Preview Newsletter
AM ACC Clips Report- Sunday
-
Hearing On Energy Cybersecurity
Apr 4, 2017 | Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
Location: Dirksen 366 / 10:00 AM. -
Hearing On Multi-Modal Transportation
Apr 4, 2017 | Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Mari
Location: 253 Russell / 2:30 PM -
(ACC Mention) Chemical Industry Back on Track: Stocks Worth a Look
Mar 31, 2017 | Zacks (In Nasdaq)
By
The chemical industry is back on the growth path after being stuck in a rut, making it an attractive investment proposition for 2017. -
Peta Objects To TSCA Re-Prioritisation Proposal
Apr 3, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The NGO People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) has written to US EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt expressing concern with the agency's proposed 'pre-prioritisation' approach under the new TSCA. -
(ACC Mention) Our Sperm Are In Trouble, And Governments Are Ignoring An Epidemic
Apr 2, 2017 | Swarajaya
By Patrick Chougule
The sperm density of American males may be declining at a rate of 1.5 per cent per year. -
Draft EPA Ban On TCE Uses Prompts Competing Claims Over Plan's Merits
Mar 31, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA's proposed rule seeking to ban certain uses of the solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) is prompting competing claims over the merits of the plan, with some business groups calling it unjustified and urging its withdrawal while others including worker safety groups say the benefits of the ban will be greater than EPA projects. -
EPA’s Ban On High-Risk Uses Of Trichloroethylene Needs To Get Over The Finish Line
Apr 3, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jennifer McPartland
Trichloroethylene, or TCE for short, is a very toxic chemical. No doubt about it. Among other health effects, TCE is known to cause cancer and interfere with development. -
Take-Home Beryllium Exposure Case Revived
Apr 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
A Pennsylvania woman may proceed with negligence claims against Accuratus Corp. for exposure to beryllium on her then-boyfriend's work clothing, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled March 30 (Schwartz v. Accuratus Corp., 2017 BL 103185, E.D. Pa., No. 12-cv-06189, 3/30/17 -
Study Identifies Culprit of Naturally Occurring Toxic Marine Chemicals
Apr 2, 2017 | Chem.Info
By Andy Szal
A newly released study suggests that a common — and toxic — flame retardant chemical is produced naturally by bacteria that live in tropical-dwelling sponges. -
EU Member States Back CMR Substance Restrictions
Apr 3, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
EU member states have voted to unanimously approve the addition of 25 carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic (CMR) substances to REACH Annex XVII – the restricted substances list. -
(ACC Mention) China, EU Reaffirm Commitment As U.S. Backs Out
Apr 1, 2017 | Normangee Star
By Madeline Patrick
Even though Trump’s supporters believe the move will create thousands of new jobs in the gas, oil and coal sectors, environmentalists lambasted it as a unsafe and embarrassing attempt to revive the American coal industry. -
Judge Overturns $4.24M Award In Alleged Fracking Pollution Case
Apr 2, 2017 | The Hill
By Timothy Cama
A federal judge Friday overturned a $4.24 million jury award in a landmark case regarding alleged groundwater pollution from hydraulic fracturing. -
EPA Tells Scott, Governors Not To Take Action In Power Plant Rule
Apr 3, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Bruce Ritchie
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has sent a letter to Florida Gov. Rick Scott and the governors of other states saying they are not required to take action on the previous administration's federal rule dealing with power plants. -
As US LNG Volumes Increase, Trading Optionality Expands
Apr 3, 2017 | Platts
By Chris Pedersen
The optionality of US LNG, combined with a growing trend for more LNG to be traded on a shorter term basis, has presented an opportunity for the market to expand the way LNG is traded. In response to these market trends and growing US LNG exports volumes, the Intercontinental Exchange will list a US Gulf Coast LNG futures contract for trading beginning on trade date May 4, subject to the completion of necessary regulatory processes. -
Industry Groups Thank Trump For Rescinding Final Guidance on GHG Emissions in NEPA Reviews
Mar 31, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
A pair of industry organizations said a provision within President Trump's executive order (EO) that calls for sweeping changes in the energy sector could help companies looking to build interstate natural gas pipelines or liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects. -
Belle Fourche Pipeline Idle as Agency Disputes Spill's Cause
Apr 3, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
A federal agency is not convinced the operators of the Belle Fourche pipeline in North Dakota have found the root cause of a December crude oil spill. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Plant Rule Could Be Kicked Back by Nearly Two Years
Apr 3, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
Companies could have nearly two years to avoid complying with new chemical facility regulations under a new EPA action—the latest in a series of administrative delays that have drawn scrutiny from Democratic lawmakers. -
EPA Proposes Further 20-Month Delay For Facility Safety Rule
Apr 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA is proposing to delay by an additional 20 months -- from June 19 to Feb. 19, 2019 -- the effective date of the Obama administration's final rule overhauling the agency's industrial facility accident prevention program, citing the need for more time to weigh potential revisions to the rule in response to requests from industry and some states. -
EPA Seeks To Delay Chemical Safety Rule For Second Time
Mar 31, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is attempting to delay implementation of a safety rule for chemical plants for the second time this month. -
Senators To Tackle Hacking Defenses
Apr 3, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Blake Sobczak
Senators are set to review the energy sector's online defenses tomorrow, marking the second time in a week that members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee have examined hacking threats to the U.S. power grid. -
Bill To Toughen Rules Around Oil Transport Clears Key Hurdle
Mar 31, 2017 | AP ( In PennEnergy)
A House bill aimed at increasing the safety around oil transportation on land and water has cleared a key committee. -
Trump's EPA Chief Says There Is Warming Trend: 'The Real Issue Is How Much We Contribute To It'
Apr 2, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Rebecca Savransky
The new head of the Environmental Protection Agency on Sunday said the "real issue" is how much human activity affects the climate changing. -
EPA Expands List Of Ecological Harms From Three Air Pollutants
Apr 3, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA in its first draft science assessment in support of its ongoing review of “secondary,” or welfare-based national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx) and particulate matter (PM) is expanding the list of ecological damages caused by emissions of the three criteria pollutants. -
Faced With Budget Cuts, Pruitt Emphasizes States' Role
Apr 3, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Kevin Bogardus
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said yesterday that his agency, which President Trump is targeting for massive budget cuts, will look to states to take on a greater role in environmental protection. -
Science Watchdog Investigating Pruitt's CO2 Remarks
Apr 3, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Hess
U.S. EPA Science Integrity Official Francesca Grifo is reviewing whether Administrator Scott Pruitt violated policy with his remarks that carbon dioxide is not the main contributor to climate change. -
EPA Strikes Guidance To States On Clean Power Plan
Apr 3, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The EPA launched its first strike on the Obama administration's carbon dioxide standards for power plants by quashing proposals that would have aided states in implementing the rule and rewarded early compliance. -
Hedging Against Court Approval Of CPP, EPA Withdraws Related Proposals
Mar 31, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
EPA, as it initiates review of its power plant greenhouse gas rules, appears to be hedging against the limited possibility that a federal appellate court will issue a ruling upholding the existing plant rule -- withdrawing several pending proposals for related programs and rules and emphasizing it intends to delay any deadlines that become relevant. -
State AGs Warn FY18 Budget Will Hinder Enforcement, Hurt Public Health
Apr 3, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Anthony Lacey
Attorneys general (AGs) from 12 states and the District of Columbia are urging House and Senate appropriators to reject President Donald Trump's proposed 31 percent cut to EPA's fiscal year 2018 budget from $8.1 billion to $5.7 billion, saying it would hinder federal and state enforcement of environmental laws and create public health risks.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Hearing On Energy Cybersecurity
Apr 4, 2017 | Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
-
Hearing On Multi-Modal Transportation
Apr 4, 2017 | Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Mari
-
(ACC Mention) Chemical Industry Back on Track: Stocks Worth a Look
Mar 31, 2017 | Zacks (In Nasdaq)
By
The chemical industry is back on the growth path after being stuck in a rut, making it an attractive investment proposition for 2017. Strength in the automotive sector and a rebound in non-residential construction and housing markets have helped pull the industry out of its funk, notwithstanding a persistently challenging global economic environment.
Despite a few industry-related headwinds, weak demand across agricultural and energy markets and sluggishness in China, there are a number of reasons to be optimistic about the broader chemical industry for both the short and long haul. Let's find out what's supporting the bullish case for chemical stocks.
Shale Bounty - Driving Force for Chemical Spending
The shale gas revolution in the U.S. has been a huge driving force behind chemical investment on plants and equipment in the country. According to the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the U.S. has emerged as an attractive investment location and petrochemical makers are now significantly expanding capacity in the country leveraging new supplies of natural gas. New methods of extraction such as horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (or fracking) are boosting shale production, bringing down prices of ethane (derived from shale gas) in the process.
The shale boom has incentivized a number of chemical companies to pump in billions of dollars for setting up facilities (crackers) in the U.S. to produce ethylene and propylene in a cost-effective way. Per the ACC, over 275 new chemical projects have been announced by chemical makers (worth more than $170 billion) since 2010, nearly half of which already complete or under construction. Such investments -- many backed by Federal government support -- are expected to boost capacity and export over the next several years.
Automotive - Healthy Run Continues
Chemical makers continue to see healthy demand from the automotive sector -- a major end-use market. The sector is enjoying the fruits of low fuel prices. The last two years have been exceptional for the auto sector. Sales in the U.S. saw record highs in both years, while sales in China and Europe also gained strength.
U.S. light vehicles (a key end-user market for chemicals) continued to show strength in 2016, supported by an improving job market, rising personal income, improved consumer confidence, low fuel prices and attractive financing options. A high average age of cars on the U.S. roads is also fueling replacement demand for cars. U.S. sales of new cars and trucks hit a record high of 17.55 million in 2016, rising 0.4% from 2015's record of 17.47 million.
According to IHS Markit, global light vehicle sales are expected to increase 1.5% year over year to 93.5 million units in 2017. Moreover, IHS Markit sees U.S. light vehicle sales to reach 17.4 million units in 2017 -- a slight moderation compared with the 2016 level, but still looks poised for another strong year.
Low interest rates, favorable financing and cheap oil have also backed a recovery in the European auto market. The auto industry in Asian countries, especially China, is also expected to thrive over the next several years. Healthy momentum in the automotive space augurs well for chemical demand in this important end-market.
A Rebound in Construction Sector
A recovery across housing and commercial construction -- major chemical end-markets -- has been another supporting factor for the chemical industry recovery. After being hit hard in the recession, the construction sector has bounced back on the back of strong housing fundamentals.
The underlying demand trends in the housing space remain strong, supported by an improving employment levels, affordable interest/mortgage rates and a rise in income levels. The year 2016 was reasonably good for the housing market, and the momentum is expected to continue this year.
Recent housing data has been fairly upbeat with U.S. housing starts scaling a four-month high in February, buoyed by construction of single-family houses that rose 6.5% to reach its highest level in nearly a decade. Housing starts rose 3% to a seasonally adjusted annualized rate of 1.29 million units in February, per the Commerce Department. Homebuilding was up 6.2% year over year for the month. These data paint an upbeat picture for U.S. homebuilding.
The renewal of long-stalled construction projects and long awaited access to credit from lending institutions has also helped invigorate the commercial construction sector. U.S. architecture firm billings continue to rise. The US Architecture Billings Index (ABI), an indicator that offers a glimpse into the future of U.S. non-residential construction spending activity, clocked 50.7 in February 2017 (a reading above 50 indicates an increase in billings), up from 49.5 in January.
Moreover, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) expects healthy growth in non-residential construction spending this year based on strong growth expectations for hotels, office space and retail. The AIA sees spending to go up 5.6% in 2017 and 4.9% in 2018.
Trump's $1 Trillion Spending Boost
The U.S. chemical industry is expected to be one of the key beneficiaries of Donald Trump's presidency. Chemical stocks got a boost following Trump's election win in November on expectations of significant infrastructure spending in a Trump administration.
Trump has pledged to pump $1 trillion of new infrastructure spending into the U.S. economy, aimed at fixing America's "crumbling" infrastructure. The president has called on Congress to pass a bill that would produce a $1 trillion investment in the national infrastructure to rebuild roads, bridges and other public infrastructure, and create millions of new jobs.
The president's call for the massive infrastructure spending -- one of his key campaign promises -- is likely to have a beneficial effect on the U.S. chemical industry given the expected increase in demand for chemicals used in construction.
Chemical Bonding - M&A Gathering Steam
Chemical makers remain actively focused on mergers and acquisitions to diversify and shore up growth in a still-difficult global economic environment. The industry saw a pick-up in consolidation activities in 2015 and the momentum continued in 2016.
Chemical companies are increasingly looking for cost synergy opportunities and enhanced operational scale through consolidations. The $130 billion mega-merger of Dow Chemical (DOW) and DuPont (DD) -- the biggest chemical deal ever -- is a huge testimony to these strategic moves.
Other major deals that have taken place in the chemical space in the recent past include Albemarle Corp.'s (ALB) $6.2 billion buyout of Rockwood Holdings, Inc., Merck KGaA's $17 billion acquisition of Sigma-Aldrich, ChemChina's proposed $43 billion acquisition of Syngenta (SYT), and the $66 billion proposed merger between Monsanto Company (MON) and Bayer AG.
Strategic Measures
Chemical companies continue to shift their focus on high-growth markets (driven by megatrends) in an effort to cut their exposure on other businesses that are struggling with weak demand and input costs pressure. Moreover, cost-cutting measures -- including plant closures and headcount reduction -- and productivity improvement actions by chemical companies are expected to yield industry-wide margin improvements. Several chemical makers are also disposing non-core assets as they shift their focus on high-margin businesses.
Stocks Worth Betting On Right Now
As you can see from the above-mentioned factors, there are many reasons to be optimistic about the chemical industry. Chemical stocks that are well placed in the current operating backdrop include Univar Inc. (UNVR), KMG Chemicals, Inc. (KMG) and Kronos Worldwide, Inc. (KRO), each sporting a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy), as well as The Chemours Company (CC) and Albemarle Corp., both carrying a Zacks Rank #2 (Buy). You can see the complete list of today's Zacks #1 Rank stocks here .
Univar has gained around 72% over a year. The stock has a long-term expected earnings per share (EPS) growth rate of roughly 9.4%. Earnings estimates for the current year have been revised 42.9% upward over the last 60 days.
KMG Chemicals has gained nearly 83% over a year. The stock's earnings estimates for the current year have been revised 11.5% upward over the last 60 days. It has an expected earnings growth of 25.8% for the current year.
Kronos has gained around 176% over the past one year. Earnings estimates for the current year have been revised 122% upward over the last 60 days. The stock has an expected earnings growth of 159.1% for the current year.
Chemours has a long-term expected EPS growth rate of roughly 15.5%. Earnings estimates for the current year have been revised 15.7% upward over the last 60 days. The stock has gained a whopping 402% over the past one year.
Albemarle has gained roughly 64% over a year. The stock's earnings estimates for the current year have been revised 4.3% upward over the last 60 days. It has a long-term expected EPS growth rate of roughly 13.8%.
(Check out our latest Chemical Industry Outlook for a more detailed discussion on the fundamental trends.)
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/chemical-industry-back-on-track-stocks-worth-a-look-cm768575#ixzz4d5n38z7b
-
Peta Objects To TSCA Re-Prioritisation Proposal
Apr 3, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The NGO People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) has written to US EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt expressing concern with the agency's proposed 'pre-prioritisation' approach under the new TSCA.
As laid out in the proposed TSCA prioritisation rule, the step would allow the EPA to identify a pool of potential candidate substances and gather additional data on them before the formal prioritisation process.
The EPA says this phase is necessary, despite its not being required under the Lautenberg Act, to ensure it has sufficient data before beginning the time-sensitive risk evaluation process.
But Peta says it will insert a new screening process that will require manufacturers to conduct "extensive toxicity testing" before the agency has even designated it a priority for risk evaluation.
"As noted in numerous public comments submitted, this 'pre-prioritisation' step, which our legislators never intended, would produce paralysing uncertainty in the regulated community", it adds.
The NGO urged Mr Pruitt to allocate funds to support initiatives that reduce animal use, such as those from the Office of Research and Development (ORD), the National Center for Computational Toxicology (NCCT), the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) and the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT).
https://chemicalwatch.com/54847/peta-objects-to-tsca-pre-prioritisation-proposal
-
(ACC Mention) Our Sperm Are In Trouble, And Governments Are Ignoring An Epidemic
Apr 2, 2017 | Swarajaya
By Patrick Chougule
The sperm density of American males may be declining at a rate of 1.5 per cent per year. Yet even amid an historic expansion of government’s role in health care, male infertility has merited little discussion in mainstream discourse. Federal and state governments are conspicuously absent in identifying the drivers of male infertility. Nor are they facilitating access to many of the most promising therapies.
Such restraint from an otherwise expanding regulatory state is intriguing – and it is particularly noteworthy given that male infertility is considered a “fundamental biomarker of overall male health” and a barometer for male outcomes in American society generally.
A meta-analysis published in the British Medical Journal determined that between 1938 and 1990, American men suffered a “genuine decline in semen quality” – results that suggest “an overall reduction in male fertility.” After the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began to include men in its National Survey of Family Growth, agency surveys, based on data collected between 2006 and 2010, concluded that 12 per cent of American men between the ages of 25 and 44 suffered from some form of infertility. Some 10 per cent used infertility services.
And yet Obamacare, the most significant overhaul of American health care since the 1960s, was silent on federal mandates for infertility coverage. Only six states in turn have proceeded to mandate male infertility evaluation or treatment.
Three factors seem to be influencing the government’s involvement on the issue: industry influence, attitudes towards alternative medicine and a reluctance to litigate policy choices that are jeopardising male well-being.
Industry lobbies and agency capture: BPA as a case study
To understand the government’s role in the male-infertility saga, one must dig into the most common cause of male infertility – problems in sperm production, maturation and fertilisation. Experts continue to debate the precise reasons behind declining sperm quality, but a common suspect in the literature is the endocrine-disrupting chemical bisphenol-A (BPA.)
BPA is difficult to regulate because the toxin is everywhere. Introduced into commercial use in the 1950s, BPA is a plastic additive that allows a wide array of goods to be produced at low costs. The BPA industry, on track to cross $20 billion in revenues by 2020, has already put the chemical in hundreds of household objects including plastic containers, eyeglasses and canned foods and beverages. BPA was found in the urine of 93 per cent of a survey population tested by the CDC between 2003 and 2004.
While BPA toxicity is a threat to the population generally, it may be a particular concern for male fertility. According to some experts, males may be more sensitive to environmental factors – and BPA specifically, as Dr Theo Colborn, a pioneer in the field, discovered, tends to inflict the most damage on the young. Consistent with other animal and human studies, a 2011 study in the journal Fertility and Sterility found that, when compared to men without detectable urine BPA levels, “men with environmental BPA exposure at levels comparable with those in the U.S. population” had:“more than three times the risk of lowered sperm concentration and lower sperm vitality”“more than four times the risk of lower sperm count” and“more than twice the risk of lower sperm motility”
These and other studies suggest that while nearly all American males, compared to past generations, may be at greater risk for BPA-related declines in sperm quality, the threat is particularly acute for those with heightened environmental exposure and/or predisposing factors.
Dogged by questions since the 1970s about BPA’s safety, industry groups, backed by corporations such as Alcoa, Coca-Cola, and Del Monte Foods, have undertaken a sophisticated lobbying effort to thwart regulatory limitations on their products. Their playbook is modelled on past efforts by big tobacco and is being carried out by the same “product defence consultants” who went to bat for asbestos and Agent Orange. Between 2005 and 2011, the American Chemistry Council spent more than $9.4 million on lobbying efforts in California alone, and donated an additional $50,000 in direct contributions to state lawmakers’ campaign accounts.
The BPA industry is overseeing a long-term strategy, rallying against bills even when BPA is not directly implicated. The goal is twofold. One is to pre-empt precedents that could galvanise a consumer safety movement directed at BPA exposure. Another is to establish an unreachable standard of proof that, by discrediting specific testing methods, effectively undermines the entire process of safety testing.
In these battles, the BPA lobby has found a convenient, if unsurprising, ally: the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). As evidence of BPA’s safety, the industry has invoked the “FDA’s authority” and the “scientific assessment” of its experts. Why? Under existing FDA guidelines, academic research often gets “second billing to industry and government studies.” In the name of vague “data quality standards,” cutting-edge academic research is frequently disregarded while studies in labs financed by the BPA industry are used to inform government safety assessments.
Suspicions that FDA officials cater to the BPA industry have grown under recent administrations. In 2008, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel discovered that an FDA report affirming the safety of BPA was “written largely by the plastics industry and others with a financial stake” in the chemical. The FDA findings were, let’s just say, debatable. While about 90 per cent of the more than 100 independently funded experiments on BPA at the time saw “evidence of adverse health effects at levels similar to human exposure,” all 14 industry-funded studies reached the opposite conclusion.
The Sentinel report prompted legislative hearings. Iowa’s Republican Sen Chuck Grassley accused the FDA of being a “business partner with industry,” while Michigan’s Democratic congressman John Dingell lashed out at the “supposedly reputable scientists” getting “paid to cast doubt on valid scientific data that raise public-health concerns about everyday products.” Still, despite the fact that Congress, under the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, had mandated the FDA to screen endocrine-disrupting chemicals, the agency refused to screen even one chemical.
Little changed in 2014 when the FDA, under the oversight of President Obama’s Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, vetted 161 new studies on the potential health effects of BPA. The agency ultimately deemed only four studies to be compelling enough to consult in setting safety standards. Not one of them acknowledged harmful effects from small doses of BPA. FDA officials meanwhile routinely left government to accept jobs at the very industries they once regulated. According to Dr Michael Carome of Public Citizen, the FDA consistently “succumbed to industry and political pressures.”
The BPA industry is only one of many suspected drivers of male infertility that aggressively lobby legislatures and pursue agency capture. Governments face similar obstacles in investigating and regulating other products linked to male infertility, among them: alcohol, beef, electromagnetic fields, fluoride, heavy metals, pesticides, soy, pharmaceutical drugs and xenoestrogens.
Ignorance and regulation of promising alternative therapies
Even if the government is unwilling to battle powerful industries, why isn’t it facilitating access to innovative treatments? Part of the reason may be that the most promising therapies for male infertility appear to be in the realm of alternative rather than allopathic medicine. Efforts to expand access to integrative treatments, however, tend to provoke resistance from a medical establishment that has generally remained ignorant and/or sceptical of alternative approaches.
A notable example is traditional Chinese medicine. It was only in 1986 that large-scale clinical trials for male infertility, reported in Chinese medical journals, began in large numbers to be abstracted into English. Even today, translations of whole articles are generally obtained by request from translators, a process that perhaps would be less cumbersome if government agencies and the health-care industry took more interest in these studies.
Obamacare was sold in part on the assumption that it would expand coverage of wellness-based therapies. It did indeed allow health-insurance plans to cover alternative medicine. But since the passage of Obamacare, only six states have recognised acupuncture as an Essential Health Benefit. In Washington State, which has expanded coverage for alternative medical services, businesses, carriers and state medical associations are pursuing persistent challenges to this regime, outspending advocates of natural health. Practitioners of alternative medicine throughout the country meanwhile face inconsistent licensure and credentialing rules that restrict the care they can provide.
At least in the realm of male infertility, government’s lack of interest in alternative medicine seems outdated. Over the past two decades, a variety of placebo-controlled studies and case reports have demonstrated the ability of acupuncture and moxibustion to produce improved sperm quality. Herbology, according to clinical studies, leads to pregnancy or restored fertility in 70 per cent of both male and female infertility cases. And homeopathic therapy has shown in studies and case reports significant improvement in critical sperm markers.
Yet under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, it is illegal to claim that the supplements used in these practices “diagnose, cure, mitigate, treat or prevent illness.”
Alternative strategies are by no means without risk, but when they do work, they’re generally far less intensive and costly than standard fertility care. With mainstream modalities, 64 per cent of patients spend over $15,000 and 16 per cent spend over $50,000. Acupuncture treatments, by contrast, typically require twice-weekly sessions for less than two months, while periodic use of herbs usually restores fertility within six to twelve months among patients in the United States.
Misguided public policy for young men?
The government’s attitude towards alternative medicine is one facet of a broader tendency to avoid grappling with male infertility in a holistic paradigm. Allopathic approaches tend to view male infertility as an obstruction of the reproductive ductal system – a condition to be managed with microsurgery or expensive reproductive technologies. Artificial insemination, in vitro fertilisation and intracytoplasmic sperm injections do not aim principally to improve patients’ underlying sperm quality or address the root causes of their suboptimal health. Alternative medical practitioners are more inclined to view male infertility as a symptom of systemic imbalances in the emotional and physical well-being of patients. The fact that sperm quality, in some studies, is negatively correlated with occupational psychological stress, psychosocial distress, fear and fright arguably lends credence to a more holistic perspective.
Scepticism is warranted as to whether governments ultimately have an incentive to view male infertility from a holistic perspective. For doing so could raise uncomfortable questions about the consequences that bipartisan policy choices have had for young and middle-aged men.
Consider developments since the last CDC report on male infertility in 2010. Economic uncertainty for American men has been a major factor in driving the male median age of marriage to nearly 29 years. According to Brigham Young University professor Jason Carroll, the time is “quickly approaching” when that number will cross 30. Those men who intend to delay fatherhood until marriage – a demographic increasingly confined to the college-educated – face a precarious path forward:At age 26, a possible positive association between age, sperm damage and declining ejaculate volumeAt age 30, gradual drops in rapid progressive motility and normal sperm morphology, andAfter age 34, drops in total sperm numbers leading to “a declining likelihood of pregnancy”
The twenties and thirties are increasingly years of emotional difficulty for men. Men in this age group, for example, are resorting in unprecedented numbers to mental health medications, oblivious perhaps to correlations between SSRIs and adverse effects in sperm DNA integrity.
Acknowledging that male infertility could be an outgrowth of broader policy failures could spell trouble for the political class. Public suspicion that a whole array of political, economic and social policies is contributing to a transgenerational epidemic in male infertility could exacerbate challenges against an already beleaguered establishment.
What’s next?
Insofar as government watchdogs must weigh in on public-health matters, they should at least bring credible information to the fore. Pervasive crony capitalism, however, renders this almost impossible. And litigating longstanding biases against alternative medicine, as well as the policy decisions that have left young men in a perilous state, is, optimistically speaking, a generational challenge.
It is too soon to tell what impact, if any, the Trump administration will have on the male-infertility issue. Trump has criticised specifically the FDA’s “inspection overkill” of farm-production hygiene and food-packaging rules, some of which involve regulation of infertility-related chemicals. His deregulatory approach is reflected in the administration’s proposed budget, which would eliminate the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program responsible for monitoring BPA and other chemicals. Trump’s nominee for FDA commissioner does embody the corrupt revolving door between the agency and the pharmaceutical industry. But in a context in which government agencies have proven unable to excise themselves from corporate capture, President Trump’s deregulation agenda may, over the long run, diminish industry influence over government inquiries into male infertility.
Regardless, reliable information and effective treatments for male infertility are most likely found outside our corporate-government nexus.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/sperm-killers-and-rising-male-infertility/
-
Draft EPA Ban On TCE Uses Prompts Competing Claims Over Plan's Merits
Mar 31, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA's proposed rule seeking to ban certain uses of the solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) is prompting competing claims over the merits of the plan, with some business groups calling it unjustified and urging its withdrawal while others including worker safety groups say the benefits of the ban will be greater than EPA projects.
The dueling positions are outlined in comments filed by an extended March 15 deadline for input on the Obama EPA's proposed rule to prohibit uses of TCE based on EPA's revamped Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) authority under section 6(a) of the law to target existing chemicals. The proposal would ban TCE uses as an aerosol degreaser and spot remover at dry cleaning operations. EPA has also proposed a second Section 6(a) rule that would prohibit TCE's use in vapor degreasing facilities, with a separate April 19 comment deadline.
In its comments, the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy is urging EPA to withdraw the proposal entirely, arguing that because the chemical is one of the first 10 substances EPA has separately selected to evaluate using its new TSCA authorities, and any rules should be based on the results of that evaluation.
"There is no statutory mandate for this regulation at this time," SBA's March 15 comments say, noting that although under the revised TSCA the agency can regulate uses of TCE based on its existing final risk assessment of the substance, "Congress did not require the agency to issue rules based on that risk assessment."
Instead, the updated TSCA required EPA to develop the list of 10 chemicals to prioritize for evaluation for possible restrictions or bans, and the Obama EPA included TCE on that list. SBA says that the agency should drop any plans for TCE regulation until that process is completed sometime within the next three years.
SBA also notes that TCE makers and users fault EPA's existing TCE assessment for being based on a flawed toxicology study, having outdated exposure scenarios in some of the uses, and because one of the uses EPA is proposing to regulate, spot cleaning, was added to the risk assessment after peer review and so did not undergo this scrutiny.
EPA has indicated that it added the spot cleaning use to its risk assessment after the peer review at the advice of its peer review panel. But SBA argues that because that portion of the risk analysis has not undergone peer review, EPA's use of it to support a regulation on spot cleaning flies in the face of the White House Office of Management and Budget's "Final Information Quality Bulletin For Peer Review," and also points to the toxics law's updates to TSCA section 26, which require EPA's use of best available science in evaluating chemicals' risks.
Draft Rule
If EPA pushes ahead with the draft rule to ban TCE uses as a spot cleaning in dry cleaning operations and aerosol degreasing, then SBA says it should reassess its decision last summer that the rule did not need to undergo review by a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) panel before publication because the proposal would not affect small businesses -- and should convene such a panel.
SBA calls EPA's lack of a small business review "incorrect. EPA certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. However, after hearing from small business and further analysis of the industry, there is evidence that EPA's certification is not supported. More specifically, EPA's factual basis that alternatives are available to users with similar costs and performance is inaccurate."
SBA's comments indicate EPA originally intended to undergo the SBREFA review process, as it did last summer with the other two of its first three rules proposed using the agency's TSCA section 6(a) authorities. "EPA originally planned to convene a SBREFA panel for these uses, as noted in its formal notification to [SBA]. . . . However, since EPA certified the rule, it did not follow through in convening the SBREFA panel. EPA would have benefited from the feedback of small businesses through the SBREFA panel process for these uses, especially since EPA has included various assumptions on a number of identified uncertainties. More importantly, because EPA's certification is not supported, the agency must convene a SBREFA panel to comply with the [Regulatory Flexibility Act]."
SBREFA Review
The Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA) in its March 16 comments also questions EPA's decision not to go through the SBREFA process for the TCE dry cleaning operations and aerosol degreasing rule, noting that several of its members that use TCE for aerosol degreasing purposes include small businesses.
CSPA expresses surprise that EPA did not undergo the SBREFA process, as some of it members participated in the process for one of the other two EPA section 6 rules, on paint-stripping chemicals "and the input of small entities was particularly instrumental with respect to a few specific uses," the group writes.
In a March 17 interview with Inside EPA, CSPA's Vice President for Scientific Affairs Steve Bennett indicated that a use of one of the chemicals for certain furniture refinishing was excluded from the proposed rule following the SBREFA process because there were no viable alternatives for the use.
CSPA in its comments supports EPA's proposed ban but only for consumer uses of TCE, Bennett said. "Only a trained professional should be using these products," Bennett said.
But he argued that for certain aerosol degreasing operations like the CSPA members', there are no alternatives that can be used and EPA's alternatives analysis ignores that concern.
Bennett explained in the interview that not only is TCE a good solvent, it is also non-flammable, while many of the alternatives are. As a result, these alternatives cannot be used in some applications, such as where machines must be serviced while they are operating, because of fire or explosion concerns. Similarly, water-based solvents cannot be used in some applications, because of risk of electrical shock, Bennett said.
CSPA in its written comments also requests clarification from EPA on which aerosol degreasing uses it proposes to ban, noting that its description in the Obama administration's proposal "appears to indicate that non-aerosol products or self-pressurized sprayers may be included within the scope of the rule. It is unclear if that was the Agency's intent and CSPA requests that EPA clarify the rule to address this ambiguity."
Several dry cleaners' trade groups also oppose EPA's proposal to ban their use of TCE for spot cleaning. For example, the National Cleaners Association argues in their March 9 comments that other products are not as efficacious as TCE and requiring their use will increase labor and equipment costs for an industry with limited profit margins.
Cost-Benefit Analysis
However, other groups including the National Center for Health Research, the National Council for Occupational Safety and Health (NCOSH) and the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, back EPA's plan and some suggest that EPA's cost-benefit analysis has understated the proposed benefits.
"Workers unwittingly served as guinea pigs for TCE exposure and suffered the consequences with ill health and premature death. It is time that knowledge gained by these unsanctioned human experiments are applied to protect today's workers," NCOSH's March 1 comments say.
The group argues that EPA's analyses understate the ill effects of TCE use on workers, while it praises EPA's recognition that dry cleaner operators are largely Asian women or Latinas who thus bear disproportionate TCE exposures. "EPA estimates that there are approximately 210,000 workers employed at dry cleaning shops and facilities and at least half of these business[es] use TCE for spot cleaning. We appreciate EPA's assessment of the particular impact of this chemical hazard on minority populations," the group writes.
"Moreover, our network of community-based COSH groups observe that the workforce is largely female. The adverse effects on a developing fetus are of particular concern given the chemical will cross the placenta and cause birth defects," according to the comments.
NCOSH adds that "dirty jobs are typically assigned to low-wage, immigrant, and other vulnerable workers. These individuals are unlikely to raise safety concerns, be provided safety equipment, or have the option to choose safer products or practices . . . our expertise and engagement with vulnerable workers leads us to conclude that exposure to TCE in aerosol degreasing disproportionately involves minority populations. Given the availability of TCE-containing aerosol degreasers in retail establishments and on-line sources, your estimate of workers exposed (i.e., 10,800 workers and occupational bystanders) likely understates the population at risk."
'Overwhelmingly' Justified
The Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law's March 16 comments on EPA's cost-benefit analysis similarly argues that the ban's benefits significantly outweighs its costs, and suggests ways that EPA can clarify its analysis and strengthen its argument.
"EPA's Economic Analysis demonstrates that the Rule is overwhelmingly cost-benefit justified, generating an estimated $9.3 to $25 million in annualized benefits, while imposing only $170 thousand in annualized costs (using a 3% discount rate for both costs and benefits). Furthermore, this monetized benefits estimate encompasses only reductions in cancer risks, and thus does not account for benefits associated with reductions in noncancer risks that will also accompany the Rule," according to the comments.
The comments suggest that EPA, among other changes, clarify its discussion of the costs and benefits of the ban opposed to those of a performance standard.
"Taken together, EPA's statements imply that it believes that the increased benefits associated with a ban (broader scope, more effective enforcement, greater compliance) outweigh its potentially increased costs (welfare losses to users who would, under a performance standard, choose alternative compliance methods). EPA should make this finding explicit in its Economic Analysis to avoid any confusion," the comments say.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/draft-epa-ban-tce-uses-prompts-competing-claims-over-plans-merits
-
EPA’s Ban On High-Risk Uses Of Trichloroethylene Needs To Get Over The Finish Line
Apr 3, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jennifer McPartland
Trichloroethylene, or TCE for short, is a very toxic chemical. No doubt about it. Among other health effects, TCE is known to cause cancer and interfere with development. It is also toxic to the immune system and kidneys. While the vast majority of TCE in the U.S. is used to make other chemicals (i.e., is used as a chemical intermediate), approximately 15% of TCE has other commercial and consumer purposes, including as a metal degreaser and spot cleaning agent.
Over the past several years, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took a hard look at exposures and potential health risks—including to workers, consumers, and bystanders—resulting from certain commercial and consumer uses of TCE. It found clearly excessive risks from these uses, which prompted the agency to take steps to reduce these exposures.
In December 2016, using its authority under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA proposed a rule to ban the use of TCE as an aerosol degreaser and as a spot cleaning agent in commercial dry cleaning facilities—marking the first time in nearly 3 decades it has tried to restrict a chemical under TSCA. A second proposed rule to ban the use of TCE as a vapor degreaser followed a month later in January 2017 and is undergoing public comment.
The public comment period on the first TCE proposed rule closed recently. EDF filed extensive comments urging the agency to finalize the rule as soon as possible.
Highlights of our comments are below: EPA’s risk assessment of TCE’s use as an aerosol degreaser and as a spot cleaning agent in dry cleaning facilities is scientifically rigorous and meets TSCA’s requirements to use the best available science and apply a weight-of-the-scientific-evidence approach. EPA’s TCE assessment and associated methodologies have undergone extensive public comment and peer review.This assessment has clearly identified multiple types of risks that are unreasonable, including to specific subpopulations such as workers and pregnant women.EPA has shown that a ban of these uses under TSCA is necessary to address the risks, as actions taken and authorities available under other statutes are not sufficient.EPA has also shown that options short of a ban on these uses, such as imposing concentration limits or relying on personal protective equipment (PPE), are not sufficient to address the unreasonable risks.
While EPA has more than established that these uses of TCE present unreasonable risks, as it proceeds with future risk evaluations, EDF strongly encourages the agency to move toward a unified approach to assessing cancer and non-cancer risks as recommended by the National Academy of Sciences.
EDF urges EPA to move expeditiously to finalize the rule to meet the applicable deadline of finalizing it by December, a year after its proposal.
The amendments made to TSCA last year clearly authorized EPA to move forward with its assessment of these uses of TCE and to impose restrictions needed to address unreasonable risks it identified. This express authorization under the law flies in the face of what some have proposed, that EPA abandon its rule, postpone taking any action on these uses, and instead fold them into a separate risk evaluation EPA has just started to look at other uses of TCE. Taking that approach would delay any action on these high-risk uses for many years.
The fate of EPA’s proposed ban on these uses of TCE will be an important test on whether the agency can finally act effectively to protect the public from harmful exposures using its new authorities under the recently amended TSCA.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/03/31/epas-ban-on-high-risk-uses-of-trichloroethylene-needs-to-get-over-the-finish-line/
-
Take-Home Beryllium Exposure Case Revived
Apr 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
A Pennsylvania woman may proceed with negligence claims against Accuratus Corp. for exposure to beryllium on her then-boyfriend's work clothing, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled March 30 (Schwartz v. Accuratus Corp., 2017 BL 103185, E.D. Pa., No. 12-cv-06189, 3/30/17
Take-home exposure liability in the case is based on the foreseeability of harm, not on a third party's marital relationship with an employee, the court said.
The ruling replaces an earlier decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissing Brenda Schwartz's case in 2014. In that ruling, the court said she didn't have a spousal relationship that could create a duty of care to her under New Jersey law.
The about-face was required by an advisory ruling of the New Jersey Supreme Court requested by the Third Circuit in Schwartz's appeal of the dismissal order, the district court said.
It was reasonably foreseeable Brenda Schwartz would be exposed to the toxin from Phillipsburg, N.J.-based Accuratus when she lived with her husband-to-be, Paul Schwartz, the court said.
Brenda lived with Paul and another Accuratus employee in the 1970s, cleaning the apartment and doing laundry for both men. She developed chronic beryllium disease in 2012, according to the complaint.
Accuratus could have implemented a clothes-changing procedure to prevent take-home exposures, the court said, noting even minor beryllium exposures may have “severe consequences.”
A duty may not extend to strangers or occasional visitors, but people “at all times have close relationships with others” and often “live with others who share space and housework,” the court said.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl wrote the opinion.
The law offices of Golomb & Honik, as well as Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott represented Brenda and Paul Schwartz.
Becker LLC represented Accuratus Corp.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=108288891&vname=dennotallissues&fn=108288891&jd=108288891
-
Study Identifies Culprit of Naturally Occurring Toxic Marine Chemicals
Apr 2, 2017 | Chem.Info
By Andy Szal
A newly released study suggests that a common — and toxic — flame retardant chemical is produced naturally by bacteria that live in tropical-dwelling sponges.
Ars Technica reports that although scientists previously attributed naturally occurring polybrominated diphenyl ethers — or PBDEs — to sponges, the analysis in the journal Nature Chemical Biology linked them to bacteria within the sponge for the first time.
PBDEs produced in laboratories were widely used as flame retardants in electronics, plastics, textiles, furniture and other products but were restricted because of their tendency to accumulate in the environment. The chemical is reportedly found throughout the marine food chain and in humans.
Scientists from the University of California-San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography and other institutions collected 18 sponge samples from sites near Guam in 2014 and 2015.
Researchers then used a DNA sequencing process called metagenomics to screen for genes that would indicate the ability to synthesize PBDEs from chemical precursors. Of all the organisms in the samples, only the cyanobacteria hormoscilla spongeliae was found to possess the right genes.
"Our results establish the genetic and molecular foundation for the production of PBDEs in one of the most abundant natural sources of these molecules, further setting the stage for a metagenomic-based inventory of other PBDE sources in the marine environment," scientists wrote.
http://www.chem.info/news/2017/03/study-identifies-culprit-naturally-occurring-toxic-marine-chemicals
-
EU Member States Back CMR Substance Restrictions
Apr 3, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
EU member states have voted to unanimously approve the addition of 25 carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic (CMR) substances to REACH Annex XVII – the restricted substances list.
The substances received new harmonised classifications as CMR category 1A or 1B, based on human and animal evidence respectively. The marketing or use for supply to the general public of the substances, as well as mixtures containing them, will be prohibited above specified concentrations.
The substances include:
· bisphenol A;
· phenol, dodecyl-, branched;
· phenol, 2-dodecyl-, branched;
· phenol, 3-dodecyl-, branched;
· phenol, 4-dodecyl-, branched; and
· phenol, (tetrapropenyl) derivatives.
For most substances the Regulation will apply on 1 March 2018. For others it will enter into force on the 20th day after publication in the EU's Official Journal.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54848/eu-member-states-back-cmr-substance-restrictions
-
(ACC Mention) China, EU Reaffirm Commitment As U.S. Backs Out
Apr 1, 2017 | Normangee Star
By Madeline Patrick
Even though Trump’s supporters believe the move will create thousands of new jobs in the gas, oil and coal sectors, environmentalists lambasted it as a unsafe and embarrassing attempt to revive the American coal industry.
“I would say to the president, ‘Look, level the playing field”, Immelt told CNBC‘s Jim Cramer during a February interview.
“The executive order does not make the Clean Power Plan go away”. A ruling in favor of the carbon restrictions from the D.C. appeals court could help blunt the Trump administration’s efforts to undo them and put the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The regulation was never implemented, but it would have required Utah’s coal- and gas-fired power plants to cut about one third of their emissions by the year 2030. We will continue to build on the progress of our nation-leading Next Generation Energy Act, and redouble our commitment to providing clean, affordable water for all Minnesotans.
“These executive actions are a welcome departure from the previous administration’s strategy of making energy more expensive through costly, job-killing regulations that choked our economy”, said U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas J. Donohue. The Independent Petroleum Association of America, which represents oil and natural gas producers, also praised Trump’s move.
Mr Trump’s order on Tuesday, keeping a campaign promise to bolster the USA coal industry, strikes at the heart of the worldwide Paris Agreement in 2015 to curb world temperatures that hit record highs last year for the third year in a row.
“Together, we will create millions of good American jobs – also, so many energy jobs – and really lead to unbelievable prosperity all throughout our country”, the US President added.
However, Karsten Haustein at the University of Oxford believes while lifting the regulations may slow down the pace, it will not stop the fight to reverse global warming.
Trump’s executive order did not attempt to withdraw a key 2009 EPA ruling that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide endanger the public’s health and welfare.
They urged Trump to join them, but in the meantime, they won’t stop working towards a cleaner future. The problem, of course, is how much devastation his administration will inflict on the climate, vulnerable communities, and the environment in the meantime.
The order may contribute to a more diverse and affordable energy supply, says the American Chemistry Council, a chemical industry association.
http://normangeestar.net/2017/04/01/china-eu-reaffirm-commitment-as-u-s-backs-out/
-
Judge Overturns $4.24M Award In Alleged Fracking Pollution Case
Apr 2, 2017 | The Hill
By Timothy Cama
A federal judge Friday overturned a $4.24 million jury award in a landmark case regarding alleged groundwater pollution from hydraulic fracturing.
Judge Martin Carlson wrote that the evidence presented at last year’s jury trial by a pair of families in Dimock, Pa., “was spare, sometimes contradictory, frequently rebutted by other scientific expert testimony, and relied in some measure upon tenuous inferences.”
He said there were multiple “weaknesses” in the case, along with “serious and troubling irregularities in the testimony and presentation of the plaintiffs’ case — including repeated and regrettable missteps by counsel in the jury’s presence,” necessitating that Carlson vacate the jury award against Cabot Oil and Gas Co.
Carlson declined Cabot’s request to rule completely in its favor, and instead ordered a new federal trial.
Scott Ely and Monica Marta-Ely and Ray and Victoria Hubert sued Cabot in 2009, claiming that Cabot’s fracking and drilling for natural gas near their homes caused methane to enter their water wells.
Fracking opponents have for years held up the Dimock case as a prime example of the dangers of the gas recovery process. It was central to the 2010 anti-fracking documentary “Gasland.”
Cabot and the gas industry have long held that fracking and drilling are safe and not responsible for widespread water contamination. The company said it did not cause the methane in the water wells.
Carlson recognized that overturning a jury award is rare, particularly when it is unanimous.
“We do not take this step lightly, and we recognize the significance of voiding the judgment of a panel of jurors who sat through nearly three weeks of trial and reached a unanimous verdict,” he wrote.
But the weaknesses in the case and inappropriate conduct of the plaintiffs’ attorney necessitated such a step, Carlson said.
Cabot welcomed the judge’s decision.
“Cabot is pleased with Judge Carlson’s decision to vacate the verdict and the award in its entirety,” said spokesman George Stark. “Cabot felt confident that once a thorough review of the overwhelming scientific evidence and a full legal analysis of the conduct of the plaintiff’s counsel was conducted, the flaws in the verdict would be understood.”
The original 2009 case included more than 40 Dimock residents. All but the Elys and Huberts settled with Cabot out of court.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/326784-judge-overturns-424m-award-in-alleged-fracking-pollution-case
-
EPA Tells Scott, Governors Not To Take Action In Power Plant Rule
Apr 3, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Bruce Ritchie
TALLAHASSEE — EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has sent a letter to Florida Gov. Rick Scott and the governors of other states saying they are not required to take action on the previous administration's federal rule dealing with power plants.
President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order that directs EPA to begin rolling back the Clean Power Plan, the landmark 2015 rule requiring existing power plants to curb their greenhouse gas emissions. Florida had joined 23 other states in challenging the rule in federal court.
On Thursday, Pruitt sent a letter to Scott and the governors of 46 other states informing them they have no obligation to meet deadlines because the rule had been stayed by the Supreme Court in 2015.
"The days of coercive federalism are over," Pruitt wrote to Scott. "Accordingly I look forward to working with you, your state experts and local communities as we develop a path forward to improve our environment and bolster the economy in a manner that is respectful of and consistent with the rule of law."
South Miami and Broward County joined a coalition of cities and states defending the Clean Power Plan in court. And in December, they joined 14 states in urging Trump to keep the rule.
On Wednesday, Sen. Bill Nelson joined fellow Democratic senators in filing legislation to block Trump's move.
“Florida is ground zero when it comes to the effects of sea-level rise and climate change,” Nelson said in a statement. “Rolling back these policies puts Florida’s economy and environment at risk — and it’s a risk Floridians shouldn’t have to take.”
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
As US LNG Volumes Increase, Trading Optionality Expands
Apr 3, 2017 | Platts
By Chris Pedersen
The optionality of US LNG, combined with a growing trend for more LNG to be traded on a shorter term basis, has presented an opportunity for the market to expand the way LNG is traded. In response to these market trends and growing US LNG exports volumes, the Intercontinental Exchange will list a US Gulf Coast LNG futures contract for trading beginning on trade date May 4, subject to the completion of necessary regulatory processes.
So what incentivized ICE to launch a futures contract for US LNG? To answer this question, it’s important to take a look at how the US LNG industry has evolved over the past 15 months.
While the US exported its first commercial cargo of LNG last February, the market is still trying to gauge how big of an impact US LNG it will have on the global market. Since February 2016, the nation’s sole LNG export terminal, Sabine Pass, has managed to export LNG to 17 different countries, about half of the total number of countries that are capable of importing commercial levels of LNG. Over the next three years, four more projects are expected to begin operations, increasing global capacity by 25%. By 2020, the US will be the third largest LNG exporter, behind Australia and Qatar.
While the sheer volume of new LNG supplies coming out of the US is impressive, the real story in the global LNG market is how unique US LNG is compared to today’s global supply. US LNG has distinct attributes: It has no destination restrictions and there is much more flexibility in terms of offtake volumes. The LNG market is dominated by long-term take-or-pay contracts with destination restrictions, making US LNG even more attractive to trade. Put simply, the US will rival Qatar as the producer with the most flexible gas.
Looking at the companies that have signed long-term contracts with US LNG projects, the destination and offtake flexibility complements the overall objectives of most offtakers. Shell/BG and Gas Natural, two currently active long-term offtakers of US LNG, are utilizing the flexibility of their US LNG supply to strategically optimize their global LNG portfolio.
These attractive elements have not gone unnoticed by market participants and observers. The US Energy Information Administration released a March report stating, “The large U.S. LNG export capacity, combined with destination flexibility in the off-take contracts, will result in a greater liquidity in global LNG trade. The growth in liquidity will lead to a gradual shift away from long-term, oil-linked contract pricing toward more short-term, spot-based transactions.”
The book “LNG Markets in Transition: The great reconfiguration” predicts that short-term trade could account for as much as 43% of LNG trade globally by 2020. As US LNG has some of the core attributes to trade on a short-term basis, US LNG prices will gradually play a growing role in influencing the price of LNG around the world.
The ICE futures contract will be cash-settled against the Platts Gulf Coast Marker. For margining purposes ICE will use a new set of model-based US GCM LNG spot market forward curves extending to 48 months that will help market participants manage risk and calculate margin capital requirements.
The combination of growing volumes of US LNG and the development of new trading and hedging mechanisms for those volumes will give market participants an opportunity to play a decisive role in influencing and determining global LNG prices.
http://blogs.platts.com/2017/03/31/us-lng-volumes-trading/
-
Industry Groups Thank Trump For Rescinding Final Guidance on GHG Emissions in NEPA Reviews
Mar 31, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
A pair of industry organizations said a provision within President Trump's executive order (EO) that calls for sweeping changes in the energy sector could help companies looking to build interstate natural gas pipelines or liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects.
Last August, the Obama administration unveiled final guidance, through the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), designed to help federal agencies quantify the effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. But the EO Trump signed Tuesday officially rescinded the guidance.
In a joint statement, the Natural Gas Supply Association (NGSA) and the Center for LNG (CLNG) praised the rescission, arguing that the guidance was too broad and overly speculative of upstream GHG emissions.
"We applaud the administration for reversing the CEQ's guidance, which attempted to broaden the way federal agencies interpreted NEPA [the National Environmental Policy Act] in a way that did not serve the act's goals or purpose," said Dena Wiggins, CEO of the NGSA.
"The existing NEPA project review process is already stringent, extensive and thorough. By attempting to include unquantifiable and speculative upstream impacts in an expanded guidance, CEQ risked hindering development of the very infrastructure that has enabled natural gas to reduce emissions."
CLNG Executive Director Charlie Riedl added that his organization is "pleased to hear that CEQ's guidance on NEPA requirements has been rescinded. It would have been impossible to derive meaningful information about proposed projects using the CEQ's expanded approach."
Christi Tezak, managing director at ClearView Energy Partners LLC, said "we believe agencies may continue to find that the impact of such potential emissions is speculative (difficult to predict and therefore unhelpful to decision making)," Tezak said in a note to clients Tuesday. "The rescission of the GHG guidance for federal agency reviews would appear to undermine, if not altogether obviate, aspects of some of the legal challenges currently pending against pipeline and LNG export approvals..."
In January 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) urged FERC to require applicants seeking approval under the Natural Gas Act to provide more information on a project’s indirect effects, including GHG emissions. But when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission updated its Guidance Manual for Environmental Report Preparation last month, it excluded the EPA’s request to consider GHG emissions.
FERC has generally held that evaluating a particular project's effects on future gas production falls outside its purview under NEPA, and several courts have upheld that determination.
CEQ had recommended that federal agencies quantify a proposed action's projected direct and indirect GHG emissions, and that they use projected GHG emissions as a proxy for assessing potential climate change effects when preparing a NEPA analysis. CEQ also recommended that whenever agencies do not perform such a quantification, that they include a qualitative analysis in their NEPA documents explaining why it was not reasonably available.
CEQ also called for, among other things, federal agencies to discuss ways to accurately measure direct, indirect and cumulative GHG emissions and climate effects, and to consider reasonable alternatives that could provide short- and long-term benefits to the environment. Federal agencies were also advised to use available information when assessing the potential future state of the affected environment in a NEPA analysis, rather than conduct new research.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109972-industry-groups-thank-trump-for-rescinding-final-guidance-on-ghg-emissions-in-nepa-reviews
-
Belle Fourche Pipeline Idle as Agency Disputes Spill's Cause
Apr 3, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
A federal agency is not convinced the operators of the Belle Fourche pipeline in North Dakota have found the root cause of a December crude oil spill.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ordered the Belle Fourche Pipeline Co. to hire an independent third-party investigator to supplement the company's root cause analysis.
The affected section of Belle Fourche's western North Dakota pipeline has been idle since the spill. The company sought to reactivate it, but a senior PHMSA official denied the request, saying that operating the pipeline now would still pose a risk to environmental health, public health or property. The Belle Fourche Pipeline Co. is still investigating the spill, according to spokesperson Wendy Owen, but the company believes the pipeline was ruptured by a landslide.
“While Belle Fourche has speculated that this was a weather related event, I am unconvinced based on the level of investigation undertaken thus far,” PHMSA Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety Alan Mayberry wrote to the company March 24.
Unstable ground near the pipeline, which PHMSA notes is prone to landslides, has slowed the investigation's progress, Owen said. The agency and the company also dispute whether topography and land movement affect other sections of the pipeline.
Owen did not respond to questions about progress toward hiring a third-party investigator.
Environmental Consequences
The company's Bicentennial pipeline carries Bakken crude oil between two stations in western North Dakota.
A landowner reported a spill Dec. 5, though PHMSA said it is unclear when the release from the Bicentennial pipeline started. The company believes the spill started Dec. 1.
The company revised its spill estimates March 22 and now believes 12,615 barrels of crude oil were released. Some of the oil spilled into Ash Coulee Creek, near the leak site, according to the agency.
PHMSA said the spilled oil flowed more than 4 miles downstream of the leak site to the edge of a “high consequence area,” which may be a populated area, source of drinking water or environmentally sensitive site. Owen said highly populated areas near the pipeline are unlikely and the oil is not affecting drinking water.
PHMSA has declined to provide details about high-consequence areas around the failure site.
Continuing Orders
In February, the Belle Fourche Pipeline Company argued that PHMSA's post-spill order, which prohibited the company from operating the affected pipeline, should be lifted.
Mayberry determined that Belle Fourche should excavate the affected pipe.
According to PHMSA, it is “undeniable” that the company's leak detection system did not detect the pipeline failure. The agency said it's unclear whether the company will need to install new a leak detection system, but additional investigation will be necessary.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=108288881&vname=dennotallissues&fn=108288881&jd=108288881
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Plant Rule Could Be Kicked Back by Nearly Two Years
Apr 3, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
Companies could have nearly two years to avoid complying with new chemical facility regulations under a new EPA action—the latest in a series of administrative delays that have drawn scrutiny from Democratic lawmakers.
According to a proposed rule scheduled for publication in the Federal Register April 3, the Environmental Protection Agency will consider delaying the effective date of a final rule amending risk management program regulations (RIN:2050-AG82) to Feb. 19, 2019.
The delay would move the effective date back 20 months from June 19. That date was a delay from March 21.
The EPA needs the extra time “to consider petitions for reconsideration of this final rule and take further regulatory action, which could include proposing and finalizing a rule to revise the Risk Management Program amendments,” the agency said.
In a statement March 31, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said the agency wants “to prevent regulation created for the sake of regulation by the previous administration.”
Pruitt referred to concerns raised by industry groups and states—including Oklahoma, where he served as attorney general—that the regulation would disclose sensitive information about chemical facilities.
The regulation must also “be developed in accordance with the explicit mandate granted to EPA by Congress” under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Pruitt said.
The rule could also be killed if Congress passes a joint resolution to overturn it under the Congressional Review Act, a procedure that lets legislators block the rule using a simple majority vote.
Groups Weigh In
The move drew praise from industry groups, while public interest organizations criticized the decision.
The delay “shows that the agency is not ready to necessarily rule on or focus on the merits” of changing the rule, Yogin Kothari, a Washington representative at the Center for Science and Democracy, told Bloomberg BNA March 31.
Kothari called the changes “common-sense ideas” that would protect communities and emergency responders.
Jennifer Gibson, vice president of regulatory affairs at the National Association of Chemical Distributors, told Bloomberg BNA March 31 the delay was appropriate if EPA was going to redo the rule.
“The wiser course of action is to do this deliberately, take the time necessary to fully address all the issues and take everything into consideration,” Gibson said.
In a statement to Bloomberg BNA March 31, the American Chemistry Council said the group welcomed the delay but CRA action remained necessary to block the Obama administration's “misguided regulatory revisions.”
Delays Questioned
The notice says that the Clean Air Act limits to three months the EPA administrator's authority to issue an administrative stay of a pending regulation. But “in the past, it has often been our practice to also propose an additional extension of the stay of effectiveness through a rulemaking process.”
In a letter to Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney March 20, House Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats said administrative delays by EPA and the Energy Department “have consistently ignored and flouted the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.”
The letter, which criticized a delay of the RMP rule as improper, said OMB should withdraw the final rules and reissue them with 30-day public comment periods.
The lawmakers also requested that OMB turn over “all emails and other communications” among Pruitt, EPA political appointees and staff at seven industry trade associations.
OMB spokesman Coalter Baker said in a statement to Bloomberg BNA March 31 the agency lacks the legal authority “to unilaterally withdraw rules issued by other agency heads.” However, a House Democratic aide told Bloomberg BNA his party believes OMB does have responsibility when agencies improperly publish regulations.
EPA also said it will hold a public hearing at its headquarters April 19 from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. The agency is also accepting written comments through May 19.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=108288887&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=499428500&searchid=29662248&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0
-
EPA Proposes Further 20-Month Delay For Facility Safety Rule
Apr 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA is proposing to delay by an additional 20 months -- from June 19 to Feb. 19, 2019 -- the effective date of the Obama administration's final rule overhauling the agency's industrial facility accident prevention program, citing the need for more time to weigh potential revisions to the rule in response to requests from industry and some states.
According to a Federal Register notice slated for publication April 4, the agency plans to take comment on the proposed extension through May 19 and will also hold a public hearing on the plan on April 19 at EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C.
The public participation steps could fend off criticisms from Democrats that previous Trump EPA delays of Obama-era rules, including a delay of the RMP rule, violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because the agency did not pursue a notice-and-comment process for the delays and instead simply announced them, effective immediately.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt signed the Register notice on March 29 to delay the effective date of the Obama-EPA's Jan. 13 final rule overhauling its Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility accident prevention program. The RMP rule adds new requirements for independent audits and hazard analysis, and bolsters requirements for disclosure of facility data.
“Any expansion of the RMP program should make chemical facilities safer, without compromising our national security,” EPA says in a March 31 statement, adding that the Obama administration issued regulations for the sake of regulation. “And, any new RMP requirements should be developed in accordance with the explicit mandate granted to EPA by Congress.”
The Obama EPA's rule was slated to take effect March 21 but Pruitt extended that effective date to June 19. Then a coalition of state officials -- 10 Republican attorneys general and one GOP governor -- petitioned the agency for an extra 15-month delay, which the new Register notice grants, along with additional months.
Petrochemical, power and other industry groups have long opposed the Obama EPA's update to the agency's RMP regulation, arguing that the rule adds costly new burdens that are unnecessary given that the current program has reduced accidents. Facility safety advocates say accidents continue to occur and that greater protections are needed.
In the Register notice, Pruitt reiterates that the agency is preparing another proposed rule to seek input on issues raised in the petitions seeking revisions to the RMP rule. While the order seeks public input on the proposed delay, it also says the agency plans to soon seek input on the more complex issues underlying the regulation itself.
“[W]e expect to take comment on a broad range of legal and policy issues as part of the Risk Management Program Amendments reconsideration, and we are in the process of preparing the necessary comment solicitation to help focus commenters on issues of central relevance to our decision-making,” the order says.
EPA's issuance of a proposed rule delaying the regulation and request for public input follows criticism from House Democrats that Pruitt and other Trump officials may have violated the APA in prior delays of almost a dozen Obama-era environmental and energy efficiency rules.
In a March 20 letter to Mick Mulvaney, director of the White House Office of Management & Budget, Rep. Frank Pallone (NJ), the ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and other lawmakers argued that EPA and the Department of Energy should have issued delays at least 30 days before they took effect and after seeking public input.
Meanwhile, efforts are still pending in Congress to use the Congressional Review Act to undo the RMP rule but it is unclear whether lawmakers will act on that legislation ahead of a May 9 deadline to vote on it.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-proposes-further-20-month-delay-facility-safety-rule
-
EPA Seeks To Delay Chemical Safety Rule For Second Time
Mar 31, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is attempting to delay implementation of a safety rule for chemical plants for the second time this month.
Administrator Scott Pruitt this week signed an order seeking a delay in the safety standards until at least 2019. Earlier this month, he ordered a pausein the implementation of the rule until at least this summer.
The agency said the delay will allow it to review the legality of the rule and also consider objections raised against it by industry groups.
“We want to prevent regulation created for the sake of regulation by the previous administration,” Pruitt said in a statement.
Any new rule “should make chemical facilities safer, without compromising our national security. And, any new … requirements should be developed in accordance with the explicit mandate granted to EPA by Congress.”
The Obama administration introduced the new rule in December, expanding emergency coordination requirements for chemical manufacturers under the EPA’s Risk Management Plan program for those facilities.
The rule came in part due to a 2013 explosion at a chemical plant in West Texas that killed 15. It would require companies to prepare for potential accidents by better communicating with communities and first responders, and expanding investigative and auditing powers for regulators.
Chemical companies, though, objected to the rule. After Pruitt’s confirmation to be be head of the EPA, industry groups wrote him a lettersaying the regulation does little to help public safety and instead “raises significant security concerns and compliance issues that will cause irreparable harm to the coalition members.”
Two weeks later, Pruitt paused implementation of the rule until this summer. The EPA announced on Friday that he kicked off a rulemaking process that could delay the regulation for up to two years.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/326778-epa-seeks-to-delay-chemical-safety-rule-for-second-time
-
Senators To Tackle Hacking Defenses
Apr 3, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Blake Sobczak
Senators are set to review the energy sector's online defenses tomorrow, marking the second time in a week that members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee have examined hacking threats to the U.S. power grid.
The full committee hearing will focus on "efforts to protect U.S. energy delivery systems from cybersecurity threats," according to an announcement last week.
The president has pledged to review critical infrastructure cybersecurity during his first few months in office, though a widely expected executive order on the issue has not yet been finalized.
Last week, members on the ENR Subcommittee on Energy explored whether keeping old-fashioned "manual" operations on hand could help protect utilities from hackers (Energywire, March 29).
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), ranking member of that subcommittee, called the hearing "an important start to a longer conversation about the security of our electric grid."
Lawmakers have taken a closer look at energy cybersecurity since suspected Russian hackers briefly knocked out power to three distribution utilities in Ukraine in late 2015. The same group of hackers are thought to have struck Ukraine's grid a second time last December.
Grid officials have testified that the North American power sector is better-prepared to handle similar assaults, though some members of Congress have said they are still uneasy about U.S. readiness (Energywire, Feb. 2).
Schedule: The hearing is Tuesday, April 4, at 10 a.m. in 366 Dirksen.
Witnesses: Patricia Hoffman, acting assistant director, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability at the Department of Energy; Andrew Bochman, senior cyber and energy security strategist, Idaho National Laboratory; Gerry Cauley, CEO of the Northern American Electric Reliability Corp.; Duane Highley, CEO of Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp.; Dave McCurdy, CEO of the American Gas Association; and Col. Gent Welsh, chief of staff, Washington National Guard.
-
Bill To Toughen Rules Around Oil Transport Clears Key Hurdle
Mar 31, 2017 | AP ( In PennEnergy)
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — A House bill aimed at increasing the safety around oil transportation on land and water has cleared a key committee.
The House Finance Committee on amended and passed House Bill 1611. It awaits a vote by the full House.
The version that passed Thursday would raise the tax that is collected on crude oil received by vessel or trains by 2.5 cents a barrel, from 4 cents to 6.5 cents.
The measure, however, would not make pipelines that receive crude oil pay a per-barrel tax as proposed initially.
The bill would also require tug escorts and other safety measures for certain oil tankers.
Rep. Gerry Pollet, a Seattle Democrat, says the bill fills an important need to increase safety and it provides reliable funding to respond to spills.
Rep. Terry Nealy, a Republican from Dayton, called it an unnecessary tax increase.
http://www.pennenergy.com/articles/pennenergy/2017/03/oil-and-gas-bill-to-toughen-rules-around-oil-transport-clears-key-hurdle.html
-
Trump's EPA Chief Says There Is Warming Trend: 'The Real Issue Is How Much We Contribute To It'
Apr 2, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Rebecca Savransky
The new head of the Environmental Protection Agency on Sunday said the "real issue" is how much human activity affects the climate changing.
"There's a warming trend — the climate is changing," Scott Pruitt said on "Fox News Sunday."
"And human activity contributes to that change in some measure. The real issue is how much we contribute to it."
Pruitt also questioned what can be done in response to the climate changing.
"What can we do about it?" he said.
"You can't just simply, from the EPA perspective, make that up. You can't do what the [former] president did, previously with the Clean Power Plan, President Obama and his administration, to simply reimagine authority."
Pruitt said carbon dioxide and methane contribute to global warming.
"The issue is how much we contribute to it from a human activity perspective and then what can we done about it from a process perspective," he said.
He said he thinks the country has "done it better than anybody in the world at burning coal clean, in a clean fashion."
"We have done better than anybody in the world at growing an economy and also being a good steward of our environment," he continued.
"We have nothing to be apologetic about. We're going to operate within the framework of the Clean Air Act and deal with these issues."
Pruitt also praised President Trump for keeping his promise to the American people to roll back executive overreach and blasted the Paris Climate deal as a bad deal for the country.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/326901-pruitt-says-there-is-warming-trend-the-real-issue-is-how-much-we
-
EPA Expands List Of Ecological Harms From Three Air Pollutants
Apr 3, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA in its first draft science assessment in support of its ongoing review of “secondary,” or welfare-based national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx) and particulate matter (PM) is expanding the list of ecological damages caused by emissions of the three criteria pollutants.
The first draft integrated science assessment (ISA), announced in the Federal Register March 30, finds that emissions of the three pollutants could result in new harms associated with nitrogen deposition, acidification from nitrogen and sulfur and other adverse effects.
Release of the ISA is a key step in the development of a new rule addressing the pollutants, though the new findings do not quantify how much of each is necessary to cause such effects, which is a factor in deciding how to set NAAQS for them.
The agency is treating the review of secondary NAAQS as a combined review of NOx, SOx and also particulate matter (PM) effects. EPA must under the Clean Air Act review NAAQS standards every five years, but frequently misses this deadline.
EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee NOx and SOx review panel will discuss the draft ISA at a meeting May 24 and 25 in Durham, NC, the first step in a lengthy process that may also include a risk and exposure assessment further detailing scientific data on the pollutants and their health effects, followed by a policy assessment in which the agency will outline options for setting the NAAQS.
EPA has previously evaluated NOx and SOx together for the purposes of reviewing the secondary NAAQS that are designed to protect the environment, but has never set a joint standard for these pollutants, opting instead for limits on individual pollutants.
All “primary,” or health-based NAAQS have also been set so far for single pollutants such as ozone or PM rather than for multiple criteria pollutants at once.
The ISA identifies and synthesizes studies made available since the last review of the NAAQS. EPA reviewed the secondary NAAQS for NOx in 2012, retaining the annual limit of 53 parts per billion (ppb) first set in 1971.
The agency also reviewed the SO2 secondary standard in 2012 and retained the 50 ppb limit over three hours also set in 1971. EPA last reviewed the secondary PM standard for “coarse” PM in 2012, leaving the limits unchanged at 150 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3), and for the smaller “fine” PM, leaving limits unchanged at 15 ug/m3 annually and 35 ug/m3 over 24 hours. EPA has therefore missed its five-year deadline to review NOx, SOx and PM secondary NAAQS.
“These criteria pollutants are reviewed here together because they all contribute to nitrogen (N) and sulfur (S) deposition, which causes substantial ecological effects,” EPA staff says in the ISA.
The ISA sustains the same conclusions that exposure to these pollutants causes 14 specific types of environmental damage as the last ISA for NOx and SOx, from 2008. However, it adds a further five categories of damage.
In the new findings, EPA finds a causal relationship for “nitrogen deposition and the alteration of the physiology and growth of terrestrial organisms and the productivity of terrestrial ecosystems;” for “acidifying nitrogen and sulfur deposition and the alteration of the physiology and growth or terrestrial organisms and the productivity of terrestrial ecosystems;” and for “sulfur deposition and changes in biota due to sulfide phytotoxicity including alteration of species physiology, species richness, community composition, and biodiversity in wetland ecosystems."
EPA staff finds that for another new category, “nitrogen deposition and increased nutrient-enhanced coastal acidification,” there is “likely” a causal relationship. For another, “nitrogen deposition and changes in biota including altered physiology, species richness, community composition, and biodiversity due to nutrient-enhanced coastal acidification,” the evidence is “suggestive” of a causal relationship.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-expands-list-ecological-harms-three-air-pollutants
-
Faced With Budget Cuts, Pruitt Emphasizes States' Role
Apr 3, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Kevin Bogardus
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said yesterday that his agency, which President Trump is targeting for massive budget cuts, will look to states to take on a greater role in environmental protection.
In an appearance yesterday on "Fox News Sunday," Pruitt was questioned on whether the Trump administration was committed to protecting the environment, given the president's budget plan for EPA — a 31 percent cut from the agency's fiscal 2017 funding.
"Over the last several years, there has been a lack of commitment to state partnership," Pruitt said, saying EPA would be renewing that partnership during his tenure.
"This attitude in Washington, D.C., that people in Texas and Oklahoma and Kansas and Colorado and the rest of the country don't care about the water they drink or the air they breathe and are not going to take care of the air and the water locally and states, I just don't believe that," Pruitt said.
"That narrative is something we reject," he said, "and we look forward to partnering with states across the country to achieve good outcomes."
The budget cuts planned for EPA, which could result in $2.6 billion less funding and 3,200 fewer positions at the agency, have been met with protests from environmental groups as well as fierce resistance from several lawmakers. Congress will likely change Trump's proposal, though it is not clear what EPA programs will survive this year's budget process.
An internal EPA budget document, reported on by The Washington Post late Friday, provided more detail on Trump's planned cuts for the agency. Under the president's proposal, EPA would "center on our core legal requirements," scrapping programs dealing with scientific research, climate change and education while sending other functions to state and local governments, according to the document.
Pruitt's TV appearance yesterday came after Trump signed an executive order last week that begins the drawdown of several environmental regulations, including the Clean Power Plan. That EPA regulation has power plants reduce their carbon dioxide emissions in order to address climate change.
Pruitt has questioned the science behind climate change. In a CNBC interview last month, he said carbon dioxide is not the primary contributor behind climate change, contradicting EPA's own website and enraging green groups (Greenwire, March 9). His comments from that interview have also sparked a review by the agency's scientific integrity office (see related story).
Yesterday, Pruitt was more cautious when asked about climate change. He repeated similar sentiments he gave during his Senate confirmation hearing that humans do contribute to climate change, though to what extent remains unclear.
"Look, let me say to you, CO2 contributes to greenhouse gas. It has a greenhouse gas effect and global warming, as methane does and other types of gases. The issue is how much we contribute to it from the human activity perspective and then what can be done about it from a process perspective," Pruitt said.
Pruitt was pressed on why Trump has sought to reverse the Clean Power Plan, given its health benefits as well as the United States' leadership role in reducing worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA chief contended that the rule never got off the ground because it came under litigation due to its overreach.
"The past administration just made it up. They reimagined authority under the statute. There's a commitment with the new administration to have a pro-growth, pro-environment approach to these issues, but also to respect rule of law," Pruitt said.
"You have stays of enforcement against that Clean Power Plan and there's no progress being made with clean air," he said, "and we are also spending money on litigation."
Pruitt said progress already achieved in reducing carbon pollution should be recognized due to technological innovation. In addition, EPA should not be targeting fossil fuels, he argued.
"You ought not have the regulator in Washington, D.C. — in this instance, the EPA picking winners and losers — saying to the American people that we're going to be anti-coal, anti-fossil-fuel as we generate electricity," Pruitt said. "That's bad for America."
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/04/03/stories/1060052479
-
Science Watchdog Investigating Pruitt's CO2 Remarks
Apr 3, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Hess
U.S. EPA Science Integrity Official Francesca Grifo is reviewing whether Administrator Scott Pruitt violated policy with his remarks that carbon dioxide is not the main contributor to climate change.
The Sierra Club filed a formal complaint with EPA's inspector general last month in response to Pruitt's controversial March 9 interview on CNBC. The environmental group charged Pruitt violated three principles, including a tenet stating policymakers "shall not knowingly misrepresent, exaggerate, or downplay areas of scientific uncertainty associated with policy decisions."
Lawyers for the Sierra Club urged an investigation "to prevent further erosion of scientific integrity policy at the agency."
A special agent in the watchdog office responded Thursday, saying in an email that Grifo would be reviewing the letter and determining the best course of action.
"If after the SIO review, she concludes there is some aspect of the letter itself, or her findings or conclusions that she believes are appropriate for further consideration by the OIG, she will so notify the OIG," wrote special agent Clay Brown in the email to Sierra Club senior attorney Elena Saxenhouse.
Grifo was appointed by EPA to head the scientific integrity office in 2013 after more than a decade with the Union of Concerned Scientists. Grifo's job is not a political appointment. She reports to EPA's science adviser.
Grifo is charged with creating and maintaining a culture of scientific integrity within the agency.
EPA's scientific integrity policy was issued in February 2012 and provides a framework for scientific and ethical standards. It applies to all EPA employees including political appointees.
It states: "To operate an effective science and regulatory agency like the EPA, it is also essential that political or other officials not suppress or alter scientific findings."
The Sierra Club alleges Pruitt undermined the agency's mission and integrity by contradicting "basic facts" about human-caused climate change that have been studied, verified and communicated for years.
EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman defended Pruitt's remarks in an email to E&E News.
"Administrator Pruitt makes no apologies for having a candid dialogue about climate science and commonsense regulations that will protect our environment, without creating unnecessary regulatory burdens that kill jobs. In fact, differing views and opinions on scientific and technical matters is a legitimate and necessary part of EPA's decision-making process, which is consistent with EPA's Scientific Integrity Policy that was in place even during the Obama administration," Bowman stated.
Pruitt is focused on President Trump's goal of "returning the Agency to its core mission of partnering with our states to protect our nation's air, land, and water," she wrote.
Pruitt doubled down yesterday in an appearance on "Fox News Sunday" on the importance of state partnerships. He also sounded more cautious on climate, saying "CO2 contributes to greenhouse gas" while suggesting its impact on climate remains unclear (see related story).
Sierra Club's Saxonhouse said she hopes the investigation causes Pruitt to correct such statements — or leave EPA.
"We're glad the independent and professional staff at the EPA are apparently taking steps to consider this serious issue and we're hopeful that this process ultimately causes Pruitt to correct the record and stop falsifying science, or, if he is incapable of accepting the scientific consensus on climate, to get out of the environmental protection business altogether," she said Friday in a statement.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/04/03/stories/1060052478
-
EPA Strikes Guidance To States On Clean Power Plan
Apr 3, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The EPA launched its first strike on the Obama administration's carbon dioxide standards for power plants by quashing proposals that would have aided states in implementing the rule and rewarded early compliance.
Following President Donald Trump's March 28 executive order directing the Environmental Protection Agency to review its various climate change regulations, the agency canceled proposed guidance to states and model emissions trading rules (RIN:2060–AS47) for implementing the Clean Power Plan and an accompanying proposal (RIN:2060-AS84) that would reward states for taking early steps to curb carbon dioxide emissions before the rule was to take effect, according to a notice to be published in the Federal Register April 3.
“The EPA believes it should use this time to re-evaluate these [Clean Power Plan]-related proposals and, if appropriate, put out re-proposals or new proposals to ensure that the public is commenting on EPA's most up-to-date thinking on these issues,” the agency said.
The U.S. Supreme Court has halted implementation of the Clean Power Plan (RIN:2060-AR33), which set carbon dioxide emissions limits on the power sector in each state, while the legality over the rule is under review. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard a full day of arguments on the rule in 2016 but has not yet issued its opinion.
The EPA has asked that the lawsuits be halted while it reviews the Clean Power Plan. Likewise, the D.C. Circuit has canceled argument over comparable emissions limits for new and modified power plants (RIN:2060-AQ91) while it evaluates an agency request to halt that litigation as well.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt was one of the leading challengers to the rules when he served as Oklahoma attorney general. In a March 30 letter, Pruitt told states they have “no obligation to spend resources” to comply with the rule because it has been stayed by the Supreme Court.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=108288871&vname=dennotallissues&fn=108288871&jd=108288871
-
Hedging Against Court Approval Of CPP, EPA Withdraws Related Proposals
Mar 31, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
EPA, as it initiates review of its power plant greenhouse gas rules, appears to be hedging against the limited possibility that a federal appellate court will issue a ruling upholding the existing plant rule -- withdrawing several pending proposals for related programs and rules and emphasizing it intends to delay any deadlines that become relevant.
In a notice to appear in the April 3 Federal Register, EPA announces it is withdrawing several Obama administration proposals related to the agency's existing power plant GHG rule known as the Clean Power Plan (CPP), including: the proposed federal implementation plan, proposed model trading rules and the proposed incentive program promoting early clean energy deployment.
The notice comes just days after EPA initiated a review of the CPP and related power plant new source performance standards (NSPS) pursuant to a March 28 executive order from President Donald Trump. That order directed the agency to review the rules and “if appropriate” rescind or revise them.
Both rules are subject to pending litigation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Department of Justice (DOJ), on behalf of EPA, filed motions to hold both cases in abeyance just hours after Trump signed his order, citing EPA's now-ongoing review of the rules.
An en banc panel of the D.C. Circuit heard oral argument six months ago in litigation over the CPP, West Virginia, et al. v. EPA, et al., and the court could issue a ruling any day.
Sources say the Trump administration hopes to halt the litigation in part to ensure the agency has as much flexibility as possible as it seeks to scrap or substantially weaken the power plant rules. One source tracking the rules said one of the most important things about Trump's order is its request that the D.C. Circuit not “put out any type of judicial decision. . . . If it's a positive one [for the rule], it just makes things more difficult” for the administration.
Compliance Dates
But EPA appears to be hedging against this possibility, as evident by its move to withdraw the federal plan, trading rules and Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP) proposals. The April 3 Register notice also emphasizes that EPA would seek to delay any CPP compliance dates should they become relevant in the future.
“[A]s the EPA conducts its review of the CPP and decides what further action to take on the . . . emissions guidelines, EPA will ensure that any and all remaining compliance dates will be reasonable and appropriate in light of the Supreme Court stay of the CPP and other factors. Further state action will not be required unless and until there is resolution of the pending litigation or the EPA issues new . . . emissions guidelines,” EPA writes.
The language puts a finer point on such assurances offered by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to governors in a March 30 letter. Reminding state leaders they are not “required nor expected” to plan for or comply with the CPP, Pruitt also writes that if the stay is lifted, the agency will exercise its discretion and protect states from any requirements.
“To the extent any deadlines become relevant in the future, case law and past practice of the EPA supports the application of day-to-day tolling,” Pruitt says.
Before last year's election, the Obama administration and supporters of the rule argued that the high court stay does not “automatically” toll such deadlines, and that the D.C. Circuit likely would settle the issue if the rule is upheld.
EPA in the notice also notes that as it reviews the CPP, it will determine whether to issue re-proposals or put out new proposals of the related rules, suggesting the Obama EPA's actions do not reflect current agency views.
“There are a number of reasons why these proposals may ultimately not reflect the Agency's reasoned policy decisions reflecting both the current state of the energy market and the agency's operative understanding of its statutory authority,” EPA writes.
CPP Review
EPA says Trump's executive order directed it to review the proposed federal plan and model rules associated with the CPP, and that officials had “already begun” review of those and the CEIP “in anticipation of the” order.
The Obama EPA had proposed the federal plan and model trading rules alongside the final CPP in October 2015. The agency also included the CEIP as part of the final CPP but subsequently began a separate rulemaking in June 2016 to determine the framework of the incentive program
Shortly before Trump took office, and likely in recognition that the new administration would plan to revoke or severely weaken the CPP, the Obama EPA withdrew a draft final version of its model trading rules from interagency review and publicly released them and related guidance documents.
“We believe that the work we have done so far may be useful at this time to the states, stakeholders and members of the public who are considering or are already implementing policies and programs that would cut carbon pollution from the power sector,” former EPA acting air chief Janet McCabe said at the time.
The Trump EPA, in its Register notice, notes that it “is not under an obligation to finalize these rulemakings, nor is there a time-sensitive need for them given the Supreme Court stay of the CPP.” The agency also writes that neither the model trading rules nor the CEIP are required by the Clean Air Act, noting that both were simply designed to help states with planning and compliance.
With regards to the proposed federal plan, EPA says it “certainly is not statutorily required early in the implementation process, when the Agency's focus is to assist States in developing approvable state plans.”
The agency also emphasizes its withdrawal of the proposals is procedural and “not based on any final substantive decision” on the proposals themselves. Rather, EPA says it is withdrawing the proposals “to promote EPA's review of the CPP and future rulemaking process, and ensure that interested parties have a full opportunity to comment on proposals that reflect the Agency's most up-to-date and relevant thinking.”
Nonetheless, EPA also includes language that leaves the door open to it revoking the CPP without providing a replacement with weaker limits based only on reductions inside the fenceline of a power plant.
“Though our review of the CPP is ongoing and any final decision to suspend, revise or rescind it will be made only after EPA has provided notice and an opportunity for public comment, it is possible that the CPP as promulgated in 2015 will be rescinded and that new emissions guidelines, if any, for existing [power plants] will be different from the CPP,” EPA writes.
Pruitt, however, recently characterized the process to roll back the power plant rules as much simpler and more straightforward.
The CPP and the NSPS are “not very complicated as far as withdrawing them. All I need to have is a reasonable basis,” Pruitt told Fox News March 29. He cited the Supreme Court's unusual stay of the CPP, calling it “a very good basis with respect to using our resources wisely. There are good reasons why we can roll this back and roll [it] back quickly.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/hedging-against-court-approval-cpp-epa-withdraws-related-proposals
-
State AGs Warn FY18 Budget Will Hinder Enforcement, Hurt Public Health
Apr 3, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Anthony Lacey
Attorneys general (AGs) from 12 states and the District of Columbia are urging House and Senate appropriators to reject President Donald Trump's proposed 31 percent cut to EPA's fiscal year 2018 budget from $8.1 billion to $5.7 billion, saying it would hinder federal and state enforcement of environmental laws and create public health risks.
“Decimating the EPA and states' ability to enforce the nation's environmental laws would bring us back to the dark days of environmental regulation before establishment of EPA in 1970, with rampant and toxic air pollution, devastating discharges of industrial effluents and raw sewage into our waterways, poisoning of drinking water by the uncontrolled dumping of hazardous waste, and the harmful effects of unchecked environmental degradation on our health and quality of life,” says a March 30 letter from the AGs to the House and Senate appropriations panels.
The letter is just one of several that states, industry groups, and others are sending to lawmakers calling on them to rebuff Trump's proposed budget cuts over concerns about them hindering environmental protection.
For example, the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) -- representing many state and local air departments -- sent a March 27 letter to appropriators warning that the FY18 proposal would be “devastating” to their programs, including implementation of federal air standards and enforcing emissions rules.
The group also urged appropriators to provide adequate funds for EPA's operating budget, warning that insufficient funds for the agency will further undermine state operations. “If we are to achieve and maintain healthful air quality, state and local air agencies must rely on EPA to carry out its responsibilities in assisting state and local air quality programs,” NACAA said, adding that such assistance includes developing rules and guidance, conducting research and development, assisting with enforcement activities and overseeing state and local programs.
And the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) in a March 29 letter to the top Republican and Democrat on the House and Senate Appropriations Committees calls on the panels to “adequately” fund EPA's pesticide program enforcement grants, state pollinator protection plans, and other activities.
The three letters are just a sample of the push-back groups are making to Trump's FY18 budget proposal ahead of the appropriations process, through which the House and Senate committees will write their own funding legislation for EPA.
Lawmakers in prior years have failed to move stand-alone appropriations legislation for the agency, but with GOP control of Congress they might have a chance to approve an EPA-specific FY18 bill.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt vowed to fight to preserve -- or even expand -- some of his priorities in the budget, including Superfund, brownfields, state grants and water infrastructure. He has also previously promoted the idea of returning environmental protection work to states, and the budget proposal echoes this.
“The budget for EPA reflects the success of environmental protection efforts, a focus on core legal requirements, the important role of the States in implementing the Nation’s environmental laws, and the President’s priority to ease the burden of unnecessary Federal regulations that impose significant costs for workers and consumers without justifiable environmental benefits,” according to the Trump administration's budget outline.
'Enforcement Floor'
But the AGs in their letter warn that the proposed budget would cut important funding that helps them to pay for state environmental enforcement, and hinder EPA's enforcement of environmental laws.
They warn the budget cuts could result in situations where EPA does not enforce against violations of laws in some states, even where a state acts to enforce. “Removal of this backstop would remove the federal law enforcement 'floor' on state responses to federal violations, potentially creating a scenario where conduct that violates federal law is enforced in some states, but not in others. The resulting 'uneven playing field' would create competitive imbalances for businesses and does not consistently protect the public from environmental harm,” the AGs write.
In addition to concerns about the enforcement cuts, they also caution against cutting funding for major Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act (CWA), and Resource Conservation & Recovery Act environmental programs delegated to the states; urge against reductions to Superfund and brownfields cleanup funding; and to ensure adequate funding for the CWA clean water and drinking water infrastructure funds in the FY18 legislation.
Meanwhile, NACAA in its letter to appropriators says that the while the budget outline is short on specifics, it includes a 45 percent cut in categorical grants that fund important state programs such as permitting and monitoring. Applying a 45 percent cut to grants to Clean Air Act section 103 and 105 -- which pay for a host of air programs -- from the FY17 level of $227.8 million to $126 million in FY18 would be “devastating,” NACAA says.
“Our members are responsible for carrying out a host of federal requirements. Asking them to do so with fewer resources is a recipe for failure and litigation when they cannot achieve them,” the group warns.
NASDA, which represents commissioners, secretaries, and directors of agriculture in all 50 states and four territories, in its letter does not directly attack Trump's budget proposal.
Instead, the group details its priorities for funding in FY18, including $164.9 million for the CWA section 319 non-point source water program; at least $5 million to support existing resources to states and tribes to develop pollinator protection plans; $128 million to support Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act-related activities such as training; and $34 million for EPA-state pesticide program implementation and enforcement grants.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/state-ags-warn-fy18-budget-will-hinder-enforcement-hurt-public-health
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested