Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 5/16/2017
-
(ACC Blog) How Can We Fix Our Nation’s Infrastructure Problems? Put Competition To Work
May 16, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steve Russell
Virtually every day in the U.S., we are flooded with more and more reports about growing problems with the nation’s crumbling water infrastructure. While the problem was first brought to the public’s awareness in Flint, water systems are failing in countless other cities, from Cleveland, to New Jersey, to Massachusetts. -
(ACC Mentioned) Tricks To Keep Foods Fresh Longer
May 16, 2017 | KPRC Houston
By Amy Davis
According to a survey by the American Chemistry Council, the average American household throws away about $640 worth of food each year. The problem for many is the food they buy goes bad before they can eat it; but there are ways to keep your food fresh longer. -
Corporate Lobbyists Finance Senate Leader of ‘License to Kill’ Bill
May 16, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Scott Faber and Jared Hayes
One out of every five political donations made to Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc. – chair of a Senate committee expected to vote this week to effectively block new consumer protection rules – came from corporate political action committees, trade associations and individuals lobbying to gut basic protections for American consumers, an EWG analysis shows. -
SAB, CASAC Nominations Delayed, Raising Questions Over Agency Plans
May 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA's process for selecting new members for two of its congressionally mandated scientific advisory committees is behind schedule this year, heightening observers' concerns over the Trump administration's approach to scientific reviews after reports last week that the agency delayed acting on a process for selecting members for a third panel. -
Dems Propose Scrapping Law GOP Used To Overturn Regulations
May 16, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Tim Devaney
Democrats are taking aim at President Trump’s power to roll back regulations. -
(ACC Mentioned) CropLife America CEO Argues For PREA Reauthorization, More EPA Funding
May 16, 2017 | Delta Farm Press
By Forrest Laws
The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act, which is being reborn as the Pesticide Registration Enhancement Act, has helped bring safer, less toxic pesticides to the marketplace at a time when the world needs to increase food production on a massive scale. -
Member States Approve Changes To EU CLP Regulation
May 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
EU member states have backed changes to the Regulation on the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP). -
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Laboratory Finds Plastics-to-Fuel Technology Helps Reduce GHG Emissions
May 16, 2017 | Waste 360
Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), part of the U.S. Department of Energy, has determined that using pyrolysis to convert non-recycled plastics into ultra-low-sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel results in energy and environmental benefits. -
Trump Asks Court To Halt Case Over New Power Plant Emissions
May 16, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
The Trump administration, along with industry and state foes of former President Obama's climate agenda, yesterday asked a federal court to indefinitely pause litigation over a rule limiting carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants. -
Both Sides Claw For Advantage In Fight Over Case's Future
May 16, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Friends and foes of the Obama administration's signature effort to address climate change are angling for the upper hand as a federal court considers how to move forward with their case. -
EDF, Coalition Partners Urge The D.C. Circuit To Decide The Clean Power Plan Case
May 16, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tomas Carbonell
Environmental Defense Fund and fourteen other public health and environmental organizations filed a brief yesterday urging the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to issue a decision on the merits in the litigation over the Clean Power Plan – America’s only nationwide standards limiting harmful carbon pollution from existing fossil fuel power plants. -
U.S. Dodges Brunt Of Ransomware Pandemic — So Far
May 16, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
As the dust settles on one of the biggest global malware epidemics in recent years, top U.S. cybersecurity officials and infrastructure operators are cautiously calling it a crisis averted. -
Flow Lines Cited In More Than 7K Spills
May 16, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
Flow lines — the small, low-pressure pipes blamed for a fatal home explosion in Colorado last month — have long been a weak point at oil and gas well sites. -
GOP Lawmakers Take Aim At Social Cost of Carbon
May 16, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
Senate Republicans are calling on U.S. EPA to take a closer look at regulations that consider "co-benefits" and the social cost of carbon. Senate Republicans are calling on U.S. EPA to take a closer look at regulations that consider "co-benefits" and the social cost of carbon. -
Bid To Reform Cap And Trade Rests On Its Shaky Legal Foundation
May 16, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
California lawmakers' push to reform the state's greenhouse gas program stems from long-standing legal perturbations that have dogged the market since its inception. -
Virginia AG Sees 'Broad' State Authority To Cap GHGs
May 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring (D) says the state's Air Pollution Control Board is “legally authorized” to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, including by setting a statewide cap on power plant emissions, in an opinion that comes as a working group created by Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) will soon present recommendations on GHG controls.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Blog) How Can We Fix Our Nation’s Infrastructure Problems? Put Competition To Work
May 16, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steve Russell
Virtually every day in the U.S., we are flooded with more and more reports about growing problems with the nation’s crumbling water infrastructure. While the problem was first brought to the public’s awareness in Flint, water systems are failing in countless other cities, from Cleveland, to New Jersey, to Massachusetts.
Now, we are seeing more troubling signs of the sheer magnitude of the impact on the health and safety of people across the country. As it turns out, the problem extends far beyond the faucets in our homes.
Sinkholes a troubling side effect
In the beginning of May, the Associated Press published a story, “Huge sinkholes are now appearing in the wrong place,” that detailed how broken water mains and other water infrastructure are causing the formation of sinkholes.
The article puts an exclamation mark on a growing problem by highlighting the troubling fact that “from early December through April… 39 significant sinkholes related to failing infrastructure – a rate of about one every four days – struck across the country.”
These sinkholes are forming across the country – for example, in Los Angeles, in Sioux City, Iowa, and in Hoboken, New Jersey. As recent reports have made clear, the sinkholes put residents and businesses within their vicinity at serious risk and can cost millions of dollars to repair.
Many of the sinkholes occur, the AP reports, when there are water main breaks, which are a result of the country’s aging water infrastructure. Everyone seems to agree that we must begin to upgrade this critical infrastructure, knowing full well the daunting challenges of doing so.
The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that it will cost in approximately of 1 trillion dollars to expand and maintain our local water infrastructure. Facing such a monumental task and cost burden, project managers and engineers will need to be able use every tool their toolbox and find ways to stretch scarce resources so that they can tackle as many projects as possible.
How open competition can help
One common-sense solution would be to adopt policies that would allow engineers to select the best materials for their project and remove regulatory restrictions that limit these experts to pre-determined materials.
Many municipalities currently have statutes on the books that limit which materials can be used for projects. Oddly, they do not allow several materials that would otherwise meet project specifications and national standards to be considered. These questionable and unnecessary regulatory constraints increase the total cost of infrastructure projects and block the selection of new, innovative technologies.
Meanwhile, the quality and reliability of the nation’s aging water infrastructure continues to decline.
By removing these barriers and replacing them with an open, competitive bidding process for materials, project managers and engineers would be able to evaluate different options and select materials that are best suited for their goals – based on performance, durability and cost.
Studies have shown that when open competition is allowed, material costs can drop dramatically – up to 39percent. These savings, which could stretch into the billions of dollars, could help fund more projects.
With so much work needed to make sure Americans continue to have access to clean, safe drinking water, Congress can help fix our nation’s infrastructure by requiring open, competitive bidding procedures for all materials in government funded projects. Doing so would allow engineers to make the best choice to help their communities and ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2017/05/how-can-we-fix-our-nations-infrastructure-problems-put-competition-to-work/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Tricks To Keep Foods Fresh Longer
May 16, 2017 | KPRC Houston
By Amy Davis
According to a survey by the American Chemistry Council, the average American household throws away about $640 worth of food each year. The problem for many is the food they buy goes bad before they can eat it; but there are ways to keep your food fresh longer.
To keep strawberries at their best, douse them with water, add a splash of vinegar, and then rinse the mixture off. Let them dry and then store in the fridge.
To keep eggs fresh, dab some mineral oil on a paper towel and coat the shell. Bananas will stay at their best longer if you cover the stems in plastic wrap. This prevents some of the ethylene gas, which causes ripening, from reaching the rest of the banana. Squeeze some lemon juice on avocados to prevent them from turning brown too soon. Then, store them in plastic wrap with the cut side down.
Always stow tomatoes stem-side down on a flat surface at room temperature. Putting them in the fridge will cause dryness and a loss of flavor. Try storing potatoes with an apple to prevent sprouting. But this is an exception. As a rule of thumb, don’t store fruits and veggies together. Some gas-releasing fruits can make veggies spoil faster.
http://www.click2houston.com/consumer/tricks-to-keep-foods-fresh-longer
-
Corporate Lobbyists Finance Senate Leader of ‘License to Kill’ Bill
May 16, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Scott Faber and Jared Hayes
One out of every five political donations made to Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc. – chair of a Senate committee expected to vote this week to effectively block new consumer protection rules – came from corporate political action committees, trade associations and individuals lobbying to gut basic protections for American consumers, an EWG analysis shows.
On Wednesday, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs will vote on the Senate version of H.R. 5, the Regulatory Accountability Act, which would require endless agency studies before new consumer protection rules could be adopted. EWG and other opponents of the bill, who call it a “License to Kill” bill, say that in practice, proposed rules would never be able to clear the roadblocks.
Using records from Open Secrets, EWG found trade associations, political action committees and individuals linked to companies that have lobbied for H.R. 5 and other bills designed to block basic health and safety rules contributed $337,000 to Johnson’s 2016 campaign – 15 percent of all political donations to the Wisconsin Republican last year.
EWG identified 22 companies with associated PACs or individuals who contributed to Johnson, which either lobbied for so-called regulatory reform bills or are members of trade associations lobbying for the Regulatory Accountability Act or similar bills. The trade associations include the Business Roundtable, the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. PACs and individuals tied to big oil and gas companies, such as Koch Industries, and food companies, such as Yum Brands, are also among Johnson’s contributors who lobbied for these bills.
EWG previously reported that corporate interests contributed $3.3 million in 2016 to Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, the Senate sponsor of the Regulatory Accountability Act.
Under the House’s bill, the Food and Drug Administration, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and other federal agencies proposing new rules would have to first consider an endless array of regulatory options. The proposed rules would then have to pass two layers of review by judges newly charged to second-guess agency experts.
The Senate version is nearly as bad. It would require trial-like adversarial hearings for proposed rules and limit the science upon which agencies can base their decisions.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2017/05/corporate-lobbyists-finance-senate-leader-license-kill-bill
-
SAB, CASAC Nominations Delayed, Raising Questions Over Agency Plans
May 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA's process for selecting new members for two of its congressionally mandated scientific advisory committees is behind schedule this year, heightening observers' concerns over the Trump administration's approach to scientific reviews after reports last week that the agency delayed acting on a process for selecting members for a third panel.
The delay in EPA's process appears likely to mean that the terms of some current members of the Science Advisory Board (SAB) and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), the two congressionally mandated panels, will end before their replacements are selected or current members are reappointed, potentially leaving the panels short of members.
The delay comes after EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt decided to terminate 12 members of the Board of Scientific Counselors' (BOSC) executive committee at the end of their current terms, despite agency staff having assured at least nine of those members they would be reappointed to second terms.
While Pruitt has indicated some of those BOSC members could still be reappointed to additional terms, the administrator said he is looking to review such advisory panels.
But the action has drawn significant concerns that SAB and CASAC could be subject to such additional reviews.
In addition, some members of BOSC, a discretionary panel that reviews EPA's research agenda, resigned their posts over Pruitt's decision, highlighting the difficulty Pruitt may face as he seeks to reconstitute BOSC and other panels as many scientists and other experts who may be eligible to serve may not be willing to do so for fear their advice may not be heeded.
The rules surrounding EPA's scientific advisory committees generally require expertise in necessary fields and give most appointees three-year terms, while allowing members to serve two consecutive terms before they must rotate off the panels.
For the past nine years, SAB staff has published a Federal Register notice each April seeking nominations for new scientists, engineers, economists and other technical experts to join the chartered SAB, which reviews the science underlying a host of agency policies, and CASAC, which assesses the science that guides development of air quality standards.
The notices start a multi-month process, where SAB staff review nominees' qualifications, availability and possibility for conflict of interest. The notice seeks public comment on a winnowed list of qualified nominees before the SAB staff director submits recommendations to the administrator's office.
"The SAB Staff Office reviews qualifications of nominees to assess whether they have the scientific education, training, and experience to evaluate basic and applied science issues addressed by the advisory committees. The Staff Office looks for nominees who have distinguished themselves professionally and who will be available to invest the time and effort in providing advice and recommendations to EPA. The Staff Office consults with the Agency and current members of the SAB, CASAC and [Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis, another advisory panel SAB staff manages] in this process," SAB's website states.
Delayed Appointments
But no notices have been published yet this year, potentially delaying the appointment of new panelists.
"By the normal cycle of this process, EPA should already have published a Federal Register notice on appointments and reappointments," says Terry Yosie, who served as SAB staff director during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. "That notice is late. It's held in the administrator's office."
According to SAB's website, the last time SAB staff missed an April publication was in 2007, when the call for new members ran in June. The most recent call for new members was published in the April 6, 2016 Register.
With the start of that process delayed, it seems unlikely that SAB staff will be able to have new members in place using the usual process when the next group of SAB and CASAC members' terms expire on Sept. 30. Some 15 members of the current 47-member SAB have terms expiring that day, with six of these first-term members eligible for reappointment.
The chairman of CASAC, Ana Diez Roux, is the only member of that 7-member panel with a term expiring in September, according to a database of federal advisory committees operated by the General Services Administration.
In part because of its small size, CASAC will be more affected than SAB if it does not have a full complement of appointees when the next terms expire in Sept, though it appears both CASAC and SAB will lose their chairmen to term limits. SAB's charter states that it will have "about 45 members," but does not set a strict minimum or maximum.
CASAC's charter, however, states that its chartered panel will be composed of exactly 7 members. It also requires, as directed by its authorizing statute the Clean Air Act, section 109(d), that CASAC membership must include "at least one member of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), one physician, and one person representing State air pollution control agencies."
After September, one CASAC member remains representing a state agency, Donna Kenski, of the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium. But Diez Roux is the only member of the panel who is a member of NAS or a medical doctor. The expiration of her term means that CASAC cannot operate by statute until an appointee representing those qualifications takes her seat.
In the wake of reports that Pruitt had not reappointed BOSC members, many observers suggested that while the action on BOSC was harmful to EPA's research office, what it might portend for the agency's SAB was even more concerning -- an attempt to shape policy by stacking this crucial panel whose reviews of agency science can alter policy decisions. This is in part because of the different roles the panels serve.
BOSC is responsible for reviewing the multi-year research plans of EPA's research office, and reviewing EPA's implementation of those plans. SAB and CASAC, however, serve a role closer to the nexus of science and policy, reviewing scientific analyses that EPA has crafted to inform regulatory decisionmaking.
Yosie also questions where Pruitt will find new scientists to serve on the panels. "I don't think the people at the top know who to appoint," Yosie said. He suggested that Trump EPA personnel will seek recommendations from one of two places: "conservative, ideological think tanks and unprogressive companies looking to destroy regulations. I think these days that's a minority of companies. Absent those two sources, I don't think Administrator Pruitt knows who to appoint."
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/sab-casac-nominations-delayed-raising-questions-over-agency-plans
-
Dems Propose Scrapping Law GOP Used To Overturn Regulations
May 16, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Tim Devaney
Democrats are taking aim at President Trump’s power to roll back regulations.
The Sunset the CRA and Restore American Protections (SCRAP) Act introduced Tuesday by Sens. Cory Booker (N.J.) and Tom Udall (N.M.) would eliminate the law that Trump and Republican lawmakers have used to repeal more than a dozen Obama-era regulations. Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) is backing identical legislation in the House.
The Congressional Review Act (CRA) makes it easier for lawmakers to repeal regulations they disapprove of from the executive branch. Under the 1996 law, Congress only needs a simple majority to rollback recently issued regulations. Federal agencies are also blocked from publishing similar rules in the future.
The SCRAP Act would not only prevent Republicans from using this law to repeal future regulations, but it would also allow federal agencies to reinstate rules that have already been struck down under the CRA.
Before Trump, the CRA had only been successfully used once, in 2001, to repeal a Clinton-era labor rule.
Since then, Republicans have turned to the CRA to repeal 14 Obama-era regulations, hoisting the relatively obscure law into the limelight.
The rules overturned include environmental regulations like the Interior Department’s stream protection rule, internet regulations, financial rules, healthcare rules, education rules and gun restrictions.
Democrats warn Republicans are abusing their authority under the law by rolling back so many regulations.
“It’s like using a sledgehammer when a chisel is needed,” Udall said.
“The CRA never should have been passed into law, and it’s past time to repeal it,” he added.
The bill stands no chance of passing in the Republican-controlled Congress, but it is something Democrats could someday return to in the majority.
Robert Weissman, president of the left-leaning Public Citizen, called Republicans’ use of the CRA a “corporate payback scheme.”
“If there was any doubt before, it’s now certain that the CRA must go,” he said.
http://thehill.com/regulation/333610-dems-plot-to-overturn-regulatory-repeal-law
-
(ACC Mentioned) CropLife America CEO Argues For PREA Reauthorization, More EPA Funding
May 16, 2017 | Delta Farm Press
By Forrest Laws
Congress should reauthorize PRIA/PREA, increase funding for EPA prior to Sept. 30 deadline.
The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act, which is being reborn as the Pesticide Registration Enhancement Act, has helped bring safer, less toxic pesticides to the marketplace at a time when the world needs to increase food production on a massive scale.
Jay Vroom, president and CEO of CropLife America and co-founder of the PRIA coalition in 2003, said, during testimony before the Senate Committee on Agriculture Nutrition and Forestry, the older PRIA has created certainty in the registration process where there was none.
The chief spokesman for the pesticide industry said Congress needs to reauthorize PRIA or PREA, as it will now be called, before the current authority for the legislation aimed at streamlining the approval of new agricultural chemicals expires on Sept. 30 to continue that record of accomplishment.
“Prior to the implementation of PRIA in 2004, there was little certainty for registration packages moving through the EPA,” Vroom said. “New product registrations would often linger with no real process or timeframe for completion. This ambiguous process would often lead to frustration, and more importantly jeopardized innovation, as there was diminished incentive to invest in the research and development of new chemistries for the marketplace.”
Vroom said the enactment of PRIA “changed that experience and not just for product registrants, but for all stakeholders. The success of PRIA has led to process improvements in the Office of Pesticide Programs at EPA, established a dedicated funding stream for the Agency, created specific block grants for training and education programs and created business certainty that keeps the wheels of innovation turning, which in turn results in the creation of jobs in the agriculture sector.”
Support U.S. agriculture
The PRIA fee framework, he said, helps ensure pesticide products will be available to support U.S. agriculture, make available the disinfectants used by building and plant facilities managers, provide the tools necessary to combat mosquito and other disease vectors, ensure the availability of structural pesticides for residential and commercial purposes, and home and garden, and turf and ornamental industries.
“Whether ensuring farmers have the tools they need or providing non-agricultural tools RISE (Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment) works to keep available for public and home use, the new PREA reauthorization is integral to the health and vitality of our communities.”
Vroom said when the registration process works in a predictable manner, “the entire agriculture supply chain benefits, which results in jobs on farms, in distribution, in transportation, in production and in innovation.”
CropLife America is the national trade association for the United States’ crop protection industry. It is closely affiliated with RISE (Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment), which represents the specialty, non-agricultural pesticide industry.
In 2003, Phil Klein of the Consumer Specialty Products Association and Vroom co-founded the PRIA Coalition, which consists of a diverse collection of interests that have come together once again to support the fee for service program.
Industry, non-industry members
Coalition participants include the American Chemistry Council Biocides Panel, Biotechnology Innovation Organization, Biological Products Industry Alliance, Consumer Specialty Products Association, CropLife America, The Worldwide Cleaning Industry Association, Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, Farmworker Justice, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. History of PRIA
“The FIFRA amendments of 1988 put in place new and significant fees on registered pesticide products in order to provide EPA with added resources to accomplish re-registration,” said Vroom. “Those so-called “FIFRA Light” amendments did finally put EPA on a path towards achieving older products reviews. But the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 subsequently added significant regulatory burdens to the agency, and as a result, new product approvals suffered.
“It took an additional eight years, from 1996 to 2004 – and two Administrations and four Congresses – to reach an agreement on fees for service that we now call PRIA. In the early years of PRIA, many of our companies saw wait times on registration of new food-use active ingredients drop from more than 4 years to about 2 years.”
Since then, the industry has experienced timeline erosion for almost all pesticide decision categories. The reasons for this fall into two clear categories, he said: 1. Diminished Resources Since PRIA has been in place (2004-2016), appropriations money met or exceeded the “PRIA trigger” for the first nine fiscal years, but in the last 4 years, Congress has missed its appropriations obligations by a total of $29 million. Since PRIA’s 2004 beginning, the full-time employee count in EPA;s Office of Pesticide programs has dropped by more than 21 percent (625 to 491).
Increased efficiency
“Clearly, EPA has done much to to offset the resource constraints through efficiency improvements – but we all need Congressional appropriators to restore adequate resources to meet the statutory requirements of FIFRA,” said Vroom, adding that since 2004, industry fees have been substantial – topping $521 million over 13 years.
“It has been a very good investment. PRIA 4 will extend that record – and be even better when PRIA appropriation targets are met!”
2. Increased Regulatory Complexity. “Society expects EPA to apply the best available science in its regulatory decisions regarding pesticide products. Science never stands still – so that regulatory burden on EPA increases every year. In that context, the single biggest regulatory challenge to EPA’s performance is implementing the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the harmonization with FIFRA for pesticide registrations,” said Vroom.
Additional multiple new data requirements must be fulfilled to support pesticide registrations, meanwhile. CLA recently compared timelines for PRIA actions completed between 2012 and 2014. New active ingredient approvals took between 946 days and 1,137 days, on average, during those three years – compared to the PRIA target of 730 days.
Timeline erosion
“In other words, about one half of the timeline gains have eroded since the start of PRIA,” he said. “Working together we need to address these issues – and speedy reauthorization of PRIA 4 will be a big, positive step ahead! In recognition of this increase complexity and the increased burden on OPP, PRIA 4 substantially increases the user fees for certain registration categories.
“On behalf of the pesticide industry, I would like to emphasize the benefit of working alongside the NGO community and in concert with our state and federal regulators to extend the process improvements achieved in EPA’s pesticide regulatory program, support stable funding for EPA, and continue funding necessary training and education programs.”
Vroom said the reauthorization legislation currently under consideration by the Senate would:
· Provide for the annual collection of $31 million in product maintenance fees through 2023 (an increase of $22.4 million over the seven years covered by PRIA 4);
· Cap the fees paid by small businesses;
· Add Endangered Species Act reviews, risk reduction, and information technology system enhancements to the eligible uses of the funds collected;
· Designate $500,000 per year for the establishment of efficacy guidelines for products to address invertebrate pests of significant public health or economic consequence;
· Designate $500,000 per year for enhancements to the Good Laboratory Practices Standards compliance monitoring program;
· Continue funding of not less than $1 million per year through 2023 to enhance scientific and technical activities relating to worker protection;
· Continue funding of $500,000 per year through 2023 for partnership grants;
· Continues funding of $500,000 per year through 2023 for pesticide safety education programs;
· Extend the authority to collect registration service fees until 2023 and provides for two 5 percent increases in the fees paid in 2019 and 2021; and
· Continue the authority of the Administrator to waive fees for small businesses, under certain circumstances.
“Over the years, registrants have maintained a good working relationship with EPA,” said Vroom. “While we have had our disagreements, we respect EPA’s role, and, in fact, benefit from greater public assurance that our products meet the tough standards imposed by the law and expected by the public.
“Along with the need for more food production, the public has always wanted greater assurance of safety from our products. Over the years, the standards and requirements for pesticide registration have been toughened, laws have been amended, and public scrutiny has increased. Our industry has continued to respond to these demands through innovative products with improved environmental and safety profiles, lower application rates, more targeted modes of action, and reduced applicator risk.”
http://www.deltafarmpress.com/crop-protection/croplife-america-ceo-argues-prea-reauthorization-more-epa-funding
-
Member States Approve Changes To EU CLP Regulation
May 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
EU member states have backed changes to the Regulation on the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP).
The amendments are part of the Commission’s 11th adaptation to technical progress (ATP), which introduces new and revised entries for the harmonised classification and labelling of substances.
REACH Committee members voted through the modifications at their meeting on 10 May.
The Annex to the Regulation consists of four parts, totalling over 3,000 substances.
The measure will now go to the European Council and Parliament. After that, the Commission will formally adopt the Regulation and publish it.
The Regulation shall apply 18 months after entry into force.
Member states approved changes to CLP as part of the 10th ATP in October 2016. This included new harmonised acute toxicity estimates (ATE) values in Annex VI. These determine the classification for human health acute toxicity of mixtures containing substances classified as such.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55882/member-states-approve-changes-to-eu-clp-regulation
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Laboratory Finds Plastics-to-Fuel Technology Helps Reduce GHG Emissions
May 16, 2017 | Waste 360
PTF facilities use pyrolysis, a process that converts post-use non-recycled plastics into liquid fuels and chemical feedstocks by heating them in the absence of oxygen.
Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), part of the U.S. Department of Energy, has determined that using pyrolysis to convert non-recycled plastics into ultra-low-sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel results in energy and environmental benefits. These include reductions of up to 14 percent in greenhouse gas emissions, up to 58 percent in water consumption, and up to 96 percent in traditional energy use when compared to ULSD from conventional crude oil.
The peer-reviewed analysis “Life-Cycle Analysis of Fuels from Post-use Non-recycled Plastics,” was published in the April 14, 2017, edition of the journal Fuel ANL based the analysis on its highly regarded Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions and Energy use in Transportation (GREET) model, using data provided by five companies. The GREET database contains more than 100 different fuel pathways, has more than 30,000 subscribers, and is used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in implementing the Renewable Fuel Standard Program enacted by Congress.
“Argonne’s analysis clearly determines that plastics-to-fuel (PTF) technology is a viable and beneficial materials management option,” Craig Cookson, director of recycling and energy recovery for the American Chemistry Council said in a statement. “Not only does PTF reduce waste going to landfills, but these technologies can help reduce GHG emissions while conserving both water and energy.”
PTF facilities use pyrolysis, a process that converts post-use non-recycled plastics into liquid fuels and chemical feedstocks by heating them in the absence of oxygen. ANL assessed the potential energy and environmental benefits of converting non-recycled plastics into diesel using pyrolysis.
“The GREET model is the globally recognized benchmark for sustainability professionals, energy companies, and federal and state government agencies for making informed, scientifically based decisions about material use and post-use pathways for fuels,” Rick Wagner, global sustainability manager at Chevron Phillips Chemical Co., said in a statement.
http://www.waste360.com/plastics/us-laboratory-finds-plastics-fuel-technology-helps-reduce-ghg-emissions
-
Trump Asks Court To Halt Case Over New Power Plant Emissions
May 16, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
The Trump administration, along with industry and state foes of former President Obama's climate agenda, yesterday asked a federal court to indefinitely pause litigation over a rule limiting carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants.
Both the administration and rule critics argued that holding the case in abeyance would preserve the right of challengers to renew the litigation in the future. They said it would also allow U.S. EPA time to review and potentially get rid of the Obama administration standards.
"EPA believes that abeyance is the most suitable approach here, inasmuch as it would have the least disruptive consequences and would avoid any prejudice to petitioners," the Justice Department said in a brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Finalized in August 2015, the rule requires both new and modified fossil fuel-fired power plants to meet carbon dioxide limits.
Coal plants cannot meet the mandates through efficiency improvements alone. Instead, utilities have to install carbon capture and utilization or sequestration technology.
In late March, the D.C. Circuit agreed to temporarily postpone oral arguments in the litigation (E&E News PM, March 30). Last month, the court granted a 60-day pause and asked parties to file briefs on whether the rule should be frozen indefinitely or sent back to EPA, which is considering revisions or full repeal.
In their brief filed yesterday, state and industry rule foes said they see no difference between the new source power plant rule case and litigation over other Obama administration actions for which the D.C. Circuit has already granted abeyance.
"It makes little sense to actively proceed with judicial review when an agency has embarked on a review that could ultimately lead to a substantial revision or rescission of the rule," they said.Clean Power Plan
The same court is also weighing whether to pause or remand lawsuits challenging the Clean Power Plan, the Obama administration's rule for cutting CO2 emissions from existing power plants.
Yesterday, many of the same parties filed briefs laying out their hopes for the future of the Clean Power Plan litigation (E&E News PM, May 15).
But unlike with the Clean Power Plan, which the Supreme Court stayed nationwide in February 2016, the new source rule is currently in effect around the country.
Environmental groups said they don't have a "strong preference" between abeyance or remand in the case of the new source rule because it would remain in effect under either approach.
But they urged the court to issue a decision on the legality of the rule regardless of what the Trump administration does with it.
"A decision here would also promote judicial economy by avoiding later litigation on central issues that are likely to arise again," the environmentalists said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/05/16/stories/1060054612
-
Both Sides Claw For Advantage In Fight Over Case's Future
May 16, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Friends and foes of the Obama administration's signature effort to address climate change are angling for the upper hand as a federal court considers how to move forward with their case.
Parties on both sides of massive litigation over the Clean Power Plan submitted briefs to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit yesterday, making arguments for whether the court should keep the legal battle on ice while the Trump administration rethinks the rule or close the case and remand it to U.S. EPA.
The D.C. Circuit requested the briefs late last month, noting that it would pause the case for 60 days but wanted more information on the implications of long-term abeyance versus a remand to the agency.
Litigants on all sides of the high-stakes battle have spent the past two weeks gaming out legal and regulatory scenarios that could occur under each option.
Yesterday's flurry of legal filings reveals concerns about judicial resources, future court action and the status of a Supreme Court stay that has been in place since February 2016 (E&E News PM, May 15).
Here's how the major parties want the case to play out:EPA: Freeze the case
The Trump administration is urging the D.C. Circuit to hold the case in abeyance.
Justice Department lawyers representing EPA wrote in a brief yesterday that freezing proceedings is the fairest and most efficient way to handle the case while the agency reconsiders the rule.
Topping the agency's concerns is the status of the Supreme Court stay — an order freezing implementation of the Clean Power Plan. EPA is concerned that remanding the case would "raise substantial questions regarding the stay's vitality."
That's because the stay was designed to follow the course of the litigation. If the D.C. Circuit opted for remand, the case would be closed. After some potential procedural wrangling at the Supreme Court, the stay could be lifted (Energywire, May 8).
DOJ lawyers say that process would hamper EPA's ongoing efforts to review the Clean Power Plan, as required under President Trump's "energy independence" executive order.
And an ultimate dissolution of the Supreme Court stay would require the agency to take action to postpone compliance deadlines, leaving it vulnerable to new legal challenges, the brief said.
"EPA's consideration of interim administrative actions following remand ... and any related litigation would also consume limited agency and staff resources that could otherwise be devoted to the agency's substantive review and possible revision of the Rule," the brief said. "These consequences can be — and manifestly should be — avoided by continuing to hold this litigation in abeyance."CPP opponents: Freeze the case
Opponents of the Clean Power Plan are also pushing the court to put the case on hold rather than remand it.
They're most concerned about ensuring future access to the courts if the Trump administration is unable to deliver on its promise to unravel the rule.
A large coalition of electric utilities, mining companies and other industry interests paired with more than two dozen states to argue in a brief yesterday that holding the case in abeyance would best preserve their right to future judicial review if the Trump administration's plans to scrap or soften the rule go off course.
The brief notes that previous regulatory reviews have not always played out as expected. For example, the Obama administration in 2009 sought to pause litigation over ozone standards from the George W. Bush administration, noting that Obama's EPA planned to revise the regulation. But the agency ultimately backed away from that plan, leaving the Bush standard in place.
The case had been held in abeyance, so challengers to the Bush-era rule were able to pick up where they left off. The Clean Power Plan litigation should be treated similarly, the litigants told the D.C. Circuit yesterday.
"By holding these cases in abeyance, this Court retains jurisdiction over the pending petitions for review," the brief said. "And if EPA ultimately does not decide to revise or rescind the Rule, this Court can lift that abeyance, reactivate these cases, and proceed directly to resolving the merits of the legal challenges to the Rule."
Remand, on the other hand, could leave challengers stuck with no easy path to judicial review, they said. If EPA ultimately left the Clean Power Plan intact, states and industry could have difficulty bringing a new lawsuit because the Clean Air Act imposes a 60-day deadline on legal challenges.
Industry and state lawyers also share EPA's concern that remand could leave the Supreme Court stay "jeopardized" — an outcome they say is at odds with the purpose of the stay.
"Allowing the Rule possibly to go into effect through a remand while EPA conducts its review would contravene the Supreme Court's conclusion that the Rule has a fair prospect of being found to be legally flawed, its weighing of the harms, and its directive preventing the Rule from going into effect pending high court review," the brief said.CPP supporters: Decide! (Or remand)
Supporters of the Clean Power Plan are holding out hope that the D.C. Circuit will issue a decision on the merits of the case. Given the two options of abeyance or remand, though, they favor the latter.
A coalition of environmental and public health groups argued that pausing the case indefinitely would extend the Supreme Court stay and amount to a long-term suspension of the Clean Power Plan without proper administrative procedure.
"Granting EPA's motion would convert temporary enforcement relief pending judicial review into a long-term suspension of the Clean Power Plan, without any court having issued a decision on its legal merits and without following the administrative steps necessary to amend, suspend, or withdraw a regulation," their brief said.
Renewable energy associations and a group of power companies that support the Clean Power Plan echoed that concern, arguing that abeyance would allow the Trump administration to avoid action required under the Clean Air Act.
Given those impacts, remand would be the "less detrimental" option when considered alongside abeyance, states that support the rule argued in their own brief. They also urged the court to schedule oral arguments before deciding how to move forward.
All of the supporters' briefs ultimately landed on the same conclusion: The court should decide the case. They say the D.C. Circuit should decide critical questions about the extent of EPA's Clean Air Act authority to inform the agency's ongoing review process and optimize judicial resources.
Ten D.C. Circuit judges spent seven hours last September hearing oral arguments in the case, and even more time reviewing thousands of pages of briefs from more than 200 parties.
Without an answer to many of the legal questions posed during that process, the court, EPA and all of its stakeholders are doomed to repeat another round of exhaustive litigation, the supporters say (Energywire, May 1).
"If not decided now, the legal questions presented here will need to be litigated again, from scratch, with the likelihood of another long and complex course of briefing and judicial consideration," environmental groups argued in their brief.
In the meantime, they added, the delayed resolution would mean "great practical harm and defiance of the Clean Air Act's mandate to move quickly against identified threats to public health and welfare."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/05/16/stories/1060054593
-
EDF, Coalition Partners Urge The D.C. Circuit To Decide The Clean Power Plan Case
May 16, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tomas Carbonell
Environmental Defense Fund and fourteen other public health and environmental organizations filed a brief yesterday urging the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to issue a decision on the merits in the litigation over the Clean Power Plan – America’s only nationwide standards limiting harmful carbon pollution from existing fossil fuel power plants.
Other parties supporting the Clean Power Plan also filed briefs, including 18 states and 7 municipalities, power companies representing nearly 10 percent of the nation’s generation, and associations representing America’s vibrant $200 billion clean energy industry.
The latest filings all respond to a recent D.C. Circuit order which temporarily suspended the litigation and directed the parties to submit briefs on whether to continue the suspension (known as an “abeyance”) or terminate the case and hand the matter back to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for further review (known as “remand”).
This order addressed a motion filed by the Trump Administration on March 28, which asked the court to suspend the Clean Power Plan litigation indefinitely and refrain from deciding the legal merits of the Clean Power Plan.
Here’s what’s at stake at this critical juncture in the Clean Power Plan litigation – and a few things we can count on regardless of how the court rules on yesterday’s filings.
Real World Consequences for Healthier Air and a Safer Climate
The briefs have vital real-world consequences for everyone who cares about healthier air and a safer climate.
As legal experts have noted, the Administration’s move is a brazen, eleventh-hour attempt to prevent the D.C. Circuit from issuing a timely opinion on legal issues that are central to EPA’s responsibility under the Clean Air Act to protect the public against climate pollution. The Administration filed its March 28 motion almost a year after the parties submitted briefs in the case, and six months after ten judges of the D.C. Circuit held an exhaustive seven hour-long oral argument.
Because the Supreme Court voted 5-to-4 to temporarily block the enforcement of the Clean Power Plan while the courts reviewed the legal challenges, the Administration’s motion would also indefinitely delay the enforcement of these urgently needed and long-overdue limits on carbon pollution.
The Administration’s motion asked the court for an indefinite pause in the litigation while EPA undertakes the long process of reviewing – and likely rescinding or weakening – the Clean Power Plan. However, if the court declines to decide the central legal questions in this case now, the same issues would likely have to be re-litigated again after EPA has completed its review. This would add years of unnecessary delay at a time when the urgency of action to mitigate climate pollution has never been greater.
Americans have been waiting for protection from climate pollution from power plants for almost twenty years — with no relief:In 1998, EPA’s General Counsel Jonathan Cannon concluded in a memorandum to the EPA Administrator that EPA has authority to regulate carbon dioxide from power plants under the Clean Air Act – but EPA took no action to address the issue.In 2003, environmental organizations filed a complaint against EPA in federal district court seeking carbon dioxide standards for fossil fuel-fired power plants under section 111 of the Clean Air Act.In 2006, states and environmental organizations filed a legal challenge in the D.C. Circuit to EPA’s failure to establish carbon dioxide standards for power plants under the Clean Air Act.In 2007, the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which affirmed that climate pollution is subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. The D.C. Circuit then remanded the 2006 lawsuit to EPA to address the issue of establishing carbon dioxide standards for power plants.In 2010, states, public health, and environmental organizations reached a settlement with EPA in which the agency committed to finalizing carbon pollution standards for new and existing power plants by 2012 – a deadline that the agency failed to meet.In 2011, the Supreme Court relied on EPA’s authority under section 111 of the Clean Air Act as a basis for dismissing suits filed by states for common law damages against some of the nation’s most polluting power companies — holding that section 111 “speaks directly” to the problem of climate pollution from power plants.In 2015, after almost two years of intensive public outreach and after considering millions of public comments — and using its authority under section 111 of the Clean Air Act — EPA adopted the Clean Power Plan.In 2016, a closely divided Supreme Court voted 5-to-4 to temporarily block the enforcement of the Clean Power Plan pending judicial review of the merits.
Affected communities and vulnerable populations have waited long enough for action to protect our health and climate, while more and more climate pollution is accumulating in the atmosphere. That’s why the court should decide this case now rather than leaving climate protection in long-term legal limbo.
The Urgent Need for Limits on Carbon Pollution from the Nation’s Power Plants
The Clean Power Plan is a common sense climate and public health protection that will carbon reduce pollution from one of the nation’s largest sources, saving thousands of lives each year and protecting the health of all Americans.
The Clean Power Plan gives states and power companies tremendous flexibility in deciding how to reduce carbon pollution, including through cost-effective energy efficiency measures that save families money. Investments in clean energy and energy efficiency are already growing rapidly, employing over three million Americans and bringing hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue each year to low-income and rural areas.
That’s why a strikingly broad and diverse coalition emerged to defend the Clean Power Plan in court. The coalition includes: eighteen states and sixty municipalities; power companies that own and operate nearly ten percent of the nation’s generating capacity; leading businesses like Amazon, Apple, Google, Mars, and IKEA; former Republican heads of EPA; public health and environmental organizations; consumer and ratepayer advocates; faith organizations; and many others.
Coal producers, coal-intensive power companies, and their political allies have waged a massive, years-long litigation effort to thwart any limits whatsoever on climate-destabilizing pollution from power plants. Their campaign recently got an assist when the Trump Administration issued an executive order on March 28 that took aim at the Clean Power Plan and many other vital clean air protections.
In response to that executive order, an extraordinary array of leading businesses, faith leaders, medical associations, state and municipal officials, and other stakeholders have spoken out against the Administration’s threats to climate and health protections or vowed to continue moving towards a low-carbon future.
In recent weeks, dissent has emerged even within the coalition challenging the Clean Power Plan: North Carolina formally withdrew its challenge to the Clean Power Plan on February 23.
Millions of Americans in red and blue states – including a majority of Americans in every Congressional district in the country – support strong action to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants. This public chorus reflects an understanding of the growing hazards of climate change, which is already affecting public health and well-being in a host of ways.
America has been demanding action from EPA since 2003, has been told multiple times by the Supreme Court that EPA has authority to act, and is now counting on the D.C. Circuit to resolve key legal questions about the scope of that authority. For that reason, our brief argues that the most fair and efficient course of action for the Court is to resolve those questions now.
EPA is Required to Act. It’s Up to All of Us to Make Sure EPA Fulfills That Obligation
Regardless of how the Court rules on today’s filings, a few critical facts will remain unchanged:EPA has a clear legal obligation to protect the public from carbon pollution. The Supreme Court has affirmed EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act three times since 2007, including EPA’s authority to limit carbon pollution from power plants under the Clean Air Act provision that is the basis for the Clean Power Plan.EPA’s carbon pollution standards for new power plants remain in full force and effect. Separate from the Clean Power Plan, EPA adopted carbon pollution standards for new, modified, and reconstructed fossil fuel-fired power plants in August 2015. Although those standards have also been the target of legal challenges by polluters and their allies, the enforcement of those standards has not been blocked by the courts. They will remain in full force and effect regardless of how the Court acts.EPA can’t roll back the Clean Power Plan or the carbon pollution standards for new power plants without public comment or judicial review. Even if the court declines to issue an opinion and instead suspends the litigation or remands the rule to EPA, the Clean Power Plan would still be the law of the land. Any attempt to withdraw or modify the Clean Power Plan (or the carbon pollution standards for new power plants) would first have to go through the same rigorous public notice and comment process that EPA carefully followed in adopting them. Such changes would also be subject to judicial review in the federal courts, and would be set aside if they are contrary to the Clean Air Act or do not rest on sound technical and policy foundations.
Americans all across the country are demanding an end to the era of unlimited carbon pollution from power plants.
In the face of the Trump Administration’s assault on common sense protections, the Environmental Defense Fund is ready to fight harder than ever for healthier air and a safer climate for our children.
http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2017/05/16/edf-coalition-partners-urge-the-d-c-circuit-to-decide-the-clean-power-plan-case/
-
U.S. Dodges Brunt Of Ransomware Pandemic — So Far
May 16, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
As the dust settles on one of the biggest global malware epidemics in recent years, top U.S. cybersecurity officials and infrastructure operators are cautiously calling it a crisis averted.
"As of today [Monday], no federal systems are affected," said Thomas Bossert, assistant for President Trump for homeland security and counterterrorism, at a press conference yesterday. "Overall, the U.S. infection rate has been lower than many parts of the world, but we may still see significant impacts on additional networks as these malware attacks morph and change."
The WannaCry ransomware spread quickly among U.K. and Spanish computer networks Friday morning, ultimately locking up files on some 300,000 machines across 150 countries, authorities say. Russia appeared to be the hardest-hit country based on the sheer number of WannaCry infections there, according to analysis from cybersecurity firm Kaspersky Lab.
The malware encrypts files on victims' networks, then charges hundreds of dollars for the key needed to recover them. It relies on a flaw in Microsoft Windows that was leaked to the public following an apparent breach of National Security Agency hacking tools.
The ransomware pandemic earned global attention when it was revealed Friday that several U.K. hospitals had seen their computer systems compromised and held for ransom. Critical infrastructure operators, including in the oil, gas and electric sectors, were warned to secure their systems and apply an available patch from Microsoft (Energywire, May 15).
So far, at least, U.S. defenses appear to be holding.
"At this point, no compromise has been identified by a natural gas utility in connection with the WannaCry ransomware cyberattacks," said Jim Linn, managing director of IT at the American Gas Association, which represents many investor-owned gas utilities in the United States.
Lynn is also executive director of the Downstream Natural Gas Information Sharing and Analysis Center, an industry-led effort to quickly disseminate intelligence on cyberthreats and vulnerabilities among its members.
The corresponding organization for the bulk power sector, the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center, is run through the nonprofit North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC). A spokeswoman for the grid overseer said NERC is continuing to monitor the ransomware situation but that there were no reports of impacts to the North American grid as of last night. A spokesman for the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, which represents many rural power providers that fall outside of NERC's oversight, said the group had not received any reports of co-op or power-sector disruptions.
Bossert said the "best and brightest" at relevant U.S. agencies are working on figuring out who triggered the ransomware crisis. "It would be very satisfying for me, and for all our viewers, I think, if we find them and bring them to justice," he said at the televised White House press briefing yesterday. He noted that the administration is "bringing all of the capabilities of the U.S. government to bear on this issue."
Private cybersecurity companies, led by researchers from Kaspersky, Symantec and Google, began looking into similarities in WannaCry and malicious code linked to a suspected North Korean hacking group known as Lazarus. The Symantec Security Response team said in a statement that "while these connections exist, they so far only represent weak connections," adding that the firm would continue to look for stronger technical links.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/05/16/stories/1060054587
-
Flow Lines Cited In More Than 7K Spills
May 16, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
Flow lines — the small, low-pressure pipes blamed for a fatal home explosion in Colorado last month — have long been a weak point at oil and gas well sites.
They've been cited as the problem in more than 7,000 spills, leaks and other mishaps since the beginning of 2009, according to an E&E News analysis of state agencies' records. And that is likely an undercount because of the widely varying ways in which states report spills.
In most states, whether flow lines are involved must be deduced from inspectors' notes. In the three states that track the source of spills — Colorado, New Mexico and Texas — flow lines were cited more than any other source except tank batteries.
They're prone to corroding and leaks, lines freeze, and joints break. Rarely, they also get cut and crushed by heavy equipment.
In most states, that hasn't led to stricter regulation. Only Colorado and California have specific rules for such small pipelines (Energywire, May 5). Colorado requires the lines to be pressure tested but doesn't require detailed maps. California is still implementing its requirements for mapping and pressure tests.
"In a lot of these mature fields, they haven't been replaced in a long time," said Kerry Sublette, a spill cleanup expert and chemical engineering professor at the University of Tulsa. "If nobody's looking over your shoulder, you're not as likely to replace it."
Most states don't require that operators dig up and remove the lines when they're done using them.
"They've got lines that they've got no idea where they go," Sublette said. "They never remove them."
There are different terms for flow lines, but generally they refer to narrow pipelines that carry oil, gas or wastewater — often all three — from scattered wells to tanks or other equipment within the same lease. Other lines, like gathering lines and transmission pipelines, are larger. They lead to processing facilities and away from production sites.
Some are steel, and others are plastic or fiberglass. Some are buried, while producers prefer to leave them aboveground in rocky areas.
Flow lines are more common with conventional oil and gas development, in which vertical wells are scattered across vast acreage. In modern shale development, horizontal well bores spread out underground. But wellheads are concentrated in one area at the surface, so there's less need for long flow lines.
They usually leak oil or "produced water" — a salty, toxic mix of fluids — along with natural gas. The gas leaked from such lines often isn't reported.
But among the 7,000 spills, there are reports of dangerous gas leaks.
In 2011, near Kingfisher, Okla., a landowner reported smelling gas at a well on his property. An inspector found a mess when he showed up. The wellhead itself was leaking gas, along with a flow line. Weeds at the overgrown site were creating a fire hazard. The inspector ordered the site cleaned up. Records state the case was resolved two months later.
And near Odessa, Texas, in 2015, corrosion on a line at an Occidental Petroleum Corp. well caused a flow line to leak deadly hydrogen sulfide. That forced an evacuation of nearby homes.
Only New Mexico appears to require operators to report gas-only leaks from flow lines. Since 2009, 35 such releases have been reported in the state.Accidents
Lines also get turned back on accidentally, similar to what happened in Colorado.
After someone reported puddles of oil surrounded by fencing at a well site in a rural area northwest of Oklahoma City in 2010, a Chesapeake Energy Corp. employee explained that someone had opened a valve that went to an old flow line after working on the well.
The fatal explosion last month in Colorado resulted from several actions.
The home was in a subdivision built on top of an oil field. The backyard was 150 feet from an operating oil and gas well drilled in 1993.
When the central tank battery was moved several years ago because of houses being built nearby, the operator laid new flow lines. But the company left the old ones in the ground, 7 feet deep. And it did not fill them with inert material and seal them shut.
Then one of those lines got cut, possibly during home construction in the area. The valve from the well to the flow line was open, allowing gas to flow right up to the back of the house. It reached a French drain and seeped into the basement (Energywire, May 3).
On April 17, Mark Martinez was working in the basement of the home with his brother-in-law, Joey Irwin. Something ignited the gas, and the Martinez home exploded. The house was leveled, Martinez and Irwin were killed, and Martinez's wife, Erin, was badly injured.
The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission has ordered companies to provide an inventory of similar pipelines and to verify that any abandoned pipelines have been properly cut off and capped.
In New Mexico, the Oil Conservation Division issued a notice to oil and gas producers, reminding them of the existing requirements to pressure test pipelines and to properly disconnect them when they're no longer in use (Energywire, May 9). Asked whether Texas regulators are undertaking any response to the explosion, Texas Railroad Commission spokeswoman Ramona Nye said, "The commission requires pipeline operators to operate their pipelines safely in compliance with these rules at all times."
Getting cut by construction crews and other forms of "excavation damage" are not a common cause of flow line leaks, at least in Colorado.
Colorado analyzed the causes for spills and other releases from flow lines in 2016 and found nearly half are caused by corrosion. Only 1 percent of releases were caused by excavation damage.
The salty wastewater at well sites is particularly corrosive. But operators generally keep patching corroded lines, Sublette said.
"You know there's corrosion," he said, "but you don't replace it until you've had a number of leaks."
Reporters Mike Lee and Pamela King contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/05/16/stories/1060054568
-
GOP Lawmakers Take Aim At Social Cost of Carbon
May 16, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
Senate Republicans are calling on U.S. EPA to take a closer look at regulations that consider "co-benefits" and the social cost of carbon.
In a letter yesterday to the agency's regulatory reform officer, Samantha Dravis, members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee applauded EPA's moves to get rid of "burdensome regulations."
EPW Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and seven other committee members urged Dravis to re-evaluate regulations like the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), for which the direct dollar value of air quality improvements was calculated to be significantly less than the indirect estimated health benefits that were not the focus of the rule.
The senators argued that the agency's past approach to calculating those co-benefits was flawed and required pollution reductions well below the levels required for human health and welfare. In the case of the MATS rule, the direct benefits of the rule ranged from $4 million to $6 million, while health benefits ranged from $37 million to $90 billion.
They also attacked the social cost of carbon, a metric that puts a dollar value on cutting a ton of carbon dioxide emissions. The value takes into account factors ranging from population growth, future storm damages and projected economic development.
"The Environment and Public Works Committee have highlighted the fact that the metrics used by the prior administration to quantify the 'social cost of carbon' suffer from procedural flaws and troubling substantive assumptions," the senators wrote.
EPA's regulatory overhaul is part of a governmentwide deregulation effort under the Trump administration. Yesterday marked the last day for public comment on EPA's plan to evaluate its current regulations.
The letter also calls out the agency for not doing enough to consider the potential negative consequences of federal regulation, such as the impact on small businesses and employment.
In addition to Barrasso, Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), John Boozman (R-Ark.) and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) signed the letter.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/05/16/stories/1060054594
-
Bid To Reform Cap And Trade Rests On Its Shaky Legal Foundation
May 16, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
California lawmakers' push to reform the state's greenhouse gas program stems from long-standing legal perturbations that have dogged the market since its inception.
The cap-and-trade market, which is tasked with ensuring that California reaches its target of 1990 emissions levels by 2020, has been vulnerable since it began in 2012 to charges that it constitutes an illegal tax under state law. Awareness of that vulnerability has grown each year, and lawmakers are now poised to administer a cure in the form of reauthorization.
Their deliberations are already affecting the current market. A bill introduced earlier this month by state Senate leaders sent prices on the secondary market slightly downward because it would prevent current allowances from being used after 2020. By proposing to ban carbon offsets, it also sent a chilling message to offset developers, who sell industry a slightly cheaper way to comply by paying for emissions reductions from forests, dairies and the like (Climatewire, May 10).
Two constitutional amendments and two laws intersect to give the state Legislature considerable leverage over the future of the program. The original 2006 law setting the 2020 target, known as A.B. 32, specifically authorized the executive branch to set up a market-based emissions program, but it was only passed by a majority vote. That left the market open to challenges that cite Proposition 13, a 1978 ballot initiative that required a two-thirds vote to impose revenue-raising taxes. The market was challenged by industry groups on that ground immediately after auctions began in 2012.
An appeals court finally decided last month that the auctions do not constitute an illegal tax (Climatewire, April 7). Although the case could still be taken up by the state Supreme Court, the decision lifted the clouds of uncertainty significantly — but only for the program as it exists through 2020. Beyond that, all observers agree, the Legislature is poised to play a significant role. Their leverage hinges on just how uncertain the program would be after 2020.
"There's enough uncertainty that in the absence of legislative action, we will continue to be navigating between Scylla and Charybdis," said Alex Jackson, legal director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's California climate project.
"A lot of the actual legal questions are fascinating, but we need a vote of confidence from the Legislature politically, as well," he said.Markets swimming in uncertain waters
The irony that the legal uncertainty is giving rise to yet more uncertainty is not lost on market observers.
"We need a two-thirds vote before 2020. We don't actually need one now for legal reasons. The reason to have one now is to provide some certainty for the markets," said Nico van Aelstyn, a partner at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP who represents emitters as well as companies that have developed carbon offset projects.
"That's not what's coming out of the Legislature right now. Just the opposite," he said.
The question now is whether the auctions can extend beyond 2020, the date of the final emissions target set out in A.B. 32. Another bill passed last year, the similarly named S.B. 32, sets further targets through 2030. But it does not contain the same language authorizing a market-based system. And even if it did, it was passed — by majority vote — after Proposition 26, a 2010 ballot initiative that broadened the scope of Proposition 13, to require a supermajority vote for any tax, even revenue-neutral ones.
A post-2020 cap-and-trade program, barring further legislative authorization, could fall prey to Proposition 26, which creates much tougher hoops for a program to jump through to demonstrate it is not a tax. Or it might violate A.B. 32 itself, which specifies that the market's cap should decline "from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2020, inclusive." The state's legislative counsel warned last year that the courts could read that as a firm end date.
"A.B. 32 gives ARB [the California Air Resources Board] explicit authority to create a market-based trading program through 2020, and gives ARB general authority to create programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with state emissions limits," explained Cara Horowitz, co-director of UCLA's Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
"S.B. 32 extended emission limits out to 2030. It's not clear whether ARB may rest a post-2020 cap-and-trade program on existing law. In my view, it would be risky — but not totally unfounded — to do so."'Tweaks around the edges'
ARB itself is maintaining that it does have authority to continue the program, without specifying the particular legal theory.
"We'd rather not test that belief," agency Chairwoman Mary Nichols told lawmakers last week. The agency still plans to vote next month to extend the current program through 2030, but is also welcoming legislative input. Gov. Jerry Brown (D) is pushing for the Legislature to reapprove the program by mid-June as part of the state budget.
"One of the things that protects the program is if it has full legislative authorization," Nichols said. "It just puts the issue to rest."
There could be other ways forward, of varying degrees of attractiveness to lawmakers. The program could get around the precepts of Proposition 26 by giving all of the carbon allowances away for free instead of selling them, but that would deprive the state and residents of auction proceeds.
ARB could also use an "enforcement fee," which would look like a carbon tax and could be pegged at whatever level the state decides would cover the "reasonable costs" of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.
"Short of a two-thirds supermajority vote, I don't see any other legally viable path forward with a market structure," said Danny Cullenward, a research associate at Stanford University's Carnegie Institution for Science who advised state Sen. Bob Wieckowski (D) and state Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de León (D) on S.B. 775.
While observers agree that lawmakers have power over the program, there are differing views on the expectations market participants should have of them. "All of these players understand there is no market for their product without legislative reauthorization, and any of them that invested beyond the 2020 time frame took on that risk knowingly," Cullenward said of the dismayed offset developers.
"I think it's worth pointing out that, although there has been some uncertainty about CARB's authority, virtually everyone has assumed that California will continue to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in something pretty close to its current form with some possible tweaks around the edges," said Ann Carlson, co-director alongside Horowitz of UCLA's Emmett Institute.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/05/16/stories/1060054575
-
Virginia AG Sees 'Broad' State Authority To Cap GHGs
May 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring (D) says the state's Air Pollution Control Board is “legally authorized” to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, including by setting a statewide cap on power plant emissions, in an opinion that comes as a working group created by Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) will soon present recommendations on GHG controls.
Herring writes in a May 12 memo to state Del. David Toscano (D) that the state's Air Pollution Control Board has “broad statutory authority” to regulate GHG emissions beyond its current method -- which is through the use of its prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit program. The board has regulated carbon emissions through that program since 2011.
Toscano had requested an “official advisory opinion” from Herring on “the degree to which state law provides authority” for the state's Air Pollution Control Board to regulate carbon emissions.
The board consists of seven Virginia citizens appointed by the governor, and it, along with similar boards for water and waste, adopt many of the state's environmental regulations. Virginia's Department of Environmental Quality then implements those regulations approved by the boards.
Herring in his memo notes it is “well settled” that GHGs “fall within” the definition of “air pollution,” thus meaning they can be regulated by the air board. “The overwhelming body of scientific literature demonstrates a growing consensus among scientists studying carbon dioxide that it contributes to elevated global temperatures and may be harmful to the welfare of people, animals and property,” he writes.
And he adds that the air board's authority to regulate GHGs “is not limited to establishing and maintaining only a permitting system. Indeed, the Board has broad statutory authority to abate and 'control [] all sources of air pollution in the Commonwealth . . . .'”
Herring says this authority includes setting a statewide cap on emissions from new and existing power plants.
The memo comes as a working group selected by McAuliffe is preparing to deliver recommendations by the end of this month on what executive actions could be taken to limit GHG emissions in the state. McAuliffe's spokesman says the governor will make a “significant announcement” about the working group May 16, according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
The working group's recommendations and Herring's memo could be significant, as they could allow McAuliffe's administration to work around the state's GOP-controlled legislature to promulgate GHG controls of some kind. Environmentalists have been pushing term-limited McAuliffe to move forward on climate regulation before he leaves office in January.
Virginia will elect a new governor this fall, with primary elections to be held June 13.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/virginia-ag-sees-broad-state-authority-cap-ghgs
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested