Preview Newsletter
(acc pm test)
-
(ACC Mention) Foam Ban Narrowly Fails in California Senate
Jun 7, 2017 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Colin Staub
Opponents of the ban included the American Chemistry Council (ACC); Plastics Industry Association; Dart Container Corporation; California restaurants, retailers and manufacturers associations and more. The California Chamber of Commerce described the EPS ban as a “job killer” that would increase costs for businesses. -
Preparing for the Inventory Reset: It Is Not That Easy
Jun 7, 2017 | The National Law Review
By Bergson & Campbell PC
With the recent release of the 2016 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) dataset and the initial interim list of active substances released with the February 2017 copy of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory (Inventory), the magnitude of effort that will be needed for the Section 8(b)(4) Inventory Reset is becoming clear. Stakeholders should waste no time in preparing to meet their obligations. -
TSCA Risk Evaluation Final Rule Submitted to OMB
Jun 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Chemical Watch
The US EPA has submitted its final rule on risk evaluation under the new TSCA to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. -
TSCA Risk Evaluation Final Rule Submitted to OMB
Jun 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Chemical Watch Editorial Staff
The US EPA has submitted its final rule on risk evaluation under the new TSCA to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. -
Preparing for the Inventory Reset: It Is Not That Easy
Jun 7, 2017 | The National Law Review
By Bergson & Campbell
With the recent release of the 2016 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) dataset and the initial interim list of active substances released with the February 2017 copy of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory (Inventory), the magnitude of effort that will be needed for the Section 8(b)(4) Inventory Reset is becoming clear. Stakeholders should waste no time in preparing to meet their obligations. -
(ACC Mention) Foam Ban Narrowly Fails in California Senate
Jun 7, 2017 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Colin Staub
Opponents of the ban included the American Chemistry Council (ACC); Plastics Industry Association; Dart Container Corporation; California restaurants, retailers and manufacturers associations and more. The California Chamber of Commerce described the EPS ban as a “job killer” that would increase costs for businesses. -
Petrochemical Facilities Continue to Boom along Gulf Coast
|
-
Petrochemical Facilities Continue to Boom along Gulf Coast
Jun 7, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By David Hunn
The Gulf Coast continues to dominate new U.S. chemical plant construction. Six of the eight new U.S. ethylene projects now being built sit along the Gulf, according to data from energy research firm Wood Mackenzie. -
What Really Happened to Coal?
Jun 7, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Robert J. Samuelson
The coal-mining jobs that President Trump thinks were destroyed by government regulation — adopted to combat air pollution and global warming — were actually lost to old-fashioned competition from other American firms and workers. Eastern coal mines lost market share to Western coal, which was cheaper. And natural gas grew at coal’s expense because it had low costs and lower greenhouse-gas emissions. -
(ACC Mentioned) Pruitt's Quick Strike on Ozone Roils Greens, Delights GOP
Jun 7, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Earlier this year, Scott Pruitt had little to say about U.S. EPA's 2015 ozone standard during his Senate confirmation process for becoming the agency's administrator. But he made his position clear late yesterday by abruptly announcing his decision to delay for a year attainment designations with the 70 parts per billion threshold, accompanied by a suggestion that more changes are in the works -
(ACC Mentioned) Quick Strike on Ozone Roils Greens, Delights GOP
Jun 7, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
"We are hopeful that EPA will also be able to address the overlap with the 2008 standards and reform the implementation process to provide greater regulatory certainty to state air-quality agencies and businesses alike," the American Chemistry Council said in a statement this morning. -
The U.S. Can’t Leave the Paris Climate Deal Just Yet
Jun 7, 2017 | The New York Times
By Brad Plumer
Last week, President Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. But it will take more than one speech to pull out: Under the rules of the deal, the earliest any country can leave is Nov. 4, 2020. That means the United States will remain a party to the accord for nearly all of Mr. Trump’s current term, and it could still try to influence the climate talks during that span. -
A Big Business Coalition against Climate Change
Jun 7, 2017 | Financial Times
By Editorial
Donald Trump claims to be defending US jobs and industry by abandoning the international effort to tackle climate change. US multinationals have rushed to disassociate themselves from his decision. From Silicon Valley to Wall Street, from industrial champions such as GE and General Motors to consumer goods companies, there has been unanimous condemnation and a declaration of intent to press ahead with clean energy initiatives. Even the oil majors urged Mr Trump to stick to the course. -
Defying Trump, Hawaii Becomes First State to Pass Law Committing to Paris Climate Accord
Jun 7, 2017 | The New York Times
By Jonah Engel Bromwich
Hawaii on Tuesday became the first state to pass a law committing to the goals and limits of the Paris climate accord, defying President Trump, who announced last week that he would withdraw the United States from the historic agreement.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mention) Foam Ban Narrowly Fails in California Senate
Jun 7, 2017 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Colin Staub
A statewide ban on expanded polystyrene food-service products was rejected in the California Senate last week, falling only a handful of votes short of passing.
Senate Bill 705, titled the Ocean Pollution Reduction Act, prohibited food vendors from using EPS food service packaging beginning in 2020. The bill started out as a prohibition on materials not accepted in local recycling programs but was amended several times and turned into the EPS ban.
On May 31, the Senate took a floor vote on the bill, and it failed 15-19. An opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times says the legislation failed not because a majority of the Senate voted against it, but because six senators chose to abstain from voting. If all six had cast votes in favor, it would have passed by two.
Ban proponent Californians Against Waste (CAW), in a message to supporters, likened the current foam battle to previous legislative debates over plastic bags and microbeads and said the push for a ban would continue. CAW says it will advocate for more local EPS bans, mimicking the strategy plastic bag opponents followed before the bag ban was passed statewide.
A Senate analysis of the bill indicates CAW was joined in supporting the bill by a host of environmental organizations, municipal recycling programs and other entities.
Opponents of the ban included the American Chemistry Council (ACC); Plastics Industry Association; Dart Container Corporation; California restaurants, retailers and manufacturers associations and more. The California Chamber of Commerce described the EPS ban as a “job killer” that would increase costs for businesses.
In an editorial, the Los Angeles Times contrasted the senators’ rejection of the EPS ban and California lawmakers’ public dismay, on the same day as the EPS vote, at President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord.
The foam battle in the most-populated U.S. state comes as the nation’s largest city also deliberates over EPS products. New York City’s controversial foam ban is scheduled to take effect in November, after an earlier version was defeated in court. Meanwhile, two proposals under consideration by the New York City Council would take alternative steps to deal with the material. One would impose a new ban on EPS products, while the other would require them to be accepted in the city’s curbside recycling program.
https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2017/06/07/foam-ban-narrowly-fails-california-senate/
-
Preparing for the Inventory Reset: It Is Not That Easy
Jun 7, 2017 | The National Law Review
By Bergson & Campbell PC
With the recent release of the 2016 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) dataset and the initial interim list of active substances released with the February 2017 copy of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory (Inventory), the magnitude of effort that will be needed for the Section 8(b)(4) Inventory Reset is becoming clear. Stakeholders should waste no time in preparing to meet their obligations.
Non-confidential Portion of the Inventory
We reviewed the substances listed as ACTIVE in the February 2017 Inventory dataset. As you know, this list was based on the substances that were reported under the 2012 CDR. Of the 67,748 substances on the non-confidential portion of the Inventory, 7,291 are listed as active (10.7%). Of the remaining non-active substances, 18,637 (30.8%) are exempt from CDR reporting (mostly polymers).
In the 2016 CDR dataset, submitters reported 7,949 non-confidential substances. Of those, 1,511 were not listed as active on the February 2017 interim active list. As in years past, some submitters reported substances that are exempt from CDR reporting. In 2016, 200 substances (again mostly polymers) that are flagged as exempt from CDR reporting were reported; 135 of those were already listed as active on the February interim active list.
In the proposed reset rule on active-inactive notification, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed including both 2012 and 2016 CDR reporting as sources for active status for the interim active list. Combining these brings the total of active substances on the non-confidential portion of the Inventory up to 8,802 non-confidential substances. This is still a very small proportion (13%) of the 67,748 substances listed on the non-confidential portion of the Inventory as of February.
Confidential Portion of the Inventory
Of the 17,758 substances on the confidential portion of the Inventory in February 2017, only 472 (2.7%) were listed as active. This percentage is quite small, but note that 11,025 (62.1%) of all the chemicals listed on the confidential portion of the Inventory are flagged as exempt from CDR reporting.
In the 2016 CDR dataset, submitters reported that 718 confidential substances were manufactured or imported. Of those, 350 were not listed as active on the February interim active list.
The vast majority (17,286 or 97.3%) of the substances listed on the confidential portion of the Inventory are not included on the interim active list. If EPA decides to identify as active those substances that were commenced during the look-back period, this total will decrease substantially. At least 12,790 (72.0%) of the substances with confidential identities could be added to the interim active list because they were the subject of premanufacture notifications (PMN) in Fiscal Year 2006 or later and, therefore, must have been commenced during the look-back period to appear on the Inventory. This would bring the total of interim active substances up to 13,612, which would represent 76.7% of the substances on the confidential portion of the Inventory.
In any event, this analysis suggests the confidential portion of the Inventory presents a number of challenges to submitters:
Substantiating confidentiality claims;
Ensuring that confidential substances have appropriate generic names; and
Ensuring that confidential substances from suppliers are properly identified as active so that supply is not interrupted.
Even if EPA adds the many recent PMN substances to the interim active list, if any substances were claimed as confidential business information (CBI) prior to the updated substantiation requirements, EPA will have to require re-substantiation and descriptive generic names.
Commentary and Points to Consider
In all, of the 85,506 substances listed on the Inventory, there should be at least 9,080 substances (10.6%) listed as active when EPA publishes the updated interim active list considering both the 2012 and 2016 CDR reporting. This number would increase to 21,870 if EPA decides to identify 2006-present commenced PMNs as active and adds them to the interim active list. While the current interim active list is a good start in the Inventory reset process, and would be significantly improved if the commenced PMNs were added, the status of the remaining nearly 64% (54,556 substances) of the Inventory is unknown and there are many, perhaps tens of thousands, more substances that will need to be considered and, if needed, notified as active. Clearly, manufacturers, importers, and processors must carefully review records to determine which of the over 75,000 substances not included on the current interim active list were manufactured, imported, or processed in the ten-year look-back period and prepare Form A “active” notices.
Manufacturers and importers should pay careful attention to substances that are exempt from CDR reporting, notably polymers, naturally occurring substances, and chemicals manufactured or imported below the CDR reporting thresholds. Processors should review their records and/or work with their suppliers to ensure that active chemicals are not missed. Of particular concern are infrequently made or purchased batch chemicals that were nonetheless manufactured, imported, or processed during the look-back period. Searching records and preparing notices will be a significant challenge. Similarly, the burdens of managing confidential identities, including providing a structurally descriptive generic name and substantiating confidentiality claims, will add to that burden significantly. The endeavor promises to require an enormous effort on industry’s part and, once the reporting process is complete, on EPA’s part to review the thousands of submissions and, in so doing, populate the active list.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/preparing-inventory-reset-it-not-easy
-
TSCA Risk Evaluation Final Rule Submitted to OMB
Jun 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Chemical Watch
The US EPA has submitted its final rule on risk evaluation under the new TSCA to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
The rulemaking on the procedures for evaluating existing chemical risks is one of three ‘framework’ TSCA rules that the Lautenberg Act directs the agency to finalise by 22 June – one year after the law’s passage.
The OMB reviews drafts of proposed and final regulations under several statutory and executive order authorities. The final prioritisation rule was submitted to it late last month, but the ‘inventory reset’ rule has yet to be posted as pending review.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56683/tsca-risk-evaluation-final-rule-submitted-to-omb
-
TSCA Risk Evaluation Final Rule Submitted to OMB
Jun 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Chemical Watch Editorial Staff
The US EPA has submitted its final rule on risk evaluation under the new TSCA to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
The rulemaking on the procedures for evaluating existing chemical risks is one of three ‘framework’ TSCA rules that the Lautenberg Act directs the agency to finalise by 22 June – one year after the law’s passage.
The OMB reviews drafts of proposed and final regulations under several statutory and executive order authorities. The final prioritisation rule was submitted to it late last month, but the ‘inventory reset’ rule has yet to be posted as pending review.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56683/tsca-risk-evaluation-final-rule-submitted-to-omb
-
Preparing for the Inventory Reset: It Is Not That Easy
Jun 7, 2017 | The National Law Review
By Bergson & Campbell
With the recent release of the 2016 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) dataset and the initial interim list of active substances released with the February 2017 copy of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory (Inventory), the magnitude of effort that will be needed for the Section 8(b)(4) Inventory Reset is becoming clear. Stakeholders should waste no time in preparing to meet their obligations.
Non-confidential Portion of the Inventory
We reviewed the substances listed as ACTIVE in the February 2017 Inventory dataset. As you know, this list was based on the substances that were reported under the 2012 CDR. Of the 67,748 substances on the non-confidential portion of the Inventory, 7,291 are listed as active (10.7%). Of the remaining non-active substances, 18,637 (30.8%) are exempt from CDR reporting (mostly polymers).
In the 2016 CDR dataset, submitters reported 7,949 non-confidential substances. Of those, 1,511 were not listed as active on the February 2017 interim active list. As in years past, some submitters reported substances that are exempt from CDR reporting. In 2016, 200 substances (again mostly polymers) that are flagged as exempt from CDR reporting were reported; 135 of those were already listed as active on the February interim active list.
In the proposed reset rule on active-inactive notification, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed including both 2012 and 2016 CDR reporting as sources for active status for the interim active list. Combining these brings the total of active substances on the non-confidential portion of the Inventory up to 8,802 non-confidential substances. This is still a very small proportion (13%) of the 67,748 substances listed on the non-confidential portion of the Inventory as of February.
Confidential Portion of the Inventory
Of the 17,758 substances on the confidential portion of the Inventory in February 2017, only 472 (2.7%) were listed as active. This percentage is quite small, but note that 11,025 (62.1%) of all the chemicals listed on the confidential portion of the Inventory are flagged as exempt from CDR reporting.
In the 2016 CDR dataset, submitters reported that 718 confidential substances were manufactured or imported. Of those, 350 were not listed as active on the February interim active list.
The vast majority (17,286 or 97.3%) of the substances listed on the confidential portion of the Inventory are not included on the interim active list. If EPA decides to identify as active those substances that were commenced during the look-back period, this total will decrease substantially. At least 12,790 (72.0%) of the substances with confidential identities could be added to the interim active list because they were the subject of premanufacture notifications (PMN) in Fiscal Year 2006 or later and, therefore, must have been commenced during the look-back period to appear on the Inventory. This would bring the total of interim active substances up to 13,612, which would represent 76.7% of the substances on the confidential portion of the Inventory.
In any event, this analysis suggests the confidential portion of the Inventory presents a number of challenges to submitters:
Substantiating confidentiality claims;
Ensuring that confidential substances have appropriate generic names; and
Ensuring that confidential substances from suppliers are properly identified as active so that supply is not interrupted.
Even if EPA adds the many recent PMN substances to the interim active list, if any substances were claimed as confidential business information (CBI) prior to the updated substantiation requirements, EPA will have to require re-substantiation and descriptive generic names.Commentary and Points to Consider
In all, of the 85,506 substances listed on the Inventory, there should be at least 9,080 substances (10.6%) listed as active when EPA publishes the updated interim active list considering both the 2012 and 2016 CDR reporting. This number would increase to 21,870 if EPA decides to identify 2006-present commenced PMNs as active and adds them to the interim active list. While the current interim active list is a good start in the Inventory reset process, and would be significantly improved if the commenced PMNs were added, the status of the remaining nearly 64% (54,556 substances) of the Inventory is unknown and there are many, perhaps tens of thousands, more substances that will need to be considered and, if needed, notified as active. Clearly, manufacturers, importers, and processors must carefully review records to determine which of the over 75,000 substances not included on the current interim active list were manufactured, imported, or processed in the ten-year look-back period and prepare Form A “active” notices.
Manufacturers and importers should pay careful attention to substances that are exempt from CDR reporting, notably polymers, naturally occurring substances, and chemicals manufactured or imported below the CDR reporting thresholds. Processors should review their records and/or work with their suppliers to ensure that active chemicals are not missed. Of particular concern are infrequently made or purchased batch chemicals that were nonetheless manufactured, imported, or processed during the look-back period. Searching records and preparing notices will be a significant challenge. Similarly, the burdens of managing confidential identities, including providing a structurally descriptive generic name and substantiating confidentiality claims, will add to that burden significantly. The endeavor promises to require an enormous effort on industry’s part and, once the reporting process is complete, on EPA’s part to review the thousands of submissions and, in so doing, populate the active list.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/preparing-inventory-reset-it-not-easy
-
(ACC Mention) Foam Ban Narrowly Fails in California Senate
Jun 7, 2017 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Colin Staub
A statewide ban on expanded polystyrene food-service products was rejected in the California Senate last week, falling only a handful of votes short of passing.
Senate Bill 705, titled the Ocean Pollution Reduction Act, prohibited food vendors from using EPS food service packaging beginning in 2020. The bill started out as a prohibition on materials not accepted in local recycling programs but was amended several times and turned into the EPS ban.
On May 31, the Senate took a floor vote on the bill, and it failed 15-19. An opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times says the legislation failed not because a majority of the Senate voted against it, but because six senators chose to abstain from voting. If all six had cast votes in favor, it would have passed by two.
Ban proponent Californians Against Waste (CAW), in a message to supporters, likened the current foam battle to previous legislative debates over plastic bags and microbeads and said the push for a ban would continue. CAW says it will advocate for more local EPS bans, mimicking the strategy plastic bag opponents followed before the bag ban was passed statewide.
A Senate analysis of the bill indicates CAW was joined in supporting the bill by a host of environmental organizations, municipal recycling programs and other entities.
Opponents of the ban included the American Chemistry Council (ACC); Plastics Industry Association; Dart Container Corporation; California restaurants, retailers and manufacturers associations and more. The California Chamber of Commerce described the EPS ban as a “job killer” that would increase costs for businesses.
In an editorial, the Los Angeles Times contrasted the senators’ rejection of the EPS ban and California lawmakers’ public dismay, on the same day as the EPS vote, at President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord.
The foam battle in the most-populated U.S. state comes as the nation’s largest city also deliberates over EPS products. New York City’s controversial foam ban is scheduled to take effect in November, after an earlier version was defeated in court. Meanwhile, two proposals under consideration by the New York City Council would take alternative steps to deal with the material. One would impose a new ban on EPS products, while the other would require them to be accepted in the city’s curbside recycling program.
https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2017/06/07/foam-ban-narrowly-fails-california-senate/
-
Petrochemical Facilities Continue to Boom along Gulf Coast
|
-
Petrochemical Facilities Continue to Boom along Gulf Coast
Jun 7, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By David Hunn
The Gulf Coast continues to dominate new U.S. chemical plant construction. Six of the eight new U.S. ethylene projects now being built sit along the Gulf, according to data from energy research firm Wood Mackenzie.
Companies like Houston’s Occidental Petroleum, Michigan’s Dow Chemical and Japanese subsidiary Shintech are all building there.
And companies are looking to build more along the coast. The Gulf, WoodMac said, allows companies to take advantage of existing infrastructure and “brownfield” sites — locations that have already had industry on them.
In total, 200 petrochemical projects are planned or under study in the U.S., representing over $150 billion in capital investment over the next five years.
Four liquefied natural gas export terminals are also under construction in Sabine Pass, Cameron, Freeport and Corpus Christi.
The commonality: Abundant U.S. natural gas and low domestic prices, WoodMac said, have justified many new projects.
But much of the new production will be for export. The U.S. holds a $30 billion annual trade surplus on petrochemicals, WoodMac said, and that figure is expected to increase by as much as half over the next five years.
http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Petrochemical-facilities-continue-to-boom-along-11202061.php
-
Jun 7, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Robert J. Samuelson
The coal-mining jobs that President Trump thinks were destroyed by government regulation — adopted to combat air pollution and global warming — were actually lost to old-fashioned competition from other American firms and workers. Eastern coal mines lost market share to Western coal, which was cheaper. And natural gas grew at coal’s expense because it had low costs and lower greenhouse-gas emissions.
That’s the conclusion of a new study by economist Charles Kolstad of the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, as reported on the Conversable Economist website. Kolstad’s conclusion mirrors the finding of Glenn Kessler — The Washington Post’s Fact Checker columnist — who disputed the recent claim by Scott Pruitt, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, that Trump’s policies had increased coal employment by nearly 50,000 jobs. Pruitt had wrongly attributed most increases in “mining” jobs to coal when most occurred in oil and gas operations. The number of added coal jobs, Kessler estimated, was closer to 1,000.
According to Kolstad, the combined effect of cheaper strip-mined Western coal and greater supplies of natural gas has devastated the coal industry.
Consider:
For years, coal was the dominant fuel for electricity production, accounting for 50 percent to 60 percent of generation. But the expansion of natural gas, made possible by “fracking” (technically: “hydraulic fracturing” — the opening of natural gas fields by injecting high-pressure water into gas reservoirs), has displaced coal in many parts of the country. Since 2008, coal production has dropped nearly 40 percent, from almost 1.2 billion tons to about 728 million tons in 2016. The share of electricity fueled by coal fell to 32 percent in 2016, slightly behind the 33 percent for natural gas, estimates the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Employment losses are even more dramatic. In its heyday, coal mining accounted for nearly 400,000 jobs (to be precise: 388,000 in 1950). By 1979, that had already dropped to 227,000, and in 2015, the total was 75,000. Although natural gas explains most recent losses, the earlier declines reflected the inroads of cheaper Western coal into the markets long dependent on costlier Eastern coal. Indeed, Western coal has provided all of the increase in total coal output since the mid-1970s.
It’s not hard to see why. Strip mining is vastly more efficient than traditional deep mining, which is dangerous and unhealthy. By Kolstad’s calculation, a typical worker in the West in the early 2000s could mine 19 tons of coal an hour compared with about four tons an hour for Eastern miners. “The size of some of these mines is mind-boggling,” said Kolstad in an interview. “One mine supplies 8 percent of U.S. production.”
Government regulation has had a mixed effect on coal — but probably not in the way most people imagine, Kolstad said. In the 1970s, Congress protected the industry’s traditional Eastern employment base by including provisions in the Clean Air Act that favored its coal over Western supplies. Later, Congress changed tacks by deregulating the railroad industry. This led to a 50 percent drop in freight rates for coal. The lower transportation costs “vastly expanded the market for Western coal at the expense of Eastern coal.”
The point here is simple. Even if environmental regulation and climate change didn’t exist, the coal industry would have faced intense pressures to change and adapt. Government isn’t killing the coal industry. “Progress is the culprit,” concludes Kolstad’s study.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-really-happened-to-coal/2017/06/07/74b3d1aa-4b90-11e7-9669-250d0b15f83b_story.html?utm_term=.394a2505f14e
-
(ACC Mentioned) Pruitt's Quick Strike on Ozone Roils Greens, Delights GOP
Jun 7, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Earlier this year, Scott Pruitt had little to say about U.S. EPA's 2015 ozone standard during his Senate confirmation process for becoming the agency's administrator.
But he made his position clear late yesterday by abruptly announcing his decision to delay for a year attainment designations with the 70 parts per billion threshold, accompanied by a suggestion that more changes are in the works.
"I have determined that there is insufficient information, and taking additional time is appropriate in order to consider completely all designation recommendations provided by state governors ... and to rely fully on the most recent air quality data," Pruitt wrote in a letter to states.
In response to congressional direction, Pruitt has also created an Ozone Cooperative Compliance Task Force that will develop "additional flexibilities" for states to comply with the standard for the precursor of smog.
The delay, which environmental groups quickly denounced as an illegal breach of Clean Air Act deadlines, means EPA won't make final attainment designations for the 2015 standard until next year, instead of this October. For areas deemed in "nonattainment," the designation starts the clock on regulatory efforts to bring them into compliance, often by curbing emissions from factories, cars and other sources.
For green organizations, Pruitt's decision also represents a broader attack on the pollution law's emphasis on protecting public health. Ozone is a lung irritant that can help trigger asthma attacks in children and worsen emphysema symptoms.
"The most important thing is the crass lack of care about what happens with your kids, with my kids," Ann Weeks, legal director for the Clean Air Task Force, a Boston-based advocacy group, said in an interview.
Applauding Pruitt's move were industry trade groups who have long lobbied for a delay, partly on the grounds that significant chunks of the country have not yet met the previous 75 ppb standard, set in 2008.
"This is welcome regulatory relief for manufacturers, who are working hard to comply with the 2008 and 2015 ozone standards but run the risk of falling into "no grow zones" if their states do not reach the 2015 levels quickly enough," Ross Eisenberg, vice president of energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, wrote on the group's blog.
Also on board were members of Congress who have introduced legislation to push back implementation of the 2015 standard even further.
"Clean air is critically important, but we need to get this right," Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) said in a statement. Olson is the lead sponsor of H.R. 806, which would postpone attainment designations until 2025. His bill, awaiting action by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is still needed, he added.
Ozone forms when nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds combine in sunlight. Key sources of those "precursor" chemicals are motor vehicles, coal-fired power plants and refineries. In opting to tighten the standard to 70 ppb in October 2015, then-EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy cited the need to protect public health, based on the latest research on ozone's effects.
Her decision was challenged in a battery of competing lawsuits brought by industry trade groups, states and environmental organizations on the grounds that it was either needlessly strict or unlawfully weak.
At the Trump administration's request, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit froze action on the consolidated litigation in April to give EPA officials the chance to reconsider their position. That review is continuing.
In his letter, Pruitt cited the review as another factor in the decision to delay implementation. In his prior job as Oklahoma attorney general, Pruitt, a Republican, had been among the challengers to the 70 ppb standard. While now recused from involvement in the lawsuit, he remains involved in administrative rulemaking activities.
Legal deadlines
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is generally supposed to make attainment decisions within two years after a new air quality standard is set.
Although the law allows for a year's extension when there is "insufficient information," that doesn't appear to be the case on ozone, said Janet McCabe, who served as EPA's acting air chief during the final years of the Obama administration, in an email this morning.
"There are numerous areas around the country where data from 2014-2016 show that millions of people are breathing unhealthy air and the states (which are responsible for protecting their citizens from unhealthy air) have made recommendations for those designations," McCabe wrote.
During his Senate confirmation hearing, Pruitt had given no indication of how he would proceed with implementation of the 2015 standard.
And since taking over as EPA administrator in February, he had also made no formal announcement that he was mulling a delay in the implementation timetable. It was not immediately clear whether EPA career employees were involved in the decision.
Steve Page, director of EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards in Research Triangle Park, N.C., was out of the office today on travel, according to an employee who referred questions to the agency's press office. A spokeswoman there didn't reply to emails sent late yesterday and this morning seeking an interview with Pruitt and answers to a half-dozen written questions, such as who is on the ozone task force and whether Pruitt had consulted with lawyers in EPA's Office of General Counsel.
Kevin Minoli, who is listed on EPA's website as acting general counsel, could not be reached this morning.
Pruitt's letter also alludes to concerns raised by industry groups and some scientists about the effect of naturally occurring "background ozone," or ozone originating from foreign sources, on states' ability to comply. EPA is "evaluating those issues," he said, with a focus on fully understanding them.
Another complication cited by critics of the 2015 standard was EPA's slow issuance of implementation guidance for the 2008 threshold.
That guidance came out in March 2015, seven months before the agency tightened the standard and prompted complaints that states will have to juggle compliance with the two benchmarks.
"We are hopeful that EPA will also be able to address the overlap with the 2008 standards and reform the implementation process to provide greater regulatory certainty to state air-quality agencies and businesses alike," the American Chemistry Council said in a statement this morning.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/06/07/stories/1060055691
-
(ACC Mentioned) Quick Strike on Ozone Roils Greens, Delights GOP
Jun 7, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Earlier this year, Scott Pruitt had little to say about U.S. EPA's 2015 ozone standard during his Senate confirmation process for becoming the agency's administrator.
But he made his position clear late yesterday by abruptly announcing his decision to delay for a year attainment designations with the 70 parts per billion threshold, accompanied by a suggestion that more changes are in the works.
"I have determined that there is insufficient information, and taking additional time is appropriate in order to consider completely all designation recommendations provided by state governors ... and to rely fully on the most recent air quality data," Pruitt wrote in a letter to states.
In response to congressional direction, Pruitt has also created an Ozone Cooperative Compliance Task Force that will develop "additional flexibilities" for states to comply with the standard for the precursor of smog.
The delay, which environmental groups quickly denounced as an illegal breach of Clean Air Act deadlines, means EPA won't make final attainment designations for the 2015 standard until next year, instead of this October. For areas deemed in "nonattainment," the designation starts the clock on regulatory efforts to bring them into compliance, often by curbing emissions from factories, cars and other sources.
For green organizations, Pruitt's decision also represents a broader attack on the pollution law's emphasis on protecting public health. Ozone is a lung irritant that can trigger asthma attacks in children and worsen emphysema symptoms.
"The most important thing is the crass lack of care about what happens with your kids, with my kids," Ann Weeks, legal director for the Clean Air Task Force, a Boston-based advocacy group, said in an interview.
Applauding Pruitt's move were industry trade groups who have long lobbied for a delay, partly on the grounds that significant chunks of the country have not yet met the previous 75 ppb standard, set in 2008.
"This is welcome regulatory relief for manufacturers, who are working hard to comply with the 2008 and 2015 ozone standards but run the risk of falling into "no grow zones" if their states do not reach the 2015 levels quickly enough," Ross Eisenberg, vice president of energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, wrote on the group's blog.
Also on board were members of Congress who have introduced legislation to push back implementation of the 2015 standard even further.
"Clean air is critically important, but we need to get this right," Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) said in a statement. Olson is the lead sponsor of H.R. 806, which would postpone attainment designations until 2025. His bill, awaiting action by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is still needed, he added.
Ozone forms when nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds combine in sunlight. Key sources of those "precursor" chemicals are motor vehicles, coal-fired power plants and refineries. In opting to tighten the standard to 70 ppb in October 2015, then-EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy cited the need to protect public health, based on the latest research on ozone's effects.
Her decision was challenged in a battery of competing lawsuits brought by industry trade groups, states and environmental organizations on the grounds that it was either needlessly strict or unlawfully weak.
At the Trump administration's request, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit froze action on the consolidated litigation in April to give EPA officials the chance to reconsider their position. That review is continuing.
In his letter, Pruitt cited the review as another factor in the decision to delay implementation. In his prior job as Oklahoma attorney general, Pruitt, a Republican, had been among the challengers to the 70 ppb standard. While now recused from involvement in the lawsuit, he remains involved in administrative rulemaking activities.Legal deadlines
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is generally supposed to make attainment decisions within two years after a new air quality standard is set.
Although the law allows for a year's extension when there is "insufficient information," that doesn't appear to be the case on ozone, said Janet McCabe, who served as EPA's acting air chief during the final years of the Obama administration, in an email this morning.
"There are numerous areas around the country where data from 2014-2016 show that millions of people are breathing unhealthy air and the states (which are responsible for protecting their citizens from unhealthy air) have made recommendations for those designations," McCabe wrote.
During his Senate confirmation hearing, Pruitt had given no indication of how he would proceed with implementation of the 2015 standard.
And since taking over as EPA administrator in February, he had also made no formal announcement that he was mulling a delay in the implementation timetable. It was not immediately clear whether EPA career employees were involved in the decision.
Steve Page, director of EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards in Research Triangle Park, N.C., was out of the office today on travel, according to an employee who referred questions to the agency's press office. A spokeswoman there didn't reply to emails sent late yesterday and this morning seeking an interview with Pruitt and answers to a half-dozen written questions, such as who is on the ozone task force and whether Pruitt had consulted with lawyers in EPA's Office of General Counsel.
Kevin Minoli, who is listed on EPA's website as acting general counsel, could not be reached this morning.
Pruitt's letter also alludes to concerns raised by industry groups and some scientists about the effect of naturally occurring "background ozone," or ozone originating from foreign sources, on states' ability to comply. EPA is "evaluating those issues," he said, with a focus on fully understanding them.
Another complication cited by critics of the 2015 standard was EPA's slow issuance of implementation guidance for the 2008 threshold.
That guidance came out in March 2015, seven months before the agency tightened the standard and prompted complaints that states will have to juggle compliance with the two benchmarks.
"We are hopeful that EPA will also be able to address the overlap with the 2008 standards and reform the implementation process to provide greater regulatory certainty to state air-quality agencies and businesses alike," the American Chemistry Council said in a statement this morning.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/06/07/stories/1060055691
-
The U.S. Can’t Leave the Paris Climate Deal Just Yet
Jun 7, 2017 | The New York Times
By Brad Plumer
Last week, President Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. But it will take more than one speech to pull out: Under the rules of the deal, the earliest any country can leave is Nov. 4, 2020. That means the United States will remain a party to the accord for nearly all of Mr. Trump’s current term, and it could still try to influence the climate talks during that span.
So the next four years will be a busy time for climate policy. Mr. Trump’s aides plan to keep working to dismantle domestic climate programs like the Clean Power Plan. And the world’s nations will meet regularly to hash out details of the Paris agreement, even as the United States’ exit looms. Here is what comes next
.November 2017
Negotiators for 195 nations will meet in Bonn, Germany, to discuss how to carry out the Paris agreement. Every country has already submitted an initial pledge for curbing greenhouse gas emissions. But officials now have to write rules for monitoring and verifying those pledges.
Technically, the United States is still the co-chair of a key committee on transparency measures. In the past, American officials have taken a keen interest in this topic, pushing for robust oversight of emissions. By contrast, countries like China have argued for looser scrutiny for developing nations.Continue reading the main story
Mr. Trump has offered to “renegotiate” the Paris deal, because he says other countries are “laughing at us” while they renege on their pledges. While countries like France and Germany have ruled out a broad renegotiation of the agreement, the United States could nonetheless try to shape the rules from within.
“The question is whether the Trump administration still shows up for those discussions,” said Andrew Light, a senior climate change adviser at the State Department under President Barack Obama. “If they really are pushing to ‘renegotiate’ the deal, as they say, I don’t see why they wouldn’t go.”
Another thing to watch this fall: a growing coalition of states, cities and companies that are pledging to do as much as they can to meet the United States’ climate goals on their own. They will probably send a delegation to Bonn to reassure other countries that the United States is not completely out of the game.November 2018
Everyone agrees that current pledges under the Paris agreement are nowhere near sufficient to keep total global warming well below 2 degrees Celsius, the threshold widely deemed unacceptably risky.
So, starting in 2018, countries have agreed to meet every five years to take stock of their emissions-cutting efforts to date, compare them with what is needed to stay below 2 degrees of warming, and then figure out how to ratchet up their ambitions. As part of this effort, countries will urge one another to make their existing pledges on emissions stronger. The Paris deal was meant to work through peer pressure, and experts say this “global stocktake” exercise is crucial for that.
The United States is also free to join these discussions, but it seems unlikely that the Trump administration will submit a stronger pledge. Some experts also fear that the United States could play a spoiler role in these discussions, in much the way that major oil producers like Saudi Arabia or Russia have done in the past.
Nov. 4, 2019
This is the earliest date that the United States can submit a written notice to the United Nations that it is withdrawing from the Paris deal — exactly three years after it came into force. As soon as that happens, the United States can leave the accord in exactly one year. (The Trump administration could also change its mind at any point beforehand and decide to stay in.)
Nov. 4, 2020
This is the earliest that the United States could officially withdraw from the climate accord. By coincidence, it would happen one day after the next presidential election.
Also by 2020, other countries are scheduled to offer new or updated commitments for how they plan to tackle climate change under the Paris deal. One question is whether the American exit might make these plans weaker than they otherwise would be. “My biggest worry is the corrosive effect on global ambitions,” said Elliot Diringer, executive vice president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.
The Obama administration originally pledged that the United States’ greenhouse gas emissions would fall roughly 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. Emissions are currently about 12 percent below 2005 levels, and it remains uncertain how much further they will fall. The Trump administration is scrapping federal climate policies like the Clean Power Plan, but many states are pushing to expand renewable energy and shift away from coal power. If the United States comes close to its 2020 target, experts say, that may help persuade other countries in Paris not to scale back their own efforts.January 2021
If a new president enters the White House on Jan. 20, 2021, he or she could easily submit a written notice to the United Nations that the United States would like to rejoin the Paris accord. Within 30 days, the United States could re-enter the agreement and submit a new pledge for how the country plans to tackle climate change.
If the United States does rejoin Paris, however, it could take time to regain the credibility it once had within climate discussions. “Other countries are certainly going to wonder if the American political system is just too volatile to be relied on for consistency on this issue,” Mr. Light said.November 2023
Negotiators will meet again in 2023 to see how their second round of pledges and actions stack up against the 2-degree goal. The idea is that they will continually increase their ambitions and meet every five years to adjust accordingly.
2025
The Obama administration vowed to cut greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 as part of the Paris deal. Even before Mr. Trump came into office, that target would have been difficult to reach without new policies, and it may prove unattainable now.
Other countries will be watching how close the United States may come. A recent analysis by the Rhodium Group estimated that United States emissions will now most likely fall 15 to 19 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, when taking into account both the effects of Mr. Trump’s policies and initiatives that states are pursuing.
But emissions could fall further if technologies like electric cars or solar power proliferate faster than expected, or if Congress or a new administration enacts additional policies, like a price on carbon. All of those factors could influence what actions other countries decide to take on climate change.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/climate/trump-paris-climate-timeline.html
-
A Big Business Coalition against Climate Change
Jun 7, 2017 | Financial Times
By Editorial
Donald Trump claims to be defending US jobs and industry by abandoning the international effort to tackle climate change. US multinationals have rushed to disassociate themselves from his decision. From Silicon Valley to Wall Street, from industrial champions such as GE and General Motors to consumer goods companies, there has been unanimous condemnation and a declaration of intent to press ahead with clean energy initiatives. Even the oil majors urged Mr Trump to stick to the course.
Although only two executives — Tesla’s Elon Musk and Walt Disney’s Bob Iger — have gone so far as to resign from presidential advisory boards, perhaps fearing a backlash from environmentally conscious customers, the outspoken criticism from such a wide swath of the corporate community is remarkable. It reflects both distaste for the direction of US policy and the degree to which withdrawal from the Paris accord threatens commercial self-interest.
Some fear a loss of opportunity. Green industries are increasingly able to prosper without subsidies. But if renewable energy and other forms of clean technology are to be global growth industries, countries with predictable, pro-renewable regulation and incentives to innovate will give their private sectors a competitive edge.
It is not just green pioneers who stand to lose; traditional conglomerates such as GE have made huge investments in energy efficiency and big tech groups in Silicon Valley have ploughed funds into renewable generation to feed power-hungry data centres. Even the oil and gas industry has an interest in helping emerging markets such as India to make the transition from domestically produced coal to cleaner — and imported — gas. Backsliding on commitments made in the Paris agreement is not in their interests.
Others fear retaliation by governments determined to prevent the US from gaining an advantage. Carbon border taxes are probably still a remote threat, because of their practical complexities, but no doubt other penalties could be devised. One nagging worry may be that Beijing could seize on the excuse of US climate delinquency to shut companies out of markets that are already hard enough to penetrate. Whether or not this threat materialises, any US company with international exposure will need to meet environmental standards in the countries where it operates. Carmakers, for example, will have to meet EU emissions standards even if US regulation is loosened. They will focus their R&D on areas where the global opportunities are greatest. It will be harder for them to compete, however, if they are being undercut at home by smaller rivals that serve only the domestic market.
The question, then, is how far the nascent United States Climate Alliance of state governments, cities and businesses can compensate for lack of federal support — assuming they do not face active federal obstruction, in the form of subsidies for coal, or tariffs on solar panel imports, for example.
State and local authorities can do most, by working to create a bigger market for clean technology and to harmonise energy and product regulation in ways that could shape standards for the entire US. But the declarations by businesses of all sizes to stand by the Paris commitments also carry weight.
Donald Trump claims to be defending US jobs and industry by abandoning the international effort to tackle climate change. US multinationals have rushed to disassociate themselves from his decision. From Silicon Valley to Wall Street, from industrial champions such as GE and General Motors to consumer goods companies, there has been unanimous condemnation and a declaration of intent to press ahead with clean energy initiatives. Even the oil majors urged Mr Trump to stick to the course.
Although only two executives — Tesla’s Elon Musk and Walt Disney’s Bob Iger — have gone so far as to resign from presidential advisory boards, perhaps fearing a backlash from environmentally conscious customers, the outspoken criticism from such a wide swath of the corporate community is remarkable. It reflects both distaste for the direction of US policy and the degree to which withdrawal from the Paris accord threatens commercial self-interest.
Some fear a loss of opportunity. Green industries are increasingly able to prosper without subsidies. But if renewable energy and other forms of clean technology are to be global growth industries, countries with predictable, pro-renewable regulation and incentives to innovate will give their private sectors a competitive edge.
It is not just green pioneers who stand to lose; traditional conglomerates such as GE have made huge investments in energy efficiency and big tech groups in Silicon Valley have ploughed funds into renewable generation to feed power-hungry data centres. Even the oil and gas industry has an interest in helping emerging markets such as India to make the transition from domestically produced coal to cleaner — and imported — gas. Backsliding on commitments made in the Paris agreement is not in their interests.
Others fear retaliation by governments determined to prevent the US from gaining an advantage. Carbon border taxes are probably still a remote threat, because of their practical complexities, but no doubt other penalties could be devised. One nagging worry may be that Beijing could seize on the excuse of US climate delinquency to shut companies out of markets that are already hard enough to penetrate. Whether or not this threat materialises, any US company with international exposure will need to meet environmental standards in the countries where it operates. Carmakers, for example, will have to meet EU emissions standards even if US regulation is loosened. They will focus their R&D on areas where the global opportunities are greatest. It will be harder for them to compete, however, if they are being undercut at home by smaller rivals that serve only the domestic market.
The question, then, is how far the nascent United States Climate Alliance of state governments, cities and businesses can compensate for lack of federal support — assuming they do not face active federal obstruction, in the form of subsidies for coal, or tariffs on solar panel imports, for example.
State and local authorities can do most, by working to create a bigger market for clean technology and to harmonise energy and product regulation in ways that could shape standards for the entire US. But the declarations by businesses of all sizes to stand by the Paris commitments also carry weight.
https://www.ft.com/content/9fc3c46a-4ac6-11e7-919a-1e14ce4af89b
-
Defying Trump, Hawaii Becomes First State to Pass Law Committing to Paris Climate Accord
Jun 7, 2017 | The New York Times
By Jonah Engel Bromwich
The state’s governor, David Y. Ige, signed two bills at a ceremony at the state’s capitol rotunda in Honolulu. One of the bills was explicitly geared toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with the landmark goals adopted by world leaders with the Paris Agreement in 2015. The other will establish a task force to help the state improve soil health and remove carbon from the atmosphere.
He was joined by mayors from around the state, who signed an agreement to commit to the goals of the accord.
“Many of the greatest challenges of our day hit us first, and that means that we also need to be first when it comes to creating solutions,” Mr. Ige, a Democrat in his first term as governor, said in remarks before the signing. “We are the testing grounds — as an island state, we are especially aware of the limits of our natural environment.”Continue reading the main storyRELATED COVERAGEAs Trump Steps Back, Jerry Brown Talks Climate Change in China JUNE 6, 2017Bucking Trump, These Cities, States and Companies Commit to Paris AccordJUNE 1, 2017What Is Hawaii? APRIL 21, 2017
“Climate change is real, regardless of what others may say,” he added.
Mike Gabbard, the chairman of the state senate’s agriculture and environment committee was more blunt.
“I don’t think it’s a surprise for any of us to be here, when the president of the United States had climate change removed from the White House website,” he said.
Many references to climate change were removed from the White House site in January, as part of the routine digital turnover from one administration to the next. In April, the Environmental Protection Agency removed much of the climate change information from its website, saying in a news release that the updates were made to “reflect the approach of new leadership.”
Hawaii is one of more than 10 states that have joined the U.S. Climate Alliance, a coalition committed to upholding the Paris accord despite the federal government’s withdrawal from it. The alliance, announced by the Democratic governors of California, Washington and New York last week, also includes Minnesota, Virginia, Massachusetts and Vermont.
Those states are working parallel to a broader effort being coordinated by Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York City, of cities, corporations and universities that together will submit a plan to the United Nations pledging to meet the targets for the United States specified by the accord. It is unclear how exactly that submission will take place.
On Tuesday, Gov. Jerry Brown of California met in Beijing with President Xi Jinping of China, upstaging the White House and further suggesting the determination of some states to hew to the climate accord.
Hawaii is on the front lines of climate change, so much so that in September, President Barack Obama used it as the base from which to discuss his legacy on the issue, as well as the continued threat from rising seas, extreme weather and other byproducts of a warming planet. A report published by the Environmental Protection Agency last August named a shortage of fresh water, ocean acidification and shoreline loss as threats that the state faces as a result of climate change.
The Paris accord, which required that each country submit an individual plan for reducing its carbon emissions, was agreed to by 195 countries in 2015. Though the plan was nonbinding, supporters saw it as an important framework for holding countries accountable in the fight against climate change.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/climate/hawaii-climate-paris-trump.html
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested