Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 5/3/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Asserting 'Overly Broad' Authority in TSCA Ban Proposals
May 3, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Industry groups and consultants say the US EPA’s first proposed section 6 rules under the new TSCA suggest the agency will assume a larger role in the regulation of toxic substances currently overseen by other agencies, and have questioned its authority to do so. -
How Hard is it to Find Products with These Toxic Chemicals? Shockingly Easy.
May 3, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jack Pratt
Last November, the federal government named the first 10 chemicals to be reviewed under America’s recently reformed chemical safety law. It made me wonder just how easy it would be to find these potentially dangerous ingredients in every-day consumer products. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry-Backed Study Says Formaldehyde Isn't a Carcinogen
May 3, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
An analysis of data used in a study cited by U.S. EPA to set hazard standards for formaldehyde found no link between exposure and leukemia. -
Echa Launches Consultation on D4 and D5
May 3, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa is seeking evidence to identify the current uses of D4 and D5 in consumer and professional products. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Split Over Need for More Plants
May 3, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
Some in the petrochemicals industry are split over whether they should place confidence in cheap natural gas feedstock as a new wave of giant plants are about to come online. -
Greens Sue EPA for Halting Power-Plant Toxics Rule
May 3, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
Environmental groups challenged U.S. EPA today over its decision to halt an Obama administration regulation aimed at limiting toxic metals in power plants' wastewater discharges. -
Grassley Threatens to Upend Methane CRA Without a Win for Ethanol
May 3, 2017 | Politico Pro
By Anthony Adragna and Ben Lefebvre
Sen. Chuck Grassley says he might block one of the oil industry's top legislative priorities unless he can also secure a win for ethanol producers in corn states like his. -
Chemicals – Not Gasoline – is Future, Says Phillips 66
May 3, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By David Hunn
The top two executives at Phillips 66 backed away from the gasoline business on Wednesday and said that pipelines and chemicals held more promise for the company. -
Hundreds Fill Nebraska Hall to Sway Keystone XL Decision
May 3, 2017 | Politico Pro
By Ben Lefebvre
Hundreds of people lined up Wednesday to try to sway Nebraska regulators' decision on whether to approve the Keystone XL pipeline's planned route across the state, the last major regulatory hurdle for the long-stalled project. -
Abandoned Gas Line Caused Colo. Home Explosion
May 3, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee and Mike Soraghan
An abandoned pipeline that was cut off underground and left uncapped and connected to a natural gas well fueled an explosion that destroyed a Colorado home and killed two people last month, investigators said yesterday. -
Colorado Home Explosion Linked to Severed NatGas Line; Governor Orders Statewide Review
May 3, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper on Tuesday called for a statewide review of oil and natural gas operations after an investigation determined that an abandoned and severed unrefined natural gas flowline was linked to a fatal home explosion in Weld County. -
Fears Grow that 'Cancel' is Back on the Table
May 3, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick and Evan Lehmann
Winds have shifted in the White House against staying in the Paris Agreement, marking an abrupt course change since last week, when climate advocates felt confident that President Trump would preserve U.S. membership with weaker targets. -
White House Leaning Toward Exiting Paris Climate Pact
May 2, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
White House officials are leaning toward taking the United States out of the Paris climate agreement, people familiar with the deliberations say. -
Stealth Repeal: Trump's Strategy to Roll Back Regulations Through Delay
May 2, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Bethany A. Davis Noll
It’s no secret that the Trump administration would like to undo as much of Obama’s environmental legacy as possible by rescinding or repealing regulations. -
Applying Justice Scalia's Methods to the EPA Would Help to End Agency Partisanship
May 3, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Robert Henneke and Merritt Lander
Something is rotten in the state of administrative agencies. Something was especially rotten in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) during the past administration, and the late Justice Scalia would have wholeheartedly agreed.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Asserting 'Overly Broad' Authority in TSCA Ban Proposals
May 3, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Industry groups and consultants say the US EPA’s first proposed section 6 rules under the new TSCA suggest the agency will assume a larger role in the regulation of toxic substances currently overseen by other agencies, and have questioned its authority to do so.
Caffey Norman, an attorney representing the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance (HSIA), told Chemical Watch that, through itsproposed rules to ban or prohibit certain uses of trichloroethylene (TCE), n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) and methylene chloride, the EPA has "signalled its intent" to take over regulation of toxic substances from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) and Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) for worker and consumer exposures.
But he does not believe the new TSCA law gives EPA such authority.
The Lautenberg Act, said the Squire Patton Boggs partner, eliminated the requirement that the EPA manage risk using the least burdensome requirements. But it "did not materially change the existing framework that requires unreasonable risks to be addressed under statutory authority other than TSCA wherever possible."
This means, for example, that the EPA should regulate a toxic substance in the workplace only where Osha has failed to adopt a workplace limit or regulation. Otherwise, he said, it "should defer to any limits or regulations that Osha has adopted".
TSCA’s relationship to other federal laws is covered under section 9. In addressing these provisions in the preamble to its proposal to ban TCE in spot cleaning, the EPA said the risks were "best managed by regulation under TSCA rather than by referral to other agencies". It therefore appears not to have issued formal reports to Osha or the CPSC regarding its proposed approach.
But it did coordinate with other agencies. And letters from both Osha and CPSC officials, published in the docket, indicate they concurred that TSCA is the best mechanism for addressing TCE’s risks.
In Osha’s response, it said that there are limits on its powers to regulate exposures to substances like TCE, MC and NMP. These include its lack of direct jurisdiction over state and local government workers, as well as over self-employed workers, military personnel, and others.
Concerns with approach
The Chemical Users Coalition – a cross-industry group of nine major companies, including Intel, Boeing, Honda and Procter & Gamble – said in comments the EPA’s decision not to invoke the process for determining whether another federal agency could sufficiently address the unreasonable risk "does not withstand scrutiny".
The EPA should not "rely on a set of generic arguments that would essentially dismiss these agencies from ever being appropriate agencies for a section 9(a) referral", it said.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) added that the EPA is asserting "overly broad jurisdictional authority without sufficient explanation or justification, and without regard to TSCA’s gap-filling purpose or the statute’s goal of avoiding duplicative requirements".
And the HSIA pointed out that the limitations to Osha’s authority apply to every use of every toxic substance. "Congress cannot have meant, in enacting 'gap-filling' legislation, to open the door to EPA assuming all authority over the use of hazardous substances in the workplace," it wrote.
Gap-filling legislation?
This concept of TSCA serving as a 'gap-filling' legislation surfaced in several comments. The HSIA, for example, said it was "clear from the outset that TSCA is to be used only when other statutes fail to provide a remedy for unreasonable risks", and the Lautenberg Act did not substantively change this.
But according to a statement of additional views submitted last year by Senator Barbara Boxer (D–California) on behalf of democrat leaders instrumental in updating the law, "TSCA can no longer be construed as a 'gap-filler' statutory authority of last resort.
"The inter-agency referral process and the intra-agency consideration process, established under section 9 of existing TSCA, must now be regarded in a different light."
Richard Denison, lead senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, told Chemical Watch that EPA’s rationale for not referring the TCE rule to other agencies "could be applied in many cases for section 6 rules; but I would disagree with [industry] that that is an inappropriate consideration - I think it is an appropriate consideration."
Even the original TSCA "gave EPA clear authority to impose restrictions in workplaces and on consumer products", he said. And with passage of the Lautenberg Act, the "context for section 9 has changed".
Section 9
Section 9 of TSCA outlines the statute’s relationship to other federal laws. It says that in cases where the administrator finds a substance poses an unreasonable risk and determines that such risk "may be prevented or reduced to a sufficient extent" by an action under a different federal law, then it must issue a report to the agency of jurisdiction detailing the actions that should be taken.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55575/epa-asserting-overly-broad-authority-in-tsca-ban-proposals
-
How Hard is it to Find Products with These Toxic Chemicals? Shockingly Easy.
May 3, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jack Pratt
Last November, the federal government named the first 10 chemicals to be reviewed under America’s recently reformed chemical safety law. It made me wonder just how easy it would be to find these potentially dangerous ingredients in every-day consumer products.
The answer: very easy. In fact, while you’ve probably not heard of many of these 10 chemicals [PDF] – or how they could affect your health – the products that contain them are likely all too familiar.
To round them up, I turned to my usual online and brick-and-mortar retailers: Amazon.com, my local hardware and hobby stores, and my go-to online auto supply provider.
This degreaser kills bugs “instantly”
Amazon is my favorite vendor for everything from diapers to razors. Turns out, it can also bring me products containing PERC, 1-Bromopropane, TCE and many more hazardous chemicals linked to cancer and other diseases.
Purchasers’ Amazon reviews provided interesting insights. For example, Lectra Clean Degreaser, designed to clean electronics and engine parts using PERC, earned 5 out of 5 stars from one Amazon reviewer.
“I always keep a couple cans of this handy,” this reviewer wrote. “It’s also an amazing bug killer. It will kill any fly, wasp or nuisance bug almost instantly upon contact. Put the small red tube in and you’ve got about 8 feet of accurate Armageddon for our insect friends.”
Of course, what’s bad for bugs often isn’t great for people, either.
You won’t go “green” with this paint stripper
At my local hardware store, I picked up an NMP-based paint stripper. The product is sold under the brand “Back to Nature” and includes a logo that urges customers to “Go Green.” That’s pretty upbeat language for a product that can harm fetal development.
Generally, hardware stores are easy places to find products with chemicals on the EPA’s first-10 list. So are craft and hobby stores.
In fact, Carbon Tetrachloride, which has been linked to kidney and liver damage in people exposed to it over an extended period of time, can be found in adhesives in stores that cater to artsy people, including children.
Craft and hobby stores are also places where you can find chemicals from the list such as Pigment Violet 29, used in some permanent violet paints. Or 1-Bromopropane, which is used in certain adhesives and has been linked to cancer, neurological disease and reproductive problems.
Asbestos brake pads shipped – loose in flimsy box
Nothing can beat an auto supply provider, however. There you can find degreasing products containing TCE, PERC and 1-Bromopropane. It’s also where I located the “coup de grace” in my toxic chemical scavenger hunt: asbestos brake pads.
Despite EPA’s inability to ban asbestos under the old chemical law, its use has been significantly curtailed by lawsuits thanks to a clear link to mesothelioma, a form of lung cancer.
But it’s still out there: An online auto supply vendor shipped me asbestos brake pads, loose and unwrapped, rattling around in a flimsy cardboard box that included a small warning label “contains asbestos fibers, avoid breathing dust.”
We can chuckle a bit at how casually a company shipped a product containing a deadly carcinogen, but this is serious stuff. The men and women who work with asbestos brake pads can get deathly ill, and so can their families, when the fibers come home on clothing.
How, you ask, are such blatant health risks be overlooked in a modern, developed nation?
We need your help
Well, for decades, America’s main chemical safety law offered virtually no protection against toxic chemicals that flooded the market. Badly outmoded and outdated, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 could not even restrict a known carcinogen like asbestos.
Fortunately, last year, an overwhelming bipartisan majority in Congress passed legislation to reform the law, starting with the review of those first 10 chemicals – among other important responsibilities and actions required under the new law.
It’s now up to us to make sure the Trump administration follows through so workers, kids, pregnant women and the rest of us get the protection we deserve.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2017/05/03/how-hard-it-find-products-these-toxic-chemicals-shockingly-easy
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry-Backed Study Says Formaldehyde Isn't a Carcinogen
May 3, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
An analysis of data used in a study cited by U.S. EPA to set hazard standards for formaldehyde found no link between exposure and leukemia.
The paper, which was published this week in the Critical Reviews in Toxicology journal, was funded by the American Chemistry Council, an industry group.
"The weight of scientific evidence does not support a causal association between formaldehyde and leukemia," said lead author Kenneth Mundt.
The original paper was published in 2010 and looked at cancer rates in people exposed to formaldehyde on the job versus unexposed workers.
Formaldehyde is a colorless, flammable gas that can be used as an adhesive in the manufacture of wood products, building materials and insulation. According to EPA, high levels of exposure can cause cancer.
The new analysis looks at the data from the 2010 study and data recently released by the National Cancer Institute.
According to the chemicals trade group, EPA relied heavily on the 2010 study for its draft assessment of formaldehyde health risks.
"The original paper failed to meet its own data quality standards and the scientific standard of reproducibility," said Kimberly White, senior director of ACC's formaldehyde panel. "Relying on it consequently led to unsubstantiated regulatory decisions and unwarranted outcomes."
Richard Denison of the Environmental Defense Fund noted that the ACC not only funded the study but was also allowed to review and comment on the conclusions before its publication, according to the study's "funding" section.
EPA released its final rule on formaldehyde vapors in wood products last year (Greenwire, July 28, 2016).
This week, EPA sought out public comments on what regulations under the new Toxic Substances Control Act could be scaled back to be less burdensome. One of the topics under discussion was the formaldehyde rule.
Environmental groups expressed confusion over why EPA was looking for ways to roll back such a new law (Greenwire, May 1).
Comments on potential rollbacks, including the formaldehyde rule, are due May 15.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/05/03/stories/1060053995
-
Echa Launches Consultation on D4 and D5
May 3, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa is seeking evidence to identify the current uses of D4 and D5 in consumer and professional products.
It is also calling for comments on their content and emission rates from such articles, as well as other relevant information for the preparation of a REACH Annex XV restriction dossier.
Echa says the call for evidence does not replace the public consultation, organised by the agency at the start of any restriction process, which will potentially take place from July to December 2018.
In June 2016, Echa’s Socio-economic Analysis Committee (Seac) backed the UK’s restriction proposal for D4 and D5. Both compounds are used in cosmetics such as shaving foams and shampoos. The UK competent authority recommended restriction in wash-off products to protect the water environment.
D4 is persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) and D5 is very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB).
Earlier this year, NGOs urged EU member states to consider a ban on the substances, saying the restriction proposal covers only 'minor use'.
The deadline for comments is 3 August.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55596/echa-launches-consultation-on-d4-and-d5
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Split Over Need for More Plants
May 3, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
Some in the petrochemicals industry are split over whether they should place confidence in cheap natural gas feedstock as a new wave of giant plants are about to come online.
About a decade ago, the petrochemicals industry in the United States seemed doomed for a long-term decline, as it was facing rivals in the Middle East that had access to cheap oil and gas.
The U.S. shale revolution transformed that view. A flood of cheap natural gas liquids flooded the industry, providing key chemical feedstocks.
"This is the place to be," said Kevin Swift, the American Chemistry Council's chief economist. "We are the low-cost producer."
According to ACC, about $85 billion worth of petrochemicals projects have been started or completed since 2010. About $100 billion more have been proposed. In total, these plants would employ about 60,000 people when in service.
But some in the industry question whether the market can support another surge of investment.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/05/03/stories/1060053979
-
Greens Sue EPA for Halting Power-Plant Toxics Rule
May 3, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
Environmental groups challenged U.S. EPA today over its decision to halt an Obama administration regulation aimed at limiting toxic metals in power plants' wastewater discharges.
In a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the groups accuse EPA of violating the Administrative Procedure Act in several ways, including by failing to provide an opportunity for public comment.
They asked the court to void the Trump administration's April 25 formal notice staying compliance dates.
"EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is not above the law and he doesn't have the power to roll back public health protections with the stroke of a pen," Earthjustice attorney Thomas Cmar said in a statement.
At issue are the first Clean Water Act standards in more than 30 years for curbing toxics and other pollutants in power plant wastewater discharges.
The 2015 rule would require power plants starting next year to certify their compliance with their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits as those permits come up for renewal. The rule gives plants until 2023 to install and begin operating wastewater treatment technology to remove heavy metals.
In an April 11 letter to the Environmental Council of the States, Pruitt announced that EPA would rethink the rule. The agency followed up by issuing an indefinite stay of the Obama standards (Greenwire, April 13).
A day before EPA's notice was published in the Federal Register, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to halt litigation over the standards. Both the energy industry and environmental and drinking water groups had filed suit over the rule (E&E News PM, April 24).
Today's lawsuit alleges that EPA failed to make necessary findings that would support its decision to stay the rule and failed to consider all relevant factors.
"EPA considered only the costs of the rule, and arbitrarily failed to consider the significant benefits of preventing more than 1.4 billion pounds of toxic mercury, arsenic, lead, and other pollutants from being dumped in our nation's waterways every year," the lawsuit says.
Environmentalists also argue that EPA unlawfully postponed compliance dates for more stringent discharge limitations while leaving in effect other provisions of the rule.
Clean Water Action, the Environmental Integrity Project, the Sierra Club, the Waterkeeper Alliance, PennEnvironment, the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, the Chesapeake chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility and the Prairie Rivers Network joined the lawsuit.
The Environmental Integrity Project, the Sierra Club and Earthjustice are separately involved in a court battle in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit over the technical data backing the Obama standards.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/05/03/stories/1060053986
-
Grassley Threatens to Upend Methane CRA Without a Win for Ethanol
May 3, 2017 | Politico Pro
By Anthony Adragna and Ben Lefebvre
Sen. Chuck Grassley says he might block one of the oil industry's top legislative priorities unless he can also secure a win for ethanol producers in corn states like his.
Grassley is not yet ready to support a Congressional Review Act resolution that would overturn an Obama-era rule aimed at curbing methane emissions from oil and gas drilling on public lands, becoming the latest Republican to withhold support from the measure. Grassley wants Congress to allow the sale of 15 percent ethanol fuel blends year round everywhere in the country. He and John Thune (R-S.D.) unsuccessfully pushed for the so-called Reid Vapor Pressure waiver to be included as part of the omnibus spending bill Congress must pass this week.
"We are working in regard to trying to get that vapor thing for ethanol," Grassley told POLITICO. The Iowa Republican explained that his support for blocking the methane rule "is pretty much dependent on what we get worked out."
Thune also declined to take a position on the methane measure today, and he pointed out that ethanol supporters would keep looking for legislative vehicles for the ethanol waiver. Under the Clean Air Act, retailers in some parts of the country can't sell the E15 blend in the summer, and biofuels interests believe the policy is holding back demand for the fuel
"We'll see," Thune said of how he planned to vote on the methane rule.
Time is running short to overturn the BLM methane rule, which limits drillers ability to vent or flare wasted gas and adjusts royalties the federal government collects from companies operating on public lands.
After May 11, Republicans will no longer be able to circumvent a Senate filibuster to block rules from Obama's final months under the special procedures allowed by the Congressional Review Act, according to John Hoeven (R-N.D.), who has been helping to round up votes to block the BLM rule. Republicans have used the law to overturn 13 Obama-era rules so far this year, but the methane resolution has been stalled in the Senate since February.
John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), who introduced the methane resolution, told POLITICO he expected it come to a vote next week, although he has previously acknowledged that Vice President Mike Pence may have to cast the tiebreaking vote to pass the measure. It is not clear whether Barrasso has been involved in conversations with Grassley or Thune regarding the E15 waiver, but he chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee, which has jurisdiction over the issue.
One more Republican defection would effectively be enough to kill the resolution. Republicans Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and Susan Collins (Maine) have said they oppose it, and at least three others remain undecided. Meanwhile, oil industry supporters have had little luck so far with traditional Democratic allies like North Dakota's Heidi Heitkamp, who also is still undecided.
One energy lobbyist said any bid to trade a vote to repeal the methane rule for the vapor waiver would end badly for the CRA.
“That would be a sure-fire way to doom the CRA, as most refiners would pull their support,” the lobbyist said.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/05/grassley-thune-decline-to-publicly-back-methane-cra-156225
-
Chemicals – Not Gasoline – is Future, Says Phillips 66
May 3, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By David Hunn
The top two executives at Phillips 66 backed away from the gasoline business on Wednesday and said that pipelines and chemicals held more promise for the company.
“Today, if we look at the opportunities out there, we would tell you we see better value creation in the midstream and chemicals business,” Phillips Chief Executive Greg Garland said after the company’s annual shareholder meeting. “The Middle East and U.S. Gulf Coast are going to be the two best places in the world to make petrochemicals, long-term.”
Gasoline demand is on a long slide downhill, Garland said, speaking alongside Phillips President Tim Taylor. The uptick in 2015, driven by cheap U.S. fuel and lots of driving, surprised the industry. But that won’t last. Millenials are driving less. They’re using ride-sharing companies like Uber more. Even the quintessential American truck, the Ford F-150, is getting better gas mileage. New F-150s, Garland said, are 20 percent more fuel efficient than those on the road today.
“In 10 years, if we’re driving the same, we’re going to see less need for transportation fuel,” Garland said. “Given that as a backdrop, you don’t want to invest in adding capacity in a declining market.”
Growing gasoline demand in South America, Latin America and Mexico will more than offset the decline in the U.S. market, Garland said. But the U.S. shale revolution has unleashed a vast supply of natural gas, a building block for petrochemicals. And the U.S. can produce natural gas at some of the cheapest costs in the world.
“If you think about petrochemicals — take polyethylene for example,” Garland said. “Something between 80 and 90 percent of your cost structure is around feedstock and energy. If you get that part of the equation right, you can compete with anybody, any place in the world.”
In addition, the Gulf ports allow companies like Phillips to ship petrochemical products, like plastic pellets, all over the world.
“The trade we have makes the U.S. a very viable world export platform,” Taylor said. “And that’s where the competitive advantage comes from.”
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2017/05/03/chemicals-not-gasoline-is-future-says-phillips-66/
-
Hundreds Fill Nebraska Hall to Sway Keystone XL Decision
May 3, 2017 | Politico Pro
By Ben Lefebvre
Hundreds of people lined up Wednesday to try to sway Nebraska regulators' decision on whether to approve the Keystone XL pipeline's planned route across the state, the last major regulatory hurdle for the long-stalled project.
The Nebraska Public Safety Commission is hearing 10 hours of public comments from residents whose property or livelihoods might be affected by the 830,000 barrel-a-day pipeline that would connect Alberta's oil sands field to Gulf Coast refineries. Between 200-300 people showed up, with 125 people scheduled to address the five elected commissioners, according to people in attendance, including NPSC spokeswoman Deb Collins.
President Donald Trump carried out his campaign promise to grant TransCanada permission to build the cross-border pipeline, but TransCanada still needs the commission to approve the route before it can begin construction.
Many of those who spoke during the hearing’s first hours were local landowners and farmers who complained that the pipeline’s route would burden their businesses.
One man, who identified himself as a fourth-generation farmer whose land is in the proposed path of Keystone XL, complained about the terms of the deal with TransCanada.
“Perpetual easement rather than a 50-year easement — what’s going on here?" he said. "Landowners have to buy liability insurance, not just a standard farm policy? The full 80-acres of farmland I have would be affected, not just the six” where the pipeline would sit.
But while landowners and environmentalists argued against the pipeline, labor unions pressed the commission to approve the $8 billion project because of the jobs it would create in the state.
“Our members care about their friends, family and the environment,” said one member of a builders union. “They also know they have a responsibility for constructing sound, safe pipelines. The jobs that would be created by Keystone XL are real jobs for real people.”
Former Nebraska Legislature Speaker Mike Flood also took to the microphone, telling the commission that it made sense to bring in oil from a country that is a neighbor and close ally.
“I’d choose Canada over countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia,” Flood said.
The NPSC will also hold a week's worth of public hearings in August and is expected to issue a decision by the end of this year.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/05/hundreds-fill-nebraska-hall-to-comment-on-keystone-xl-156280
-
Abandoned Gas Line Caused Colo. Home Explosion
May 3, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee and Mike Soraghan
An abandoned pipeline that was cut off underground and left uncapped and connected to a natural gas well fueled an explosion that destroyed a Colorado home and killed two people last month, investigators said yesterday.
Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) ordered a statewide review of all similar pipelines, known as flow lines or gathering lines. Pipelines located within 1,000 feet of homes and other buildings have to be inspected by the end of the month and tested for leaks by the end of June.
Companies also will have until June 30 to ensure that abandoned lines have been properly disconnected and sealed, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission said in a notice to operators.
The April 17 explosion in the town of Firestone, about 35 miles northeast of Denver, killed 42-year-old Mark Martinez and his brother-in-law, Joey Irwin, and seriously injured Martinez's wife, Erin.
The results of the investigation exposed a gap in Colorado oil and gas regulations — the COGCC doesn't have precise maps of flow lines that connect to tens of thousands of wells in the state — and are likely to add fuel to the fierce debate about how closely to allow oil and gas development and surrounding communities.
"The Firestone tragedy is the most recent — and heart-breaking — wake-up call that oil and gas exploration is a dangerous, heavy industrial activity that must be kept away from homes and schools," Peter Maysmith, executive director of the nonprofit Conservation Colorado, said in a statement.
"For years, communities across the state have raised concerns about the perils of siting homes and oil and gas facilities near each other, but these cries for change have fallen upon deaf ears," he said.
The pipeline linked to the explosion originally served a natural gas well that's 178 feet from the Martinez home, Frederick-Firestone Fire Chief Theodore Poszywak said at a news conference that was broadcast live on Facebook.
The well was drilled in 1993, and the line was one of two that connected the well to a tank battery. The battery was removed between 1999 and 2002, and the Martinez home was built in 2015. Investigators found that one line was capped and disconnected from the well, Poszywak said, but the other was left uncapped and still connected to the well with a valve. The valve was open at the time of the explosion.
The fire department hasn't determined whether the uncapped line was cut when the battery was moved or during construction of the home, said Summer Campos, a spokeswoman.
The gas, which had not been treated with an odorant to make it detectable, migrated through the soil to a French drain that led to the home's basement. Once inside, it built up to flammable levels and "erupted into a sudden and violent explosion," Poszywak said.
Irwin and Mark Martinez were in the basement when the explosion leveled the home and briefly set fire to an adjacent house. Erin Martinez was rescued by a nearby construction crew and other bystanders.
Investigators ruled out the home's gas supply as a potential cause after examining the gas meter, Poszywak said, and checked two other sets of gas well flow lines in the area.
Next steps
Now that the cause of the fire has been determined, the Firestone Police Department will conduct a death investigation and send its recommendations to the local district attorney's office.
The COGCC may also take enforcement action. Director Matt Lepore said the line should have been disconnected and sealed at both ends, and there "might have been" violations of commission rules.
The well belonged to Anadarko Petroleum Corp., the biggest producer in Colorado, although the damage to the flow line apparently happened years before the company acquired it in 2014. Anadarko began shutting in 3,000 similar wells in northeast Colorado until they can be tested.
"The safety of our employees and the people who live and work in the communities in which we operate is our number one priority," Anadarko CEO Al Walker said in a statement yesterday on the company's website. "We will continue to take all necessary and appropriate steps in that regard, and will continue to cooperate fully with all ongoing investigations to ensure we fully understand the basis for the fire district's conclusions and that no stone is left unturned prior to any final determinations."
Another producer, Great Western Oil and Gas Co., announced Thursday it would shut in 61 wells within 250 feet of homes and other occupied buildings while it tests its flow lines. At least one other company has taken similar action, Lepore said in a news conference.
A statement from the Colorado Oil & Gas Association noted that the line was cut under "yet unknown circumstances" and stressed that the gas reached the basement only after "an unusual set of events."
"In the weeks and months that follow, we will endeavor to enhance flowline and pipeline procedures and remain committed to improving Colorado oil and gas production," added COGA President and CEO Dan Haley.
The COGCC order essentially will apply existing safety rules to all flow lines, regardless of their age. Colorado began requiring companies to provide accurate locations of their lines around 2008 so they can be included in the "One Call" damage prevention system. The mapping requirement will now apply to all lines.
Companies also will have to determine whether any abandoned lines have been properly capped, and they'll no longer be able to declare their lines "idle" and exempt from both capping and periodic leak testing.
"We're asking operators to make sure if there's a Point A that there's also a Point B," Lepore said.
Also, Colorado regulations exempt lines with an operating pressure below 15 pounds per square inch from periodic leak testing. Those lines will be subject to the inspections the COGCC ordered yesterday, and the agency may scrutinize the exemption in the future, Lepore said.
Drilling in the suburbs
The interplay between rapidly expanding communities and oil and gas infrastructure is a critical issue in Weld County, which includes Firestone and other Denver suburbs. It's one of the fastest-growing counties in the country and is home to 43 percent of Colorado's active oil and gas wells.
"It's always been in parts of the state you'd consider rural. But more recently in Colorado, places that they wanted to explore ended up being near populated areas, and populated areas have expanded toward where oil and gas has been for a long time," said University of Colorado environmental engineering professor Joe Ryan.
Ryan said it seems significant that the problem with the 24-year-old vertical well was not its age. To him, it's a reminder that sloppy oil field practices can have dire consequences.
"They're trying to get as much done as quickly as possible," he said. "Sometimes it seems they have that quickness in mind rather than long-term safety."
Environmentalists said the investigation shows that Colorado needs to strengthen its rules on well and pipeline construction, and enforce the rules it already has on its books.
"Time is of the essence to address these issues," Dan Grossman, national director of state programs for the Environmental Defense Fund, said in an email. "Reasonable steps can and should be taken by the state to mitigate the risk that stray gas from wells and pipelines pose to our communities."
And in what may be a sign of political battles to come, Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), considered a potential candidate for governor next year, called the explosion "avoidable."
"Colorado sadly does not have adequate protections against dangerous oil and gas developments in our neighborhoods," Polis said. "The days where oil and gas profits are valued more than Coloradans' safety, property and quality of life needs to end."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/05/03/stories/1060053963
-
Colorado Home Explosion Linked to Severed NatGas Line; Governor Orders Statewide Review
May 3, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper on Tuesday called for a statewide review of oil and natural gas operations after an investigation determined that an abandoned and severed unrefined natural gas flowline was linked to a fatal home explosion in Weld County.
The abandoned line, which ran about 170 feet from a nearby Anadarko Petroleum Corp. oil and gas well to the foundation of the home in Firestone, had not been capped, Frederick-Firestone Fire Protection District Chief Ted Poszywak said Tuesday.
Investigators have determined that fugitive gas penetrated the ground near the home’s foundation and entered the home’s French drain, where it found its way through the sump pump and inside the home. The mix of gas and air then found “an ignition source” and exploded around 4:30 p.m. on April 17, Poszywak said.
“It would appear an unusual and tragic set of circumstances occurred here,” he said.
The blast killed Mark Joseph Martinez, 42, and his brother-in-law, Joseph William Irwin III, also 42. Critically injured was Martinez's wife Erin Martinez. Her 11-year-old son was treated and released.
In response, Anadarko shut in 3,000 vertical oil and gas wells in the northeastern part of the state and Great Western Oil & Gas Co. followed suit, shutting in 61 wells in Weld County.
Following the determinations by investigators, including from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC), Hickenlooper mandated that oil and natural gas operators:
Inspect and pressure test existing flowlines within 1,000 feet of occupied buildings;
Ensure pipelines not in use are properly marked and capped; and
Ensure all abandoned pipelines are cut below the surface and sealed.
The gas flowline, severed about 10 feet away from the home, was considered out of service, according to COGCC Director Matt Lepore. Operators are required to detail to the COGCC the planned route of their flowlines, but the state does not have a record of all the lines ever installed, he said.
COGCC requires that a flowline taken out of service, which is considered abandoned, should be disconnected and sealed at both ends, with all flammable gas removed. COGCC does not yet know whether the suspect line was disconnected from the well, or if it had been disconnected but later reconnected for some reason.
The flowline had been cleanly cut, according to Lepore, which may indicate it was severed by construction equipment while the neighborhood near the well was built.
Investigators have concluded that there is no additional contamination or danger to the neighboring homes.
Late Tuesday Anadarko CEO Al Walker said, "I know I speak for everyone at Anadarko when I say that our thoughts and prayers remain with the Martinez and Irwin families as they continue to mourn the loss of their loved ones. The safety of our employees and the people who live and work in the communities in which we operate is our number one priority.
“Consistent with that, and out of an abundance of caution, last week we shut in our vertical wells in the Oak Meadows area and throughout the basin. We hope that doing so also provided some additional reassurance to the community in the wake of this tragic accident. We will continue to take all necessary and appropriate steps in that regard, and will continue to cooperate fully with all ongoing investigations to ensure we fully understand the basis for the fire district's conclusions and that no stone is left unturned prior to any final determinations."
Anadarko, he said, “also will continue to work with the COGCC on additional steps or actions the agency deems necessary.”
“We know an old, abandoned flowline adjacent to the foundation of the Martinez household was cut, under yet unknown circumstances, and that an unusual set of events led to unrefined gases leaching into the property,” said Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA) CEO Dan Haley.
“On behalf of Colorado’s oil and gas industry, the safety of our families, friends, and communities is our highest priority and will remain so as we work to prevent tragedies like this from happening again. COGA supports the state’s call to inspect flowlines and ensure the safety of all Coloradans.
“We are committed to partnering with the COGCC, our operators, home builders and Colorado communities to get it right. In the weeks and months that follow, we will endeavor to enhance flowline and pipeline procedures and remain committed to improving Colorado oil and gas production.”
Wells Fargo Securities LLC downgraded some of Colorado's Denver-Julesburg (DJ) Basin players that it covers because the preliminary findings in the Firestone tragedy "will be an overhang" for exploration efforts by Anadarko and operators that include PDC Energy Inc., Extraction Oil & Gas Inc., SRC Energy Inc., Whiting Petroleum Corp. and Carrizo Oil & Gas Inc.
Regulatory concern could pressure "all DJ players," Wells Fargo senior analyst David Tameron said. "In addition, the incident also likely activates the anti-drilling contingent of the Colorado population."
However, the vertical well production impact should not be "overly meaningful" to the public exploration and production players, he said. In addition to the estimated 13,000 boe/d impact related to Anadarko's 3,000 shut-in wells, Noble has about 18,000 boe/d of vertical output, while PDC has around 6,000 boe/d. Extraction has around 3,000 boe/d and SRC has about 350 boe/d.
"Given the production rates associated with older, vertical wells, we think it might make sense for operators to simply shut-in some vertical wells that were eventually going to be abandoned anyway," Tameron said. "One upside potential to operators shutting in production, if this is eventually what happens, would be that tight pipeline pressures expected this summer and next could be partially alleviated."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/110327-colorado-home-explosion-linked-to-severed-natgas-line-governor-orders-statewide-review
-
Fears Grow that 'Cancel' is Back on the Table
May 3, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick and Evan Lehmann
Winds have shifted in the White House against staying in the Paris Agreement, marking an abrupt course change since last week, when climate advocates felt confident that President Trump would preserve U.S. membership with weaker targets.
The shift came Monday when the White House counsel's office, possibly influenced by chief Trump strategist Steve Bannon, reversed course and decreed that an obscure provision of the 2015 deal meant the Trump administration would be bound to meet the Obama administration's emissions goals if it stayed in the deal.
The State Department's legal team had advised the opposite way, and a wide range of legal experts agreed. But the ruling by White House counsel Don McGahn upended pro-Paris Trump advisers' strategy of staying with the deal while putting forward a business-as-usual target, sources familiar with the discussions said.
"I'm concerned. I think what we're clearly seeing is a political maneuver, using a spurious legal argument as a pretext for shutting off a Cabinet debate that was probably leaning towards staying in the agreement," said Paul Bodnar, former climate chief of the White House's National Security Council.
Another argument for withdrawing from the global pact — that staying in could invite lawsuits against the administration for failing to strongly decarbonize — is also gaining momentum.
Proponents of that argument are warning the president that potential legal challenges could threaten his broader regulatory agenda, like terminating the Clean Power Plan.
"The withdraw camp is fighting harder than the stay camp," added one Paris Agreement supporter following the talks. "The head count may be in our favor, but when it actually gets to the room, the question is, who is actually speaking up, and whose opinion carries weight? Where the administration lands on this will be determined by how those are answered."
The head count mobilized last night as rumors flew. Ceres, a business-oriented sustainability group, reissued a statement declaring that more than 1,000 U.S. corporations and investors support the Paris deal. A spokesman acknowledged that it was in response to fresh rumors of a pullout. The Sierra Club issued a statement declaring that withdrawal would be "a disaster" for diplomacy, and the French ambassador to the United States tweeted a reminder that "The Paris agreement is not legally binding and based on unilateral revisable national commitments."
Those who have been urging Trump to make good on his campaign promise to "cancel" the Paris Agreement are in high spirits.
Myron Ebell, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who has long advocated a withdrawal, said President Trump's speech in Pennsylvania over the weekend in which he promised an imminent "big decision" was evidence that the tide had turned.
He credited the White House counsel's office with more objective judgement on Paris than the State Department legal team.
"Since the State career lawyers were involved in negotiating Paris, I don't think their opinions can be taken as objective legal advice, and so I think Mr. McGahn is right to question their opinions and also that his contrary advice is correct," he said.
Internally, though, administration aides are more cautious. Many insist that a decision has not yet been reached and say there is still time to sway the president. Another principals meeting is expected to be announced as soon as next week — this time to include Trump, sources said.
As first reported by Climatewire, the decision about whether to stay in the deal essentially hinges on the interpretation of a single line in the Paris Agreement (Climatewire, May 1).
Under the agreement, nearly 200 nations put forward plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Article 4.11 of the accord reads, "A party may at any time adjust its existing nationally determined contribution with a view to enhancing its level of ambition."
That sentence is key for those within the Trump administration who want to stay within the Paris deal to make their case. They argue that the United States can remain a party but with weaker targets than the promise Obama made of cutting emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. State Department lawyers and those who helped craft the language — like former U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern — insist it was designed with revisions in mind.
"We did not want to foreclose this," Stern told E&E news earlier this week.
Bodnar argued that the controversy over legal barriers to swapping out targets that "derailed" the principals meeting was a political feint masquerading as a legal question.
"The legal issue is clear-cut, as I hope [Secretary of State Rex] Tillerson will explain to the president. The Paris Agreement creates a normative expectation that parties will not weaken their targets, but it does not legally prevent them from doing so. If Trump wants to make a decision to withdraw, he needs to understand that's a political decision — not a legal decision — with serious ramifications for broader U.S. foreign policy," he said.
"The whole point was to create a fail-safe for this kind of situation," he added. "This was a treaty that was going to last until the end of the century."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/05/03/stories/1060053976
-
White House Leaning Toward Exiting Paris Climate Pact
May 2, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
White House officials are leaning toward taking the United States out of the Paris climate agreement, people familiar with the deliberations say.
While some in the Trump administration have warmed in recent days to the idea of staying in the non-binding pact while potentially changing the United States’ commitment, top officials are now leaning the other way, sources said Tuesday.
Trump could announce as soon as next week his plans to pull out. The Huffington Post and New York Times reported on the developments earlier Tuesday.
Central to the administration’s debate is whether the U.S. could reduce its commitment to reducing greenhouse gases for the 2015 pact without running afoul of it.
The agreement states that a country “may at any time adjust its existing nationally determined contribution with a view to enhancing its level of ambition,” which sources say concerns White House Counsel Don McGahn and his staff.
If Trump wanted to ratchet down former President Barack Obama’s promise of a 26 percent to 28 percent emissions cut by 2025, the agreement may prevent it.
The administration is also worried that staying in the accord would give environmentalists a legal argument to prevent Trump from repealing climate regulations like the Clean Power Plan.
In litigation over that rule in 2015, the Justice Department told the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that stopping the regulation would hurt the U.S. diplomatically.
That court declined to halt the rule, but on appeal, the Supreme Court did pause it. Trump is now working to repeal the regulation.
Environmental Protection Agency head Scott Pruitt and White House strategist Stephen Bannon have been leading the charge for Trump to fulfill his campaign promise and exit the pact.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and White House adviser Jared Kushner, who is also Trump's son-in-law, have led the charge to stay in, arguing that it’s better diplomatically while keeping the U.S. in international discussions regarding climate policy.
At a Saturday rally, Trump blasted the agreement as “one-sided” and cited it as an example of a pact in which “the United States pays the costs and bears the burdens while other countries get the benefit and pay nothing.” He said it would cause a big hit to the economy and spur factories to close.
Attorneys from various government agencies met Monday to discuss the legal implications of staying in the deal, and the White House counsel’s office took Pruitt’s side, the Times reported.
Andrew Light, a senior fellow at the World Resources Institute who worked on climate negotiations at the State Department under Obama and who helped negotiate the Paris pact, dismissed the legal concerns over staying in the agreement, saying that since the emissions cuts aren’t binding, there is no legal problem.
“If the targets aren’t legally binding, and there’s not an enforcement decision, then after it’s just that different people are going to interpret different parts of the agreement in different ways,” Light said.
“Revising downward is definitely not in the spirit of the agreement … but the fact of the matter is that the targets are not legally binding. So we can all object, but there’s nothing we can do about it.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/331671-white-house-leaning-toward-exiting-paris-climate-pact
-
Stealth Repeal: Trump's Strategy to Roll Back Regulations Through Delay
May 2, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Bethany A. Davis Noll
It’s no secret that the Trump administration would like to undo as much of Obama’s environmental legacy as possible by rescinding or repealing regulations. Under the law, that process is difficult, but Trump’s agency heads now seem to be looking for an easy way to undo rules without officially rescinding or repealing them. Courts have rejected this kind of behavior in the past. Let’s hope they do so this time too.
To repeal a rule, a federal agency must analyze the evidence that supported the initial rule as well as any new evidence, explain how that evidence now supports a repeal, and take comments from the public — a time-consuming process. Courts have required agencies to go through a similar process before suspending compliance deadlines — precisely because postponing deadlines can be similar to a repeal. In addition, courts have required agencies to justify the postponement under strict standards.
Trump’s agency heads are flouting these requirements. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently delayed the compliance deadlines for a rule that restricts power plant discharges of arsenic and mercury in wastewater. EPA plans to keep the delay in place as long as it is reconsidering the rule, but did not indicate that it plans to complete the reconsideration process by any particular date. In other words, absent judicial intervention, EPA could just sit on the rule indefinitely. The law is clear: EPA has to ask the public what it thinks and take those comments into account before suspending a rule in this way.
To make matters worse, in postponing the wastewater rule, EPA also violated other important provisions of administrative law. The rule was already in effect and, under the Administrative Procedure Act, this kind of delay, even if time limited, is allowed only before a rule goes into effect. In addition, EPA claimed that a delay was needed because of legal challenges to the rule, but then failed to explain how the delay was justified under the strict standard that applies to those types of postponements.
In another particularly egregious case, the Department of the Interior indefinitely postponed compliance deadlines for a 2016 rule that had reformed the royalty payments for coal, oil, and gas extracted on federal land.
This 2016 reform sought to close a loophole that costs $70 million a year in royalties, split between federal government and the states. If this revenue were actually collected, it would fund schools, road construction, and municipal budgets. The postponement put off all compliance deadlines for as long as litigation over the rule lasts, though EPA has also successfully gotten that litigation postponed on the ground that Interior is considering repealing the rule.
Just like with the mercury and arsenic regulation, Interior did not get the public’s input before postponing the deadlines, improperly postponed the deadlines even though the reform was already in effect, and did not explain how the postponement was justified under the strict standard that applies to these postponements. California and New Mexico recently suedInterior for this illegal postponement.
EPA has taken questionable steps to delay other rules as well. The agency recently postponed the deadlines in a Clean Air Act rule that updated chemical accident prevention rules at manufacturing plants, issued after a fatal explosion at a fertilizer plant in West Texas. Before the rule could come into force, EPA issued a three-month postponement — without soliciting the public’s input. EPA has now decided to seek public comment on a further two-year postponement while it reconsiders the rule — a time period that is much longer than the three-month limit imposed by the Clean Air Act.
Even if such a long delay is legally permissible, and that is doubtful, EPA should not be allowed to suspend the regulation indefinitely until after it considers and reviews the public’s comments. Stated differently, soliciting comments on whether to continue a postponement is not a substitute for taking comments on the initial postponement decision.
We have been here before. In the 1980s, the Reagan administration tried to delay several agency rules without asking the public to comment on the postponements. Both then and now, agencies were effectively repealing rules by postponing them indefinitely. Reagan’s use of this invalid procedure was roundly rejected in the courts.
Federal agencies are not supposed to waste resources by issuing rules and then undoing this work on a whim, without consulting the public on the wisdom of the change. This bedrock principle of American administrative law provides an important check on agency over-reach. The current White House has said federal agencies are “out of control,” so it is somewhat ironic that these agencies are flouting the law in undoing Obama-era regulations. The courts should not allow this effort to succeed.
Bethany A. Davis Noll is a senior attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law, and a former Assistant Solicitor General in the New York Attorney General’s Office.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/331638-stealth-repeal-trumps-strategy-to-roll-back-regulation
-
Applying Justice Scalia's Methods to the EPA Would Help to End Agency Partisanship
May 3, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Robert Henneke and Merritt Lander
Something is rotten in the state of administrative agencies. Something was especially rotten in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) during the past administration, and the late Justice Scalia would have wholeheartedly agreed. Regardless of his personal stance on an issue, Scalia’s opinions were consistently based on a strict application of the law. He did not conclude and then search for support. He abhorred manipulation of the law to achieve some desired result, and the EPA’s selective use of scientific findings to support an administration’s pre-announced policy would have been equally repugnant.
It's one reason he voted with a majority of his colleagues in 2016 to issue a stay barring the agency from implementing the Clean Power Plan, a rule premised on the idea of manmade global warming that aimed to reduce carbon emissions. To honor his legacy, lawmakers could eliminate another one of the agency's major Obama era rulings in the days ahead.
That's the "endangerment finding," a 2009 ruling by the agency that said greenhouse gases were dangerous to human health. To that end, a coalition of trucking, construction, logging, and manufacturing businesses represented by the Texas Public Policy Foundation recently filed a petition with the EPA asking the agency to reconsider the ruling.
The reason is that the endangerment finding paved the way for stringent federal carbon dioxide emissions standards. Because carbon dioxide is everywhere and in everything, the finding positioned the EPA to regulate virtually every nook and cranny of the national economy, making it among the most powerful administrative agencies in the nation.
In promulgating the endangerment finding, the EPA violated federal law. The agency failed to obtain peer review from the Science Advisory Board, a blue-ribbon panel of experts established by Congress to ensure that EPA regulations are based on accurate facts and credible scientific analysis. Congress established the board to prevent bureaucrats from imposing unnecessary restrictions on liberty in the pursuit of unnecessary regulatory goals. The EPA thwarted that congressional concern by ignoring the peer review requirement.
Instead, EPA relied almost exclusively on “assessment literature” generated by third parties that had summarized their own views of global climate change science. According to the EPA, the administrator “relied heavily” on the assessments of the United States Global Change Research Program, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the National Research Council as the “primary scientific and technical basis of her endangerment decision.” In response to comments calling on the EPA to make “its own assessment of all of the underlying studies and information,” the EPA refused on grounds that it “had no reason to believe” the reports of the three non-governmental organizations were inaccurate.
The EPA should not ask business owners to shoulder heavy economic burdens unless a regulation is based on objective interpretation of science that is then reviewed by an outside objective body. Given the refusal to comply with laws requiring independent, objective review, there is no real way to know if the EPA’s regulations under the past administration truly contribute to health and human welfare, because there is no real way to know whether scientific findings have been skewed or manipulated.
With the effort to seek reconsideration of the endangerment finding, petitioners are seeking to start over. That would begin with the Science Advisory Board’s review of regulations issued by the Obama EPA to ensure that sound science forms the foundation of future EPA regulations.
Over the course of the Obama administration, the EPA became a tool for promoting partisan policy. It would do well to apply Justice Scalia’s methods to its scientific studies and regulations to prevent further slide into partisanship.
The Honorable Robert Henneke (@RobHenneke) is general counsel and director of the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Center for the American Future. Merritt Lander is a research assistant for the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Center for the American Future.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/331672-applying-justice-scalias-methods-to-the-epa-would-help
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested