time for notice and comment would 'do real harm'. In this case, that would require a demonstration of harm should these new 'final rules' be delayed to allow for comment.
But, they said, EPA and DOE do not claim any harm. “They merely claim a need to delay these regulations to allow them to evaluate whether changes are needed.” Instead, the lawmakers say, the agencies have full discretion to review the rules once they are effective.
“Any potential changes to the rules will have to be carried out through full notice and comment rulemaking -- whether the effective date is delayed or not. So no harm is avoided by rushing these 'final rules' into effect,” they say.
They add that Pruitt's claims that the lack of Senate-confirmed staff at the agency is beyond its control are “clearly intended to avoid the finding made by the court in NRDC v. Abraham that an emergency of an agency's 'own making' does not constitute good cause.”
And, they say, “we are compelled to point out that the EPA currently employs thousands of staff, including scientists, technologists, engineers, researchers, and policy experts who are fully capable of performing regulatory work. . . the Senate cannot be blamed for the lack of confirmed appointees when none have been nominated.”
The lawmakers also rejected as “patently absurd” Pruitt's claim that allowing the rules to advance is contrary to the public interest. “The public interest in the orderly promulgation and implementation of regulations is undermined, not served, by this last minute change in effective date, promulgated without required process. The underlying final rules were promulgated in full accordance with the requirements of the APA and reflect broad stakeholder input,” they say.
In their March 8 letter to Pruitt and other administration officials, CPR also cites the Supreme Court's 2007 ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, which held that “regulatory agencies, while subject to political oversight, must nevertheless be able to justify actions in [sic] light of their legislative mandates.”
“This requirement is necessary because Congress has established a policy mandate for an agency with the expectation that it will implement that mandate relying on its expertise and experience, which is tested by whether the agency can articulate a reasonable justification for its actions.”
In their letter to Mulvaney, Pallone and other lawmakers seek copies of all records relating to the action development process, as well as all emails and communications between Pruitt and all other current EPA political appointees with representatives and employees of several industry groups: the American Chemistry Council, the American Forest & Paper Association, the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/administration-critics-charge-epa-rule-delays-may-violate-procedure-act
-
Trump Lays Plans to Reverse Obama’s Climate Change Legacy
Mar 21, 2017 | New York Times
By Coral Davenport
President Trump is poised in the coming days to announce his plans to dismantle the centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s climate change legacy, while also gutting several smaller but significant policies aimed at curbing global warming.
The moves are intended to send an unmistakable signal to the nation and the world that Mr. Trump intends to follow through on his campaign vows to rip apart every element of what the president has called Mr. Obama’s “stupid” policies to address climate change. The timing and exact form of the announcement remain unsettled, however.
The executive actions will follow the White House’s release last week of a proposed budget that would eliminate climate change research and prevention programs across the federal government and slash the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget by 31 percent, more than any other agency. Mr. Trump also announced last week that he had ordered Scott Pruitt, the E.P.A. administrator, to revise the agency’s stringent standards on planet-warming tailpipe pollution from vehicles, another of Mr. Obama’s key climate change policies.
While the White House is not expected to explicitly say the United States is withdrawing from the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, and people familiar with the White House deliberations say Mr. Trump has not decided whether to do so, the policy reversals would make it virtually impossible to meet the emissions reduction goals set by the Obama administration under the international agreement.
In an announcement that could come as soon as Thursday or as late as next month, according to people familiar with the White House’s planning, Mr. Trump will order Mr. Pruitt to withdraw and rewrite a set of Obama-era regulations known as the Clean Power Plan, according to a draft document obtained by The New York Times. The Obama rule was devised to shut down hundreds of heavily polluting coal-fired power plants and freeze construction of new coal plants, while replacing them with vast wind and solar farms.
The draft also lays out options for legally blocking or weakening about a half-dozen additional Obama-era executive orders and policies on climate change.
At a campaign-style rally on Monday in the coal-mining state of Kentucky, Mr. Trump told a cheering audience that he is preparing an executive action that would “save our wonderful coal miners from continuing to be put out of work.”
Experts in environmental law say it will not be possible for Mr. Trump to quickly or simply roll back the most substantive elements of Mr. Obama’s climate change regulations, noting that the process presents a steep legal challenge that could take many years and is likely to end up before the Supreme Court. Economists are skeptical that a rollback of the rules would restore lost coal jobs because the demand for coal has been steadily shrinking for years.
Scientists and climate policy advocates around the world say they are watching the administration’s global warming actions and statements with deep worry. Many reacted with deep concern to Mr. Pruitt’s remarks this month that he did not believe carbon dioxide was a primary driver of climate change, a statement at odds with the global scientific consensus. They also noted the remarks last week by Mick Mulvaney, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, in justifying Mr. Trump’s proposed cuts to climate change research programs.
“As to climate change, I think the president was fairly straightforward: We’re not spending money on that anymore,” Mr. Mulvaney said at a White House briefing.
“The message they are sending to the rest of the world is that they don’t believe climate change is serious. It’s shocking to see such a degree of ignorance from the United States,” said Mario J. Molina, a Nobel Prize-winning scientist from Mexico who advises nations on climate change policy.
The policy reversals also signal that Mr. Trump has no intention of following through on Mr. Obama’s formal pledges under the Paris accord, under which nearly every country in the world submitted plans detailing actions to limit global warming over the coming decade.
Under the accord as it stands, the United States has pledged to reduce its greenhouse pollution about 26 percent from 2005 levels by 2025. That can be achieved only if the United States not only implements the Clean Power Plan and tailpipe-pollution rules, but also tightens them or adds more policies in future years.
“The message clearly is, ‘We won’t do what the United States has promised to do,’” Mr. Molina said.
In addition to directing Mr. Pruitt to withdraw the Clean Power Plan, the draft order instructs Attorney General Jeff Sessions to request that a federal court halt consideration of a 28-state lawsuit against the regulation. The case was argued before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in September, and the court is expected to release a decision in the coming months on whether to uphold or strike down the rule.
According to the draft, Mr. Trump is also expected to announce that he will lift a moratorium on new coal mining leases on public lands that had been announced last year by the Obama administration.
He is also expected to order White House economists to revisit an Obama-era budgeting metric known as the social cost of carbon. Economists and policy makers used the metric to place a dollar cost on the economic impact of planet-warming carbon dioxide pollution: about $36 per ton. That measure formed the Obama administration’s economic justification for issuing climate change regulations that would harm some industries, such as coal mining, noting that those costs would be outweighed by the economic benefits of preventing billions of tons of planet-warming pollution.
Eliminating or lowering the social cost of carbon could provide the Trump administration the economic justification for putting forth less-stringent regulations.
The draft order would also rescind an executive order by Mr. Obama that all federal agencies take climate change into account when considering any form of environmental permitting.
Unlike the rollback of the power plant and vehicle regulations, which could take years and will be subject to legal challenges, Mr. Trump can make the changes to the coal mining ban and undo Mr. Obama’s executive orders with the stroke of a pen.
White House staff members and energy lobbyists who work closely with them say they have been expecting Mr. Trump to make the climate change announcements for weeks, ever since Mr. Pruitt was confirmed to head the E.P.A. on Feb. 17, but the announcement has been repeatedly rescheduled. The delays of the one-page announcement have largely been a result of disorganization and a chaotic policy and planning process, said people familiar with that process who asked to speak anonymously to avoid angering Mr. Trump.
“Trump’s announcements have zero impact,” said Richard J. Lazarus, a professor of environmental law at Harvard. “They don’t change existing law at all.”
Much of that task will now fall to Mr. Pruitt.
“To undo the rule, the E.P.A. will now have to follow the same procedure that was followed to put the regulations in place,” said Mr. Lazarus, pointing to a multiyear process of proposing draft rules, gathering public comment and forming a legal defense against an expected barrage of lawsuits almost certain to end up before the Supreme Court.
One reason for the confusion, these people said, is internal disputes about the challenging legal process required to dismantle the Clean Power Plan. While Mr. Trump may announce with great fanfare his intent to roll back the regulations, the legal steps required to fulfill that announcement are lengthy and the outcome uncertain.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/21/climate/trump-climate-change.html?_r=0
-
Industries Push for Settlement Talks on Obama-Era Air Policy
Mar 22, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
New leadership at the EPA could offer an opportunity to settle litigation over an Obama-era regulation governing regional application of the Clean Air Act, according to a coalition of industry associations.
At issue is an August 2016 regulation that created what the Obama EPA described as a “narrow procedural exception” to its rules that would allow the agency's regional offices to implement court decisions that aren't national in scope without affecting policies in other parts of the country. For example, if the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit were to issue a ruling that overturned an agency policy, the agency's regional offices could choose to comply with the ruling in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi while continuing with the original policy in other states.
Trade associations representing the manufacturing and petroleum industries are challenging the exception, which they claim to be a violation of plain Clean Air Act language requiring “fairness and uniformity” in how the law is applied across the country. The industry petitioners March 20 asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to halt progress in the litigation for 60 days to allow them to “explore the possibility” of settling with the EPA, citing the change in administration as offering a new opportunity for a potential resolution (Nat'l Envtl. Dev. Ass'n's Clean Air Project v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 16-1344, 3/20/17).
While the regional consistency rule isn't one of the rules President Donald Trump or EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has publicly discussed as being ripe for change, an attorney for one of the industry associations linked the Obama-era exception with a January presidential memorandum on expediting permitting for domestic manufacturing projects. That memo instructed the Commerce Department and other regulatory agencies to develop a “Permit Streamlining Action Plan” including policy and procedural changes that would make it easier to construct new and expanded manufacturing facilities.
Leslie Sue Ritts, an Alexandria, Va., attorney representing the National Environmental Development Association's Clean Air Project, told Bloomberg BNA that a lack of coordination in policy among EPA's regional offices can lead to “all sorts of uncertainty” in the permitting of manufacturing facilities under the Clean Air Act. The manufacturing association lists Alcoa Inc., Koch Industries Inc. and Exxon Mobil Corp. among its members.
“Any uncertainty is going to be an impediment to expanding business,” Ritts said. “Congress created regional consistency for a reason, and that was to make sure the playing field is even.”
The U.S. Justice Department didn't object to the request to hold the litigation in abeyance for 60 days, which would delay the deadline for submitting initial briefs from March 28 to May 30. The other trade associations involved in the legal challenge are the American Petroleum Institute and the Air Permitting Forum.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107620489&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107620489&jd=107620489
-
The Trump administration’s Attack on the Chesapeake Bay
Mar 21, 2017 | Washington Post
By Editorial Board
The Trump administration’s mindless attempt to scrap federal funding to clean up the Chesapeake Bay is a stroll down memory-impaired lane. Heedless of recent history, the administration’s proposed budget would, at a swipe, reopen the door to the degradation of the United States’ largest estuary and reverse important recent progress in restoring the water, fish, oysters, crabs and tourism that make the bay so vibrant.
It was just six years ago that a third of the bay, from Baltimore to the Potomac River, was beset by a sprawling springtime “dead zone” of oxygen-starved water — the result of marine-life-killing nutrients from fertilizer and other chemical runoff. In the quarter century or so before the Environmental Protection Agency launched a massive cleanup program in 2010, the oyster harvest had plummeted by 96 percent and the crab harvest by 60 percent. Starved for oxygen by runoff pollution, huge tracts of the Chesapeake’s 64,000-square-mile watershed were in a death spiral.
When the EPA intervened with what amounted to a tough “pollution diet” for the bay, it represented the last, best hope to revive an American treasure. The 15-year cleanup effort imposed a mandate on the District and the bay’s six watershed states — Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware and New York — to make sharp reductions in the levels of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment that starved the bay of oxygen and were killing off recreation and industry alike.
Now, by zeroing out the EPA’s planned $73 million for the cleanup next year, the administration’s budget would mark a pollution binge even as the pollution diet’s manifest benefits were working to revive a body of water that was becoming a lifeless soup.
Some industrial farms, home builders and municipalities have resisted the EPA cleanup, regarding it as bureaucratic overreach. They have said it amounts to an unfunded mandate saddling them with the costs of cattle fencing and other means of pollution mitigation. From beyond the watershed, opponents feared it would become a template for even more ambitious actions by the EPA, including an effort to clean up the Mississippi watershed that might be expensive for major industrial polluters.
Those interests prevailed in the administration’s budget, which would hinder efforts to upgrade sewage treatment plants with new technology and develop tighter standards to control storm water in both urban and suburban neighborhoods. But make no mistake: If the EPA program dies, so will the bay, and a precious natural resource will be despoiled for future generations.
A sign of hope is the vigor of the pushback already being mounted by the region’s congressional delegation, including a number of Republicans. Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, himself a Republican, has not directly attacked the effort to gut the cleanup program, but his spokesman issued a forceful statement on his commitment to revive the bay. It will take a concerted political effort and public pressure to recover the funds eliminated in the administration’s proposed budget. It is critical that they succeed.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-trump-administrations-attack-on-the-chesapeake-bay/2017/03/21/d7b5f6ec-0db6-11e7-ab07-07d9f521f6b5_story.html?utm_term=.ede9d9ae46c8
-
N.Y. Attorney General Renews Objections to EPA Budget Plan
Mar 22, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By John Herzfeld
Budget cuts proposed for the EPA would slow, halt or set back progress made by the states to address major pollution threats, New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman (D) said March 21.
Schneiderman was joined by other elected officials and community leaders at a press conference to protest the budget plan beside the Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn, a historically industrial transportation route that also runs through residential neighborhoods. The Environmental Protection Agency declared it a federal Superfund site in 2010 and called it one of the most seriously contaminated water bodies in the U.S. when it unveiled a $506 million cleanup plan in 2013.
Most of the early work to clean up the canal has been done, and funding has been secured from responsible parties, Schneiderman said. But proposed EPA budget cuts announced March 16, he said, would probably delay the cleanup by reducing staff needed to approve administrative actions along the way and would curb the agency's ability to use its enforcement authority to stop further pollution of the site.
State ‘Dependent’ on EPA
“We're still dependent on EPA to process and approve each stage of the cleanup in the years ahead and carry out the testing and enforcement we need,” he said. “All of that is put at risk by the proposed cuts, if enacted. New Yorkers shouldn't have to wait for the cleanup any longer than necessary.”
He added, “We don't want to turn back the clock on this successful cooperative effort.”
A proposed 43 percent cut in Superfund funding could undermine EPA oversight and management of the 85 federal cleanup sites in New York, Schneiderman said. The cuts could keep the agency from acting on a September proposal to list a site in upstate Hoosick Falls, N.Y., where contamination with perfluorooctanoic acid has affected drinking water, he said.
Even if the EPA approves designation of the Hoosick Falls PFOA site, he said, “significant questions remain” whether enough staff and resources would be available for an effective and timely cleanup.
‘Do Best We Can With What We've Got’
New York can't go it alone in pursuing its “ambitious plans” to address air pollution and climate change, Schneiderman said. “The commitment of this state is to do the best we can with what we've got” he said, “but severe cuts in federal funding could definitely slow us down.”
Schneiderman again said he would use the powers of his office to oppose federal cutbacks, particularly if they affect the EPA's ability to meet its statutory mandates.
“We'll take every action necessary, whether it's in Congress” to try to restore the proposed cuts “or in the courts if there's a statutory violation,” he said.
In a statement to Bloomberg BNA, an EPA regional spokesman said the agency wouldn't have any comment on the budget “at this early point in the process.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107620491&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107620491&jd=107620491
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested