Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 5/3/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics Export Boom Has Frontier Logistics Eyeing $30 Million North Charleston Facility
May 2, 2017 | Charleston Post Courier
By David Wren
A Texas logistics firm plans to expand its local operations with a $30 million distribution center on the old Navy base that will ship one of the East Coast's fastest-growing export commodities through the Port of Charleston. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Sector, Environmentalists Spar Over Fate Of EPA Toxics Policies
May 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Chemical sector officials and environmentalists are sparring over the fate of several major EPA toxics policies that the agency is reviewing as part of President Donald Trump's order on regulatory reform, with industry seeking to revise or repeal some Obama-era rules while environmentalists are pushing to defend the existing regulations. -
EPA Hears Competing Arguments Over Revisions To Lead Paint Program
May 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA Office of Chemical Safety & Pollution Prevention (OCSSP) officials at a May 2 regulatory reform hearing heard competing arguments from industry representatives and environmentalists over whether to pursue revisions to the agency's lead paint renovation program as part of President Donald Trump's push for regulatory reform. -
EPA To Host Public Meeting On Negotiated Rulemaking Process
May 2, 2017 | The National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergson & Margaret R. Graham
On May 2, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it would convene a public meeting to clarify and discuss the process of negotiated rulemaking on changes to Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) requirements for inorganic byproducts. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Seeks To Block, Alter EPA's IRIS Formaldehyde Risk Analysis
May 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) is touting new findings and a new award for a 2015 study that raise doubts about EPA and other agencies' conclusions that exposure to formaldehyde can cause leukemias, as part of the industry group's latest efforts to alter EPA's analysis, while other trade groups seek to end it entirely. -
Suit Aims To Block Fracking Plan For National Forest In Ohio
May 2, 2017 | AP (In The New York Times)
A coalition of conservation groups has filed a lawsuit aimed at blocking plans to allow fracking in eastern Ohio's Wayne National Forest. -
Angus King Pushes Tougher Export Reviews
May 3, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey
Independent Sen. Angus King of Maine floated legislation that would set protections on any federally approved exports of domestic gas to ensure the Department of Energy first studies any knock-on effects. -
Industry, Greens Set To Clash Over Proposed Oversight Reforms
May 3, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey
Pipeline builders and environmental lawyers will face off today over a House provision that would strip the State Department of the lead role in conducting environmental reviews — the same authority that tripped up the Keystone XL pipeline under the Obama administration. -
Keystone XL Pipeline Fight Heads To Nebraska
May 3, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Ben Lefebvre
President Donald Trump has hailed his approval of the Keystone XL pipeline as one of the biggest victories of his first 100 days, but the final verdict on the project is now up to a handful of elected officials on an obscure Nebraska commission. -
Methane Repeal Effort May Hit Snag In Senate Over Ethanol
May 3, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy & Ari Natter
A top oil industry priority on Capitol Hill may fall victim to an unrelated dispute over ethanol. -
Cut, Abandoned Gas Line Caused Fatal House Fire In Colorado
May 3, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
A cut, abandoned gas flow line that had not been disconnected from a nearby wellhead and capped was the cause of an explosion and fire at a home in Firestone, Colo., that killed two men and critically injured a woman, officials said. -
Colorado Investigators Link Fatal Home Explosion To Anadarko Well
May 2, 2017 | Fuel FIx
By Collin Eaton
Colorado investigators have linked a fatal home explosion last month to a faulty gas line connected to an old well owned by Anadarko Petroleum. -
UN Climate Talks Leader To Trump: Don't ‘Abandon The Field Of Play’
May 3, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Murray Griffin
The incoming president of the 2017 United Nations climate talks implored U.S. President Donald Trump to keep the world's second-largest greenhouse gas emitter as a participant in the global Paris Agreement to fight climate change. -
Trump’s Lawyer Raises Concerns About Remaining In Paris Climate Accord, Sources Say
May 2, 2017 | Politico Pro
By Andrew Restuccia & Eric Wolff
President Donald Trump's top White House lawyer is raising concerns about the legal ramifications of the U.S. remaining in the Paris climate change agreement, sources familiar with the discussions told POLITICO, a development that could bode ill for the campaign by several top administration advisers to remain in the landmark accord. -
EPA Officials Defend Agency's Duty To Follow Science On Climate Change
May 3, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Current and former senior EPA officials are defending the agency's prerogative to follow the best available science on climate change from what they say are politically motivated attacks by the Trump administration and other critics of greenhouse gas (GHG) rules, arguing that addressing climate change is one of EPA's fundamental tasks. -
Senate Dems Press Pruitt Over Alleged Conflict On Ozone
May 2, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
Senate Democrats asked U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt today to explain how he's dealing with another alleged conflict of interest — this time in regard to litigation over the agency's 2015 ground-level ozone standard.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
May 2, 2017 | Charleston Post Courier
By David Wren
A Texas logistics firm plans to expand its local operations with a $30 million distribution center on the old Navy base that will ship one of the East Coast's fastest-growing export commodities through the Port of Charleston.
Frontier Logistics, one of the nation's largest exporters of plastic resins made at refineries along the Gulf Coast, wants to open a 100,000-square-foot distribution center on a site adjacent to a planned rail yard to be built by Palmetto Railways, a division of the state Commerce Department. The North Charleston facility would employ about 30 workers.
Palmetto Railways wants to sell a 25.3-acre parcel for $6 million to Frontier, identified as Project FLE, and the S.C. Fiscal Accountability Authority is scheduled to review the sale next week in Columbia. If the deal is approved, Frontier would begin building the distribution center to receive shipments on existing rail lines.
The La Porte, Texas-based company eventually plans to ship about 1,000 containers of plastic resins through the port each month, according to published reports. The pellets can be used to make hundreds of products — from disposable utensils and milk jugs to toys and medical devices.
Representatives of Frontier and Palmetto Railways could not be reached for comment Tuesday. Frontier already operates a facility on North Rhett Avenue, where plastic resins are transloaded between rail cars and trucks. It also fills lined containers with plastic resins and grains at the State Ports Authority's North Charleston Terminal.
News of Frontier's proposed investment comes a week after Mid-States Packaging Inc. announced plans to open a North Charleston distribution center for plastic resins. The Massachusetts-based company hopes to export up to 10,000 cargo boxes of the commodity annually from its Goer Drive facility through the Port of Charleston.
Those distribution centers would join a 240,000-square-foot facility in Moncks Corner where A&R BulkPak packages plastic resins for overseas customers.
The boom in plastics is being driven by the Gulf Coast's glut of cheap natural gas, the key raw ingredient in resin. The chemical divisions of Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Dow and other companies have responded to the shale production boom by building new resin manufacturing plants.
A report by the American Chemistry Council shows about 112 billion pounds of resins are produced annually. That amount is posing challenges for ports along the Gulf Coast, where rail delays and transportation bottlenecks are driving some distribution to the East Coast.
The Port of Charleston hopes to take advantage of the shift by offering plastics exporters more container and vessel capacity. The port currently handles about 800 cargo containers of plastic resins each month and hopes to triple that number by next year. Europe is the top market for plastic resins shipped from Charleston, followed by Latin America and Southeast Asia.
http://www.postandcourier.com/business/plastics-export-boom-has-frontier-logistics-eyeing-million-north-charleston/article_e6a591b4-2f56-11e7-bf69-2bb3423ee036.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Sector, Environmentalists Spar Over Fate Of EPA Toxics Policies
May 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Chemical sector officials and environmentalists are sparring over the fate of several major EPA toxics policies that the agency is reviewing as part of President Donald Trump's order on regulatory reform, with industry seeking to revise or repeal some Obama-era rules while environmentalists are pushing to defend the existing regulations.
EPA's Office of Chemical Safety & Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) May 1 held two public meetings seeking options for reducing the burden of federal chemicals oversight, in line with Trump's Executive Order (EO) 13777, which directs agencies to set up regulatory reform task forces. The OCSSP meeting is one of several the agency is holding to comply with the order, including sessions hosted EPA's Office of Air & Radiation, Office of Water, and others.
The first OCSPP meeting focused on several provisions of the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), where representatives from the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) agreed on the need for the agency to continue implementing the TSCA overhaul signed into law last June. But they disagreed on whether the EO should apply to the rules the agency is writing to implement the law.
The second meeting focused largely on EPA rules addressing exposures to lead, where stakeholders outlined options they want the agency to consider as it assesses its lead rules under the EO.
In addition to discussion of the reformed TSCA at the first meeting, speakers also raised a host of EPA toxics policies that they either said they want the agency to revise or repeal, or defended the rules. And at least one of Trump's personnel appointments at OCSSP drew some criticism from environmentalists.
Daniel Rosenberg of the Natural Resources Defense Council faulted the recent appointment of ACC's former regulatory affairs official Nancy Beck to be the principal deputy assistant administrator in OCSPP -- first reported by Inside EPA -- a role in which she will help oversee implementation of TSCA.
“This administration is installing people that have dedicated their lives to blocking” EPA, Rosenberg said. “The chemical manufacturers are now, for all intents and purposes, in charge of running the office intended to” regulate the chemical sector under the overhauled law that gives EPA new powers to regulate chemicals.
Regulatory Review
Officials with environmental groups pushed back against any potential scaling-back of EPA's chemicals rules, arguing that greater regulation of the chemical sector is needed, though they suggested that Beck's appointment to a senior toxics office job casts doubt on the prospects for stronger rules under the Trump administration.
EDF and Earthjustice representatives who spoke at the meeting urged EPA to quickly finalize or implement certain toxics rules started during the Obama administration, while an Earthworks official pressed EPA to finalize a proposed rule that would expand the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reporting program to cover natural gas processing facilities.
EPA in March delayed its deadline through May 6 for groups to weigh in on the Obama administration's proposal to add natural gas processing facilities to TRI, after gas industry groups said the new administration should review whether to proceed with the proposal.
Earthworks' Aaron Mintzes argued that after the group persuaded the Obama EPA to add hard rock mining to TRI, the sector became the highest reporting sector in the program. He described adding natural gas processing plants as a relatively easy step for EPA to take, given there are only about 500 facilities, and argued that TRI reporting imposes far less burden on industry than other regulations.
EDF's Jennifer McPartland urged EPA to ignore industry calls to scale back several rules using TSCA section 6 to ban certain uses of trichloroethylene (TCE), and the paint-stripping chemicals methylene chloride (MC) and n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP). McPartland argued that the substances pose significant health risks, and that TCE producers are faulting settled science in an effort to derail that rule.
Lindsay McCormick of EDF urged EPA not to delay implementation of a nanomaterials reporting rule, calling it “long overdue” and arguing that numerous organizations, including the National Academy of Sciences, have cited a need for basic information on nanomaterials to assess and manage the substances' potential risks.
Industry's Arguments
Industry groups in their comments urged EPA to limit or repeal recent or pending EPA rules on nanomaterials and formaldehyde air emissions from wood products, and to bolster risk assessments underlying the agency's use of section 6 authority to restrict or ban uses of certain chemicals, such as the upcoming rules for TCE, MC, and NMP.
Fern Abrams of IPC, an electronics industry trade group, urged EPA toxics officials to review the agency's decades-old TRI program with an eye toward “burden reduction measures.”
She described the program that requires industrial facilities in certain sectors, to report chemical releases to the environment as a “data exercise” that brings no environmental benefit.
Congress created TRI in 1986 with the passage of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, in response to a pair of accidents at chemical-producing facilities in Bhopal, India, in 1984 and in West Virginia in 1985.
Representatives of groups including the American Coatings Association (ACA), the Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA), and the American Home Furnishing Alliance (AHFA), called for scaling back rules EPA recently-issued under TSCA that require reporting on nanomaterials in commerce and limiting formaldehyde air emissions from wood products.
Raleigh Davis of ACA and Laurie Holmes of MEMA urged EPA officials to ease the agency's TSCA section 8(a) reporting rule for nanomaterials, scheduled to take effect May 12, arguing it is costly and duplicative, in part, because both manufacturers and processors are subject to the reporting requirements.
The Obama EPA spent years crafting the rule that generally requires manufacturers and processors of nanomaterials to report identifying information on those substances, saying the rule would provide data to inform future EPA and Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulation of the novel substances.
Holmes reiterated industry calls in comments to the Commerce Department (DOC) last month to roll back, or at least tighten the scope of the rule by exempting processors of nanomaterials from the rule, arguing that processors will struggle to obtain some of the required data.
In March 31 comments to DOC, also responding to Trump's EO, the Nanomanufacturing Association, an alliance of companies and trade associations that advocate on policies addressing products in which nanomaterials play a role, recommended repeal of the Jan. 12 reporting under the Trump administration's deregulatory efforts.
Formaldehyde Rule
Bill Perdue, of the AHFA, reiterated long-standing calls for EPA to exempt certain laminated wood products from the agency's final rule limiting formaldehyde emissions from wood products, arguing that the recently-issued rule adds more than $200 million in compliance costs.
EPA's final rule scheduled to take effect this month, sets formaldehyde emissions standards for composite wood products manufactured, imported, or sold in the United States and establishes testing requirements to ensure compliance. EPA's final rule rejected some producers' requests for broader exemptions for laminated wood products.
In 2010, Congress amended TSCA to require that EPA issue an air rule “equivalent to compliance” with the California Air Resources Board's rule for pressed wood products produced or sold in the state.
Jim Cooper of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers urged EPA to consider realistic scenarios in risk assessments underlying the agency's effort to ban uses of certain substances under its rarely-used TSCA section 6 authority, noting that such reviews should not assume that workers do not wear protective clothing.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/chemical-sector-environmentalists-spar-over-fate-epa-toxics-policies
-
EPA Hears Competing Arguments Over Revisions To Lead Paint Program
May 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA Office of Chemical Safety & Pollution Prevention (OCSSP) officials at a May 2 regulatory reform hearing heard competing arguments from industry representatives and environmentalists over whether to pursue revisions to the agency's lead paint renovation program as part of President Donald Trump's push for regulatory reform.
At a May 1 meeting, OCSSP sought input from stakeholders on the regulatory burdens and benefits of EPA's 2008 Renovation, Repair and Paint (LRRP) rule. The meeting was one of two that the office held the same day, with the other meeting giving chemical industry officials, environmentalists and others the chance to weigh in on suggested changes to a host of Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) rules, and other policies.
EPA dedicated the second meeting to discussing TSCA subchapter IV under which it crafted the LRRP, requiring contractors who undertake renovation or repair projects in homes or child care facilities built before 1978 -- when lead was removed from paint -- to obtain a certification in safe lead handling practices. The rule also requires contractors to test for the presence of lead, and to perform the work in ways that reduce exposure to lead dust.
Trump's Executive Order (EO) 13777 directed agencies including EPA to launch regulatory reform task forces to pursue potential revisions or repeal of regulations to reduce “burdens” on regulated sectors.
While some industry officials at the lead-focused May 1 OCSSP meeting urged the agency to ease certain provisions of the rule in line with the requirements of Trump's order, several other stakeholders called on the agency to either retain the existing LRPP to comply with statutory mandates, or to broaden its scope.
For example, two attorneys with the environmentalist group Earthjustice argued that the rule cannot be rescinded because it enacts statutory requirements of TSCA that require the policy.
One of the attorneys, Hannah Chang, quoted TSCA subchapter IV, saying that EPA must issue rules to certify contractors in lead-safe practices, set standards for lead-safe renovation and related activities. “These are all provisions of TSCA statutes and I could go on and on, but I will let the attorneys at EPA do their job,” Chang said. “The point is there is no debate about whether any of these regulations under discussion today can be repealed. They can't be.”
Representatives of environmental and public health groups spoke in favor of retaining the LRRP rule in its entirety, arguing that children's health could be at risk if the rule is rolled back under EO 13777.
'Transformative Effect'
Their calls were joined by some industry representatives, including from companies who specialize in removing environmental hazards such as lead or asbestos, and those who conduct the lead-safe contractor training classes.
Zachary Rose, who said his company has taught some 48,000 students in its lead paint certification courses, argued that its training “is truly having a transformative effect.”
Rose described reviews from students who told him the classes “changed their work flow for the better and most importantly, it's not costing them that much more to be lead safe. On the other side you have contractors that are concerned they've been poisoning their family.”
Rose added that states are not ready to enforce the program as EPA has done -- a comment presumably aimed at EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's aim of returning many of EPA's enforcement activities to state agencies. Rose said that only 14 states “are ready to go” and it will take others a couple of years to get there.
And Brent Kynoch, managing director of the Environmental Information Association, called LRRP “one of the most brilliant regulatory efforts I've ever seen come out of EPA. Through this regulation EPA found a minimally burdensome . . . method of getting at the source of the most common routes of lead exposure, controlling lead dust through renovations, repairs and painting in resident's” homes.
Several speakers urged EPA to expand LRRP, or to update its standard for lead dust. Tom Neltner, with the Environmental Defense Fund, reminded speakers that environmentalists sued EPA several years ago to force the agency to update its 2001 lead dust hazard standards.
Neltner said that “in 2009 EPA agreed that the 2001 standard needed to be updated and it still needs to happen. EPA is under a lawsuit to get that rule fixed.”
Regulatory Revisions
But other industry groups argued that LRRP could be revised to further reduce its cost to contractors, and one contractor argued that it is unfair that LRRP requires contractors to educate consumers about lead safety.
This painter said that when he started his business he “did not sign up to be an advocate for the United States government. . . . Why do I have to educate the general public about the hazards that generations before me created?”
The speaker suggested that information about potential lead hazards should instead be required to be disclosed to buyers at home sales.
Other speakers suggested that EPA change LRRP to only target homes and childcare facilities built before 1959 or 1960, suggesting that data indicated buildings newer than this did not represent the same type of lead exposure risk.
Another suggestion to refine the rule was the suggestion from several speakers calling on EPA to “restore an opt out provision for homeowners without pregnant women and children under six living in the home,” as Kevin McKenney with the Window and Door Manufacturers Association said.
McKenney noted that EPA removed this opt-out provision from the original LRRP in 2010, which he said increased the rule's cost “by hundreds of millions of dollars” while nearly doubling the number of homes affected by the LRRP. “The opt out was well reasoned and applied to homeowners where no at risk individuals occupied the home,” McKenney argued.
Republicans in Congress have also sought to address the LRRP opt-out, most recently in the last Congress, when Sens. James Inhofe (OK), Chuck Grassley (IA) and John Thune (SD) introduced such a measure in August 2015.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-hears-competing-arguments-over-revisions-lead-paint-program
-
EPA To Host Public Meeting On Negotiated Rulemaking Process
May 2, 2017 | The National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergson & Margaret R. Graham
On May 2, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it would convene a public meeting to clarify and discuss the process of negotiated rulemaking on changes to Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) requirements for inorganic byproducts. The meeting will be held on May 9, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (EDT) and on May 10, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (EDT), in Washington, D.C. at the Capital Hilton, 1001 16th Street, N.W, in the General Session Room (South American AB).
On December 15, 2017, EPA published a notice in the Federal Register of its intention to establish a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee (NRC) under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act. 81 Fed. Reg. 90843. The NRC will implement the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a)(6) requirement that EPA “enter into a negotiated rulemaking … to develop and publish, not later than 3 years after the date of enactment … a proposed rule providing for limiting the reporting requirements under this subsection for manufacturers of any inorganic byproducts, if the byproducts, whether by the byproduct manufacturer or by any other person, are subsequently recycled, reused, or reprocessed.” EPA states that it is holding this public meeting prior to the establishment of that NRC to “exchange information and clarify a number of aspects of inorganic byproduct identification and reporting.”
EPA states that written comments can be submitted at any time during the negotiated rulemaking process, but is asking for written comments to be e-mailed to ecdrweb@epa.gov no later than May 8, 2017. Parties interested in making an oral presentation at the meeting should submit requests by e-mail to ecdrweb@epa.gov no later than May 8, 2017, to be placed on the list of public speakers. As there are many questions about the scope of the negotiated rulemaking and the process that the initiative will follow, interested stakeholders are urged to participate.
Information about attending this meeting and its agenda will be posted to the NRC website. More information on the establishment of the NRC is available in the blog item EPA To Establish Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Under Amended TSCA.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-to-host-public-meeting-negotiated-rulemaking-process
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Seeks To Block, Alter EPA's IRIS Formaldehyde Risk Analysis
May 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) is touting new findings and a new award for a 2015 study that raise doubts about EPA and other agencies' conclusions that exposure to formaldehyde can cause leukemias, as part of the industry group's latest efforts to alter EPA's analysis, while other trade groups seek to end it entirely.
The new study, which ACC funded, re-analyzes raw data from a 2010 study that EPA and other agencies referenced in their findings that formaldehyde could cause leukemias, as well as other, better known cancer types. The Journal of Critical Reviews in Toxicology published the new study on its website May 2.
The 2010 study, by University of California-Berkeley professor Luoping Zhang and colleagues, compared blood samples of Chinese workers exposed to formaldehyde with other unexposed Chinese factory workers, and concluded that chromosomal abnormalities in the exposed workers' cells were indicative of leukemia. But the new study, authored by Ramboll Environ consultant Kenneth Mundt and colleagues, points to flaws in the Zhang study's methods that Mundt and colleagues say should lead EPA and other agencies to alter their conclusions.
“While Zhang et al. (2010) proposed that formaldehyde exposure leads to aneuploidy, the results from the current analyses indicate that exogenous formaldehyde exposure is not associated with the aneuploidies examined,” the study concludes. Aneuploidy occurs when there are too few or too may chromosomes in a cell. Human cells normally contain exactly 46 chromosomes.
“Therefore, while Zhang et al. (2010) has been cited heavily to support the biological plausibility of formaldehyde as a cause of human leukemia, fuller analysis of the original study data verifies methodological limitations with respect to monosomy 7 and trisomy 8, while demonstrating no association between individual exposure levels and several blood parameters among those occupationally exposed to formaldehyde.”
Mundt and colleagues acquired some of Zhang's raw data from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) through a Freedom of Information Act request. The paper indicates that this raw data, “the mean formaldehyde estimate for each exposed worker,” is not included in the Zhang study.
ACC and the study authors say its findings should lead to changes in conclusions by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and a 2010 draft EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment of formaldehyde, both of which suggested a causal link between formaldehyde exposure and leukemia.
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) reviewed the draft IRIS assessment, and in 2011 released a critical report on the assessment and the IRIS program's approaches more broadly. EPA has since sought to upgrade the IRIS program, and won praise for its efforts in a 2014 NAS review. But EPA has also yet to release a new draft assessment of formaldehyde.
'Unwarranted Outcomes'
“IARC’s interpretation of the Zhang et al. (2010) study and the implications on the formaldehyde hazard classification should be reconsidered in light of the fuller evaluation of all of these data, and the updated EPA IRIS report should reflect the limited inferential value of the Zhang et al. (2010) study . . . until the scientific validity of each can be demonstrated,” the Mundt study says.
ACC in a May 2 press statement says the “newly published reanalysis of raw data from a study widely used by chemical assessment agencies to set hazard assessments for formaldehyde shows no link between formaldehyde exposure and leukemia.”
The statement also quotes Kimberly White, senior director of ACC's Formaldehyde Panel. “The findings in this reanalysis are important because they call into question the validity of all these recent formaldehyde assessments,” White said. “The original paper failed to meet its own data quality standards and the scientific standard of reproducibility. Relying on it consequently led to unsubstantiated regulatory decisions and unwarranted outcomes.”
ACC in a separate May 2 press release touts the presentation of the Kammer Merit in Authorship Award to a 2015 study by University of California, San Diego medical school professor Harvey Checkoway, regarding whether formaldehyde exposure can cause leukemia. This study, funded by ACC and co-authored by Mundt, reanalyzes raw data from an NCI cohort of formaldehyde-exposed workers. A 2009 epidemiology study of this data, by Laura Beane-Freeman and other NCI researchers, had also supported the conclusion that formaldehyde exposure could cause a certain type of leukemia, acute myeloid leukemia (AML).
The 2015 study, known as Checkoway et al, concludes that “Our re-analysis of the data from the NCI cohort study of workers in the formaldehyde industries provides no support for the hypothesis that formaldehyde causes AML, the [lymphohematopoietic malignancies] of greatest prior concern.”
The newest study represents the latest industry-funded efforts to acquire and analyze raw data from two studies relied on by EPA, IARC and other agencies to conclude that formaldehyde exposure can cause leukemias. Several years ago, one industry source explained that while most would agree that exposure to formaldehyde can cause nasal cancer, the leukemia finding was more concerning to industries that make and use formaldehyde because of the much higher prevalence and risk associated with leukemia.
Ending IRIS
The study's publication comes as Congress considers the fiscal year 2017 omnibus appropriations bill, which has attached report language directing EPA, should it seek to release a new draft formaldehyde assessment this fiscal year, to contract with the NAS “to verify the recommendations from the previous NAS report of 2011 have been fully resolved scientifically.”
Meanwhile, other industry groups are seeking to stop all formaldehyde analyses, and shutter the IRIS program altogether -- strongly backing Trump administration calls to end the IRIS program in FY18.
In recent comments to the Commerce Department that preview recommendations the industry is likely to make to EPA as part of its broad review of agency programs, the American Forest & Paper Association (AFPA) calls for “a stop on all formaldehyde IRIS program activities, including any intra- or interagency reviews or the release of any draft or final assessments. EPA should convene other experts within the Executive Branch to gain an objective perspective on formaldehyde science, and EPA’s findings and conclusions should be based on the weight of the evidence and use the biological data to provide a basis for a threshold response for all health endpoints,” the group says.
More broadly, AFPA seeks “a stop on all current 2017 IRIS program activities,” adding that “EPA should eliminate the IRIS program for 2018 and beyond and reassign its responsibilities to EPA’s program offices.”
The group's comments -- submitted to the Commerce Department in response to President Donald Trump's call to streamline permitting -- support EPA plans, detailed in a March 21 memo from acting chief financial officer David Bloom, that call for eliminating the IRIS program.
The influential but often controversial program, housed within the agency's Office of Research and Development, has drawn fire for its often strict assessments of chemicals' risks and EPA's usage of its dose-response analyses for setting standards and other decisionmaking.
Bloom's memo indicates that the administration is seeking to drop 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, in addition to the 2011 NAS report.
'Unreasonably Stringent'
AFPA reiterates its long-standing concern with the program. “Throughout the history of the IRIS program, there have been criticisms of the scientific outcome of its assessments, primarily because IRIS uses outdated or overly conservative scientific information in their assessments that result in unfounded toxicological hazards and excessively low acceptable concentration levels,” AFPA says.
“When these IRIS assessments are used by EPA’s program offices, they can result in unreasonably stringent regulatory standards that are not grounded in the realities that should be considered by EPA’s program offices. While there have been many efforts to reform the IRIS program and incorporate 21st century scientific thinking, the dysfunctions in the program seem beyond repair."
AFPA is not alone in its calls, though it offers the most detail. The American Composites Manufacturers Association, for example, suggests the administration should consolidate IRIS and other federal risk assessment programs.
The group says there are numerous “redundant” government risk assessment programs, naming IRIS, EPA's Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) risk assessment program, and other programs within the U.S. Health and Human Services Department.
“Across the several federal government and state programs that evaluate the hazards and risks potentially associated with exposures to industrial chemicals, there is both broad overlap of missions and wide variance and inconsistency in the use of National Academy of Sciences-recommended risk assessment procedures and other accepted best practices. … Many of these redundant programs could be profitably eliminated and the resource savings invested in improving the quality, reliability and timeliness of a well-managed and properly focused chemical risk assessment program.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/industry-seeks-block-alter-epas-iris-formaldehyde-risk-analysis
-
Suit Aims To Block Fracking Plan For National Forest In Ohio
May 2, 2017 | AP (In The New York Times)
A coalition of conservation groups has filed a lawsuit aimed at blocking plans to allow fracking in eastern Ohio's Wayne National Forest.
The Sierra Club, Ohio Environmental Council and the Center for Biological Diversity filed the lawsuit Tuesday in U.S District Court in Columbus.
The lawsuit against the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service aims to void leases allowing hydraulic fracturing in Ohio's only national forest. It contends the leases violate the National Environmental Policy Act.
Neither federal agency immediately responded to requests for comment Tuesday.
The leases don't automatically allow companies to drill. They provide a 10-year window to apply for permits for gas and oil exploration.
Opponents say opening the land to fracking will threaten public health and local wildlife by polluting the air and water.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/05/02/us/ap-us-gas-drilling-forest.html
-
Angus King Pushes Tougher Export Reviews
May 3, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey
Independent Sen. Angus King of Maine floated legislation that would set protections on any federally approved exports of domestic gas to ensure the Department of Energy first studies any knock-on effects.
King's bill, the "Natural Gas Consumer Protection Act," would require DOE to weigh the effect of any natural gas export proposal on domestic prices and employment, regional effects, and the nation's industrial competitiveness.
Currently, DOE has a limited number of considerations when evaluating applications, the senator said in a statement. Democratic Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota is co-sponsoring the bill.
"This is a pretty straightforward and common-sense idea: If the Department of Energy is going to allow for more natural gas to be exported when Maine and other Northeastern states desperately need it, then it better ensure that Maine people and Maine businesses aren't going to be hit with higher energy costs as a result," King said.
"I have long thought that it would be shortsighted for the department to give away our competitive advantage to other countries, but if it decides to do so, I don't want people in Maine to pay the price."
King said DOE is currently receiving little congressional guidance on what to consider when reviewing export proposals.
The department, King said, has pointed to a number of studies that show positive macroeconomic effects from gas exports but has so far failed to conduct a more "nuanced consideration of the issue that accounts for regional differences and heavily impacted industries in areas like manufacturing that are energy-intensive."
King has spoken out against unfettered exports in the past and joined Democrats in calling for careful examination at the federal level.
Even so, the Trump administration has signaled exporting domestic gas is high on its agenda, as is reforming the permitting of terminals, pipelines and production.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/05/03/stories/1060053950
-
Industry, Greens Set To Clash Over Proposed Oversight Reforms
May 3, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey
Pipeline builders and environmental lawyers will face off today over a House provision that would strip the State Department of the lead role in conducting environmental reviews — the same authority that tripped up the Keystone XL pipeline under the Obama administration.
Preparing to call for swift reforms to unleash a so-called logjam of cross-boundary pipeline approvals at the State Department is Andrew Black, president and CEO of the Association of Oil Pipe Lines.
The call for pipeline reforms arrives as House member prepare to move pieces of an energy bill that fizzled last year, including critical reforms to advance permitting of hydroelectric projects. In all, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy is taking up 10 draft pieces of legislation and bills today aimed at reforming federal permitting.
On the pipeline front, Black in prepared remarks applauded the Trump administration for returning to the "original intent of the presidential permit program," a nod to the White House's approval of the KXL pipeline after years of delay under Obama. Black goes on to call for firm timelines and parameters for future approvals, arguing that a future administration could return to the "abuses" of the past.
"As this committee knows, there is no authorizing statute from the Congress laying out the requirements for this program. There is no guidance in the law on what should be reviewed, and what can be exempted because it is too small to make a difference," Black is prepared to tell the Subcommittee on Energy. "There are no laws on what criteria to use, what to examine, how or by when. The unfortunate result is the lack of clear, statutory directions uncertainty and delay."
Black is preparing to ask for changes to the State Department approval of cross-border energy projects, including a clock on approvals after environmental reviews wrap up, a limiting of the scope to cross-border projects and an exemption from environmental reviews for changes to existing cross-border facilities.
AOPL is backing draft legislation that would remove the requirement to obtain a presidential permit from the State Department for oil and gas pipelines or electric transmission facilities.
The draft would require developers to instead obtain a "certificate of crossing" from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the case of oil and natural gas pipelines and the secretary of Energy in the case of electric transmission facilities. It would also give those agencies a 120-day deadline after environmental reviews are completed to approve or deny the certificate applications.
Black will face off with Jennifer Danis, a senior staff attorney with the Eastern Environmental Law Center who blasted the House measure in written testimony.
Danis in prepared remarks warned the draft legislation would inadvisably scrap the State Department's responsibility of proving a project is in the nation's best interest and instead give FERC the ability to conduct a more limited review that forces the commission to prove why a project is not in the nation's best interest.
Danis also said the House draft would usurp the executive branch's authority under the Constitution, which "vests the authority to engage in foreign relations in the executive branch."
Danis also took a swipe at draft legislation that's receiving strong backing from the natural gas interstate pipeline industry. A draft bill the committee is slated to take up would impose timelines within FERC's environmental reviews of natural gas pipelines, compressor stations and export terminals.
Such changes, Danis said, are "unnecessary and would upset the careful balance of cooperative federalism that exists" under critical environmental statutes.
But Don Santa, president and CEO of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, who is also slated to testify, said the deadlines are critical to industry projects facing lengthy timelines at the commission. In prepared remarks, Santa warned that pipeline reviews have only grown more challenging since he testified on the need for reforms last year.
"Federal permitting agencies are taking longer, and, in some cases, are electing not to initiate reviews until FERC has completed its review of a proposed pipeline project," Santa wrote. "These disjointed, sequential reviews cause delay and, in some cases, create the need for supplemental environmental analysis."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/05/03/stories/1060053949
-
Keystone XL Pipeline Fight Heads To Nebraska
May 3, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Ben Lefebvre
President Donald Trump has hailed his approval of the Keystone XL pipeline as one of the biggest victories of his first 100 days, but the final verdict on the project is now up to a handful of elected officials on an obscure Nebraska commission.
Trump has revived the $8 billion project that spent six years in limbo before former President Barack Obama ultimately denied its cross-border permit in 2015. And though pipeline developer TransCanada now has that federal approval in hand, the company hasn't secured the rights to the route across Nebraska, where a coalition of environmental, property rights and Native American groups are aiming to quash it.
Those activists — as well as the Keystone backers from labor unions and business groups — have poured into York, Neb., for a public hearing Wednesday before the Nebraska Public Safety Commission, the five-member regulatory body more accustomed to setting telephone rates than deciding the fate of a major international energy project.
Activists like Jane Kleeb, who helped elevate Keystone into a national environmental issue, are hoping the vocal opposition from Nebraskans at the hearing will help sway the Republican-controlled commission.
"This will be a test of where we see any shift in local politics,” said Kleeb, who founded the Bold Alliance and is now chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party. “Pipelines have also been local, but we’re now much more aware of them because of Keystone.”
Wednesday's hearing at the Holthus Convention Center will run for 10 hours and allow testimony from up to 120 people in front of the NPSC's four elected Republicans and one Democrat. Those commissioners will later this year decide the fate of the Keystone pipeline, which would carry of up to 830,000 barrels per day of crude from Canada and North Dakota to refineries on the Gulf Coast.
Another public hearing is scheduled for Lincoln in August.
The commission, whose members also regulate telephone carriers, railroad safety, grain warehouses, power lines and water rates, won't have one asset to help make its decision: The pipeline expert it hired last year is a former TransCanada engineer who recused himself from the process, according to commission spokeswoman Deb Collins.
Green groups like 350.org have vowed to bring hundreds of protesters to the city of 8,000. The commission’s public notice for the event saw fit to reiterate the convention center’s rule prohibiting carrying guns and knives.
Pipeline opponents are hoping they can pressure the commission's Republican chairman, Frank Landis Jr., to block the project. Landis is up for reelection in 2018 in a district that encompasses one of the only two Nebraskan counties that voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
And Commissioner Mary Ridder, also a Republican, is a rancher whose district encompasses the Sandhills, a vast grazing area that sits atop the Ogallala aquifer. TransCanada had revised the Keystone XL route to avoid the sensitive region, but it would still closely skirt the Sandhills, and its proposed route would still force TransCanada to rely on eminent domain to seize the property from some ranchers who have refused to sell.
Neither Landis nor Ridder responded to requests for comment.
Though Trump has publicly celebrated his Keystone order, as well as completion of the Dakota Access pipeline in North Dakota, the long campaigns against those projects has helped unify a range of groups — climate change activists, property rights advocates, Native American groups and wildlife conservationists — who are lending support to other anti-pipeline efforts around the country.
“Clearly the Keystone XL pipeline played a very large role in demonstrating that this was a fight worth fighting,” said Ernie Reed, president of Friends of Nelson County, a group fighting against the Atlantic Coast and Mountain Valley pipelines. “It certainly created an environment where resistance, research and community organizing are considered essential and effective ways to inform and resist and stop potential pipelines.”
That influence has even helped inspire protests in Louisiana, the state that's home to some of nation's biggest refineries and is crisscrossed by hundreds of pipelines. Local opposition to new projects used to be limited to local environmentalists and crawfish fisherman fed up with the lines cutting wetlands off from water, said Scott Eustis, coastal wetland specialist with the Gulf Restoration Network.
Now carloads of people are driving from Baton Rouge and Shreveport to attend public hearings on Energy Transfer Partner’s proposed Bayou Bridge pipeline, Eustis said. The pipeline would bring oil from West Texas to Louisiana refineries.
“I‘ve never seen this number of people coming in,” Eustis said. “About 400 to 500 people come out. We have a ton of pipelines, so the landowners are sick of them.”
In Nebraska, the York government is feeling some trepidation about the influx of busloads of activists.
“We’ve obviously taken precautions,” City Administrator Joseph Frie told POLITICO. “We don’t know what to expect. But it’s just a one day affair. Hopefully, the people will come in that morning and ... well, for the benefit of the community, stay overnight in a hotel.”
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/05/nebraska-commission-holds-keystone-xl-hearings-as-pipeline-politics-go-local-156208
-
Methane Repeal Effort May Hit Snag In Senate Over Ethanol
May 3, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy & Ari Natter
A top oil industry priority on Capitol Hill may fall victim to an unrelated dispute over ethanol.
At stake is an Interior Department rule forcing energy companies to curb emissions of methane escaping from wells and pipelines on public land. Senate Republican leaders say they are close to getting the 51 votes they need to overturn that Obama-era regulation using expedited repeal procedures under the Congressional Review Act.
But now, with a deadline about a week away, that campaign is on the verge of capsizing.
Two Republicans, Sens. Charles Grassley of Iowa and John Thune of South Dakota, told Senate leaders the price for their votes for the methane measure is a change in ethanol policy, said energy lobbyist Mike McKenna and two other people familiar with the talks who spoke anonymously about the negotiations. The lawmakers demanded the measure—which would free up use of higher blends of ethanol—be included in the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill set to advance this week. Spokesmen for Grassley and Thune did not return emailed requests for comment.
Ethanol advocates want the Environmental Protection Agency or Congress to waive rules that restrict gasoline blends containing more than 10 percent ethanol from sales in summer months. Such a waiver already applies to gasoline containing 10 percent ethanol, but not higher ethanol blends—effectively barring their sale from June 1 until September 15 in some areas when smog is a problem.
The issue is a top priority for biofuel producers such as POET LLC and industry trade groups, including the Renewable Fuels Association and the Growth Energy coalition of supporters. Advocates of the change have asked EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to unilaterally issue a waiver and advanced legislation to make the shift. Including it in the must-pass government spending bill would ensure it makes it through Congress and is signed into law.
Still, the regulatory repeal may not be dead yet: Ethanol supporters are now asking Republican leaders for a commitment to put the ethanol provision on a must-pass bill later, according to one person familiar with the discussions. It's not clear Republican leaders would accept this offer. Some oil companies oppose the change because it could translate to greater demand for ethanol, a competitor.
Republican leaders had been working for weeks to gather the votes for a separate resolution voiding the methane rule using the Congressional Review Act. The deadline for using the act to repeal rules issued under Obama is projected to be May 11.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), who sponsored the measure, vowed to pass it next week, telling Bloomberg BNA that the underlying methane regulation is “unnecessary” and “expensive.“
Although the House easily passed the methane rule repeal in February, Senate Republican leaders have struggled to piece together a 51-vote majority for the measure, amid expected no votes from Republicans Susan Collins of Maine and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Two potential Democratic supporters—Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia—also are undecided, according to their representatives.
The Interior Department methane rule, which applies only on public land, aims to discourage the practice of venting and flaring natural gas at oil wells. Natural gas, whose primary component is the potent greenhouse gas methane, is sometimes released or burned off as an unwanted byproduct of more profitable crude at oil wells that don't have nearby pipelines to send that gas to market.
The regulation blocks companies from venting gas except in emergencies, phases down the amount of flaring that is allowed, and forces the businesses to detect and repair gas leaks.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110594265&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110594265&jd=110594265
-
Cut, Abandoned Gas Line Caused Fatal House Fire In Colorado
May 3, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
A cut, abandoned gas flow line that had not been disconnected from a nearby wellhead and capped was the cause of an explosion and fire at a home in Firestone, Colo., that killed two men and critically injured a woman, officials said.
After the findings were released May 2, Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) ordered all oil and gas operators in the state to inspect and pressure test existing oil and gas flow lines within 1,000 feet of occupied buildings. The state's required setback, the minimum distance required between occupied buildings and wellheads, is 500 feet.
Unrefined, non-odorized gas entered the home through a French drain and sump pit from the cut flow line attached to the oil and natural gas well 178 feet away, investigators with the Frederick-Firestone Fire Protection District said May 2. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., which owned and operated the well, took the step of shutting down all 3,000 of its vertical wells in the nearby Denver-Julesburg basin after the April 17 incident.
Because of that shutdown and the halt in production of the predominantly natural gas well, no additional contamination risk or danger exists to homes in the Oak Meadows neighborhood where the explosion occurred, the fire protection district said.
The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which has been assisting the district in the investigation, was scheduled to give a briefing about the incident later May 2. The district said it has turned over the matter to the Firestone Police Department as an official death investigation.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110594269&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110594269&jd=110594269
-
Colorado Investigators Link Fatal Home Explosion To Anadarko Well
May 2, 2017 | Fuel FIx
By Collin Eaton
Colorado investigators have linked a fatal home explosion last month to a faulty gas line connected to an old well owned by Anadarko Petroleum.
The Frederick-Firestone Fire Protection District said Tuesday it traced the explosion that killed two men and injured a woman to a natural gas leak from a “cut, abandoned gas flow line” into the house through a French drain and sump pit.
The gas line, officials said, had been abandoned but not disconnected from the wellhead and capped. It stopped leaking gas from the well after Anadarko shut in the well last month. The Woodlands-based company said it has shut in 3,000 wells in the region.
The destroyed Firestone, Colorado home was built some 200 feet away from the well. It had been drilled by another company more than two decades ago.
On Tuesday, Anadarko said it would continue working on the matter with the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
The company “will continue to cooperate fully with all ongoing investigations to ensure we fully understand the basis for the fire district’s conclusion and that no stone is left unturned prior to any final determinations,” Anadarko CEO Al Walker said in a written statement.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2017/05/02/colorado-investigators-link-fatal-home-explosion-to-anadarko-well/
-
UN Climate Talks Leader To Trump: Don't ‘Abandon The Field Of Play’
May 3, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Murray Griffin
The incoming president of the 2017 United Nations climate talks implored U.S. President Donald Trump to keep the world's second-largest greenhouse gas emitter as a participant in the global Paris Agreement to fight climate change.
“The world needs more teamwork on climate change right now than ever before,” Fiji Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama said May 2 at a carbon conference in Melbourne, Australia—his first major speech in his role as incoming president. “We can't have one of our best performers abandon the field of play.”
Bainimarama said he had written to Trump urging him to “continue to take a leadership role as we confront undoubtedly the greatest challenge of our age.”
“We must preserve at all costs the historic agreement that was reached in Paris in 2015,” Bainimarama said. “The Paris Agreement must be implemented in full and the groundwork laid for even more ambitious action. ... That means every nation fulfilling the pledges they made in Paris and demonstrating an unwavering commitment to see this process through.”
Trump's Decision
During his campaign for president, Trump called climate change a hoax and vowed to withdraw the U.S.—which trails only China among the world's greenhouse-gas emitters—from the Paris climate accord. Trump has yet to announce a decision as his administration remains divided over U.S. action.
But even if the U.S. remains in the Paris deal, it's unclear what role the country would play in the coming years. Trump has directed the Environmental Protection Agency to roll back carbon dioxide limits for power plants, the heart of the country's pledge to reduce its emissions by at least 26 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.
Fiji this year holds the presidency of the U.N. climate negotiations, taking the reins from Morocco, which held it in 2016. At the 23rd conference of parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change in November in Bonn, Germany, negotiators will continue work on how nearly 200 signatory nations will implement the Paris Agreement.
Private Sector
But if governments fail to take decisive action, Bainimarama said the role of businesses and citizens becomes even more important.
“When governments fail to lead, the private sector must do so, as is happening already in America,” he said.
“When the call to action goes unheeded, civil society must mobilize ordinary people to turn up the pressure,” he said. “And where politicians deny the magnitude of the challenge that we face, men and women must use their power at the ballot box to replace them.”
Bainimarama called for a “grand coalition of governments, civil society and the private sector to defend and uphold the Paris Agreement.”
‘Frighteningly Real’ Climate Change
The leader of the small Pacific Island nation, which in February 2016 was hit by the most severe tropical cyclone ever to reach its shores, also warned there was “no longer room and certainly no longer time to question the science” of climate change.
The best scientific advice makes it clear that climate change is “frighteningly real,” he said, noting that the many of the world's coral reefs “may be too far gone to be saved” and agricultural yields were also being affected.
The Fijian leader also spoke firsthand of the impact of extreme weather, noting that Tropical Cyclone Winston “had wiped out one third of our GDP,” even though it spared the main tourist areas on which the country's economy depends.
Fiji Offers to Accept Climate Refugees
Key tasks for this year in the U.N. process include advancing the underpinning rules of the Paris Agreement and laying the groundwork for countries to make more ambitious commitments through a review process that will start in 2018, Bainimarama said.
He said citizens of Fiji were “shouldering our share of the burden of finding new homes for those who are displaced by climate change.”
“We have offered to give permanent refuge to two of our nearest neighbors, Kiribati and Tuvalu, in the event that they are submerged altogether,” he said of the small Pacific island nations.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110594254&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110594254&jd=110594254
-
Trump’s Lawyer Raises Concerns About Remaining In Paris Climate Accord, Sources Say
May 2, 2017 | Politico Pro
By Andrew Restuccia & Eric Wolff
President Donald Trump's top White House lawyer is raising concerns about the legal ramifications of the U.S. remaining in the Paris climate change agreement, sources familiar with the discussions told POLITICO, a development that could bode ill for the campaign by several top administration advisers to remain in the landmark accord.
White House counsel Don McGahn raised the concerns during a pair of closed-door meetings over the last week, the sources said, although they added that he has not yet made a formal recommendation to the president and his stance isn't set in stone. Trump has said he plans to make a decision in the coming weeks, in what has become a symbolic debate about how far he will push his “America First” agenda despite potential blowback from U.S. allies.
Trump’s team remains divided over the Paris deal, even after a Thursday meeting of Cabinet secretaries and other advisers and a Monday meeting of administration lawyers. Trump officials could not reach consensus at either meeting, sources said.
The 2015 agreement, which won the backing of 195 nations, achieved a major policy goal of former President Barack Obama by getting countries around the world to make non-binding pledges to rein in their greenhouse gas emissions. Making the agreement legally binding could have required Obama to submit the deal to an extremely unlikely ratification in the Senate.
Chief White House strategist Steve Bannon and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt support withdrawing, while other advisers, including Ivanka Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, are said to support remaining.
Opponents of the Paris agreement have made a two-pronged legal case for withdrawing. The first, which Pruitt has raised in recent weeks, argues that staying in the Paris deal creates a legal opening for climate advocates to use the courts to challenge Trump’s efforts to undo Obama’s climate regulations for power plants. The second suggests that the terms of the Paris agreement don’t allow any country to reduce its emissions targets.
McGahn, sources said, raised both of those arguments during the Thursday meeting, and on Monday reiterated the concern that Paris could be cited in court challenges to Trump’s efforts to kill Obama’s climate rules. McGahn’s comments shocked State Department lawyers, who strongly reject both of those contentions, the sources said.
McGahn did not respond to requests for comment. A White House spokesman disputed POLITICO’s characterization of McGahn’s comments at the meeting, but did not specify what was inaccurate.
Hard-line conservatives are pressuring Trump to withdraw, noting that he promised to "cancel" the agreement during the campaign.
Pruitt first floated the idea of legal risk to the Obama administration's carbon rule for power plants in April. Several outside groups have published memos in recent weeks pushing back on Pruitt’s contention. Daniel Bodansky, an Arizona State University law professor who served as a State Department climate coordinator at the end of the Clinton administration, said that under common legal doctrine, a court would be unlikely to take the Paris deal into account on a challenge to a domestic policy.
Meanwhile, as news of the administration’s internal debate about the Paris deal spreads, environmental groups and supporters of the agreement have taken the unusual step of publicly defending the United States’ right to weaken its climate target. The Paris agreement was written to be non-binding, they argue. And while its intent was to enable countries to create more stringent carbon reductions, there's nothing in it to prevent backsliding.
The Sierra Club, which might otherwise be expected to challenge U.S. action to lower its commitments under Paris, indicated in a recent internal memo obtained by POLITICO that it likely wouldn’t win a court challenge.
“[I]t would be extremely difficult to prevail on the merits” if the group tried to sue the administration to prevent it from weakening its domestic climate change pledge or quickly withdrawing from the deal, the memo says.
In interviews with POLITICO, international diplomats said it was ridiculous to argue that countries can’t weaken their domestic climate plans, noting that the deal was specifically written to provide flexibility to countries at the request of the United States. Obama administration officials objected to efforts to insert legally binding language requiring countries to increase their ambition over time, officials familiar with the issue said.
Instead, the text says a country “may at any time adjust its existing nationally determined contribution with a view to enhancing its level of ambition.” In the parlance of international negotiations, “may” suggests that countries have a choice. “Shall,” on the other hand, suggests a legal obligation.
European officials have had limited direct conversations with the White House over the Paris deal. But they have quietly tried to make the case that the benefits of remaining far outweigh the risks.
The officials, along with U.S. defenders of the Paris deal, worry that the international blowback of withdrawing is not getting enough attention from the White House.
“Legally and economically, the United States would be much more vulnerable outside of Paris than in," one European official told POLITICO. "Being outside a major multilateral environmental agreement like the Paris agreement leaves a country more vulnerable to trade-related measures from countries that are inside the agreement."
The official added that there would be a "very, very sharp expression of disappointment" from Europe if the United States pulls out, adding that there would be political and diplomatic fallout that would be felt at the upcoming G-7 and G-20 meetings and for many years to come.
"The U.S will once again by isolated and struggling against the pull of where the rest of the major economies want to move," the official said.
The administration could end up facing the kind of fierce criticism that President George W. Bush saw when he refused to back the Kyoto Protocol, even though the U.S. signed the agreement in 1998 when Bill Clinton was president.
Trump “will piss off every single country in the world” if he withdraws, said an international official who was closely involved in the negotiation over the text of the Paris deal. “It will haunt the administration in every aspect of its international diplomacy.”
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/05/trumps-lawyer-raises-concerns-about-remaining-in-paris-climate-accord-sources-say-156236
-
EPA Officials Defend Agency's Duty To Follow Science On Climate Change
May 3, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Current and former senior EPA officials are defending the agency's prerogative to follow the best available science on climate change from what they say are politically motivated attacks by the Trump administration and other critics of greenhouse gas (GHG) rules, arguing that addressing climate change is one of EPA's fundamental tasks.
At the May 2 annual Health Effects Institute (HEI) conference in Alexandria, VA, senior EPA research staffer Dan Costa -- who said he was speaking in a strictly personal capacity -- and former Obama EPA science policy adviser Thomas Burke both sought to defend the agency's scientific research program, particularly on climate change.
“Climate is integrated into the realities that we are all dealing with,” said Costa, stressing that climate change affects all aspects of the agency's work and also impacts policies on conventional pollution. “You don't have to say you are working on climate. Because you will be working on climate,” he added.
Costa listed a series of “direct” and “indirect” climate effects that EPA needs to address and for which it should continue research. Direct effects include, for example, sea level rise, while indirect effects could include a wide range of phenomena such as greater production of ozone due to increased temperatures. He added his hope that popular opinion would, hopefully, eventually force a reckoning with climate change.
Similarly, Burke warned that “political drivers are really undermining” EPA's science programs for the future, noting “threats to science” during the transition to the Trump administration.
Reinforcing Costa's point about climate policy, Burke said “climate can't be broken out” from other areas and environmental science, saying that it should have an effect on all of the agency's work.
But EPA late last week removed extensive information on climate policy from its website, reflecting agency Administrator Scott Pruitt's plan to refocus the agency on conventional pollution issues.
Criticizing the climate information removal, John O'Grady, president of the American Federal of Government Employees Council 238 which represents 9,000 EPA employees, said in a statement that, “The book burning has commenced!”
Yet the move is in line with the Trump administration's overall hostility to climate policies, highlighted by White House Office of Management & Budget Director Mick Mulvaney's remarks at a March 16 briefing on the budget where he said, “As to climate change, I think the President was fairly straightforward saying we’re not spending money on that anymore. We consider that to be a waste of your money to go out and do that.”
Although EPA was largely spared major funding cuts in pending fiscal year 2017 legislation that will fund the government through Sept. 30, it faces significant reductions under Trump's FY18 budget plan. That budget proposal would slash EPA's budget 31 percent from roughly $8.1 billion to $5.7 billion, and the bulk of climate change programs are among those designated for zeroed-out funding.
EPA Research
At the HEI conference, Costa said that despite the apparent step back from climate research, EPA continues to face a range of research priorities in conventional air pollution, such as better understanding the health effects of complex mixtures of pollutants, understanding causality of disease at very low concentrations of pollution, and the role of wildland fires in producing up to 40 percent of the nation's particulate matter pollution.
But he also acknowledged that setting ever-lower national pollution limits -- such as ozone and the five other criteria pollutants regulated under the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) -- may not be the best way to resolve local air pollution problems, as NAAQS edge closer to levels of background pollution that cannot be regulated. “In the current administration, we have to think about justifying” existing NAAQS limits, Costa said.
Meanwhile, Burke, now employed by Johns Hopkins University, warned that “the times are really changing,” and a hostility toward regulation may mean a sea-change in EPA's role in the future. We may be “at the end of acceptance” of command-and-control type regulation, he said, and echoed Costa's concern that “national bright line” pollution limits, such as the NAAQS, may in the future “be too close to background.”
EPA may shift toward providing information for others, such as state and local regulators, rather than crafting federal regulation, Burke said. However, many agency rules, including the NAAQS, are required by law, and unless and until Congress reforms or repeals Clean Air Act programs, EPA's statutory obligations remain.
Seeing a silver lining, however, he suggested this may be an opportunity to end the “Balkanization” of EPA science and policymaking, which now separates into different “silos” based on different media such as air, water and waste. Rather, EPA should embrace a cross-cutting “systems” approach, he said. Under this new vision, EPA would not artificially separate effects in air and water, and would address complex pollutant mixtures found in the real world.
In a new paradigm underpinned by the agency's mission to protect public health, EPA should integrate social, cultural, economic and political factors into its research into the effects of pollution on the public, Burke said.
Budget Cuts
EPA staffer John Vandenberg, during a question and answer session, asked Burke which areas of research EPA should drop in the event of a large budget cut. “What should we stop doing?” he said.
“Stopping should be a scientific decision,” Burke said, calling “shocking” Mulvaney's statement on climate change efforts no longer being worth funding.
Jonathan Samet, a veteran air quality researcher now with the University of Southern California, and former chair of EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, warned of “the displacement of evidence by belief” in EPA decisionmaking in remarks to HEI, which is a research organization jointly funded by the auto sector and the agency.
Meanwhile, Francesca Dominici of the Harvard School of Public Health, another prominent air quality expert, warned of the effect that anti-scientific opinions in government are having on students, who are put off going into the field. If the current generation of experts cannot train their replacements, “we are going to be toast,” she said.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-officials-defend-agencys-duty-follow-science-climate-change
-
Senate Dems Press Pruitt Over Alleged Conflict On Ozone
May 2, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
Senate Democrats asked U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt today to explain how he's dealing with another alleged conflict of interest — this time in regard to litigation over the agency's 2015 ground-level ozone standard.
The letter from Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Tom Carper of Delaware, Kamala Harris of California, Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island asks whether Pruitt has recused himself from EPA's review of the 70-parts-per-billion standard, made public last month when the agency won an open-ended delay in the litigation to revisit its position (Greenwire, April 12).
Before becoming EPA chief in February, Pruitt had joined in the legal challenges to the 70 ppb benchmark as Oklahoma's attorney general.
Under his EPA ethics agreement, Pruitt said he would seek authorization to participate in matters involving Oklahoma, according to Carper's letter. In response to written questions during his Senate confirmation hearing, he also said he would recuse himself from litigation on which he worked as attorney general, unless he received permission from federal ethics officials.
Among other questions posed in their letter, Carper, the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and the other four Democrats ask whether Pruitt has sought and received such authorization. If so, they ask for the written response from EPA's designated ethics official. If he is not recused from the ozone litigation but has not received authorization to participate, "please explain why you have not," they wrote.
EPA didn't reply to an emailed request for comment this afternoon.
The letter sets a May 15 deadline for a response. In the last two months, Carper and other Democrats have requested similar details on Pruitt's handling of legal challenges to the Clean Power Plan and the Waters of the United States rule (E&E News PM, April 10).
EPA has so far not responded to either of those earlier inquiries, a Carper spokeswoman said.
Ozone, the main ingredient in smog, is a lung irritant that can help trigger asthma attacks and worsen emphysema symptoms. Under the Obama administration, EPA tightened the standard from 75 ppb to 70 ppb in October 2015 on the grounds that the stricter limit was needed to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/05/02/stories/1060053937
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested