Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 4/5/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) Senators Sponsor Bill Addressing Ocean Plastics
Apr 5, 2017 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Colin Staub
A bipartisan bill in the U.S. Senate expands efforts to combat marine debris and encourages the White House to work with countries most contributing to the problem. -
(ACC Mentioned) CPSC Chair to Keynote AHFA Regulatory Summit
Apr 5, 2017 | Home Furnishings Business
By Larry Thomas
Ann Marie Buerkle, acting chair of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, will keynote the American Home Furnishings Alliance's 2017 Regulatory Summit Oct. 25 in Colfax, N.C. -
Downstream Users Question Processing Halt on Inactive Substances
Apr 5, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
A downstream user coalition has questioned the proposed requirement under the TSCA ‘inventory reset’ draft rule that a processor of an ‘inactive substance’ submit notification to the US EPA prior to its use. -
Home Depot Urged to Stop Selling Paint Strippers Containing NMP, Methylene Chloride
Apr 5, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The Mind the Store campaign has urged US retailer Home Depot to halt the sale of paint strippers containing methylene chloride and n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP). -
EPA Budget Memo Details Plan to Eliminate IRIS, Risk Programs in FY18
Apr 5, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA is proposing to eliminate its influential Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program, as well as a host of other risk assessment related programs in the agency's toxics and research offices in fiscal year 2018, according to a memo detailing how the agency plans to implement the administration's budget request. -
Americans are Worried about Their Drinking Water
Apr 5, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Alex Formuzis
Lead, PFCs, hexavalent chromium, fertilizer and pesticides are just a few of the dangerous contaminants found in U.S. drinking water. According to a new nationwide survey, Americans’ concerns about water quality is high – and growing. -
Apple Adds Cobalt to Responsible Sourcing Programme
Apr 5, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
IT giant Apple has extended its responsible sourcing initiative to cover the mineral cobalt. -
Dancet Reminds Companies of REACH Pre-Registration Deadline
Apr 5, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Manufacturers and importers must pre-register their substances by 31 May this year to meet the 2018 REACH registration deadline exactly one year later, Echa head Geert Dancet reminded delegates at the Echa Stakeholders’ Day in Helsinki today. -
D.C. Circuit Weighs Challenge to FERC Project Approval
Apr 5, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Federal judges appeared skeptical yesterday about an environmental group's claim that energy regulators improperly approved a pipeline project in Pennsylvania. -
Environmentalists Argue Pausing CPP Suit Bends Court Stay 'Out Of Shape'
Apr 5, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
Environmentalists are poised to file a brief opposing the Trump administration's requests to pause litigation over EPA's power plant greenhouse gas rules, arguing in part that such a move in the high-profile suit over its existing plant rule would bend the Supreme Court's stay of the rule “completely out of shape.” -
Md. Governor Finalizes Statewide Fracking Ban
Apr 5, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
Gov. Larry Hogan has signed a bill that bans hydraulic fracturing in Maryland, a spokeswoman said. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Proposes Delaying Risk Management Program Rule Changes Until 2019
Apr 5, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Less than three weeks after agreeing to stay a rule designed to help prevent accidents and explosions at refineries and other industrial facilities, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed delaying the rule again -- this time until February 2019. -
Dems Sound Alarm Over Trump's Proposed Cuts to Energy Office Spearheading Cybersecurity
Apr 5, 2017 | The Hill - Cybersecurity
By Morgan Chalfant
Democrats are raising concerns about the Trump administration’s proposed cuts to a Department of Energy office that plays a role in protecting the U.S. electric grid from cyberattacks. -
Enviros Question Hilcorp's Arctic Plan After 2 Pipeline Leaks
Apr 5, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
After two separate pipelines leaked oil and gas into endangered beluga whale habitat in the Cook Inlet over the last four months, Alaska environmentalists are pushing state and federal regulators to crack down on energy companies operating in the southern Alaska waterway. -
Inspections Find Thousands of Defects on Oil Train Lines
Apr 5, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
Government inspections of railroads hauling crude oil across the United States found thousands of safety defects, according to data obtained by the Associated Press. -
'It is a Mess' — Downsizing Won't be Easy
Apr 5, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
How you do lay off thousands of U.S. EPA employees? Slowly — and painfully. -
CEO Coalition Grows, Warns Against Budget Cuts
Apr 5, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Christa Marshall
A coalition of energy innovation leaders that includes Microsoft Corp. co-founder Bill Gates and Southern Co. CEO Tom Fanning is nearly doubling its membership and pushing higher funding for programs President Trump wants to kill. -
Dawson & Associates' Liebesman Says WOTUS Move Could Have Big Impacts on Trump Agenda
Apr 5, 2017 | E&E TV
By On Point
How significant could this week's decision by the Supreme Court to continue to hear litigation over the Clean Water Rule be to the Trump administration's environment agenda?
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Senators Sponsor Bill Addressing Ocean Plastics
Apr 5, 2017 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Colin Staub
A bipartisan bill in the U.S. Senate expands efforts to combat marine debris and encourages the White House to work with countries most contributing to the problem.
Introduced last week, the Save Our Seas Act of 2017 amends and reauthorizes through 2022 the Marine Debris Act, which directs the efforts of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Coast Guard to study and address ocean plastics.
Sponsored by Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, and co-sponsored by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, the bill also urges President Trump’s administration to “work with representatives of foreign countries that contribute the most to the global marine debris problem to learn about, and find solutions to, the contributions of such countries to marine debris in the world’s oceans.”
It also encourages Trump to “support federal funding for research and development of bio-based and other alternatives or environmentally feasible improvements to materials that reduce municipal solid waste and its consequences in the ocean.”
The bill authorizes the spending of up to $12 million a year on the program, although Congress would still have to set specific funding levels for it.
The American Chemistry Council praised the bill, stating it will “help develop and promote the use of more effective practices for managing (plastics and other materials) after their initial use through recycling and energy recovery, where feasible, or proper disposal.”
https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2017/04/05/senators-sponsor-bill-addressing-ocean-plastics/
-
(ACC Mentioned) CPSC Chair to Keynote AHFA Regulatory Summit
Apr 5, 2017 | Home Furnishings Business
By Larry Thomas
Ann Marie Buerkle, acting chair of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, will keynote the American Home Furnishings Alliance's 2017 Regulatory Summit Oct. 25 in Colfax, N.C.
Buerkle will be joined on the program by fellow Commissioner Joseph Mohorovic, who will discuss evaluating and managing risk in product safety. Both Buerkle and Mohorovic have been at the forefront of product safety issues important to the home furnishings industry.
Buerkle's presentation is expected to offer a broad update on CPSC activities.
“The 2017 program specifically will address the complexities of current furniture regulations,” said AHFA Vice President of Regulatory Affairs Bill Perdue, “including the tangled web of state versus federal rulemaking, voluntary versus mandatory regulations, and manufacturer versus retailer responsibility.”
The 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. program will be held at The Conference Center on the Cameron Campus of Guilford Technical Community College in the facility’s state-of-the-art, 250-seat auditorium.
The facility is located on Highway 68, less than seven miles from Piedmont Triad International Airport and minutes off Interstate 40.
In addition to the CPSC commissioners, confirmed conference presenters are:
Chris Andresen, vice president in the Washington, D.C. office of Grayling, a global communications firm and AHFA’s government relations partner. He will present an overview of the legislative and regulatory climate in Washington.
Allyson Azar, manager of state affairs and political mobilization for the American Chemistry Council. She will address the unpredictable landscape of state regulation, focusing on the growing patchwork of state efforts to regulate chemical use in consumer products.
Mark Fellin, worldwide regulatory intelligence manager for Amazon, responsible for leading the development, promotion and implementation of regulatory policies for Amazon Direct Imports. He will address compliance and risk management from an e-commerce perspective.
William Guerry, partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Kelley Drye, chair of the firm’s environmental practice, and a nationally recognized legal expert on Clean Air Act issues. He will review the Trump Administration’s impact on environmental regulations.
Amy Lally, partner in the Los Angeles office of Sidley LLP, and AHFA’s go-to expert on Prop 65. She will outline details of the new “furniture safe harbor” carved out in the latest revision to Prop 65’s “clear and reasonable warning” rules.
Michael Sullivan, managing partner in Womble Carlyle’s Winston-Salem, N.C., office and an expert on product liability matters. He will cover risk mitigation, specifically with regard to furniture tip-over.
Christine Zanella, compliance manager in the legal department at Wayfair. She will address how the online furniture giant is tackling compliance issues today.
The Regulatory Summit is open to all manufacturers, distributors, suppliers and retailers whose regulatory compliance efforts rely on accurate, up-to-date guidance and authoritative answers to industry-specific questions. The event will conclude with a cocktail reception from 5:30-6 p.m., giving attendees the opportunity to meet Commissioners Buerkle and Mohorovic.
Registration is $99 for AHFA members and $299 for non-members and will include a light breakfast and lunch. Details are available at http://www.ahfa.us/events.
http://hfbusiness.com/hfbnow/ArticleId/15597/cpsc-chair-to-keynote-ahfa-regulatory-summit
-
Downstream Users Question Processing Halt on Inactive Substances
Apr 5, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
A downstream user coalition has questioned the proposed requirement under the TSCA ‘inventory reset’ draft rule that a processor of an ‘inactive substance’ submit notification to the US EPA prior to its use.
Under the agency’s proposal for designating substances as active or inactive on the TSCA inventory, a person who intends to manufacture or process an inactive substance must submit a ‘forward looking’ Form B notice before such use begins.
But the Chemical User Coalition (CUC) – a cross-industry group of nine major companies, including Intel, Boeing, Honda and Procter & Gamble – said, in comments, that the inventory reset provisions are only relevant to reporting. And section 8 reporting requirements, it said, “are not intended to place conditions on the right to operate”.
“The central premise of TSCA, which was not changed by the [Lautenberg Act], is that chemical substances on the inventory … are generally authorised to be manufactured, imported, processed, distributed or used.”
A failure to adhere to the notification deadline should constitute a reporting violation, it said, but should not affect the underlying rights of companies to process substances on the inventory.
Processor views
The CUC’s comments on the inventory reset proposal were among several submitted by processor groups.
Although not obligated to report, downstream users have been granted an optional period beyond the mandatory 180-day manufacturer reporting window, for informing the agency of the substances active in commerce.
Processors roundly welcomed the approach. And many echoed comments submitted by suppliers, such as those requesting the agency adopt a ‘one and done’ reporting strategy and omit the date of manufacture reporting obligation.
But the TSCA Reform Rules Coalition, comprised of 13 companies and trade associations in the chemicals and allied industries, was among commenters requesting that the agency allow processors to report for 180 days following publication of the draft inventory, rather than 360 days after the rule is published.
“Neither the statute nor EPA explicitly specifies when the draft inventory will be published,” noted the group, so this modification is necessary to ensure processors have adequate reporting time.
The coalition further requested that the EPA allow Form Bs to be submitted up to 90 days prior to commencing use of an inactive substance, rather than the currently proposed 30.
It also pointed out that the requirement to provide the ‘actual date’ of future processing is problematic, especially for imported substances that will be required to clear US Customs. It recommended removing the date requirement, or replacing it with an estimated date of processing.
IPC – the Association Connecting Electronics Industries – requested clarification of the term ‘processors’, arguing that the current one relied on is “overly simple and prone to misinterpretation”.
More specifically, it requested the agency clarify that processing does not include assembling parts into articles, when it does not involve the preparation of a chemical substance or mixture.
Others pointed out that because processors are not required to report pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) or under the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule, that many would be wholly unfamiliar with the EPA’s CDX reporting system.
The North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (Naima) encouraged the agency to allow for alternative reporting methods for processors.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54868/downstream-users-question-processing-halt-on-inactive-substances
-
Home Depot Urged to Stop Selling Paint Strippers Containing NMP, Methylene Chloride
Apr 5, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The Mind the Store campaign has urged US retailer Home Depot to halt the sale of paint strippers containing methylene chloride and n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP).
The EPA plans to ban these products under a section 6 TSCA rule – the first time the agency has attempted to take such action in 27 years – after risk assessments showed they can cause adverse health impacts.
But campaign director Mike Schade, of the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition, warned the rule process “could take years, especially under the Trump Administration, and there’s no reason for Home Depot to keep selling [them]”.
As the largest home improvement retailer in the US, Home Depot has a responsibility to ensure products it sells are safe, as well as “the power to drive these harmful chemicals out of paint strippers in favour of safer alternatives”, he said.
It's also possible the EPA could back away from the proposed ban, so action by the company could help further encourage the agency to advance the rule.
Either way, said Mr Schade, the agency has identified “real health risks these chemicals pose to workers and consumers”, and Home Depot should phase them out with or without final EPA action.
In its letter to the retail giant, Mind the Store urged it to:
determine which paint stripping products contain NMP or methylene chloride;
cease purchasing those products from suppliers;
phase out their sale “as soon as practicable”; and
advise customers of the health risks from exposure.
Mr Schade said customer communication should be an “interim step” while the company and its suppliers transition away to safer alternatives. Warning signs “are absolutely appropriate, given EPA’s finding and proposed restrictions”.
Following TSCA’s lead
The NGO says it will “absolutely” continue to take cues from TSCA in determining priorities for future chemical phase outs.
“We are evaluating the chemicals EPA is studying or proposing restrictions on and how that overlaps with products sold by the nation's top retailers,” said Mr Schade.
NMP and methylene chloride are both included in the first ten substances, subject to risk evaluation under the new TSCA.
The proposed section 6 rule calls for a prohibition on the manufacture, processing and distribution of methylene chloride, when used as a paint stripper.
With regard to NMP, the EPA is soliciting feedback on two options. One would see the substance banned in paint stripping, while the other would manage NMP risks through restrictions.
Paint strippers containing methylene chloride are also set to be named a priority product under California’s Safer Consumer Products programme.
“It is only a matter of time before these chemicals are banned at the state, federal or international level,” said Mr Schade. “There are opportunities for retailers to get ahead of the regulatory curve, to differentiate themselves from competitors and gain a market advantage.”
In 2015, Home Depot became the first major US home improvement retailer to ban the use of phthalates in vinyl flooring. It partnered with Mind the Store to develop its policy.
Retailers Lowe’s and Menards followed shortly afterwards.
Home Depot did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54959/home-depot-urged-to-stop-selling-paint-strippers-containing-nmp-methylene-chloride
-
EPA Budget Memo Details Plan to Eliminate IRIS, Risk Programs in FY18
Apr 5, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA is proposing to eliminate its influential Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program, as well as a host of other risk assessment related programs in the agency's toxics and research offices in fiscal year 2018, according to a memo detailing how the agency plans to implement the administration's budget request.
The administration also plans to make significant cuts to the agency's pesticides program, which the memo suggests can be offset by current and future user fees that Congress is expected to reauthorize this year.
EPA is poised to begin a "comprehensive look" at all of its programs and responsibilities as it works to implement the Trump administration's 31 percent budget cut for fiscal year 2018, according to a March 21 memo from David Bloom, the agency's acting chief financial officer, detailing how officials plan to implement the president's budget request across EPA.
"This resource level will require taking a comprehensive look at our priorities and thinking differently about the best ways to accomplish our core statutory responsibilities," he says.
The memo, first reported by the Washington Post, calls on top agency officials to detail "those activities that will be supported, reduced or eliminated," so that the agency can develop the congressional justification for its budget.
The administration's FY18 budget request seeks to cut EPA by more than $2 billion -- or 31 percent -- compared to FY16 levels. While some details of the request have been known, such as its plan to cut the Office of Research & Development by 43 percent, many of the program-level cuts have not been spelled out.
But Bloom's memo provides a comprehensive look at what the budget request will mean for scores of EPA programs.
For example, the memo indicates that the administration is proposing to completely eliminate the IRIS program -- an influential but often controversial program because of its often strict assessments of chemicals' risks, and EPA's usage of IRIS dose-response analyses for setting standards and other decisionmaking.
The memo indicates that the administration proposes dropping the research office's human health risk assessment portfolio by $5.6 million and 105 full time equivalent employees (FTE) in the FY18 budget. "This change reflects the elimination of the IRIS program and the re-focusing on core statutory obligations," the memo states.
The proposal is not surprising, as IRIS has been long criticized by regulated entities for the stringency of its assessments and has been on the Government Accountability Office list of programs at "high risk" of waste, fraud or abuse for its inability to produce assessments in a timely way.
The budget memo also indicates a significant reduction in the agency's Science Advisory Board (SAB) budget that is presumably related to the proposed elimination of IRIS, as one of SAB's subpanels is devoted to reviewing IRIS assessments.
The FY18 budget proposes cutting $542,000 from SAB's funding and eliminating 2.9 FTEs "to reflect an anticipated lower number of peer reviews," the memo states. The memo indicates that SAB's FY16 enacted funding level was $646,000 with 21.9 FTE.
Proposed Cuts
EPA's budget memo indicates a series of cuts to the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), though the memo indicates that some of those cuts are likely to be offset by industry-financed fees authorized by the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA).
The program has long provided EPA with authority to collect fees from pesticide manufacturers to ensure efficient and regular registration of new products, as the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires before new pesticide products can be used in the U.S.
For example, the memo proposes a $5.7 million and 31.7 FTE decrease from the FY16 enacted funding of $6.1 million in OPP's funding and 324.8 FTE for protecting human health from pesticide risk. Similarly, the memo proposes cutting $4 million and 18 FTE from the $4.6 million in FY16 funding and 207.9 FTE for protecting the environment from pesticides.
Each of the cuts to OPP is explained with the following or similar language: "The President's Budget will include language to allow the pesticides program to use fees on a broader range of activities in the program, preventing a reduction or slowing in pesticide reviews. The program has nearly $30M of unspent fee carryover that can help support core work."
EPA's current authority for collecting fees is slated to expire in September 2017. The House recently approved the latest re-authorization bill, H.R. 1029, which would extend EPA's authority to collect the user fees through 2023. The bill awaits action in the Senate.
The budget memo indicates that the Trump administration is looking to these and future fees. "Sizable unobligated balances in EPA's FIFRA fee accounts are to be used to offset FY 2018 funding levels," the memo states. "Additionally, any potential additional fee collections from the upcoming reauthorization of PRIA could help offset reductions to the program."
The approach would continue an existing trend of Congress and administrations reducing OPP appropriations. Since 2004, the first year PRIA was in effect, appropriations for FTEs has dropped 25 percent, from $625.1 million in 2004 to $477.8 million in 2014 says Phil Klein, executive vice president of legislative and public affairs at Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA) in an April 3 interview with Inside EPA. The cuts have had a "significant and adverse impact" on OPP's ability to meet its registration deadlines for new pesticide products, Klein says.
'Stable Funding'
Nevertheless, the PRIA coalition -- companies and NGOs that support the program -- is urging Congress to pass the new bill re-authorizing PRIA. "The legislation that passed the House unanimously . . . H.R. 1029, provides stable funding for OPP for the next seven years, including $31 million in maintenance fees, $1 million in worker protection fees and $500,000 for efficacy guidelines. These are vital as we combat Zika, West Nile and Lyme disease in the U.S.," Klein says.
"We're projecting $16 to 18 million in registration fees. Over the seven years on top of that, there are two five percent bumps," Klein says, adding that the maintenance, worker protection and efficacy fees are separate and in addition to the registration fees.
In an industry where missing a growing season or a pest season can mean losing a year's income, those deadlines are very important for pesticide manufacturers. "You can't decimate EPA if you want [the pesticide industry] to grow and innovate," Klein says.
EPA's current authority, known as PRIA3, includes a trigger which requires that OPP's appropriated funding be set at at least $128 million in order to allow the agency to collect the registration fees authorized in PRIA. That same trigger remains in H.R. 1029, Klein says. But Klein notes that over the past few years, the PRIA Coalition have agreed when Congress waived the $128 million funding requirement -- even though it has not been met -- because funding cuts have threatened OPP's ability to do its work.
Industry has supported the waiver of the trigger because of the importance of EPA meeting its deadlines to register new products, Klein explains. "You're counting on that deadline to market your product."
Klein declined to comment on the changes outlined in the budget memo. But he added that the PRIA coalition will be active in advocating for OPP's funding with Congress. "Stable funding provides industry innovation predictability, provides EPA the FTEs it needs to do the job that industry and NGOs want, and protecting the public health," he says. "It's a win win win. That message will be heard loud and clear on capitol hill."
Toxics Programs
The memo indicates that the FY18 budget also proposes eliminating a number of programs in the toxics office, such as EPA's endocrine disruptor program, its lead risk reduction program and related grants, the pollution prevention program and a science policy and biotechnology program. The memo gives little explanation, but generally indicates that EPA should focus on statutory programs and highest priorities.
Regarding the endocrine program, the memo says that "funding for this mature program is eliminated. The principal goals for the program have been accomplished; for the remainder, program is to identify critical work and provide information on implications for inaction, and/or how and under what program it will be accomplished."
Elsewhere, the memo states that Bloom's office will schedule a meeting with the White House no later than June 15 "to discuss how EPA will integrate endocrine disruptor screening into its existing programs for risk assessment and risk regulation."
Reiterating the long-standing stance of Administrator Scott Pruitt, acting CFO Bloom says the agency's work will center on "our core legal requirements, federal-only and national efforts, providing support to states in implementing environmental laws, and easing regulatory burden." Many voluntary programs will also be eliminated, he says. "Non-core international efforts" are reduced, while "fee-based funding is encouraged."
An attachment to the memo lays out upcoming milestones for developing the final budget documents, setting a schedule that will see pre-dissemination review for acting assistant administrators to certify the documents by April 25.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-budget-memo-details-plan-eliminate-iris-risk-programs-fy18
-
Americans are Worried about Their Drinking Water
Apr 5, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Alex Formuzis
Lead, PFCs, hexavalent chromium, fertilizer and pesticides are just a few of the dangerous contaminants found in U.S. drinking water. According to a new nationwide survey, Americans’ concerns about water quality is high – and growing.
The poll, conducted by Gallup last month, found that nearly two-thirds of Americans are worried “a great deal” about pollution of drinking water, and 57 percent worry a great deal about pollution of the nation’s rivers, lakes and reservoirs. That’s the highest level of concern since 2001.
The poll found that water pollution remains the top environmental concern of Americans, as it has been for more than 25 years. Water pollution ranks well ahead of worries about air pollution, climate change, the rain forests and species extinction, although concerns about each of those problems rose significantly in just the last two years.
These results are not shocking, given recent examples of serious water contamination issues in communities like Flint, Mich., where up to 12,000 children drank tap water with extremely high levels of neurotoxic lead; and Hoosick Falls, N.Y., where perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, was detected at high levels in drinking water supplies.
Gallup notes that lower-income and nonwhite people are more concerned about water quality and other environmental problems than higher-income white people. But more affluent white Americans shouldn’t think they’re immune to the threat of water pollution. Consider:
A 2016 EWG analysis of tap water utility tests from all 50 states for the “Erin Brockovich” chemical, hexavalent chromium, found that drinking water supplies serving roughly 218 million Americans were contaminated with the carcinogen.
In 2009 The New York Times reported that an estimated 33 million Americans have been exposed to atrazine, a weed killer used heavily in the Corn Belt and repeatedly found to contaminate Midwestern drinking water sources. Roughly one in 10 male tadpoles exposed to levels of atrazine well within national drinking water standards grew into a “functionally female” frog.
Last year a USA Today investigation identified almost 2,000 water systems in all 50 states where tests since 2012 have found high levels of lead.
Amid widespread contamination and public outrage, the Trump administration’s early environmental initiatives are making the problem worse.
One of President Trump’s first executive orders took a sledge hammer to a federal rule designed reduce agricultural and industrial pollution of drinking water sources serving 117 million people. Now the White House is calling on Congress to cut the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget by almost a third.
Both of those actions are bad news for the future of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Drinking Water Act. And there is every reason to believe that Trump and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt are just getting started.
EWG is conducting its own survey asking Americans about which drinking water contaminants they’re most concerned. Please take a few minutes to let us know, and we’ll send the results along to Trump and Pruitt.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2017/04/americans-are-worried-about-their-drinking-water
-
Apple Adds Cobalt to Responsible Sourcing Programme
Apr 5, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
IT giant Apple has extended its responsible sourcing initiative to cover the mineral cobalt.
The company announced, in its eleventh annual supplier responsibility progress report, that all of the smelters and refiners of cobalt in its supply chain now participate in third-party auditing.
Cobalt is a key component in lithium-ion batteries which power mobile phones, laptop computers, and other portable electronic devices and electric vehicles. More than half the world’s cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
Earlier this year, a report by NGO Amnesty International said that electronic companies and electric car makers could be using components made by cobalt mined by children.
Apple says in its progress report that it started "investigating risks surrounding cobalt" in late 2014. The next year it began mapping its cobalt supply chain down to the mines it was sourcing from.
Now, for the first time it is disclosing all of its cobalt smelters and refiners.
"Now that all smelters and refiners in our cobalt supply chain are required to participate in a third-party audit programme," says the report, "we will work to ensure corrective actions are taken to address the issues found."
Last year, the company signed up to the Responsible Cobalt Initiative (RCI), launched by the Chinese Chamber of Commerce for Metals, Minerals & Chemicals (CCCMC), and supported by the OECD.
3TG and restricted substances
Apple also reports that, for the second year running, all of its smelters and refiners of the commonly targeted tin, tungsten, tantalum and gold (3TG) are participating in third-party auditing.
The number of 3TG and cobalt smelters and refiners participating in an audit reached 256 in 2016. It also removed 22 from its supply chain, last year, because "they were either unwilling or unable to comply with our standards".
In a statement on Greenpeace’s website, Gary Cook, Greenpeace US senior IT analyst, said it is useful that the report highlights specific success stories but “it would be best to dig deeper, and document the ongoing problems and potential solutions for a clean supply chain in order to assist others in the industry facing similar problems.
"Policing a multi-tiered supply chain is a major challenge for Apple and other electronics manufacturers ... Apple says it has reached its goal of 100% conflict free smelters, but also acknowledges that some of its suppliers could still be dealing in conflict minerals and that further efforts are needed."
Meanwhile, Apple reports that, for a second year in a row, all of its final assembly facilities are free from substances restricted by the company, such as benzene, n-hexane, and chlorinated organic solvents in cleaners and degreasers. All of its facilities comply with its regulated substances specification (RSS) for process chemicals.
In its 2016 environmental progress report, the company said that it had analysed the chemical contents of more than 10,000 product components under its full material disclosure programme.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54874/apple-adds-cobalt-to-responsible-sourcing-programme
-
Dancet Reminds Companies of REACH Pre-Registration Deadline
Apr 5, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Manufacturers and importers must pre-register their substances by 31 May this year to meet the 2018 REACH registration deadline exactly one year later, Echa head Geert Dancet reminded delegates at the Echa Stakeholders’ Day in Helsinki today.
This year is “crucial” for those pre-registering substances in volumes between one and 100 tonnes, he said. “If you start next year, you may really miss the boat.” He added that pre-registering is “the only way to get immediate access” to substance information exchange forums (Siefs).
If companies do not do this by the deadline, they will need to submit an inquiry to Echa to register before they can enter the market. Preparing an inquiry using Iuclid will take more time than pre-registering through REACH-IT, require more information and take Echa longer to process.
Meanwhile, Cefic REACH director Erwin Annys told Chemical Watch that he, alongside authorities, is “surprised” to see that many pre-registrations are still coming in. “The extremely high number in 2008 made us think that they should be much lower [for 2018].” A high number of importers or only representatives are submitting them “to be on the safe side”, he said.
Cefic has advised downstream industry associations that if their members are uncertain whether a substance needs to be registered, they can still continue to act as an importer and complete the late pre-registration.
Echa has so far received only around 8,000 dossiers for the last registration deadline – about a seventh or eighth of what it is expecting, Christel Musset, Echa’s director of registration, told the audience in Helsinki.
The agency plans to conduct a survey before the summer to collect information on companies’ registration intentions, she told delegates. “It is very important you take the time to reply to us and tell us what you intend to register. It is important for us to prepare.”
PPORD
There is the option to use the product and process orientated research and development (PPORD) exemption, but Mr Dancet warned that this is more complicated and so "we encourage you to pre-register by 31 May”.
Ms Musset pointed out that, for certain types of substances, it is possible to get a five-year exemption from registration by using PPORD, but that companies, especially small ones, "are not fully aware of this”.
Mr Dancet said they can contact their relevant industry associations to raise issues for discussion in the REACH Directors' Contact Group, which will be re-established soon. Originally created in 2010 by the European Commission to resolve challenges related to the first registration deadline, the group, which includes representatives from Echa, the Commission and industry bodies, will do the same for the latest deadline.
Use information requests
The deadline for use identification requests is also 31 May – where downstream users make their use of a substance known to the chemical supplier in order to ‘cover it’ for continued use in the registration. This is something few downstream users are aware of, Tim Becker, chief EU compliance officer at REACHLaw, wrote in the February edition of the CW Global Business Briefing.
Echa told Chemical Watch the deadline is “very difficult to implement in practice” due to the complexity of supply chains; the need to provide sufficient information when making a use known; and the fact that registrants may decide not to include the use in the chemical safety assessment (CSA) for business reasons.
Because of this, said the agency, industry has said it prefers not to promote this deadline as it may trigger “unwanted one-to-one communication”. Instead, the recommended way forward is use maps.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54970/dancet-reminds-companies-of-reach-pre-registration-deadline
-
D.C. Circuit Weighs Challenge to FERC Project Approval
Apr 5, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Federal judges appeared skeptical yesterday about an environmental group's claim that energy regulators improperly approved a pipeline project in Pennsylvania.
In oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network argued that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission unreasonably relied on an environmental assessment for a natural gas pipeline proposal despite conflicting information brought to light during a state permitting process.
At issue is the Leidy Southeast Expansion Project, a now-complete proposal from Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co. LLC, or Transco. The project is one of many along the East Coast that environmentalists have challenged in recent years, arguing that regulators are approving a slew of new oil and gas infrastructure without adequately weighing the impacts.
FERC issued an environmental assessment in 2014 concluding that the Leidy project would have no significant impact. The agency then granted a conditional certificate for the project, subject to the approval of state permits. While Pennsylvania regulators considered a Clean Water Act permit for the line, FERC granted several Transco requests to begin specific construction activities in certain areas.
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection ultimately granted the Clean Water Act permit in 2015. But the agency's review determined that the project area included 31 "exceptional" wetlands — far higher than the seven accounted for in FERC's environmental assessment.
Delaware Riverkeeper Network attorney Aaron Stemplewicz argued yesterday that the disputed wetlands number underscores the importance of FERC waiting for state Clean Water Act permitting before approving construction activities. The agency's approval of tree clearing and other activities relied on the 2014 environmental assessment, without the benefit of the information that arose during the state CWA review, he said.
Chief Judge Merrick Garland, a Clinton appointee, zeroed in on the tree-clearing approvals and asked Stemplewicz why his group did not challenge those approvals directly. Stemplewicz responded that such an effort would be futile, as tree clearing would take place faster than the FERC appeals process.
Senior Judge Harry Edwards, a Carter appointee, questioned how FERC's actions affected the Pennsylvania-based environmental group.
"I'm still not understanding, where is the harm to you?" he asked.
Stemplewicz said the sequencing violates the National Environmental Policy Act because it short-circuits public comment and because the environmental assessment's wetlands count fails to establish an "accurate baseline" for the review and subsequent mitigation measures.
"You rob the public of that opportunity when you have a situation like this when you don't have all the correct information," he said after arguments.
FERC attorney Holly Cafer and Transco attorney John Stoviak of Saul Ewing LLP maintained that the petitioners had "ample opportunity" to comment on the environmental assessment while it was being crafted. Cafer also defended the specifics of FERC's review, noting that the assessment's process for identifying wetlands relied on Army Corps of Engineers methodology.
In a brief to the court last year, FERC took issue with the notion that the agency "must sit idle" while awaiting state permits.
"But this is unnecessary and undermines the integration of the various permitting requirements for interstate pipelines, as contemplated by the Natural Gas Act and the Clean Water Act," the agency said. "Consistent with decades of Commission practice, and this Court's precedent permitting project approvals pending receipt of other mandatory federal and state authorizations, the Certificate Order includes appropriate conditions requiring receipt of all applicable federal and state authorizations prior to any construction activity."
Joining Garland and Edwards on the three-judge panel was Judge Thomas Griffith, a George W. Bush appointee.
The Delaware Riverkeeper Network is urging the panel to remand the case to FERC with instructions for the agency to consider the wetlands questions. The court is expected to rule within the next couple of months.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/04/05/stories/1060052599
-
Environmentalists Argue Pausing CPP Suit Bends Court Stay 'Out Of Shape'
Apr 5, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
Environmentalists are poised to file a brief opposing the Trump administration's requests to pause litigation over EPA's power plant greenhouse gas rules, arguing in part that such a move in the high-profile suit over its existing plant rule would bend the Supreme Court's stay of the rule “completely out of shape.”
David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) told an April 4 Energy Bar Association (EBA) conference that halting litigation over EPA's Clean Power Plan (CPP) would contort the high court's unprecedented February 2016 stay of the regulation.
The stay halted CPP implementation pending resolution of the litigation. But Doniger suggested that pausing the litigation would extend the stay beyond what the high court intended.
If the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit grants the Justice Department's (DOJ) abeyance request, it would have the effect of “extending the stay” for a couple years at minimum, according to Doniger. He added that the stay was intended to run the course of judicial review of the CPP, and not whatever regulatory review of the rule the Trump administration might pursue.
Holding the case in abeyance “effectively gives the government the benefit” of having the CPP repealed “without going through” the procedural steps to do so, Doniger said.
He also noted that, because oral arguments in the CPP litigation were held more than six months ago, it is “right about the interval” that the D.C. Circuit would otherwise rule in the case, West Virginia, et al. v. EPA, et al.
States that support the rules also have pledged to submit briefs opposing DOJ's requests to hold the suits in abeyance. “You don’t just hold cases in abeyance when they’re in this procedural position,” New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) earlier told reporters.
Environmental groups that intervened in the case plan to submit their filing “probably” on April 5, ahead of an April 7 deadline in the existing plant litigation and a separate suit over GHG standards for new plants, Doniger said.Environmentalists had earlier promised to vigorously oppose the abeyance motions even before DOJ had formally requested the move. They argue that pausing the litigation would not conserve judicial resources -- particularly in West Virginia, where an en banc panel of the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments Sept. 27.
They also have argued the D.C. Circuit should resolve the “live controversy” that is the litigation over the rules. “There are issues in these cases that are going to be important to decide whether we are looking at this rule or some other rule” that the Trump EPA might issue to scrap or amend the Obama administration’s power sector GHG rules, Ann Weeks of the Clean Air Task Force said on a March 29 press call.
DOJ, on behalf of EPA, filed motions to halt that suit and a separate case over EPA's new source performance standards (NSPS) in abeyance just hours after President Donald Trump signed his energy executive order March 28. That order directed EPA to review and “if appropriate” suspend, revise or rescind the CPP and the NSPS.
The requests each cited the executive order, as well as Federal Register notices formally announcing review of the rules. Sources say one major motivation behind the requests is to ensure EPA has as much flexibility as possible as it seeks to scrap or substantially weaken the Obama-era GHG rules. Were the D.C. Circuit to put out a “positive” decision for the rule, “it just makes things more difficult” for the administration, one source tracking the rules said.
NSPS Litigation
All parties that support the CPP -- with the exception of one utility, Next Era Energy -- said they intend to file in opposition to the abeyance motion. In the case over the NSPS, North Dakota, et al. v. EPA, et al., environmentalists and supportive states had said they would file a similar opposition motion. Utilities supporting the new source rule had noted they were reviewing the request but reserve the right to file in opposition.
Speaking to Inside EPA on the sidelines of the EBA conference, Doniger downplayed the D.C. Circuit’s March 30 order delaying April 17 oral argument in the NSPS litigation, “pending disposition of the motion to hold cases in abeyance.”
DOJ had argued that an abeyance of the NSPS case is “warranted to avoid holding oral argument in the midst of the new Administration’s review of the rule at issue.” It had also noted utilities supporting the rule indicated they “would not object” to delaying oral argument in the case until 30 days after the D.C. Circuit rules on the abeyance motion.
Opponents of the rule, in a brief supporting the abeyance motion submitted just before the court delayed the arguments, had urged “prompt action” because of the nearing argument date.
But Doniger said it is important to note the D.C. Circuit canceled the oral arguments “on the court’s own motion,” making it difficult to interpret where the court may be leaning on the abeyance request.
Nonetheless, some observers expect the court to grant the requests. ClearView Energy Partners in a March 28 analysis says this is “in part because the courts appreciate when agencies are able to narrow the scope of issue judges must consider.” The firm added that denying such requests could conflict with the Supreme Court’s Chevron doctrine, which directs courts to defer to agencies’ expertise when interpreting their statutory authority.
And EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in March 29 comments on Fox News appeared to downplay the difficulty of undoing the CPP.
The CPP and the NSPS are “not very complicated as far as withdrawing them. All I need to have is a reasonable basis,” Pruitt said. He called the Supreme Court’s stay of the CPP “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/environmentalists-argue-pausing-cpp-suit-bends-court-stay-out-shape
-
Md. Governor Finalizes Statewide Fracking Ban
Apr 5, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
Gov. Larry Hogan has signed a bill that bans hydraulic fracturing in Maryland, a spokeswoman said.
Maryland joins New York as one of two states that have blocked production in the Marcellus Shale natural gas field.
The field extends under a small part of western Maryland, and there's been no development in the state. But environmentalists and some business owners from the western region worried that allowing fracking could harm the environment and the local tourist economy and pressed the state Legislature to enact a ban.
Hogan, a Republican elected in 2014, initially supported fracking under tight regulations but changed his position in March (Energywire, March 20).
Fracking involves breaking up rocks by injecting water, sand and chemicals into a gas well under high pressure. The process has led to a boom in oil and gas production but has also led to air and water pollution. And the boom has brought drilling into populated areas of Ohio, Pennsylvania and other states, creating conflicts over noise, traffic and other side effects.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/04/05/stories/1060052596
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Proposes Delaying Risk Management Program Rule Changes Until 2019
Apr 5, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Less than three weeks after agreeing to stay a rule designed to help prevent accidents and explosions at refineries and other industrial facilities, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed delaying the rule again -- this time until February 2019.
Last week, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt signed a proposed rule to delay final amendments to its Risk Management Program (RMP) rule, which was to take effect on June 19.
“We want to prevent regulation created for the sake of regulation by the previous administration," Pruitt said Friday. "Any expansion of the RMP program should make chemical facilities safer, without compromising our national security. And, any new RMP requirements should be developed in accordance with the explicit mandate granted to EPA by Congress."
The EPA said the delay would give it more time "to evaluate the objections raised by multiple petitioners and consider other issues that may benefit from additional public comment. [We] will also use this time to ensure that all provisions in the RMP amendments are in accordance with the explicit mandate granted to EPA by Congress in the Clean Air Act [CAA] amendments of 1990."
If finalized, the EPA said the effective date of amendments -- specifically, to the Accidental Release Prevention Requirements for Risk Management Programs under the Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA -- won’t come until Feb. 19, 2019. The agency will hold a public hearing over the proposed delay on April 19, and will accept written comments on the matter until May 19.
Last month Pruitt, acting on a request from several trade associations, including the oil and gas industry, agreed to a three-month stay for the RMP amendments to take effect.
Both delays came after the EPA received a petition from several trade associations -- collectively calling themselves the RMP Coalition -- at the end of February. The petition urged the agency to stay the RMP rule. The American Petroleum Institute, the American Chemistry Council, the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers were among the petition's signatories.
Among the issues raised by the RMP coalition, the petitioners said the RMP rule "raises significant security concerns and compliance issues that will cause irreparable harm to the Coalition members. The final rule, for example, compels facilities to make available sensitive information about covered processes that could expose vulnerabilities to terrorists and others who may target refineries, chemical plants and other facilities."
The RMP rule emerged in response to an executive order issued by President Obama following several industrial accidents, including an ammonium nitrate explosion at a fertilizer plant in West, TX, in April 2013.
The EPA has said the amendments were intended to "address and improve accident prevention program elements [and] enhance emergency preparedness requirements." They were also designed to make sure first responders and the public had access to information explaining the risks at RMP facilities, which would help the former "better prepare for emergencies."
On March 2, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), who chairs the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works (EPW), introduced a bill designed to invoke the Congressional Review Act and block the RMP rule. The bill, SJ Res. 28, is still before the EPW Committee. A companion bill in the House, HJ Res. 59, was introduced on Feb. 1 by Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) and referred to the House Subcommittee on the Environment.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/110013-epa-proposes-delaying-risk-management-program-rule-changes-until-2019
-
Dems Sound Alarm Over Trump's Proposed Cuts to Energy Office Spearheading Cybersecurity
Apr 5, 2017 | The Hill - Cybersecurity
By Morgan Chalfant
Democrats are raising concerns about the Trump administration’s proposed cuts to a Department of Energy office that plays a role in protecting the U.S. electric grid from cyberattacks.
President Trump has proposed reducing the Department of Energy’s budget by nearly $2 billion next fiscal year, which would include cuts to the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
The office works with state and local governments, as well as the private sector, to secure U.S. energy infrastructure and also spearheads research and development for advanced electricity delivery technologies.
The proposed cuts led Democratic senators to raise concerns on Tuesday over the potential effects to the cybersecurity of the energy sector.
“This office, in coordination with our national labs, helps protect our nation’s energy infrastructure from a variety of cyber threats,” Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), a member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, said at a hearing Tuesday.
“I am very concerned that the president has proposed significant cuts to the electricity office’s budget that could impair our ability to meet the challenges foreign actors and others present to our energy infrastructure,” Heinrich said.
Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) echoed his concerns, questioning a leading official at the office about the potential implications of the cuts to research and development programs.
“I’m deeply troubled about the potential impact that this proposed funding cut would have to the cybersecurity for energy delivery systems R&D program," Hirono said.
Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) raised similar questions at a hearing last week.
Patricia Hoffman, the office’s acting assistant secretary, told lawmakers on Tuesday that the details of the new budget would be worked out before the administration's full budget proposal is released in May. She avoided explaining any potential negative impacts of the budget reductions.
The fiscal year 2018 budget blueprint released by the Office of Personnel Management in March slashed the Energy Department budget by $1.7 billion. The proposal stated that funding for the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability and three other department programs would be focused on “limited, early-stage applied energy research and development activities where the federal role is stronger.”
The cuts would amount to $2 billion in cuts from the current fiscal year.
While presidential budgets are rarely passed, the blueprint nevertheless sends a message to Congress on what funding the new administration would like to see prioritized. The proposed budget paired deep cuts to agencies like the Energy Department and the State Department with boosts at the departments of Defense and Homeland Security.
Hoffman emphasized on Tuesday that Energy Secretary Rick Perry sees the cybersecurity of the energy sector as a top priority.
“The Department of Energy is focusing on cybersecurity and resilience of energy delivery systems and this is one of the secretary’s top priorities,” Hoffman said.
Congress passed legislation in 2015 that codified the Energy Department as the lead agency tackling cybersecurity in the energy sector and gave the secretary of Energy the authority to address energy grid emergencies related to cyber and physical attacks as well as electromagnetic pulses or geomagnetic disturbances.
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/327263-dems-sound-alarm-over-trump-budget-cuts-to-energy-office-spearheading
-
Enviros Question Hilcorp's Arctic Plan After 2 Pipeline Leaks
Apr 5, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
After two separate pipelines leaked oil and gas into endangered beluga whale habitat in the Cook Inlet over the last four months, Alaska environmentalists are pushing state and federal regulators to crack down on energy companies operating in the southern Alaska waterway.
The company and government officials have yet to determine the cause of either pipeline breach. Thus far, Hilcorp Alaska LLC, which owns the two pipelines, has been unable to send divers to assess and possibly repair the breached pipelines because of the inlet's dangerous icy conditions.
On Monday, however, the company said melting ice conditions in the inlet could allow divers to safely begin accessing the lines within the next seven days.
Cook Inletkeeper Bob Shavelson argued that Hilcorp and other energy companies should be required to conduct thorough safety audits on all of their offshore oil and gas pipelines and other facilities in the inlet.
Shavelson noted that the strong tides in the inlet and heavy ice conditions this winter have wreaked havoc on the aging industry facilities. "We're talking about pipelines that were put into place in the mid-1960s in a very unforgiving environment," he said. "We're going to see more leaks and spills if we don't get a handle on this."
Other green groups insist that Hilcorp's problems in the Cook Inlet are evidence that the independent energy company shouldn't be trusted to open a new oil drilling operation in Alaska's Arctic waters.
Hilcorp is currently seeking federal approval to drill for oil at its offshore Liberty leases in the Beaufort Sea. The company's 2014 development plan proposes construction of a man-made island 6 miles from shore. Federal regulators are expected to complete a draft environmental impact statement on that project by May.
Kristen Monsell, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, said that "if Hilcorp can't fix this leak because of sea ice, how can it possibly deal with a gas leak or oil spill in the dangerously unpredictable Arctic Ocean?"
The environmental demands come as Hilcorp continues to grapple with a natural gas pipeline leak and an oil pipeline breach in separate parts of the Cook Inlet.
The most recent incident occurred on April 1, when workers at the company's Anna oil pumping facility in the western inlet "felt an impact to the platform" and noticed bubbles rising near one of the platform legs, according to an Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation incident report.
The leak came from an 8-inch crude transmission pipeline linking the Anna platform to the nearby Bruce platform. The pipeline runs 75 feet below the surface of the Cook Inlet.
During an overflight, the company discovered six oil sheens on the Cook Inlet waters, with the farthest sheen located 3.5 miles south of the oil platform. Hilcorp officials immediately shut down both oil platforms and cut the pressure in the oil line.
The company says that less than 3 gallons of oil was released in that incident, though state environmental regulators say they're still assessing the leak.
Shavelson dismissed Hilcorp's low oil leak numbers as "completely laughable. Until you see some independent verification on that, I think it's pure fiction. If you see bubbles coming up from the base of the platform, you know that you've lost that line in a serious way."
Aftermath in Cook Inlet
The oil pipeline leak occurred at a time when the company was already struggling with a natural gas pipeline leak in the eastern inlet, 4.6 miles offshore from the Kenai Peninsula town of Nikiski.
That incident began in December, when methane began gushing into the waterway from a gas line that carried fuel to two offshore oil platforms for heat, light and power. The leak wasn't discovered by company officials until February (Energywire, March 16).
Late last month, the Houston-based company provided water monitoring studies showing the leaking fuel, which was made up of 98 percent methane, had already begun displacing oxygen in the water column. Scientists warned that Hilcorp's gas emissions could create a hypoxic region that would be harmful to whales, salmon and other sea life in the region.
In the aftermath, the company shut down the pumping stations that were using the methane and drastically reduced the gas flow rate. By then, however, millions of cubic feet of gas had already streamed into the inlet.
Meanwhile, the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposed that Hilcorp inspect a separate oil pipeline at that site that is "substantially similar" in age and construction to the leaking gas line.
Lois Epstein, engineer and Arctic program director at the Wilderness Society, called on state and federal regulators to conduct a thorough investigation into the size and cause of the pipeline breaches and advocated stiff fines under the Clean Water Act.
"There needs to be some assurance that Hilcorp won't allow these kinds of problems to happen in the future, whether it's corrosion or ice or the vortex shedding that occurred," Epstein said. "Basically they need to be penalized effectively enough so that it doesn't happen again."
Shavelson said the state should also require companies drilling in the Cook Inlet to provide larger bonds to pay for dismantling their equipment and cleaning up their sites once oil or gas stops flowing.
In addition, he advocated closing the Drift River Oil Terminal, located on the on the west shores of the Cook Inlet at the base of an active volcano, Mount Redoubt. The volcano has erupted twice over the last 30 years.
The Drift River storage facility, operated by Hilcorp's Cook Inlet Pipeline Co., collects oil from offshore inlet production facilities and ships it by tanker to refineries on the inlet's eastern shores.
Shavelson said the terminal, which has been the site of repeated oil spills, should be replaced with a pipeline.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/04/05/stories/1060052603
-
Inspections Find Thousands of Defects on Oil Train Lines
Apr 5, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
Government inspections of railroads hauling crude oil across the United States found thousands of safety defects, according to data obtained by the Associated Press.
Almost 24,000 defects were discovered during federal inspections of around 58,000 miles of oil train routes in 44 states over the last two years. The inspections began after a string of oil train accidents, including a 2013 derailment in Quebec that killed 43 people.
Many of the defects present serious safety issues, said Steven Ditmeyer, a former senior official at the Federal Railroad Administration. "All of this is a call for continued vigilance," said Ditmeyer. "One defect or one violation of the right kind can cause a derailment. These statistics give a good indication of the track quality, but most [defects] won't cause a derailment."
Regulators said the inspections resulted in 1,118 violation recommendations. The problems included worn rails and equipment, broken or missing bolts, and cracks in steel bars that join sections of track.
Nebraska-based Union Pacific received most of the violation recommendations from the government, with more than 800.
A spokeswoman with the Association of American Railroads said that violations are a better indicator of safety problems than defects and that hundreds of the violations issued were "paperwork-related."
A spokesman for the railroad administration said derailments have fallen 10 percent since the inspections began. "Although many minor defects still are being identified ... both FRA and railroad inspectors are finding fewer serious conditions, resulting in significant safety improvements," Marc Willis said.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/04/05/stories/1060052643
-
'It is a Mess' — Downsizing Won't be Easy
Apr 5, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
How you do lay off thousands of U.S. EPA employees? Slowly — and painfully.
President Trump's budget proposal for the next fiscal year would slash EPA funding by 31 percent, or $2.6 billion, leading to 3,200 fewer jobs at the agency. Shrinking the EPA workforce by that much would require serious time and effort — identifying the makeup of every worker, consulting with outside agencies, negotiating with various unions.
"If this sounds really hard, it is," said Stan Meiburg, who worked at EPA for nearly 40 years, including as acting deputy administrator in the Obama administration's later years.
"It's not just like you say, 'You're fired,' and people walk out the door. It's not that simple."
Meiburg said such a large-scale downsizing at EPA would be "very unfamiliar territory" for the agency.
"There is no precedent for this in EPA's history," he said.
To begin the process, Meiburg said, you would need to institute a hiring freeze — Trump issued one soon after taking office — and then begin making buyout offers.
"No one believes those two measures in itself will be enough to get rid of 3,200 employees," he said, which would then require EPA authorizing a "reduction in force," or RIF, a complicated process heavily governed by federal regulations that will take years to complete.
"It is a mess," Meiburg said.
Under the Office of Personnel Management rules for a reduction in force, agencies must consider several factors when releasing employees, such as length of service, performance ratings and veteran preference. In addition, agencies must determine whether employees have a right to a different job elsewhere in the agency if their current position is eliminated.
RIFs happen when agencies are faced with reorganization, insufficient funds or even lack of work. They look likely to happen as Trump has set out to shrink the federal government with deep budget cuts as well as signing an executive order last month to reshuffle agencies (E&E Daily, March 14).
Many details still need to be hammered out on how EPA would downsize, but an internal agency budget document gives greater insight into the process.
Under Trump's budget plan, EPA would have a full-time employee "ceiling" of 11,547, returning the agency to President Reagan's early years for workforce numbers. It is also a substantial drop from the 15,376 employees EPA had on hand for fiscal 2016, according to the agency's website.
In addition, the internal memo said EPA plans to draft "a comprehensive workforce reshaping plan," noting the president's budget has "significant reductions" for its workforce.
Further, the document has Trump's proposal closing several EPA programs and offices as well as consolidating some, like merging the Federal Facilities Enforcement Office and the Office of Site Remediation Enforcement. Speculation has also run rampant that EPA will have to close a regional office or two to resize its workforce.
John O'Grady, president of American Federation of Government Employees Council 238, which represents thousands of EPA employees, said shuttering one of EPA's offices around the country could mean a clean break between the agency and the laid-off employee.
"Closing regional offices appeals to them because they can say to you that your job no longer exists, here's your severance and adios," O'Grady said.
EPA has undergone a recent restructuring of its workforce, though not on the scale proposed by the Trump administration.
In December 2013, EPA announced it would begin an "early out" program for employees, looking to encourage some workers to take early retirement in order to realign the agency.
Overall, 456 employees took the agency's early-out offer. In turn, EPA paid out roughly $16.2 million — $11.3 million in buyout incentives, $4.9 million in annual leave payments — for those employees to leave, according to a recent inspector general report.
Karl Brooks, who led EPA's Office of Administration and Resources Management and also served as Region 7 administrator during the Obama administration, helped oversee the agency's early out program. Told of Trump's plans for EPA, Brooks said, "This would be a radical change."
"I doubt it could happen very fast," Brooks said. "My first call would be to OPM and to start working with the experts at OPM on putting a plan together."
OPM is already preparing for agencies' downsizing. The personnel office recently issued a 119-page handbook on how to reshape the workforce.
That document offers several alternatives for agencies in order to avoid the RIF process. Some suggestions include training employees for new jobs at their current agencies, offering them early retirement or even detailing them to other agencies. Agencies could also consider furloughs, which OPM gives guidance on in another just-issued document.
RIFs should be avoided, according to Kristine Simmons, vice president of government affairs at the Partnership for Public Service, a good government research group.
"There are things they can do short of a reduction in force — early retirement, buyouts and so on," Simmons said. "A reduction in force will be a last resort because there are some unintended consequences from an RIF."
Some of those consequences could include damaging recruitment and retention of young talent, trouble keeping in place a workforce with the right mix of skills, and the chaos of people released under an RIF looking to find another job elsewhere in the agency.
Congress will have the final say on EPA's budget for the next fiscal year. Lawmakers are already looking to plug holes proposed by Trump's plan, keeping some EPA employees on the job that could be axed under Trump's proposal. Still, talk of downsizing as well as attacks on EPA from Trump's appointees and Capitol Hill have soured agency workers.
O'Grady said EPA employees are just trying to do their jobs at this early point in the Trump administration, but morale is down across the agency.
"It's so low," he said, "you need a ladder to climb out of the gutter."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/04/05/stories/1060052668
-
CEO Coalition Grows, Warns Against Budget Cuts
Apr 5, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Christa Marshall
A coalition of energy innovation leaders that includes Microsoft Corp. co-founder Bill Gates and Southern Co. CEO Tom Fanning is nearly doubling its membership and pushing higher funding for programs President Trump wants to kill.
The American Energy Innovation Council, part of the Bipartisan Policy Center, added four new executives today as principals: General Atomics CEO Neal Blue, Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. President Mark Burns, PG&E Corp. Executive Board Chairman Anthony Early and Dominion Energy Inc. CEO Tom Farrell.
Previously, the council had six principals — Gates, Fanning, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers partner John Doerr, former Lockheed Martin CEO Norman Augustine, American Air Liquide Holdings Inc. CEO Mike Graff and former DuPont CEO Chad Holliday.
Launched in 2010, the council supports public investment in energy technologies. In a report released today, the group said that increased energy investments are necessary to reverse a severe decline in federal research and development in recent decades and prevent the United States from losing jobs and its global competitive edge.
Private-sector funding is not enough to ensure that promising technologies make it out of the lab and scale up, the group said in the report.
"Despite suggestions to the contrary, our experiences as CEOs and executives make clear that public and private investments both play necessary and complementary roles along the pathway to commercialization," said the document, which outlined six recommendations for energy innovation. Much of today's energy sector, including the natural gas boom, hinged on federal research, it says.
The report calls for tripling funding for the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, or ARPA-E, which Trump targeted for elimination in his "skinny budget" last month.
The Department of Energy branch, which backs early-stage research with breakthrough potential, should receive at least $300 million — it's approximate current level of funding — and preferably $1 billion, the group said.
ARPA-E's strict performance metrics and an ability to jettison projects that do not meet milestones are part of the reason for "growing, bipartisan support for the agency," the report says.
Energy research has decreased from more than 14 percent of federal research and development outlays in 1987 to about 5 percent now, the report notes. The United States ranks 12th globally in terms of "energy R&D intensity" — or R&D spending as a percentage of gross domestic product.
To help turn that around, the federal government should triple federal funding broadly for "energy innovation" to $16 billion, up from about $6.4 billion, AEIC said. That would bring energy innovation spending closer to — "although still well short of" — other technology sectors.
Other AEIC recommendations include:
Expanding initiatives such as DOE's energy innovation hubs.
Supporting frameworks like the Quadrennial Energy Review.
Creating a new $20 billion "Energy Challenge Program" to "unleash significant private capital in the development of high-impact technologies."
Making DOE "smarter" via methods such as reorganizing programs by sector and focusing on "transformative" technologies rather than incremental ones.
The report, which doesn't mention Trump by name, comes in a difficult funding environment. Along with proposing axing ARPA-E, the administration is calling for cuts to DOE's renewable, energy efficiency, fossil and nuclear research programs (Greenwire, March 10).
The White House defended its spending plan by saying the private sector would be better positioned to commercialize innovative technologies.
It also proposed a 17 percent cut to DOE's Office of Science, which oversees the majority of the national labs. Many conservatives say existing federal research programs distort energy markets and funnel money toward politically advantaged projects (E&E Daily, March 28).
AEIC says that the energy sector has unique challenges, including markets that are fragmented and infrastructure needs that require a longer investment horizon than other sectors.
In an op-ed today in The Hill, Augustine and Holliday said they were "encouraged that President Donald Trump has recognized the importance of committing to necessary investments in research."
Separately, 138 members of Congress sent a letter to House appropriators today urging support for DOE clean energy programs (see related story).
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/04/05/stories/1060052660
-
Dawson & Associates' Liebesman Says WOTUS Move Could Have Big Impacts on Trump Agenda
Apr 5, 2017 | E&E TV
By On Point
How significant could this week's decision by the Supreme Court to continue to hear litigation over the Clean Water Rule be to the Trump administration's environment agenda? During today's OnPoint, Larry Liebesman, a senior adviser at Dawson & Associates and a former senior trial attorney in the Department of Justice's environmental division, explains how the court's proceedings could intersect with the administration's plan to revise or rescind the current water rule. Liebesman also talks about how the lack of certainty over the rule affects the private sector.
Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi and with me today is Larry Liebesman, a senior adviser at Dawson & Associates and a former senior trial attorney in the Department of Justice environmental division. Larry, thank you for joining me again.
Larry Liebesman: Glad to be here, Monica.
Monica Trauzzi: So news this week that the Supreme Court will continue to hear litigation over the Clean Water Rule. Why is it significant and how does it fit into the bigger puzzle that has become Waters of the U.S.?
Larry Liebesman: Well, it's potentially very significant because the Trump administration filed a motion into stay or briefing, put it on hold on the theory that they would then have plenty of time to implement the Trump administrative order saying we're going to rescind and perhaps re-promulgate new orders of the Waters of the U.S. So they figured they had plenty of time while the rule is being stayed if the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case anymore on the jurisdiction.
So the fact that the Supreme Court has rejected the motion and said ... briefing means that the court is going to rule on what court has jurisdiction to review the Obama administration Waters Rule. And they could very well come out with a ruling by the end of the year and find that the 6th Circuit did not have jurisdiction initially and that could have real significant effects on the policy and strategy of the Trump administration in revoking the rule.
Monica Trauzzi: So if they find that the 6th Circuit did not have jurisdiction, that would then mean what?
Larry Liebesman: Well, what that means is that the 6th Circuit would not have had jurisdiction to issue the stay to begin with.
Monica Trauzzi: Right.
Larry Liebesman: You know and that sends everything back to sort of ground zero and essentially would revoke the stay. That's saying to the 6th Circuit you could not have issued the stay to begin with; you didn't have jurisdiction. And that could mean that the Obama administration's Waters Rule could become — go in effect unless some other court were to stay it and so that — and it creates a tremendous quagmire from a litigation standpoint because there are some 13 or 14 pending district court cases that have been put on hold waiting for the 6th Circuit to rule on their merits.
So what that would mean essentially is that the Trump administration that apparently determined, you know, we want to go through a new rulemaking. That's going to take time. It took four years for the original Obama rule to be implemented. May have to accelerate their strategy in trying to get a new rule into place, which could be problematic.
Monica Trauzzi: So what's the potential reasoning behind the court's decision this week?
Larry Liebesman: Well the way I read it is that, you know, the environmental groups that were involved in the case and even industry did not support the government's motion to stay the briefing schedule. And so my read of it is that the Supreme Court saw the opposition to the motion, recognized that the issue presented has real effects, broad-based effects because it goes to the question of what actions can be reviewed in the court of appeals.
And so my feeling is that because of the potential implications of review and the opposition that they felt they really needed to address the jurisdictional issue up front; it could have implications down the road. And so my read is they weren't going to buy the Trump administration's approach of considering to put this all on hold, sweeping it under the rug essentially until they come out with a new rulemaking.
Monica Trauzzi: In terms of time line, how could the court proceedings intersect with what the administration is doing on the rule revising potentially —
Larry Liebesman: Well that's a very interesting question because the court proceedings, meaning going ahead on the jurisdictional issue, could be resolved by the end of the year. If the Supreme Court were to rule that the 6th Circuit didn't have jurisdiction, and I personally believe that they didn't — my read of the law in Section 509 is that jurisdiction should be in the district court — that could have a real impact on how the rulemaking process is going under the Trump administration.
They've said that under the executive order, we're directing EPA and the court to reconsider the rule with a focus on interpreting of navigable waters in line with Justice Scalia's interpretation of the law. And that's somewhat is very problematic because the majority of the courts have not adopted the Scalia perennial flow interpretation as the controlling ruling. They've gone with the Kennedy significant nexus test or both.
So here the Trump administration is going to figure out how are we going to go through a rulemaking, and if they go down the road of the Scalia interpretation that could run into real conflicts. But just the big picture is that four years to get the Obama rule out. It's going to be difficult for the Trump administration to short-circuit it given the huge administrative record that was assembled, some 1,200 peer-review articles, over 300,000 pages of documents, to rush that through.
So if in effect the stay is lifted, that could mean that the Obama rule would go into effect while this rulemaking process was underway. And now the Trump administration could say well we want to take a remand of the rule and so they could try to do that, but that doesn't mean they can vacate it. The law is very clear that if an agency wants to take a remand of a regulation that doesn't mean that they can say we're going to vacate the old rule.
Monica Trauzzi: Right.
Larry Liebesman: And that would, any attempt to vacate it would be resisted. So there are a lot of moving pieces here that are very unclear —
Monica Trauzzi: Yeah.
Larry Liebesman: — as to how this is going to work out.
Monica Trauzzi: And it's potentially a pretty big blow to the Trump administration as it's trying to undo much of what the Obama administration did.
Larry Liebesman: It does. Right now they figured well, if the court were to grant our motion on staying things, they would have, you know, the luxury of time. They wouldn't have to worry about this rule that has been strongly objected to.
Monica Trauzzi: Right.
Larry Liebesman: So now they may not have that luxury.
Monica Trauzzi: How should the private sector be navigating the uncertainty that currently surrounds this rule?
Larry Liebesman: That's an excellent question because of all the uncertainty surrounding everything that's going on here. I would say that the private sector should right now consider the 2008 guidance, the pre-Obama rule guidance as the controlling approach. I mean if I were advising somebody about seeking a permit, going through the process and looking at this crazy landscape and what we're dealing with, I would say just go back to sort of the way things were done, applying the 2008 guidance that interpreted the Rapanos decision and using the 1986 regulation that's been in effect all this time and go through and get a jurisdictional determination, go through the permit process based upon that because it's just way too much uncertainty.
A lot of members of the private sector might say well, I'll come out better if there's a new Trump rule coming into effect. But who knows when that's going to happen.
Monica Trauzzi: Right.
Larry Liebesman: Who knows whether they'd be skating on thin ice waiting for that to happen down the road?
Monica Trauzzi: All right. Lots to look at.
Larry Liebesman: A tremendous amount to look at.
Monica Trauzzi: Yeah. Thank you so much for coming on the show. That was great.
Larry Liebesman: OK. Well, a pleasure to be here.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
http://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2217/transcript
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested