Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 3/28/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) Arguing for Sensible Science in Policy-Making
Mar 28, 2017 | Scoop.co.nz
By Mark Ross
New Zealand’s strong export focus is unique because our GDP relies heavily on our primary industries and export markets. Revenue from these exports is estimated at $36.7 billion this year, but is at risk from unsubstantiated over-hyped nonsensical claims that dominate the sector. -
(ACC Mentioned) Congress Seeks Investigation into National Institutes of Health
Mar 27, 2017 | Breitbart
By Penny Starr
The House Science, Space and Technology Committee is looking into whether the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has mismanaged as much as $315 million in taxpayer-funded grants awarded to the Italian research group Ramazzini Institute... -
GOP Advances Bills Targeting Scientific Backing for Regs
Mar 28, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
House Republicans are barreling ahead with legislation to revamp U.S. EPA's handling of science, as the Rules Committee late yesterday cleared one bill for floor debate tomorrow and was set to greenlight another this afternoon at a hastily announced "emergency" meeting. -
EPA Experts to Discuss Chemical Safety Act at University of Michigan
Mar 28, 2017 | Michigan Live
By Martin Slagter
A panel of national experts will discuss the potential impact of the Trump administration on the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, which amended the Toxic Substances Control Act, during a University of Michigan panel on Tuesday, March 28. -
(ACC Mentioned) Washington Activists Push for Stain-Resistant Compound on Concern List
Mar 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky
Environmental health activists plan to seek the addition of the entire class of perfluorinated compounds, known to make materials stain or stick-resistant among other uses, to the Washington state list of chemicals of high concern to children at an upcoming public hearing. -
Downstream Sectors Urged to Particpate in Global Chemical Talks
Mar 28, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Stakeholders of the UN's voluntary chemicals programme Saicm are urging downstream user sectors to participate in international discussions on managing chemicals globally, reports this month's Global Business Briefing (GBB). -
Getting the Lead Out: Midwest Cities Take Different Tacks
Mar 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Joyce
Cities across the Midwest are pushing to increase protections for their drinking water from lead contamination as federal and state regulators work on new rules to strengthen standards. -
Monsanto Appeals to Block California's Roundup Cancer Listing
Mar 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
Monsanto Co. has appealed a California court decision to allow the state's environmental health office to proceed in listing the company's signature Roundup weedkiller as a carcinogen, as scientific debate churns over the chemical's cancer potential. -
(ACC Mentioned) French Company To Invest $1.7 Billion In Texas Petrochemical Plants
Mar 27, 2017 | Houston Public Radio
By Travis Bubenik
A global energy company is planning to grow its presence on the Texas coast. The company, France-based Total, announced Monday a $1.7 billion plan that includes petrochemical projects near Houston. -
Despite Trump Move on Climate Change, Utilities’ Shift From Coal Is Set to Continue
Mar 28, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Cassandra Sweet
The Trump administration’s expected move to roll back President Obama’s signature climate-change policy may extend the life of some aging coal-fired power plants, but companies and energy experts say it is unlikely to reverse the U.S. utility industry’s shift to natural gas... -
Dakota Access Puts Oil in Pipeline
Mar 27, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The company that built the Dakota Access pipeline has filled the pipe with oil and is making the final preparations to start moving the oil. -
Idaho Oil, Gas Rules Head to Governor’s Desk
Mar 27, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
A bill (HB 301) to rewrite oil/natural gas rules in Idaho was passed unanimously through both houses of the state legislature in two days last week and now awaits Gov. C. L. Otter's signature. -
Total, Nova, and Borealis Form Cracker Joint Venture
Mar 27, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
In yet another petrochemical venture meant to take advantage of cheap U.S. shale gas, French oil giant Total is joining with Canada’s Nova Chemicals and Austria’s Borealis to build a $1.7 billion ethylene cracker plus an ethylene plant, both in Texas. -
Maryland Senate Gives Final Approval to Fracking Ban
Mar 28, 2017 | Washington Post
By Ovetta Wiggins and Josh Hicks
A Maryland bill that bans hydraulic fracturing cleared its final hurdle Monday night when the Senate approved the measure with a 35-to-10 vote. -
Trump Repeals 'Blacklisting Rule'
Mar 27, 2017 | The Hill
By Tim Devaney
President Trump repealed the so-called “blacklisting rule” Monday that required federal contractors to disclose labor violations. -
Manufacturer: Drones Should Transmit Identifier for Security
Mar 28, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Joan Lowy
The world’s largest manufacturer of civilian drones is proposing that the craft continually transmit identification information to help government security agencies and law enforcement figure out which might belong to rogue operators. -
Why The Industry Should Fight To Save The Chemical Safety Board
Mar 27, 2017 | Manufacturing.net
By Meagan Parrish
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board has been in a rare place the last few weeks: the spotlight. -
Comptroller Seeks Safeguards for Hazardous Rail Shipments
Mar 28, 2017 | AP (In U.S. News & World Report)
New York state's comptroller is urging the Trump administration to strengthen safeguards for trains carrying oil and other hazardous materials. -
(ACC Mentioned) Pruitt Takes Fire from Conservatives in Climate Showdown
Mar 28, 2017 | Politico
By Andrew Restuccia and Alex Guillén
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is coming under fire from conservatives amid a simmering behind-the-scenes fight over how far to take President Donald Trump's push to undo his predecessor's climate change agenda. -
Trump Said to Issue Far-Reaching Reversal of Obama Climate Push
Mar 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
President Donald Trump is set to sign a sweeping executive order March 28 aimed at promoting domestic oil, coal and natural gas by reversing much of his predecessor's efforts to address climate change. -
Planned Rollback of Climate Rules Unlikely to Achieve All Trump’s Goals
Mar 28, 2017 | New York Times
By Coral Davenport
President Trump is expected to sign an executive order on Tuesday to roll back most of President Barack Obama’s climate change legacy, celebrating the move as a way to increase the nation’s “energy independence” and to restore thousands of lost coal mining jobs. -
High Court Appeal Challenges EPA Bar on Facility Malfunction Air Waivers
Mar 27, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
An electric utility is asking the Supreme Court to force EPA to end its “absurd” Obama-era policy prohibiting waivers from Clean Air Act emissions limits for accidental air pollution releases due to facility malfunctions, using an appeal of a case over EPA's boiler air toxics rule... -
EPA Reschedules Hearing on Expanding Ozone Transport Area
Mar 27, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA has rescheduled for April 13 its public hearing in Washington, D.C., on nine East Coast states' petition for the agency to add an additional nine states to the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) area, which is subject stricter pollution controls than elsewhere. -
California's Clean-Air Problem Is a Lot Bigger Than Just Trump
Mar 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By John Lippert, Joe Ryan and Mark Chediak
No state is tougher on dirty air than California. How tough? So tough that, if trends hold, it may fall short of its own goals.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Arguing for Sensible Science in Policy-Making
Mar 28, 2017 | Scoop.co.nz
By Mark Ross
New Zealand’s strong export focus is unique because our GDP relies heavily on our primary industries and export markets. Revenue from these exports is estimated at $36.7 billion this year, but is at risk from unsubstantiated over-hyped nonsensical claims that dominate the sector.
The products we use to protect our animals and crops from pests and diseases have never been more thoroughly tested and screened to ensure product safety. But pseudo-science puts New Zealand farmers and growers’ chances of being world leaders in productivity at risk.
Pseudo-science describes beliefs or statements for which there is no evidential basis. Those who practice it frequently play on people’s fears and cause needless confusion. Dr Doug Edmeades, an independent soil scientist and managing director of agKnowledge, writes about the damaging effect of pseudo-science on agriculture.
Pseudo-science, he says, sets aside evidence and asserts that the ‘truth’ is what you believe. Opinions are given equal authority; irrespective of where the evidence lies. He says that this led to laissez-faire politics – less government is good government!
The role of science is no longer about discovering new ‘truth’, but supporting the ‘story’ which is perceived to be the truth. He says, this allows scientists to ignore contrary evidence, or worse, manipulate the evidence, if the cause is noble. Edmeades says that science has been eroded to the finding of research dollars and/or serving a political agenda. There is evidence of this in New Zealand as agricultural science ‘cuddles up’ to the ‘organic dollar’ and in the process imbues pseudo-science with a credibility it does not deserve.
But science must be open to scrutiny, especially if it is used to inform government policies. One agency that has caused much confusion is the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The World Health Organization's cancer agency publishes evaluations - known as monographs - on whether certain chemicals, lifestyles and activities may cause cancer.
The agency’s assessments have led to a number of everyday products, including coffee, aloe vera and talcum powder, being categorised as “possibly carcinogenic”. The assessments call into question the safety of the food we eat, the jobs we do and the products we use in our daily lives. The agency’s work only defines the potential hazard of a substance. This can cause confusion as a hazard can be prevented by the risk principals put in place by policy-makers.
In the United Sates, the American Chemistry Council is launching what it calls a campaign for accuracy in public health research, and proposes a reform of the IARC’s processes.
The council which represents the US chemical companies says that the IARC's work "suffers from persistent scientific and process deficiencies that result in public confusion and misinformed policy-making."
Conclusions about a matter as important as our health must be non-biased, thorough and based on quality science that adheres to internationally recognised standards. Agcarm is focused on ensuring that our regulators are able to continue to make decisions based on well-researched, sound science. Policy makers need a process for review that is consistent, transparent, science-based and as efficient as possible.
It is concerning that bad, incomplete, or misused science can cause public drama over the wrong things, yet it is rarely called out, whether wielded by the public, industry or regulators. Have facts ceased to matter as we march toward 100 percent fact-free decision-making? As politics goes, so could public policy if we are not careful.
Mark Ross is chief executive of Agcarm, the industry association for companies which manufacture and distribute crop protection and animal health products.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1703/S00891/arguing-for-sensible-science-in-policy-making.htm
-
(ACC Mentioned) Congress Seeks Investigation into National Institutes of Health
Mar 27, 2017 | Breitbart
By Penny Starr
The House Science, Space and Technology Committee is looking into whether the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has mismanaged as much as $315 million in taxpayer-funded grants awarded to the Italian research group Ramazzini Institute, an “independent” science academy that focuses on occupational and environmental health threats.
On Friday, the committee sent a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price about the funneling of grants to the Italian entity through the NIH’s National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS).
“According to a March 17, 2017 media report, Italy’s Ramazzini Institute has received at least thirteen different NIEHS contracts through four different third parties since 2009, totaling nearly $2 million,” said the letter, signed by Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Texas) and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Darin LaHood (R-Ill.). “Of the thirteen contracts, seven appear to be sole source, representing $1 million taxpayer dollars.
The letter states:
Further, media reports indicate that since 2009 NIEHS has directed at least $92 million in grant funds to the Ramazzini Institute and its U.S. affiliates,” the letter states. “If true, this raises serious questions about the integrity of the acquisition process at NIEHS.
According to public records and media reports, NIEHS contracted with Ramazzini and its affiliates through multiple third parities, yet it is unclear what services were rendered under these contracts.
Reports indicate NIEHS director Linda Birnbaum, a Ramazzini fellow, funneled millions of dollars in NIEHS grant funds to other Ramazzini fellows and their affiliates.
Further, since 1985, reports indicated that, in total, NIEHS has provided $315 million in grant dollars to Ramazzini fellows.
And, the letter noted, NIEHS is not being transparent about its grant protocol.
“More recently, the NIEHS has refused to respond to [Freedom of Information Act] FOIA requests seeking information related to contracts between your Department, including NIH and NEIHS and Ramazzini.
The letter cited multiple lawsuits filed by E&E Legal—not only to gain information on contracts involving Ramazzini and institute fellows but also information about Ramazzini’s U.S. affiliate’s President Phil Landrigan.
“According to reports, Director Birnbaum coordinated with Dr. Landrigan to publish more than two dozen Ramazzini studies in the NIEHS-run journal, Environmental Health Perspectives,” the letter said.
On March 17, the Energy and Environmental Legal Institute (E&E Legal) announced it has filed a lawsuit against HHS. The announcement said:
This is the latest in a series of E&E Legal actions centering on questions about the complex web of relationship of federal employees with, and transfer of millions of public dollars to, overseas environmental groups which increasingly appear to be more activist than scientific,” the press release announcing the lawsuit said.
E&E Legal’s latest Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) suit seeks public records held by HHH’s National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) division the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Specifically, it seeks copies of contracts that sent U.S. taxpayer money to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), and to Italy’s Ramazzini Institute (IBR) — a group which openly boasts of getting U.S. taxpayer money, but with no information available to the public as to what this is for or what the public receives for these sums.
The Department’s relationship with Ramazzini is an issue of increasing importance and public interest as more details emerge. Unfortunately, while NIH acknowledged receipt of the request, it has failed to provide a response.”
In 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said it wouldn’t use studies from the Ramazzini Institute involving three chemicals after the National Toxicology Program questioned its methodologies (Greenwire, March 9, 2012).
The American Chemistry Council in January encouraged lawmakers on Capitol Hill to “seek reform” of the Lyon, France-based International Agency for the Research of Cancer (IARC),” Bloomberg BNA reported.
“The agency’s assessments of cancer hazards, particularly a 2015 conclusion that the herbicide glyphosate is a probable carcinogen, has triggered the ire of Monsanto Co., whose Roundup weedkiller contains glyphosate,” Bloomberg BNA reported
The committee letter asked for data from HHS from Jan 1, 2009 to the present, to be provided to the committee by April 7, 2017.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/27/congress-seeks-investigation-into-national-institutes-of-health-funding-of-italian-research-group/
-
GOP Advances Bills Targeting Scientific Backing for Regs
Mar 28, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
House Republicans are barreling ahead with legislation to revamp U.S. EPA's handling of science, as the Rules Committee late yesterday cleared one bill for floor debate tomorrow and was set to greenlight another this afternoon at a hastily announced "emergency" meeting.
On an 8-3 party-line vote, the committee approved a closed rule for H.R. 1430, a measure sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) to bar EPA from pursuing new regulations unless they are based on science that is "transparent or reproducible."
Smith, chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, said afterward that the bill will go to the floor tomorrow.
The Rules Committee also scheduled a meeting for 3 p.m. today to consider the terms of debate for H.R. 1431, by Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), to overhaul membership requirements for EPA's Science Advisory Board. The full House will debate that measure Thursday, according to a spokesman for Lucas, the Science Committee's vice chairman.
The Science panel had approved the two bills in tandem at a March 9 markup (Greenwire, March 9). While both are controversial, they will likely sail through the full House, given that similar versions cleared the chamber two years ago in the 114th Congress.
The true test will come in the Senate, where any contentious legislation typically needs 60 votes to pass.
The previous incarnation of Smith's bill had been known as the "Secret Science Reform Act"; the new version is called the "Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment (HONEST) Act." Its potential impact, however, remains largely the same: EPA would have to post online all of the underlying data in studies used to justify fresh regulations, except for personally identifiable information, trade secrets and other confidential business information.
While Smith added those exemptions to counter criticism of the previous version of the bill, Democrats suggest that they could easily be bypassed. At a brief hearing before yesterday's Rules Committee vote, Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) said that such information could still be obtained from EPA via a confidentiality agreement and then put online. Beyer and Smith also sparred over the bill's possible price tag.
In 2015, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that implementation of the previous version of the legislation would cost EPA about $250 million annually for several years, in part for putting the data from tens of thousands of studies on the internet. The new version would again cap spending at $1 million per year. Smith, saying that data are already publicly available, predicted yesterday that the actual implementation expense would be "minuscule." As of yesterday evening, CBO had not released a score for the new version.
Both bills have the backing of an array of business groups. Together, they "would improve the transparency and trustworthiness of scientific and technical reviews and information" that EPA uses to justify regulations "that can significantly affect society," Neil Bradley, a senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, wrote in a letter to Science Committee members earlier this month.
Staunchly opposed are environmental and public health lobbies.
"Both of these bills would restrict the input of scientific experts in the review of complex issues and add undue industry influence into EPA's decision-making process," leaders of the American Lung Association and seven other advocacy groups told lawmakers in a separate letter yesterday.
Asked why the Rules Committee scheduled this afternoon's meeting on Lucas' bill with only a day's notice, Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) attributed the decision to a late-breaking determination to keep the House in session Thursday, when the measure is now scheduled for morning floor debate.
Schedule: The meeting is today at 3 p.m. in H-313 Capitol.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/03/28/stories/1060052166
-
EPA Experts to Discuss Chemical Safety Act at University of Michigan
Mar 28, 2017 | Michigan Live
By Martin Slagter
A panel of national experts will discuss the potential impact of the Trump administration on the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, which amended the Toxic Substances Control Act, during a University of Michigan panel on Tuesday, March 28.
The panel takes place from noon to 2 p.m. on Tuesday in UM's Palmer Commons, 100 Washtenaw Ave., Ann Arbor. A reception follows at 2 p.m. and a livestream of the event is offered.
The issue is of particular local interest, with the announcement in November that 1,4-dioxane is one of the first 10 chemicals the EPA plans to take a closer look at regarding potential risks to human health and the environment under reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act.
The law, passed last year with bipartisan support, was the first major environmental statute to be updated in more than 20 years. It promises to change how chemicals are evaluated for environmental health hazards.
"Chemicals from consumer products and industrial processes find their way into our bodies as well as our water, soil and air. We're bringing in national leaders to discuss the implications for research, children's health, equity and policy," said Patricia Koman, research investigator at the U-M School of Public Health and associate member of the Michigan Center on Lifestage Environmental Exposures and Disease, in a news release.Dioxane has been slowly spreading through the Ann Arbor area's groundwater for decades, coming from the former Gelman Sciences property on Wagner Road and inching closer and closer to the Huron River.
Dioxane, which also is found in consumer products, is classified by the EPA as likely to be carcinogenic to humans by all routes of exposure. It also can cause kidney and liver damage, and respiratory problems.
According to The Associated Press, Trump's proposed budget would cut funding to the EPA by 31.4 percent, or $2.6 billion.
Speakers for the panel include Gina Solomon, deputy secretary for the California EPA; Tracey Woodruff, professor at the University of California-San Francisco; Tala Henry, division director for the U.S. EPA; and Nick Schroeck, assistant clinical professor, Wayne State University Law School.
http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2017/03/university_of_michigan_panel_a.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Washington Activists Push for Stain-Resistant Compound on Concern List
Mar 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky
Environmental health activists plan to seek the addition of the entire class of perfluorinated compounds, known to make materials stain or stick-resistant among other uses, to the Washington state list of chemicals of high concern to children at an upcoming public hearing.
State regulators will receive public comments in April on a proposed regulation that would add 21 chemicals to the list including 15 flame retardants, three phthalates and one perflourinated compound, Kara Steward, toxics rules coordinator for the state Department of Ecology, told Bloomberg BNA March 27.
Addition to the Children's Safe Products Act list means manufacturers must report to the state the presence and range of concentrations of a listed chemical in its products with potential exposure to children. Listing also raises a chemical's public profile and could expose it to an increased chance of an outright ban passed by the Legislature. Washington lawmakers banned five flame retardants in 2016.
“We have raised the issue that they should consider listing the whole class of perflouorinated chemicals,” Laurie Valeriano, executive director of Toxic-Free Future, formerly Washington Toxics Coalition, told Bloomberg BNA March 27 in a telephone interview. She said the issue will be raised at the April 25 hearing.
Lawmakers Nominate Flame Retardants
The perfluorinated compounds are used in a wide range of applications including stain-resistant fabrics, nonstick cookware, waterproof clothes and food packaging. Comments submitted to the department by the coalition cite possible health concerns including carcinogenicity and toxicity surrounding perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA. The department has included PFOA in the proposed regulation for addition to the list.
American Chemistry Council spokesman Bryan Goodman said that the fluorinated chemistries produced in the U.S., Europe and Japan are well studied. The data from those studies are provided to regulators globally as part of their chemical review processes, he said in an email to Bloomberg BNA.
“The science shows that the current chemistries offer significantly reduced bio-persistence and an improved environmental profile over the chemistries they replaced,” he said. “So there is no reason for Washington state policymakers to make sweeping decisions about fluorinated chemistries.”
The rulemaking process was prompted by the Legislature when it mandated in 2016 that the department consider adding six flame retardants to the list. The state Department of Health identified nine more flame retardants it believes meet the criteria for toxicity and potential for exposure to children and have therefore been proposed for inclusion on the list, Steward said.
The other six chemicals up for consideration “came from requests from stakeholders, mostly from the Toxics Coalition,” Steward said. They wanted us to consider several phthalates, and we found three that met criteria for inclusion. The department also agreed to propose adding to the list bisphenol F and bisphenol S, which are used as alternatives for banned applications of bisphenol A. Bisphenol is used to make plastic water bottles and sports drink containers.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=108093111&vname=dennotallissues&fn=108093111&jd=108093111
-
Downstream Sectors Urged to Particpate in Global Chemical Talks
Mar 28, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Stakeholders of the UN's voluntary chemicals programme Saicm are urging downstream user sectors to participate in international discussions on managing chemicals globally, reports this month's Global Business Briefing (GBB).
Stakeholders discussed options for a post-2020 global chemicals framework at last month's UN meeting in Brazil. And there was broad agreement that input from companies across many sectors will be needed to achieve the Saicm goal of sound chemicals management globally. Industry is currently largely represented by the chemicals sector.
Speaking on the sidelines, David Azoulay, environmental health programme director for the Centre for International Environmental Law (Ciel), said: "A lot of the downstream sector companies have very different perspectives on how to deal with chemicals, which aren't represented [at UN level] and are therefore left out of these global discussions. Hearing them would be beneficial to the process."
It would also help draw attention to the issue of chemicals management and raise it as a political priority, he said. "Because these downstream companies have far more exposure to consumer demands, we believe that their participation could very much help raise the level of attention."
Alan Kaufman of the US Toy Industries Association (TIA) was one of the only downstream sector representatives at the meeting. He told the GBB "it is important to all sectors that sound chemicals management is practised around the world".
"Many companies have products manufactured in developing countries and therefore it is of interest to them that the chemicals going into their products are safely managed globally."
Better chemicals management in these countries, he said, could also ease the supply chain challenge of knowing all chemicals in products. "For example, it would likely lead to improved chemical information across international supply chains, enabling companies to better manage what goes into their products."
He added that in tackling these challenges, through Saicm's efforts, consumers would have more confidence in companies, and the products they buy.
Outreach
Saicm's secretariat is using funding from the International Council of Chemicals Associations (ICCA) to strengthen its broader outreach to industry, in particular to downstream sectors. The ICCA is providing $150,000/year up to 2020. It also helped the secretariat find a consultant – former Cefic head of international chemicals management Lena Perenius – to support them in this work.
Ms Perenius told the GBB earlier this month that the situation today is better than it was a couple of years ago: "We are seeing an increase in interest. However, much more needs to be done."
"There is a certain 'language' spoken by the international organisations and another by industry. So the first phase is to communicate and explain what Saicm is in their language, as well as communicate the mutual benefits of collaborating on the sound management of chemicals globally."
In the same discussion, Jacob Duer, principal coordinator of the Saicm secretariat, added: "What we are hoping is that industry sees that it needs to play a much stronger role in discussions around sustainability and the sound management of chemicals.
"Ultimately they may be marginalised over time if they don't engage in these processes that make efforts to find solutions to achieve the UN's sustainable development goals (SDGs)."
https://chemicalwatch.com/54653/downstream-sectors-urged-to-particpate-in-global-chemical-talks
-
Getting the Lead Out: Midwest Cities Take Different Tacks
Mar 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Joyce
Cities across the Midwest are pushing to increase protections for their drinking water from lead contamination as federal and state regulators work on new rules to strengthen standards.
But the Trump administration's proposal to delegate more regulatory authority to the states while simultaneously cutting grants to help them run their environmental programs could hamper those efforts.
Madison, Wis., was the first city in the nation to replace its drinking water supply lines in an effort to combat lead contamination. This action came more than a decade before the discovery of widespread lead contamination in the drinking water of Flint, Mich., propelling the issue to national prominence in 2016 and prompting the question of whether the Environmental Protection Agency's 1991 drinking water standards for lead were strong enough.
Midwestern cities, especially those with aging water infrastructure, are wrestling with how to pay for drinking water improvements in light of EPA plans to update its lead and copper rule by the end of 2017. Passing on the cost of improvements to ratepayers is one option. Raising taxes, selling municipal bonds, and obtaining state or federal low-interest loans or outright grants and other awards are other tools cities have at their disposal.
The cost of upgrading drinking water infrastructure is high: In just one state, Michigan, the cost could reach into the billions of dollars, Bryce Feighner, Michigan Drinking Water and Municipal Assistance Division director, told Bloomberg BNA.
“It's not going to be something that's fixed overnight. Even a fairly gallant effort across the nation would take a decade or more,” he said.
And assistance from the federal government may be in jeopardy under the Trump administration's budget proposal, which would reduce the EPA's budget by more than 30 percent, including critical grants to states. Trump has called for a dramatic increase in infrastructure spending, however, which has given some localities hope.
Establishing Laws, Rules
Lead contamination typically doesn't occur in water treatment plants or even in the main lines distributing water to the neighborhoods. It happens mostly in the lead service lines that carry water from distribution mains in the street to individual houses and buildings. It also can leach into drinking water from lead soldering and plumbing fixtures inside a building.
In the early 20th century, municipalities commonly relied on service lines made from lead because the metal is a malleable yet dependable material to get water into houses without leaks. Large buildings or multifamily units such as big apartment complexes typically use steel or another non-lead materials in their service lines.
Cities such as Chicago continued to install lead services lines until the Safe Drinking Water Act prohibited their use after June 1986. The EPA then published its Lead and Copper Rule in 1991 requiring communities to take action if more than 10 percent of the tested water taps in a community had lead levels of more than 15 parts per billion (ppb, 0.015 mg/L). The new EPA rule coming out later this year is expected to tighten that standard.
Tens of Millions Exposed
Despite the rule, the possibility for lead leaching into drinking water in communities across the nation is an ongoing concern.
“Our estimate is that between 15 million and 22 million people drink water that comes through lead pipes,” Rob Moore, Natural Resources Defense Council senior policy analyst, told Bloomberg BNA. “And of those 15 million to 20 million people who are potentially exposed, it's a vanishing percentage that have any idea they are drinking water that has gone through a lead pipe that potentially exposes them and their children to lead.”
Such was the case in Flint, where excessive levels of lead were identified after the city switched its water source to save money. Flint Mayor Karen Weaver declared a state of emergency in December 2015, followed by a similar declaration from Gov. Rick Snyder (R) Jan. 5, 2016, and then President Barack Obama Jan. 16.
“While Flint may be a dramatic case of lead exposure, it's a more pervasive problem across the U.S. than commonly understood,” Moore said. “You find this on the West Coast, you find this in the Southwest, you find this in the Southeast. It's pretty well distributed.”
Mobile Phones to the Rescue
Following the release of the EPA Lead and Copper Rule in 1991, two Midwestern cities announced their intention to replace all their lead service lines. Madison, Wis., became the first U.S. city to do so after testing in the 1990s showed drinking-water samples “were just barely over” the EPA 15 ppb limit, even though the city stopped installing lead service lines in 1927 and never used lead components in its water mains, Tom Heikkinen, Madison Water Utility general manager, told Bloomberg BNA.
“We had to do something,” he said.
The utility wanted to pay for the work, which can cost several thousand dollars for each service line, through a surcharge on ratepayer bills. That idea, however, was rejected by the Wisconsin Public Service Commission. Innovation and creativity provided a solution: The water utility began leasing space on its water towers to mobile telephone companies, which installed their cellular antennas on the towers, and used that money to finance the service-line replacements.
Homeowners, who typically bear the responsibility for the portion of the distribution system that runs from the street to the dwelling, still had to pay up to $1,000 for the service-line replacements, but the remainder of the cost was absorbed by the Madison utility using cash from the cellular-antenna leases.
Ratepayers Foot Bill
Lansing, Mich., the second city to replace all its lead services lines, faced its own funding challenge with a twist: the Lansing Board of Water & Light owned the entire service line—onto private property to the outside wall of property owners’ building. That meant the work and pipe upgrade essentially would provide a private benefit to homeowners, and spending public money for those private improvements had legal and taxpayer implications.
The city nevertheless pushed ahead with its plan, replacing 12,125 lead service lines at a cost of $144.5 million over about 12 years, with work completed in 2016. The utility funded the project out of its year-to-year operating expenses. Nothing on the bill notified customers part of their payment was funding the lead pipe replacement project.
“The increase was incremental over the course of years. It was ratepayer-financed, if you will, with no special assessments or special bonding,” Stephen Serkaian, Lansing Board of Water & Light executive director, told Bloomberg BNA.
The cities had to deal differently with recalcitrant homeowners who refused to allow utility workers on their property. In Madison, where a city ordinance ordered the pipe replacements, property owners were referred to the state prosecutor's office, Heikkinen said.
“We did have a handful of property owners who refused to comply with Madison's lead service replacement ordinance (I believe it was fewer than five), and they ultimately had judgments filed against them,” utility spokeswoman Amy Barrilleaux told Bloomberg BNA in an email. “The penalty for non-compliance was a fine of $50-$1000 per day.”
,
In Lansing, homeowners had their water shut off until they cooperated.Other Financing Options
Other funding options available to communities include raising taxes or borrowing the money by issuing municipal bonds.
“I think a lot of people think about infrastructure spending as roads, bridges, trains, planes and automobiles, and they forget about the issue with drinking water and wastewater. And we think this is probably one of the most significant areas of focus for infrastructure spending and makes a lot of sense,” Dan Heckman, U.S. Bank senior fixed income strategist, told Bloomberg BNA.
Communities with AA or AAA bond ratings may favor this option because the interest rates are competitive and the money can be borrowed relatively quickly, Heckman said.
“We think the gap in spending on water and wastewater facilities has got wider and is in the billions of dollars in terms of need,” he said. “It will take years to make the necessary repairs,if not decades.”
State and federal governments are helping.
The EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, a lending program offering low-interest rates and the possibility of principal or loan forgiveness for economically distressed communities, is administered by state agencies and involves a state match. In fiscal 2015, the amount of funding appropriated in the EPA budget for the Drinking Water SRF program was about $860 million; each state receives at least 1 percent of that total based on an agency survey of state needs.
Galesburg, Ill., a city with a population of about 30,000 located halfway between Chicago and Kansas City, Mo., received a $4 million loan from the SRF, replete with 100 percent principal and interest forgiveness. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, which administers the federal loan program for the state, offers loans for lead service-line replacement that can be at least partially forgiven to cities with median household incomes that are less than 70 percent of the state average.
Galesburg tried for the loan because it had trouble meeting the requirements in EPA's Lead and Copper Rule when it it took effect in 1991 and came into compliance only in 2010—nearly 20 years after the rule was made final. In 2015, it fell out of compliance again.
Wayne Carl, the city's director of planning and public works, told Bloomberg BNA that he doesn't know how many of the town's 3,000 lead services lines will be replaced before proceeds from its $4 million loan are depleted, but he's hoping it's as much as 70 percent. Priority will be given to homes that have exceeded the EPA lead limit in prior testing plus to low- to mid-income families with children younger than 6, Carl said. Construction first begins on 409 lead services lines in June.
A new federal funding mechanism, EPA's Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, is designed to partially finance larger water infrastructure projects. The EPA estimates that the program will help finance up to $2 billion in projects. Applications for the first wave of WIFIA loans are due April 10.
After Flint's drinking water crisis gained national attention, the city was finally able to secure—after significant lobbying by the Michigan congressional delegation—$100 million in supplemental funds authorized by the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (Pub. L. No. 114-322) to help in its pipe replacement program. Michigan provided $20 million in matching funds, bringing the total to $120 million for water infrastructure improvements, including $58 million for the city's water plant.
Relying on Corrosion Control
Some cities aren't replacing pipes at all, but are pursuing other strategies to mitigate the lead problem.
Chicago, where about 280,000 of the city's approximately 500,000 services lines contain lead, decided not to replace any service lines but instead focus on an optimized corrosion control treatment added to drinking water and tailored to its chemical characteristics. The treatment coats the insides of pipes, including pipes and fixtures inside homes and buildings, and aims to prevent lead from leaching into the water right up to the tap.
“Really, the only way to protect the water from metal incursion, lead incursion, is through corrosion control. Lead doesn't just stop at the service line; you can have lead pipes within your home, you can have lead-soldered joints, you can have low-lead brass that up until about 2012 had about 9 percent lead in it,” Barrett Murphy, Chicago Department of Water Management commissioner, told Bloomberg BNA.
“Our approach has been, the only safe way to protect the water from the time it leaves the plant to the time it comes out of the tap is through corrosion control. That has been our approach, and that continues to be our approach,” said Murphy, whose department is responsible for delivering safe drinking water through a system with more lead service lines than any other Midwestern city.
The city's water utility delivers drinking water to residents of Chicago and 125 surrounding communities—about 42 percent of all Illinois residents—and is making investments in its physical water infrastructure. In 2012, it announced a 20-year program to replace 880 miles of water mains that are up to 100 years old. The city is replacing about 90 to 100 miles of main pipes each year at a cost of about $2.5 million a mile.
New Standard Envisioned
Midwestern cities are working to maintain or improve the safety of their drinking water as the EPA works on revising its Lead and Copper Rule, which will likely tighten the standard.
Some political leaders say the lead issue is too dangerous to wait for EPA action; Michigan's Snyder, for instance, said March 16 that his state will craft its own lead rule, which in part will have an action limit of no more than 10 ppb—more than 30 percent lower than the current EPA standard.
Grand Rapids, Mich., continuously feeds an orthophosphate blend that allows the municipality to comply with the EPA standard. The city also replaces lead service lines that are exposed during construction projects or where there's a leak, Joellen Thompson, Grand Rapids Water System manager, told Bloomberg BNA in an email.
Thompson, like many other municipal water officials, said her city isn't waiting for the EPA to issue its revised rule before taking action on the lead issue. Property owners can get a 10-year financing deal for private property service-line replacement, and the city is contemplating loan forgiveness to make the upgrade even more appealing. St. Paul, Minn., property owners can finance the upgrade through their tax bill, paying it off over time instead of at once.
“We are doing this proactively in anticipation of regulation/rule changes that will require the entire line to be replaced whenever it is disturbed, not just a portion of the line,” Thompson said.
While a Trump administration proposed budget released March 16 includes drastic cuts to the EPA, and Administrator Scott Pruitt has called for shifting more authority over environmental protections to the states, Midwestern city officials and environmental specialists said they expect the EPA to continue funding drinking water infrastructure projects and to make final a revised and stricter lead rule.
“I think lead is such a hot-button public health issue that I'd be surprised if [the rule] is delayed by the administration. I would be surprised, but it's not impossible. This is the one public health issue I don't think anyone wants to be accused of playing politics with,” Tommy Holmes, American Water Works Association legislative director, told Bloomberg BNA.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=108093092&vname=dennotallissues&fn=108093092&jd=108093092
-
Monsanto Appeals to Block California's Roundup Cancer Listing
Mar 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
Monsanto Co. has appealed a California court decision to allow the state's environmental health office to proceed in listing the company's signature Roundup weedkiller as a carcinogen, as scientific debate churns over the chemical's cancer potential.
The company filed an appeal March 22 of the California Superior Court for Fresno County's decision earlier this month to dismiss Monsanto's complaint against the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment's intention to list glyphosate under California's Proposition 65 law, which discloses carcinogenic substances to the public (Monsanto v. OEHHA, Cal. Super. Ct., 16CECG00183, 3/22/17).
The appeal is not surprising. Monsanto has been fighting claims for decades that the main ingredient in Roundup—glyphosate—is linked to cancer. The battle intensified two years ago, when the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer deemed the chemical a “probable” carcinogen after a review of the scientific literature and other studies.
Several regulatory agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, say that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. The European Chemicals Agency also found in March that it is not carcinogenic, opening the way for its continued use in the European Union.
“The agency's flawed and baseless proposal to list glyphosate under Proposition 65 not only contradicts California's own scientific assessment, but it also violates the California and U.S. Constitutions. We disagree with the Court's ruling, and we will continue to fight the decision on the basis of sound science and the law,” Monsanto spokeswoman Charla Lord told Bloomberg BNA in an email.
First Constitutional Challenge
The complaint is the first constitutional challenge to the regulations for implementing the “labor code” listing process under the 1986 Proposition 65 law. The process allows OEHHA to list hazardous chemicals identified in Labor Code Section 6582 as well as substances that the International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified as human or animal carcinogens.
Monsanto and intervenor plaintiff California Citrus Mutual—which represents 2,500 citrus growers in the state—failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, according to Superior Court Judge Kristi Culiver Kapetan's Jan. 26 tentative ruling. A final ruling in the case was issued March 10.
OEHHA spokesman Sam Delson told Bloomberg BNA that the agency is “hopeful that the appeals court will affirm that ruling.”
More than 40 plaintiffs sued in a separate California Superior Court last week claiming that Roundup caused their non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a relatively common type of cancer. The company is also fighting litigation in federal court in which more than 70 plaintiffs across the U.S. make similar claims based on the 2015 IARC finding.
Scientists on the EPA's Scientific Advisory Panel are generally in agreement that glyphosate does not cause solid tumors, Hodgkin's lymphoma or leukemia. But the scientists are split on whether the chemical can be linked to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, according to a recent report from the panel.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=108093096&vname=dennotallissues&fn=108093096&jd=108093096
-
(ACC Mentioned) French Company To Invest $1.7 Billion In Texas Petrochemical Plants
Mar 27, 2017 | Houston Public Radio
By Travis Bubenik
A global energy company is planning to grow its presence on the Texas coast. The company, France-based Total, announced Monday a $1.7 billion plan that includes petrochemical projects near Houston.
Total says it’s teaming up with other companies from Europe and Canada for a new plant at its existing Port Arthur facility. It will include a new “ethane cracker” that breaks apart the molecules of the natural gas liquid to form ethylene, a chemical used to make plastics. The company is also planning to build a new plastics plant alongside one it already owns near La Porte.
“We’re adding one million tons of ethylene capacity and another 625,000 tons of polyethylene,” says Ghazi Shahin, the company’s Vice President for Industrial in the Americas. He says the growth is thanks to low ethane prices.
“This is the right time to continue to take advantage of the shale gas revolution, if you will.”
The petrochemical sector is expanding nationwide. In a report released this month, the industry trade group American Chemistry Council says there have been more than $161 billion pumped into U.S. chemical projects since 2010. Most of those projects are expected to come online this year or next. Environmental groups have criticized other chemical plants in the Texas coast region for releasing potentially dangerous air pollutants, and they’ve argued state and federal regulators don’t do enough to keep them in check.
http://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/2017/03/27/193389/french-company-to-invest-1-7-billion-in-texas-petrochemical-plants/
-
Despite Trump Move on Climate Change, Utilities’ Shift From Coal Is Set to Continue
Mar 28, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Cassandra Sweet
The Trump administration’s expected move to roll back President Obama’s signature climate-change policy may extend the life of some aging coal-fired power plants, but companies and energy experts say it is unlikely to reverse the U.S. utility industry’s shift to natural gas, solar and wind as leading sources of electricity.
President Donald Trump is expected Tuesday to sign an executive order that would begin to reverse the Clean Power Plan, which would have required utilities to reduce power-plant carbon-dioxide emissions to 32% below 2005 levels by 2030. The order also rolls back guidance from the Council on Environmental Quality on climate change and rescinds a temporary ban on new coal leases on federal lands, a senior White House official said Monday night.
While the action may give a reprieve to some coal-fired plants facing extinction, large utilities say they will continue long-term investments to generate more power from gas, wind and solar, which are being driven by economic as well as regulatory forces. The White House official said Monday that the order is part of the president’s promise to restore
Cheap U.S. natural gas unlocked by hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling has prompted many companies to scrap older coal plants in favor of gas-fired plants, which require fewer workers to operate. Companies are also taking advantage of tax credits for renewable power to build out solar and wind farms, which are becoming more cost-competitive with fossil-fuel generation thanks to economies of scale and advances in technology.
Duke Energy Corp. says it plans to invest $11 billion in natural gas and renewable power generation over the next 10 years, as the company aims by 2026 to cut its greenhouse-gas emissions by 35% from 2005 levels.
That represents a long-term company strategy and isn't likely to change, Duke Chief Executive Lynn Good said in a February interview. The utility’s power generating mix is now 34% coal and 28% natural gas, compared with 61% coal and 5% gas in 2005. By 2026, it estimates gas will be the dominant fuel, followed by coal, nuclear and renewable power.
“Because of the competitive price of natural gas and the declining price of renewables, continuing to drive carbon out makes sense for us,” said Ms. Good. “Administrations will change during the life of our business and our assets, and we’ll continue to move forward in a way that makes sense for our investors and our customers.”
Southern Co. plans to invest at least $1 billion a year over the next five years in new wind farms. It now uses natural gas to generate 47% of its power, with coal providing 31%, nuclear 15%, and hydropower, wind, solar and other renewable sources 7%.
“Going forward, we anticipate an increase in renewable generation capacity and declining utilization of coal,” said Terrell McCollum, a spokesman for the Atlanta-based utility.
U.S. utilities generated more electricity from natural gas than from coal last year. Power from coal plants fell to 3.4 million megawatt-hours a day in 2016 to supply 30% of U.S. generation, down from 33% in 2015, according to the U.S. Energy Department. Natural-gas plants supplied 3.8 million megawatt-hours daily, or 34% of total power supplies this past year, up from 33% the previous year.
Hydropower and other renewables generated 1.7 million megawatt-hours daily, or about 15% this past year, up from 13% in 2015. Nuclear plants contributed 20%, and petroleum and other sources produced the rest.
Without the Clean Power Plan, however, the Energy Department expects coal-fired generation from existing plants to rise and natural gas-fired generation to fall by 2020, followed by another reversal after 2030 when it anticipates gas will exceed coal again.
The extent of a coal recovery will depend largely on the price utilities pay for gas, which averaged about $3 a million British thermal units last year. The department predicts it will rise to more than $4.50 in 2020, and $5 in 2029.
Many energy companies face state requirements to increase renewable power generation and are coming under pressure from large investors such as pension funds and university endowments to clean up their operations.
More pension funds, university endowments and other funds are divesting from companies that burn coal over concerns about the environment, said Fiona Reynolds, managing director at Principles for Responsible Investment, a London-based nonprofit that helps funds figure out how to cut the carbon footprint of their investments. “Investors want to see companies that are moving away from coal, to other energies,” she said.
Nearly 700 institutions worth more than $5 trillion have pledged to divest from fossil fuel companies, according to a December report by consulting firm Arabella Advisors.
Still, some coal plants that are economical to run, particularly those owned by rural electric cooperatives in states where coal is plentiful, are likely to enjoy longer lives without the carbon rule.
Basin Electric Power Cooperative, based in Bismarck, N.D., was among the power generators that fought the Clean Power Plan in court. It was concerned it would be forced to shut down coal plants it is still paying off, and replace them with new gas plants and wind farms, at a cost of $5 billion.
“We’re building natural gas and wind, but that doesn’t mean we would take a perfectly functioning coal facility and not consider that a valuable resource as well,” said Mike Eggl, a spokesman for Basin Electric.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/despite-trump-move-utilities-shift-from-coal-is-set-to-continue-1490693406
-
Dakota Access Puts Oil in Pipeline
Mar 27, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The company that built the Dakota Access pipeline has filled the pipe with oil and is making the final preparations to start moving the oil.
The development is a significant milestone in the life of the highly controversial project, which stalled last year amid intense protests by American Indians and their allies who opposed running the pipeline under Lake Oahe in North Dakota.
Energy Transfer Partners revealed the progress late Monday in a federal court filing.
“Oil has been placed in the Dakota Access Pipeline underneath Lake Oahe,” the company said. “Dakota Access is currently commissioning the full pipeline and is preparing to place the pipeline into service.”
The company did not say exactly when it expects to start making deliveries through the line. The update comes days after President Trump gave approval to the Keystone XL pipeline, another controversial pipeline planned to carry oil sands petroleum.
The 1,172-mile Dakota Access pipeline runs from North Dakota to Illinois, serving a route key to the growing oil industry in North Dakota and neighboring states, with a capacity of 570,000 barrels of oil a day.
Two American Indian tribes with reservations near Lake Oahe are still working in federal court to have the pipeline shut down, saying it could harm their water supplies and violate their religious freedom.
Those tribes, and thousands of their allies, protested for months in a camp near the lake last fall.
They succeeded in convincing the Obama administration in December to withhold the easement that Energy Transfer needed to build under the federally owned lake.
But Trump signed a memorandum days after taking office asking the Army Corps of Engineers to reconsi
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/326037-dakota-access-puts-oil-in-pipeline
-
Idaho Oil, Gas Rules Head to Governor’s Desk
Mar 27, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
A bill (HB 301) to rewrite oil/natural gas rules in Idaho was passed unanimously through both houses of the state legislature in two days last week and now awaits Gov. C. L. Otter's signature.
With limited oil and natural gas development, but visions of becoming a more comprehensive producing state, Idaho's Rep. Judy Boyle originally proposed rules that were opposed by the state's main exploration and production (E&P) company, but last week was morphed into an amended bill that was unanimously passed (68-0) out of the lower House and sent to the Senate, where it also streaked through without a dissenting vote.
Idaho's legislature, which was originally scheduled to adjourn Friday, will meet again Monday for final clean-up work, but the bill is now complete.
Alta Mesa Holdings LP's chief state legislative representative in Idaho, John Foster, a principal and founder of Boise-based consulting firm Kestrel West, told NGI's Shale Daily that Alta Mesa supports HB 301. It is unclear when it will land on Otter's desk, "but I assume he will sign it in the coming week," Foster said.
Boyle said the passed version -- the result of a lot of eleventh-hour amendments and compromises -- dropped a proposal for putting Otter on the state Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (OGCC).
Under HB 301, the OGCC would include three oil and gas industry members, the state Department of Lands director, and a county commissioner from an oil-producing county.
The state is just getting started in the oil/gas business after a number of failed tries over the past 100-plus years. In 2016, Idaho completed its first full year of commercial natural gas production, making it the 31st state to produce hydrocarbons.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109896-idaho-oil-gas-rules-head-to-governors-desk
-
Total, Nova, and Borealis Form Cracker Joint Venture
Mar 27, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
In yet another petrochemical venture meant to take advantage of cheap U.S. shale gas, French oil giant Total is joining with Canada’s Nova Chemicals and Austria’s Borealis to build a $1.7 billion ethylene cracker plus an ethylene plant, both in Texas.
The cracker will have 1 million metric tons per year of capacity. It will be located in Port Arthur, adjacent to a Total refinery and an ethylene cracker joint venture that Total and BASF started up in 2001.
The polyethylene plant, in Bayport, will have 625,000 metric tons of capacity and will be based on Borealis’s Borstar technology. The three-way partnership will also include a 400,000-metric-ton-per-year polyethylene facility in Bayport that Total currently owns and operates.
Total, which will own half of the venture, has been contemplating the ethylene cracker since 2013 and already has permits in hand from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. The companies expect to make a final investment decision by the end of the year and hope to commission the ethylene unit in 2020.
Total says the project complements upstream investments it has made in shale gas extraction and liquefied natural gas.
For Nova, the investment is an opportunity to break out of Canada, home to all of its olefin-related operations. It is also a chance to embark on a major project with Borealis, which, like Nova, is controlled by Abu Dhabi’s International Petroleum Investment Co.
Petrochemical makers are starting up a spate of new ethylene crackers on the U.S. Gulf Coast, beginning with a joint venture between Occidental Chemical and Mexichem that opened last month in Texas. Dow Chemical, Chevron Phillips Chemical, and ExxonMobil are slated to complete their projects later this year.
The Total joint venture is part of a second wave of projects that would open early in the next decade.
Another second-wave project, a joint venture between ExxonMobil and Saudi Basic Industries, is nearing the end of its site selection process. After considering sites in Texas and Louisiana, the partners have settled on San Patricio County, Texas, near Corpus Christi, as the leading candidate.
Although the partners have won tax breaks for the plant, they face opposition from residents hostile to large-scale industrial development.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/web/2017/03/Total-Nova-Borealis-form-cracker-joint-venture.html
-
Maryland Senate Gives Final Approval to Fracking Ban
Mar 28, 2017 | Washington Post
By Ovetta Wiggins and Josh Hicks
A Maryland bill that bans hydraulic fracturing cleared its final hurdle Monday night when the Senate approved the measure with a 35-to-10 vote.
The legislation now heads to Gov. Larry Hogan’s desk, who has pledged to sign it.
Maryland will become the third state in the country to prohibit hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking.
New York and Vermont are the other states that have banned fracking, with an executive order and with legislation, respectively. Maryland is the first state with gas reserves to pass a ban through legislative action.
Anti-fracking activists from Western Maryland cheered as the tally was taken.
“This vote confirms the power of participant democracy,” Ann Bristow, a resident of Garrett County and a member of a state commission that studied fracking. “Never believe when someone tells you that an organized movement can’t produce change against overwhelming odds. We are proving otherwise.”
Sen. George C. Edwards (R-Garrett), who voted against the measure, offered an amendment for the state to continue a moratorium until 2027. The amendment was rejected.
Fracking, which has the greatest potential in Garrett and Alleghany counties, involves injecting water, sand and chemicals deep into the ground at high pressure to break up rock and release natural gas. Advocates say the practice provides a cleaner energy source than coal, but opponents have raised concerns about the potential for water contamination, greenhouse-gas emissions and earthquakes.
After a nearly 90-minute debate, the Senate gave preliminary approval to a controversial bill that would limit the power of the State Board of Education in how to turn around low-performing neighborhood schools and would set up an accountability system for rating schools. Hogan (R) has threatened to veto the measure.
Sen. Paul Pinsky (D-Prince George’s), vice chairman of the Senate Education, Health and Environment Committee, said the legislation, which is in response to the federal Every Student Succeeds Act, provides a “strategic framework” for the state board.
Pinsky offered an amendment, which was approved, to increase the rate of academic indicators (standardized testing, student achievement, student growth and graduation) to 65 percent of the school’s accountability rating. The original bill had the limit at 55 percent.
Republicans who oppose the bill said that even at 65 percent, the state would still rank below states that rate 75 percent and higher.
Pinsky said the legislation sends a strong message to the State Board of Education that the General Assembly does not want low-performing schools turned into charter schools.
The Senate also gave initial approval to a watered-down version of a bill that would have prohibited public and private colleges and universities from including questions about criminal history on their applications.
Under the measure that passed the House earlier this month, Maryland would have become the first state in the country to require colleges and universities to remove the question from their applications.
Instead, the Senate bill calls on colleges and universities not to use the information against an applicant in the admissions process.
Caryn York Aslan, director of policy and strategic partnership for the Job Opportunities Task Force, said advocates will work with the Senate to bring the bill closer to the stronger House version.
“The question is a deterrent,” York Aslan said.
In response to a bill not on the agenda, several members of the Legislative Black Caucus staged a walkout at the session to protest a disagreement with Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert) over medical marijuana.
Miller criticized Sen. Joan Carter Conway (D-Baltimore) as she left the floor. In the House, the action was more orderly. Del. Darryl Barnes (D-Prince George’s), the vice chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus, asked House Speaker Michael E. Busch (D-Anne Arundel) for permission for some of its members to leave.
Also on Monday night, the House gave final approval to a bill that would create a commission to oversee safety of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s rail system, a move the Federal Transit Administration required for the release of at least $2.8 million the agency plans to withhold this year until the panel is established. The measure will move to the governor’s desk for his signature.
The House also passed legislation that would set up a commission to monitor potential federal changes to the Affordable Care Act and recommend actions to protect access to health-insurance coverage, a response to concerns that the Trump administration and Republican-controlled Congress might repeal the health-care law.
The Senate passed the bill a week ago, but the two chambers must reconcile differences between their latest versions of the measure before it could receive final approval.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/maryland-senate-gives-final-approval-to-fracking-ban/2017/03/27/362649d8-1349-11e7-833c-503e1f6394c9_story.html?utm_term=.7f8fd8995779
-
Trump Repeals 'Blacklisting Rule'
Mar 27, 2017 | The Hill
By Tim Devaney
President Trump repealed the so-called “blacklisting rule” Monday that required federal contractors to disclose labor violations.
The Obama-era rule was intended to prevent the government from contracting with businesses responsible for wage theft or workplace safety violations at any point within the last three years. But business groups feared it gave unions the upper hand at the bargaining table.
Trump struck down the blacklisting rule, along with three other regulations aimed at protecting the environment and students, Monday afternoon during a White House signing ceremony.
The other regulations Trump overturned include the Interior Department’s land use rule, as well as the Education Department’s rules for teacher preparation and school accountability.
The regulatory repeals provide a much-needed distraction for the White House, as Republicans look to quickly turn the page on their failed attempt to eliminate ObamaCare.
“Only one [other] time in our history did a president sign a bill to cancel federal regulations,” Trump told a roomful of Republican lawmakers as he touted their accomplishment.
Employers were particularly concerned about the blacklisting rule.
“The rule violated the due process rights of contractors by forcing them to report mere allegations of misconduct — which are often frivolous and filed with nefarious intentions by special interest groups,” said Ben Brubeck, vice president of regulatory affairs at the Associated Builders and Contractors.
But repealing the blacklisting rule could raise labor concerns for Trump, as many of the working-class voters who supported the president last November may see it as a betrayal of one of his central campaign promises to improve their wages and working conditions.
“The message Donald Trump is sending today is that there are no consequences for companies who break American Labor law,” said Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Good Jobs Nation, which is part of the movement lobbying for a $15 federal minimum wage.
President Obama’s executive order calling for the blacklisting rule was partly inspired by the Chemical Safety Board, an independent agency that recommended “additional contractor responsibility” in a 2013 report.
But in opposition to efforts from the Trump administration and Republican lawmakers, the Chemical Safety Board said earlier this month that it is “unacceptable” the rule is falling apart.
Republicans lawmakers voted to strike down these regulations through the Congressional Review Act, which allows certain regulations to be undone while preventing the minority in the Senate from using the filibuster.
Before Trump, the seldom-used law had only be used successfully once in 2001 when then-President George W. Bush repealed a Clinton-era labor regulation.
Since January, Trump has repealed seven regulations under the Congressional Review Act, with more expected in the coming weeks.
Amit Narang, regulatory policy advocate at the left-leaning Public Citizen, accused Republicans of challenging “every rule under the sun.”
James Goodwin, senior regulatory policy analyst at the Center for Progressive Reform, criticized GOP lawmakers for the “orgy of Congressional Review Act resolutions” they are sending to Trump.
“It’s an incredibly reckless approach to congressional oversight,” Goodwin said. “We’re talking about rules that have been in the works for four, five, six, seven years. They’re lining them up for repeal, even though they probably have no idea what they do or which agency they came from.”
“That sort of thoughtful deliberation has fallen by the wayside for too many Republicans,” he said.
Sam Batkins, director of regulatory policy at the conservative American Action Forum, admitted the Congressional Review Act is a “pretty blunt instrument,” because it not only repeals these regulations, but it also prohibits future presidents from issuing similar rules.
What has surprised Batkins and other conservatives are the number of obscure rules Congress is repealing this way.
“One thing I was struck by is that some of the regulations being repealed are not things that were on my radar,” said Susan Dudley, the former administrator of the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs under President George W. Bush.
Even in her post-White House days, Dudley keeps a good handle on the regulations making their way through the federal government. “Some of these rules I expected them to repeal, but others I did not,” she said.
https://origin-nyi.thehill.com/regulation/325963-trump-repeals-blacklisting-rule
-
Manufacturer: Drones Should Transmit Identifier for Security
Mar 28, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Joan Lowy
The world’s largest manufacturer of civilian drones is proposing that the craft continually transmit identification information to help government security agencies and law enforcement figure out which might belong to rogue operators.
DJI, a Chinese company, said in a paper released Monday that radio transmissions of an identification code, possibly the operator’s Federal Aviation Administration’s registration number, could help allay security concerns while also protecting the operator’s privacy. The paper suggests steps that can be taken to use existing technologies to develop an identification system, and that operators could include more identification information in addition to a number if they wish.
Anyone with the proper radio receiver could obtain those transmissions from the drone, but only law enforcement officials or aviation regulators would be able to use that registration number to identify the registered owner.
Law enforcement agencies and the U.S. military raised security concerns last year after FAA officials proposed permitting more civilian drone flights over crowds and densely populated areas.
In response, the FAA announced in January that it was delaying a public notice of the proposal while the agency works to address the concerns. On Monday, FAA Administrator Michael Huerta kicked off a three-day drone symposium in suburban Washington by announcing that the agency is forming an advisory committee to make recommendations on how to remotely track drones, as well as trying to facilitate a dialogue between government agencies and the drone industry on how best to address security concerns.
State and local authorities, as well as some industries, want to ban drone flights near certain sensitive sites, such as nuclear power and chemical plants.
“How can we make sure unmanned aircraft don’t gain access to sensitive sites? And after seeing how drones can be used for ill-intent overseas, how can we ensure similar incidents don’t happen here?” Huerta told the symposium. “These aren’t questions the FAA can or should answer alone.”
A key concern is that there are no means for security agencies to differentiate between drones that may pose security risks from those that don’t.
Brendan Schulman, an attorney for DJI, compared the identification transmissions to a car license plate. The lack of a license plate is a reason for police to stop a car for a further look while letting cars with proper plates continue to travel by, he said.
Last year, Congress directed the FAA to develop approaches to remotely identifying drone operators and owners, and set deadlines for doing so over the next two years.
Security concerns about civilian drones extend beyond the United States. Regulations have been proposed in Europe regarding technology to enable authorities to remotely identify drones, including by the European Aviation Safety Agency, the FAA’s counterpart. France and Germany have also called for remote identification technology. Italy and Denmark already include identification technologies in regulations that seem not to be enforced because a means of compliance doesn’t yet exist, the DJI paper said.
FAA and drone industry officials have been discussing the possible creation of an online network that could be accessed by a mobile phone so that drone operators can submit flight plans before taking off. Those plans would be available to law enforcement and other government agencies and possibly to the public.
Airlines and other manned aircraft operators already submit flight plans to the FAA in order to receive air traffic control services. In 2011, Congress gave operators the ability to block public access to their plans if they wish.
A remote transmission system is preferable to a network that attempts to track or record the location of all drones in real time, which would be far more complex to develop and would expose the confidential information of drone users, the DJI paper said.
That approach “would result in the collection and access to flight information by people who do not need it, such as far-away business competitors,” Schulman said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/manufacturer-drones-should-transmit-identifier-for-security/2017/03/27/2b80da48-130d-11e7-bb16-269934184168_story.html?utm_term=.363fae84a024
-
Why The Industry Should Fight To Save The Chemical Safety Board
Mar 27, 2017 | Manufacturing.net
By Meagan Parrish
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board has been in a rare place the last few weeks: the spotlight.
Typically, this little-known agency operates in the shadows of major industry disasters, swooping in once the dust has settled to meticulously record and then analyze the sequence of events. Ultimately — sometimes after years of scrutiny — the CSB issues a report and offers recommendations for the industry to help make sure whatever went wrong never happens again.
But this month, the agency was thrust into the public eye after President Donald Trump proposed a 2018 budget that completely cuts the CSB (along with 18 other agencies).
It was baffling to see the CSB on the chopping block. This 50-person agency operates on a shoestring $12 million budget — a pittance compared to other parts of the federal government. And unlike the Environmental Protection Agency, which gets a lot of flak from the industry for regulatory overreach, the CSB isn’t known to stir up too much controversy.
So for a few days, a flurry of articles bubbled up online explaining the role of the CSB and why it matters. One particularly brazen Houston Chronicle headline even proclaimed there would be “Death and Destruction” without the CSB.
This momentary public outcry might not be enough to penetrate budget negotiations, however, and turn the tide back in the CSB’s favor.
For that, industry should step in.Will The Real CSB Please Stand Up?
The CSB doesn’t just provide vital safety guidance for chemical plant and oil rig managers — it also adds another layer of accountability.
Many Americans may not know what the CSB does — but they would, no doubt, be comforted to know that there’s a watchdog out there with chemical plant safety as its prime mission. And if this agency gets nixed, there’s no other body to step in and do its dirty work.
I recently chatted with John Crosman, a process safety expert with Sphera (which develops environmental health and safety software), about the issue and he said he can’t think of any way to create another CSB that could accomplish the same goals.
Theoretically, industry leaders could step in to save the CSB with money — but that’s deeply problematic.
“The Department of Defense probably spends more than the CSB’s budget in a year on toilet paper,” Crosman quipped. “Major chemical and oil and gas producers could easily throw 10 times that amount at it to keep this thing going. But I don’t know if that would work because the issue here is not funding.”
Even if your Dows, DuPonts and BPs of the world kick-started an agency like the CSB, the public would likely never trust the recommendations of a group with corporate backing.
And public trust is exactly what’s at stake here.
The CSB not only investigates accidents, it publishes those results for all to see. Would a multinational be OK if an agency it was giving money to air its dirty laundry and missteps? That’s unlikely.
Crosman also noted that, as an independent agency, the CSB has certain liberties in investigations and access to information that a private enterprise would not share. No matter how you look at it, the CSB can’t be duplicated.
Right now, the CSB cut makes it look like the Trump administration wants to help the chemical industry get away with bad things. I doubt that’s true, of course. (In fact, Crosman even wondered if the line item cut happened on accident).
This is why it’s important to show the public that even though the chemical industry — like all industries — may have accidents, it is committed to learning from them and preventing future catastrophes.
To that end, Crosman suggested that chemical companies lobby hard to make sure the CSB doesn’t go anywhere. Call lawmakers, call industry lobbyists and get the word out that the CSB is a crucial part of the industry’s safety culture.
http://www.manufacturing.net/blog/2017/03/why-industry-should-fight-save-chemical-safety-board
-
Comptroller Seeks Safeguards for Hazardous Rail Shipments
Mar 28, 2017 | AP (In U.S. News & World Report)
New York state's comptroller is urging the Trump administration to strengthen safeguards for trains carrying oil and other hazardous materials.
Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli said Tuesday that he's written to U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao asking her to consider additional safety measures to protect residents and the environment.
DiNapoli's letter cites an incident earlier this month in which a freight train carrying hazardous materials derailed in Newburgh, spilling sulfuric acid.
He says additional safeguards are needed to ensure the safe transport of petroleum and other materials by train, and that rail companies should be required to carry insurance sufficient to cover cleanup costs.
The Democratic comptroller sent a similar letter last year to President Obama's transportation secretary.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/new-york/articles/2017-03-28/comptroller-seeks-safeguards-for-hazardous-rail-shipments
-
(ACC Mentioned) Pruitt Takes Fire from Conservatives in Climate Showdown
Mar 28, 2017 | Politico
By Andrew Restuccia and Alex Guillén
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is coming under fire from conservatives amid a simmering behind-the-scenes fight over how far to take President Donald Trump's push to undo his predecessor's climate change agenda.
In discussions with the White House over the executive order Trump is scheduled to sign on Tuesday, Pruitt successfully argued against including language revoking the agency's 2009 “endangerment finding," according to two sources close to the issue.
The endangerment finding declared that greenhouse gas emissions threaten human health and welfare and made EPA legally responsible for regulating carbon dioxide. It later set in motion much of former President Barack Obama's climate agenda. To many conservative skeptics of mainstream climate science, overturning the finding is an essential first step toward successfully undoing Obama administration climate regulations on everything from power plants to vehicles.
But Pruitt, with the backing of several White House aides, argued in closed-door meetings that the legal hurdles to overturning the finding were massive, and the administration would be setting itself up for a lengthy court battle.
A cadre of conservative climate skeptics are fuming about the decision — expressing their concern to Trump administration officials and arguing Pruitt is setting himself up to run for governor or the Senate. They hope the White House, perhaps senior adviser Stephen Bannon, will intervene and encourage the president to overturn the endangerment finding.
Trump administration officials have not totally ruled out eventually targeting the endangerment finding. Conservative groups have petitioned the EPA to look at reopening it, one source said, and the agency may eventually be compelled to respond to the petition. Axios first reported the news of the petition.
"Getting rid of the Clean Power Plan is just not enough," said Myron Ebell, the director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the former leader of Trump’s EPA transition team.
Ebell warned that leaving the endangerment finding in place would compel the Trump administration to come up with a replacement approach to regulating emissions from power plants and other sources that might not be too dissimilar from Obama's Clean Power Plan.
"Before you know it you end up having to do a Trump Clean Power Plan," he said.
James Delingpole, a Breitbart News columnist, blasted Pruitt on Monday, arguing he is "more interested in building his political career than he is taking on the Green Blob, insiders report." Bannon ran Breitbart before joining the Trump campaign last summer.
Delingpole, who first reported that Pruitt advocated against reopening the endangerment finding, even suggested that the EPA administrator should resign.
"But what President Trump needs now more than ever are administrators with the political will to do the right thing — which is, after all, the reason so many Americans voted for him," he wrote. "If Scott Pruitt is not up to that task, then maybe it’s about time he did the decent thing and handed over the reins to someone who is."
Neither a White House spokesman nor an EPA spokesman responded to a request for comment on this story.
The conservative criticism of Pruitt a marks a major shift. Pruitt, a skeptic of mainstream climate science himself, was hailed by Republicans as a top-notch choice to lead the agency. “I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact,” Pruitt said in a recent interview.
Reopening the endangerment finding is much easier said than done.
Any decision to revoke it would require a lengthy notice-and-comment rulemaking, which would lead to certain litigation brought by environmentalists and states like California and New York. To survive a court challenge, Trump officials would have to prove to a court that greenhouse gases no longer pose a danger — something most observers say would not fly before any judge given the depth of scientific evidence on climate change.
The fracas over the endangerment finding comes amid internal unrest at the EPA.
Pruitt has expressed frustration at the White House's slow pace in nominating deputies to help him carry out the president's agenda, according to a person close to him. The executive order Trump will sign on Tuesday will instruct EPA to begin rewriting Obama's climate regulations for power plants, a process that could be complicated by the agency's barebones staff of political appointees.
The EPA administrator is also facing a massive 31 percent cut to his agency's budget.
Pruitt publicly raised concerns about the White House's initial proposed cuts, which amounted to about a 25 percent reduction, arguing for preserving funding for water grants and the brownfield program. Some White House officials were annoyed by Pruitt's comments, according to a person close to the matter. And the White House then slashed the EPA's budget even further.
Pruitt's first weeks on the job have been marred by personality clashes.
David Schnare, a member of the Trump administration's beachhead team at EPA, resigned from the agency earlier this month in frustration.
Schnare has publicly remained cryptic about his reasons for leaving, saying that the matter is "complex." But he said he was bothered by disloyalty to Trump among both political appointees and career employees at EPA. But Pruitt's allies say Schnare is a disgruntled ex-employee who is unfairly targeting them.
Meanwhile, EPA officials have expressed frustration at the presence of former Washington State Sen. Don Benton, the agency's White House-assigned senior adviser.
Benton is expected to soon leave the agency, multiple sources told POLITICO. And EPA is expected to bring in two new communications staffers, the sources said. The agency is eyeing J.P. Freire, a spokesman for Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), as its new communications director and Liz Bowman, a spokeswoman at the American Chemistry Council, as its deputy communications director. Neither Freire nor Bowman responded to requests for comment.
Anthony Adragna contributed to this story.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/pruitt-climate-change-236572
-
Trump Said to Issue Far-Reaching Reversal of Obama Climate Push
Mar 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
President Donald Trump is set to sign a sweeping executive order March 28 aimed at promoting domestic oil, coal and natural gas by reversing much of his predecessor's efforts to address climate change.
The document lays out a broad blueprint for the Trump administration to dismantle the architecture that former President Barack Obama built to combat the phenomenon, according to details shared with Bloomberg News. Some of the changes will happen immediately, while others will take years to complete.
The order will compel federal agencies to quickly identify any actions that could burden the production or use of domestic energy resources, including nuclear power, and then work to suspend, revise or rescind the policies unless they are legally mandated, are necessary for the public interest or promote development.
It also will toss out two Obama-era directives that gave climate change a prominent role in federal rule making. One advised government agencies to factor climate change into environmental reviews, such as those governing where oil drilling could take place. The other, called the “social cost of carbon,” is a metric reflecting the potential economic damage from climate change that the Obama administration used to justify a suite of regulations.
Pro-Growth
“This is about making sure that we have a pro-growth and pro-environment approach to how we do regulation in this country,” Scott Pruitt, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, said on ABC's “This Week” program March 26.
Trump, who has called climate change a hoax, has vowed to reorient the government so that U.S. oil and coal producers thrive and steel and auto manufacturers don't face “job-killing restrictions.” The coming order underscores Trump's commitment to make good on his campaign promises, which helped propel him to victory in industrial strongholds such as West Virginia and Pennsylvania.
The details shared with Bloomberg News reflected the latest draft of the White House order and could change before the announcement, which Pruitt said would happen March 28.
While the order will make clear that the target of the planned regulatory rollback should be policies curbing the production of oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear energy, it also will say the U.S. is well served when affordable, reliable and clean electricity is produced from an array of sources, including solar, wind and hydropower.
The order also is set to include a targeted assault on a handful of specific Obama-era regulations. It will require the Interior Department to lift a moratorium on the sale of new coal leases on federal land and compel the EPA to review, and, “if appropriate,” begin proceedings to suspend, revise or rescind regulations designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.
Clean Power Plan
Obama's Clean Power Plan was designed to cut carbon dioxide emissions from electricity by 32 percent by 2030 compared to 2005 levels. The initiative has been in legal limbo since the Supreme Court stayed it while it was reviewed by a federal appeals court. The Trump administration now is expected ask that court to put the matter on hold to allow it time to revise or undo the measure—an action environmentalists have vowed to challenge.
Other policies in the crosshairs: an EPA rule setting requirements for greenhouse gas emissions for construction of new power plants and an Interior Department regulation setting mandates on hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas wells on federal lands. The Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management said earlier this month that it will begin the process to rescind the regulation, which requires companies to disclose the chemicals they pump underground and to seal off wastewater in storage tanks.
Revoking Directives
Trump's executive order also is set to revoke six specific directives from his predecessor, including Obama's broad strategy for paring emissions of methane released from oil and gas operations. Other Obama directives targeted for repeal include one on climate change and national security, as well as a pair of directives from June 2013 that laid out his climate plans.
The Obama administration wove climate considerations into decisions across the federal bureaucracy, from efficiency standards for microwave ovens to the refurbishing of government buildings.
Coal Market
The changes may have little immediate impact on the market for coal, which is facing stiff competition from cheaper natural gas and renewable energy, analysts said.
Even before the Obama administration imposed the coal-leasing moratorium in January 2016, producers had little interest in adding new federal reserves to their portfolios amid slumping domestic demand. The U.S. government has sold just one coal leases since October 2012, though earlier this month it approved a transaction originally sought in 2005. Existing federal leases contain at least 20 years’ worth of coal, according to Interior Department estimates.
Even without the EPA's Clean Power Plan in force because of the Supreme Court stay, using coal to generate electricity has been in decline as a result of previous pollution regulations and competition from low-cost natural gas, solar and wind.
Coal's Decline
The removal of the Clean Power Plan could halt coal's decline as a source of electricity during the next two decades, according to projections from the Energy Information Administration. More coal use would mean less natural gas use, EIA said.
Trump's action sets in motion at least a year of bureaucratic work at the EPA to formally dismantle the Clean Power Plan. And whatever happens will inevitably be challenged in court by those same environmental groups.
By contrast, the Interior Department can undo the coal leasing moratorium with the stroke of a pen, the same way it was imposed a year ago, under an administrative order issued by former Interior Secretary Sally Jewell.
Trump's targets also would reduce the role of climate change in government decision-making. For instance, the social cost of carbon metric served as the linchpin for many Obama administration environmental rules. Critics say the number—now nearly $40 for every metric ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere—gives artificial precision to uncertain conditions nearly 300 years in the future.
According to shared details of the executive order, the Trump administration will disband the working group that created the social cost of carbon and return to an earlier 2003 approach for calculating the costs and benefits of proposed regulations.
—With assistance from Jennifer Jacobs.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=108093090&vname=dennotallissues&fn=108093090&jd=108093090
-
Planned Rollback of Climate Rules Unlikely to Achieve All Trump’s Goals
Mar 28, 2017 | New York Times
By Coral Davenport
President Trump is expected to sign an executive order on Tuesday to roll back most of President Barack Obama’s climate change legacy, celebrating the move as a way to increase the nation’s “energy independence” and to restore thousands of lost coal mining jobs.
But energy economists say the expected order falls short of both of those goals — in part because the United States already largely relies on domestic sources for the coal and natural gas that fires most of the nation’s power plants.
“We don’t import coal,” said Robert Stavins, an energy economist at Harvard University. “So in terms of the Clean Power Plan, this has nothing to do with so-called energy independence whatsoever.”
Administration officials said the new order would direct the Environmental Protection Agency to start the legal process of withdrawing and rewriting the Clean Power Plan, Mr. Obama’s climate change policy. Scott Pruitt, the E.P.A. administrator, said in an interview on ABC News on Sunday that it will help the United States “be both pro-jobs and pro-environment” and described it as the “energy independence executive order.”Continue reading the main storyRELATED COVERAGEgraphicA Crack in an Antarctic Ice Shelf Grew 17 Miles in the Last Two Months FEB. 7, 2017Earth Sets a Temperature Record for the Third Straight Year JAN. 18, 2017Large Sections of Australia’s Great Reef Are Now Dead, Scientists Find MARCH 15, 2017
Yet, coal miners also should not assume their jobs will return if Trump’s regulations take effect.
The new order would mean that older coal plants that had been marked for closings would probably stay open, said Robert W. Godby, an energy economist at the University of Wyoming. That would extend the market demand for coal for up to a decade.
But even so, “the mines that are staying open are using more mechanization,” he said. “They’re not hiring people.”
“So even if we saw an increase in coal production, we could see a decrease in coal jobs,” he said.
Legal experts say it could take years for the Trump administration to unwind the Clean Power Plan, which itself has not yet been carried out because it has been temporarily frozen by a Supreme Court order. Those regulations sought to cut planet-warming carbon dioxide pollution from coal-fired power plants. If enacted, they would have shut down hundreds of those plants, frozen construction of future plants and replaced them with wind and solar farms.
Throughout his campaign, Mr. Trump highlighted his support of coal miners, holding multiple rallies in coal country and vowing to restore lost jobs to the flagging industry. At a rally last week in Kentucky, Mr. Trump vowed that his executive order would “save our wonderful coal miners from continuing to be put out of work.”
While the number of coal mining jobs has dropped in the United States, they do not represent a significant portion of the American economy. Coal companies employed about 65,971 miners in 2015, down from 87,755 in 2008, according to Energy Department statistics.
And though the percentage of coal mining jobs dropped sharply, economists said that was not driven by the Clean Power Plan. Rather, they blamed two key forces: an increase in production of natural gas, which is a cheaper, cleaner-burning alternative to coal, and an increase in automation, which allowed coal companies to produce more fuel with fewer employees. The rollback of Mr. Obama’s regulations will not change either of those forces, economists say.
“The problem with coal jobs has not been CO2regulations, so this will probably not bring back coal jobs,” Mr. Godby said. “The problem has been that there has not been market demand for coal.”
The coal industry nonetheless cheered the move.
“These actions are vital to the American coal industry, to our survival, and to getting some of our coal families back to work,” said Robert E. Murray, the chief executive of Murray Energy, one of the nation’s largest coal mining companies.
But even Mr. Murray conceded that he did not expect the Trump administration’s order to return coal mining numbers to their former strength. “I really don’t know how far the coal industry can be brought back,” he said.
Mr. Trump’s directive on Tuesday will also eliminate about a half-dozen of Mr. Obama’s smaller executive orders and memorandums related to combating climate change.
White House officials said they included lifting a ban on new coal mining on federal lands, and recalculating a budgeting metric known as the social cost of carbon that, under the Obama administration, limited pollution by arguing that global warming outweighed economic benefits for industries. Combined, while the measures may not revive the coal industry, they are likely to ensure the United States’ emissions of planet-warming pollution remain high.
The executive order is not expected to address the United States’ participation in the 2015 Paris Agreement, the landmark accord that committed nearly every country to take steps to reduce pollution. The aim of the Paris deal is to ensure that countries reduce emissions enough to stave off a warming of the planet by 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, the level at which, experts say, the Earth will be irrevocably locked into a future of extreme droughts, flooding, and food and water shortages.
But experts say Mr. Trump’s order signals that the United States will not meet its pledges to cut its emissions about 26 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.
“Meeting the U.S. terms of the Paris Agreement would require full enforcement of the current regulations, plus additional regulations,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a climate scientist at Princeton University. “It takes a comprehensive effort involving every country doing what they committed to and more.”
He said Mr. Trump’s order “sends a signal to other countries that they might not have to meet their commitments — which would mean that the world would fail to stay out of the climate danger zone.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/climate/planned-rollback-of-climate-rules-unlikely-to-achieve-all-trumps-goals.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront
-
High Court Appeal Challenges EPA Bar on Facility Malfunction Air Waivers
Mar 27, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
An electric utility is asking the Supreme Court to force EPA to end its “absurd” Obama-era policy prohibiting waivers from Clean Air Act emissions limits for accidental air pollution releases due to facility malfunctions, using an appeal of a case over EPA's boiler air toxics rule as the vehicle for the broader push to undo the policy.
American Municipal Power (AMP), a wholesale power generator, petitioned the high court March 23 to hear its appeal of the July 29 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that partially upheld EPA's maximum achievable control technology (MACT) rule for “major source” industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) boilers. The D.C. Circuit modified that decision and denied petitions for rehearing Dec. 23.
AMP in the petition for a writ of certiorari says that the boiler decision in U.S. Sugar Corp., et al. v. EPA, et al. -- which upheld EPA's prohibition on emissions limit waivers for pollution associated with malfunctions -- is based on what it calls a flawed ruling by the D.C. Circuit in the 2008 case Sierra Club v. EPA, which found unlawful blanket regulatory exemptions for excess emissions during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM).
Since the Sierra Club ruling EPA has been working to scrap SSM provisions from its various rulemakings, and to bar such exemptions from new rules. But AMP in the petition to the high court says the precedent has forced EPA to write rules that are “impossible” to achieve, such as the ICI boiler MACT air rule.
“We are asking the Supreme Court to take a fresh look at how unavoidable malfunctions should be treated under the Clean Air Act. Under the view we are asking the Supreme Court to adopt, the EPA standards would offer an achievable path to compliance for our affected members. We do not believe Congress intended for anything other than perfection to result in a violation of the law,” AMP says in a March 23 statement.
“Accidents happen,” AMP says in its petition. “Outlawing accidents, like outlawing the weather, serves no legitimate purpose. Yet, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals has painted EPA into that very corner where accidents have been made unlawful. The Clean Air Act does not require or support this absurd result.”
AMP says that the D.C. Circuit's rulings have forced EPA to eliminate any allowance for malfunctions in the air toxics rules it issues under air law section 112(d), when the law explicitly regulates accidental emissions through a separate provision, section 112(r).
“Accidental releases are prevented, detected, and mitigated through rigorous preparation and planning requirements separately imposed under Section 112(r),” the company says. But the D.C. Circuit “missed this key distinction” in Sierra Club in 2008, and as a result, “cities and businesses that own or operate boilers that malfunction for reasons outside of their control automatically violate federal law enforceable by the government and private citizen plaintiffs.”
'Accidental Releases'
AMP in its petition says industry should be able to rely on section 112 (r) and “general duty” provisions to take all reasonable steps to avoid malfunctions, and hence escape liability for accidental releases. Seeking to avoid a “scourge” of private lawsuits, AMP advocates reliance on the “general duty to prevent and minimize accidental releases” which “is enforceable only by EPA, not by private plaintiffs filing citizen suits.”
Citing “thousands” of industrial sources at risk of EPA enforcement action and citizen suits, AMP says, “Without relief, this significant error will infect other Section 112 standards imposing impossible compliance responsibility on virtually all cities and businesses regulated under this program.”
EPA is currently under court order to complete within three years 33 Clean Air Act section 112 risk and technology reviews, under which the agency must review existing MACT standards. If EPA finds “residual” risks to health from emissions, or new, cost-effective air control technology, or both, it can tighten the standards.
In recent RTR rules, EPA has been removing SSM exemptions regardless of health risks or technological advancements, in order to comply with D.C. Circuit precedent.
It is unclear how the Trump EPA under new Administrator Scott Pruitt will view the issue of SSM exemptions. However, as attorney general of Oklahoma, Pruitt sued EPA over numerous rules including air toxics standards for utility boilers, and also over an EPA rule forcing states to drop SSM waivers from their air plans.
Based on the D.C. Circuit rulings, the Obama EPA not only pursued a policy of removing all SSM exemptions from its rules, but also issued a rule requiring 36 states to remove similar provisions from their state implementation plans for Clean Air Act compliance. That rule is now under litigation by industry groups in Walter Coke, et al. v. EPA, et al., scheduled for oral argument in the D.C. Circuit May 8.
Environmentalists, meanwhile, have been strong in their insistence that emissions standards should apply at all times, pointing toward some air toxics sources that suffer dozens of “upset” or “malfunction” events a year that they say are in fact the result of poor maintenance, and hence preventable.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/high-court-appeal-challenges-epa-bar-facility-malfunction-air-waivers
-
EPA Reschedules Hearing on Expanding Ozone Transport Area
Mar 27, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA has rescheduled for April 13 its public hearing in Washington, D.C., on nine East Coast states' petition for the agency to add an additional nine states to the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) area, which is subject stricter pollution controls than elsewhere.
Originally scheduled for March 14 but postponed because of bad weather, the hearing will allow public comment on the Obama EPA's January proposal to deny the petition.
Given the Obama administration's view that OTC expansion provides a poor method to combat interstate pollution, it appears unlikely that the Trump EPA, which has an explicit deregulatory agenda, would view the issue differently. Some of the states on the list for addition to the OTC are home to manufacturing and key constituencies that President Donald Trump won in the November election, where heavier environmental regulation would be unwelcome.
Filed in 2013 by current OTC members Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont, the petition asked EPA to dramatically expand the OTC area, which includes the nine petitioning states states, as well as Maine, New Jersey, the northern part of Virginia, and Washington, D.C.
EPA is also extending the deadline for written comments until May 15, the agency says in a Federal Register notice slated for publication March 28.
The petitioning states argue that curbing ozone in their jurisdictions also requires reductions of ozone-forming emissions from Midwestern and Southern states upwind. They therefore urged EPA to expand the OTC area to include Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia, and the rest of Virginia.
However, the Obama EPA proposed to deny the petition, filed under Clean Air Act Section 176(A), because it said the air law offers other, better mechanisms to address interstate ozone transport.
One such mechanism is the law's “good neighbor” provision, which requires upwind states to craft plans to mitigate their emissions that provide a “significant contribution” to problems attaining federal air standards downwind. Another is the air law's section 126, which allows downwind states to petition EPA to directly regulate specific pollution sources in upwind states.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-reschedules-hearing-expanding-ozone-transport-area
-
California's Clean-Air Problem Is a Lot Bigger Than Just Trump
Mar 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By John Lippert, Joe Ryan and Mark Chediak
No state is tougher on dirty air than California. How tough? So tough that, if trends hold, it may fall short of its own goals.
As President Donald Trump moves to roll back decades worth of regulation, the Golden State has positioned itself as America's bulwark of environmental protection. The reality behind that is complex, and not only because the Trump administration has signaled it wants to put the brakes on California's climate-change fight. A chorus of skeptics is warning a new state objective— to slash greenhouse-gas emissions by 40 percent from 1990—could simply be out of reach, no matter what Washington does.
Time is short: A law Governor Jerry Brown signed in September allows just 13 years to get there.
“Is it physically possible for California to meet its goal? Yes,” said James Sweeney, director of Stanford University's Precourt Energy Efficiency Center. “Is it economically likely? No.”
Even if power plants, ports, farms and factories continue to reduce toxic output, there's little chance of hitting the target without an explosion in green cars and trucks. Fewer than 4 percent in California are zero-emission or plug-in hybrids now, and only because state rules demand it. To get to the 2030 mark, the share may well have to grow tenfold, with an emphasis on electric models like those from Tesla Inc. And no automaker has made selling so-called EVs a reliably profitable business.
“There is not a natural level of EV demand that is anywhere close to what California is seeking,” said Eric Noble, president of the CarLab, a product-development consulting firm, who has called state policies “a train wreck.”
California regulators and politicians hardly see it that way, pointing to technological advances that are cutting alternative-car production costs and a flood of new no-emission models coming down the pike. Anyway, they don't pretend what they're trying to do could be accomplished naturally, without government intervention.
That was the clear message last week, when the powerful California Air Resources Board voted unanimously to maintain strict tailpipe-emissions limitations and set the stage to begin drafting rules to significantly raise the green-vehicle mix bar for the industry.
“We've made incredible strides in improving the air quality, in improving mileage efficiency, not just for California but for Americans,” said state Senate President Kevin de Leon, a Democrat. This hasn't happened because of private-sector decisions; “it's because of policy.”
For almost two decades, automakers have had to market some nonpolluting cars and trucks to avoid paying big fines to the state. As it is, companies have until 2025 to make 15 percent of sales either plug-in hybrids like Toyota Motor Corp.’s Prius Prime or cars powered by batteries or fuel cells. The new regulations CARB is writing may boost that—to 40 percent by 2030.
With incentives and restrictions, the state is confident it can make the mark, said CARB Chairman Mary Nichols. “We have the technical and legal ability.”
The last part is true for now. Trump—who has called California “out of control”—may go after the state's special authority under the 1970 Clean Air Act to make its own pollution and greenhouse-gas rules. The wavier allows other states to adopt the California doctrine; nine have, and all told they make up close to 30 percent of the U.S. car market.
A White House official said a decision on the waiver will come after a review the president has ordered of the stringent national fuel-economy and emissions standards that Barack Obama set and the industry asked a receptive Trump to loosen.
De Leon said the expectation is that Washington will move to revoke the state's privilege. “Then we'll see each other in court.”
California—which accounts for one in every eight U.S. vehicle sales—has long led the clean-air charge. Facing the nation's worst smog problem, it began enacting anti-pollution laws in 1959. The first comprehensive measure to combat climate change came in 2006, under Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Enterprises across the state, from oil wells to dairy farms, faced new restrictions. And carbon emissions fell. They totaled 445 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent in 2010, beating the Schwarzenegger law's target for that year of 465.9 million, the level in 2000. In 2014, the last year for which CARB has released data, the number was 441.5 million, showing progress toward the law's 2020 goal of getting to 431.5 million, the 1990 level.
The statute signed by Brown, a Democrat, moved the goalposts way out: Emissions will have to plummet to 260 million. C02 warriors insist this can happen by the end of 2030. “What we are going to do in California in the next few years will be transformational,” de Leon said.
That's the mantra—no matter the current lackluster sales of most green vehicles. When General Motors Co. began selling its Bolt EV in December, it expected to lose $9,000 on each one, people familiar with the situation said. To unload its Leaf electric model, Nissan Motor Co. has had to give discounts worth just over half the $36,000 sticker price, according to TrueCar Inc. analyst Eric Lyman. Nissan declined to comment, except to say government rebates have helped make the Leaf the top-selling EV worldwide.
The industry is making some strides that could put EVs on equal footing with gas guzzlers in manufacturing. Battery-cell costs, for instance, have fallen to the point that they're no longer an impediment to mass adoption, according to Sam Jaffe of Cairn Energy Research Advisors.
And Jaffe is bullish about California—short-term. He said zero-emission vehicle penetration could hit 22.1 percent by 2025. Getting to 40 percent in the state in the five years after that will be a slog. It'll be even more difficult in the nine states that follow California's lead; their residents are buying ZEVs at a fifth of the Golden State's rate, according to IHS Markit.
The good news for California's chances to hit its target is that some companies are ramping up. Tesla has pledged to quintuple production to 5,000 electric cars a week by the end of the year. Volkswagen AG predicts EVs will make up a quarter of sales by 2025. Toyota plans to rid its lineup of almost all combustible-engine products by 2050. Chinese companies are hustling; that country, grappling with crippling air pollution, is boosting EV requirements and incentives in a new-vehicle market that's already 55 percent bigger than America's.
Outside the U.S., governments that see carbon pollution as a threat are intensifying pressure on automakers. They recognize what the future holds. “Everybody wants to see vehicle electrification succeed,” said Robert Bienenfeld, assistant vice president for environmental and energy strategy at Honda Motor Co., “because it's the global long-term trend.’’
The trick for California is to compel it into a very short-term one.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=108093091&vname=dennotallissues&fn=108093091&jd=108093091
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested