Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 15/06/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) American Chemistry Council Responds To UN’s Marine Litter Issue
Jun 15, 2017 | Recycling Today
The American Chemistry Council (ACC), Washington, has responded to a “Call for Action” that was announced at the United Nations Ocean Conference, held June 5-9, 2017, in New York. -
(ACC Mentioned) Pruitt Faces Questions Over Use Of Special SDWA Power To Speed Hiring
Jun 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has been seeking to speed his hiring of senior personnel using a special statutory provision that allows a limited number of “administratively determined” (AD) hires under expedited procedures, but the effort is facing intensifying concern because the authority appears to allow these hires to be temporarily exempt from the Trump administration's ethics requirements. -
5 Things To Watch For At Pruitt's First Budget Hearing
Jun 15, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Kevin Bogardus and George Cahlink
The U.S. EPA administrator will appear before a congressional committee for the first time since his Senate confirmation hearing. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Criticises EPA’s Review Of TCE Alternatives In Proposed Ban
Jun 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Industry groups say that the US EPA has not fulfilled its statutory requirement to assess the feasibility of alternatives in its proposed rule to ban trichloroethylene (TCE) in vapour degreasing applications. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Evaluation Guidance at OMB Aims to Help Industries
Jun 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Draft EPA guidance intended to help chemical manufacturers, consultants and other parties develop chemical risk assessments to submit to the agency is under review at the White House Office of Management and Budget. -
(ACC Mentioned) Scope Of 'Use' In TSCA Revision Seen Driving New Industry Data-Sharing
Jun 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
If EPA opts to narrowly consider chemicals' "uses" when it reviews their safety under the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), it could prompt manufacturers to enter data-sharing deals on how their products are used and disposed of, and even limit some uses, in order to ensure they stay within the assessments' scope, an industry attorney says. -
EPA Advances TSCA Guide For Industry-Led Chemical Risk Evaluations
Jun 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA has sent for White House review a guidance document for companies that want to conduct their own chemical risk evaluations of chemicals for EPA to consider in addition to or rather than the agency performing the reviews under its new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) authority, a further step in the Trump EPA implementing the revised law. -
Impacts of Oil Spill Dispersants Getting New Review
Jun 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
The lessons of the Deepwater Horizon disaster and much recent research should help a panel of scientists come up with a new evaluation of the use of chemical dispersants in oil spills. -
Less Use of Flame Retardant Lessens Impact of California Rule
Jun 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
An industry shift away from using two chlorinated flame retardants in children's foam sleeping products may dull the impact of the first regulation under California's Safer Consumer Products program. -
California Releases Alternative Analysis Guide For SCP Programme
Jun 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has released the first version of the alternatives analysis guide that will be used to support its Safer Consumer Products (SCP) programme. -
Canada Bans Microbeads In Cosmetics
Jun 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The government of Canada has adopted regulations banning the manufacture, import and sale of personal care products containing plastic microbeads. -
Echa Updates Call For Evidence On D4 And D5
Jun 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa has updated its ongoing call for evidence on the uses of octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) and decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5) in 'leave-on' cosmetic products and other consumer/professional products. -
EU Institutions To Discuss Proposed RoHS Amendments
Jun 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission, Parliament and the EU Council of Ministers will discuss proposed amendments to the RoHS Directive at their trilogue meeting on 21 June. -
Court Orders Added Review; Pipeline Can Still Operate For Now
Jun 15, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Army Corps of Engineers did not adequately consider all of the potential impacts of the Dakota Access pipeline, a federal court ruled today. -
Dakota Access Pipeline Requires Further Environmental Review: Federal Judge
Jun 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Harris and Meenal Vamburkar
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers didn't adequately consider the impacts of an oil spill from the Dakota Access Pipeline on fishing rights, hunting rights or “environmental justice” and will have to reconsider those sections of its decision to allow the pipeline to go forward, a judge ruled. -
LNG, Oil Make Analyzing North American NatGas A Global Undertaking, Say BP, Macquarie
Jun 15, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jeremiah Shelor
Shaped by both liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports and crude oil production, the North American natural gas market is becoming increasingly globally interconnected -- and more complex as a result. -
Bills Look To Boost Infrastructure
Jun 15, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Sam Mintz
House and Senate lawmakers introduced a handful of bills this week aimed at promoting energy infrastructure, including dams and pipelines. -
(ACC Mentioned) Signed, Sealed, Delayed? The New Fate of the Added Sugar Rule and Other Safeguards
Jun 14, 2017 | Union of Concerned Scientists (blog)
By Genna Reed
... Just this week, EPA administrator Scott Pruitt issued a final rule that would delay implementation of the Risk Management Plan (RMP) amendments for 20 months, until February 19, 2019. -
White House Creates Permit Streamlining Office in CEQ
Jun 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
The Trump administration plans to create a new structure within the White House Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) that will oversee permit streamlining as part of a major push across several agencies for upcoming infrastructure projects. -
Columbia Gorge Commission Backs County's Denial Of Railroad Expansion
Jun 14, 2017 | AP (In the Oregonian)
An Oregon county had substantial evidence when it denied Union Pacific Railroad's proposed track expansion along the Columbia River where an oil train derailed last year, a board ruled Tuesday. -
States See Effects Of EPA's Ozone Delay
Jun 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
States are starting to see the effects of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's recent decision to delay implementing Obama-era ozone standards -- even as summer heat raises concerns about harmful levels. -
Industry Groups Support EPA In Methane Litigation
Jun 15, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
The oil and gas industry today moved to defend the Trump administration's decision to suspend Obama-era methane standards. -
Industry Cheers Methane Rules Pause Despite New Uncertainty
Jun 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The energy industry is cheering the EPA's plans to place a two-year hold on an Obama-era methane regulation despite any additional uncertainty the pause may introduce. -
California's Jerry Brown Lands Seat at Global Climate Table
Jun 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joe Ryan
California Governor Jerry Brown, a leading critic of President Donald Trump's planned withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, will represent state and local governments at this year's United Nations conference on global warming.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) American Chemistry Council Responds To UN’s Marine Litter Issue
Jun 15, 2017 | Recycling Today
The American Chemistry Council (ACC), Washington, has responded to a “Call for Action” that was announced at the United Nations Ocean Conference, held June 5-9, 2017, in New York.
The Call for Action is for voluntary commitments on marine litter. ACC’s Steve Russell, vice president of plastics, released the following statement:
“Experts agree: to stem the tide of marine debris, we must prevent land-based trash from reaching our oceans in the first place. We must do so urgently, with an initial focus on parts of the world where such systems are lacking. This includes reducing waste, improved collection and sortation, matched with the latest recycling and recovery technologies.
While we congratulate the United Nations (UN) on its tremendous work this week to prioritize this important issue, we had hoped the outcomes would focus more on building political and financial support for improved waste management, or on deploying innovative recycling and energy recovery. Recommendations to instead ban or reduce the use of specific products may give the illusion of progress, but in fact don’t help us solve the bigger problem.
“Nevertheless, our industry remains committed to delivering solutions. Plastics makers currently have more than 260 projects around the world either planned, underway or completed to combat marine litter. Our combined efforts, to research and prevent marine debris around the world under our ‘Declaration of the Global Plastics Industry for Solutions on Marine Litter,’ have grown each year since 2011, when it was launched. Signed by 70 plastics associations in 35 countries, the declaration focuses on education, public policy, best practices, plastics recycling and recovery, plastic pellet containment and research.
“In addition, we are working with leaders in regions where ocean plastic inputs are the highest, to ensure that waste management systems are a priority, and to catalyze investment in those systems. And we are working with the UN to provide technical expertise and a range of commitments under the Global Partnership on Marine Litter.
“People around the world rely on plastics in innumerable ways. Durable and lightweight, plastics are amazing materials that provide important societal benefits including energy and resource savings, preventing food waste, improved healthcare and consumer protection. But when plastics are improperly managed, their full sustainability benefits aren’t realized. Solutions require the cooperation of industry, civil society and other stakeholders to effect meaningful change.”http://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/acc-un-marine-litter-plastics/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Pruitt Faces Questions Over Use Of Special SDWA Power To Speed Hiring
Jun 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has been seeking to speed his hiring of senior personnel using a special statutory provision that allows a limited number of “administratively determined” (AD) hires under expedited procedures, but the effort is facing intensifying concern because the authority appears to allow these hires to be temporarily exempt from the Trump administration's ethics requirements.
A former agency staffer and other knowledgeable sources agree that the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) provision has been used by previous administrations, including the Obama administration, to bring on EPA staff. These sources also note that similarly classified staff during the Obama period were also exempted from a similar Obama ethics pledge.
But some sources are expressing concern that EPA under Pruitt may be is utilizing the classification to shoehorn into the agency political appointees -- without requiring them to sign the ethics pledge -- even though they may have major “supervisory” or “managerial” roles.
For example, sources say among those that Pruitt has used the authority to bring in are Byron Brown, the deputy chief of staff for policy, as well as Nancy Beck, the deputy assistant administrator in the toxics office.
One knowledgeable source questions why Beck, who holds such an important policy role, would be hired under the designation, noting in part that this appears to have exempted Beck from signing Trump's recent ethics pledge. The source says the AD classification should be for people who are specialists or experts, and not people who are serving in “managerial” positions. The source says Beck as of early this month had not signed the pledge.
But understanding precisely how Pruitt is using the special hiring authority -- and whether it really is a major departure from prior practice -- is complicated by the fact that EPA would not provide a list of employees hired under that classification -- despite the fact that multiple sources say such classifications are public information.
“We decline to comment,” said an agency press official, in response to a recent query seeking a list of employees brought into EPA during the Trump period using the special authority.
Since his confirmation earlier this year, Pruitt has been struggling to get senior appointees nominated by the White House. So far, President Donald Trump has nominated only one assistant administrator -- Susan Bodine to head EPA's enforcement office -- leaving Pruitt without a deputy administrator or any other Senate-confirmed officials.
The delays in nominating senior officials has drawn significant concerns from administration supporters, who say that it will stymie the administration's deregulatory agenda.
In addition, administration critics have been raising concerns that many of the administration's hires have been exempted from the administration's ethics requirements, which generally prohibit former lobbyists from working on issues on which they advocated, either via waivers, or in the case of AD hires, under the statutory authority.
To overcome delays in White House nominations, Pruitt has hired a number of lower-level managers, some of whom have been hired using the special SDWA authority.
Section 300 (j)-10 of SDWA generally allows the administrator to bring up to 30 “scientific, engineering, professional, legal and administrative” employees without going through civil service procedures.
“To the extent that the Administrator . . . deems such action necessary to the discharge of his functions under [SDWA] and under other provisions of law, he may appoint personnel to fill not more than thirty scientific, engineering, professional, legal, and administrative positions within [EPA] without regard to the civil service laws and may fix the compensation of such personnel not in excess of the maximum rate payable for GS--18,” the statutory language says.
'Unusual' Practice
Former EPA and other sources say EPA administrators under multiple administrations have used the AD designation to bring on staff, including as part of the effort to get their initial teams up and running.
One former agency official says the AD designation has both advantages and disadvantages, depending on one's perspective, including it allows for speedy hires and gives the administrator, rather than the White House vetting process, more control over staff.
But some see as “unusual” the Trump team's apparent use of the mechanism to bring at least some staff aboard in senior leadership positions, a process that at least temporarily exempts them from signing the Trump pledge.
A former agency staffer notes in particular the appearance of Brown, the deputy chief of staff for policy on a March 2017 list of agency employees classified as AD staff.
The source says such a designation is not typically used for such senior positions with significant supervisory responsibilities. “That would be unusual,” the source says, though the source stops short of saying such a move is unprecedented.
The knowledgeable source says that Beck, the former chemical industry official who is now the agency's deputy toxics chief, was also brought into EPA with the AD classification.
With respect to Beck, environmentalists have already raised broader concerns over the deputy toxics chief's ties to the chemical sector and whether that would create a conflict of interest. A May 10 letter from a broad coalition of environmental groups, for example, urged Pruitt to ensure a broad recusal for Beck to prevent any conflict of interest given her past role as an official at the American Chemistry Council.
It also urged Pruitt “not to issue any waivers, either public or secret, that would allow Dr. Beck to participate in matters from which she would otherwise be recused."
Several environmental groups, including Earthjustice and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families also submitted a May 31 Freedom of Information Act request seeking information on Beck's involvement in rulemaking activities under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
But several sources say Pruitt does not appear to be breaking new ground merely by not requiring AD hires to sign the Trump administration's ethics pledge. This is because multiple sources indicate that the Obama administration had a a similar ethics pledge and that EPA at the time concluded employees classified as AD were not required to sign the pledge.
But sources say the more generic question of who precisely counts as an “AD” employee bears watching, both as a way to streamline some staff hires and because of current debates about enforcing conflict of interest safeguards.
More specifically on the ethics question, Trump's executive order laying out the ethics pledge requires employees classified as a covered “appointee” to sign an ethics pledge placing several obligations on their conduct both during their stint at EPA or any other agency and afterward that can go beyond more general ethics rules to which EPA employees are subject.
Among the requirements for a covered “appointee” is that they agree to a five-year ban on lobbying their agency after their appointment is over. In addition, covered “appointees,” for a period of two years after their appointment, cannot participate in “any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to former employers or former clients, including regulations and contracts."
This compares to a one-year period under more generic ethics rules, according to the knowledgeable source.
And former registered lobbyists face an additional restriction under Trump's order that bars them from participating in “any particular matter” on which they lobbied up to two years prior to their appointment. They also cannot participate for two years “in the specific issue area in which that particular matter falls.”
But the executive order does not include AD-classified employees in its reference to covered employees.
Instead, it refers to employees subject to the pledge requirement as “Schedule C” employees addressing issues of a “confidential or policymaking character,” as well as every full time non-career Presidential or Vice Presidential appointee, or non career appointee in the Senior Executive Service.
'Isolated Instances'
The knowledgeable source says that the AD designation, “may have been used in isolated instances in the past but it is clearly not the preferred established way of bringing political appointees into the agencies.”
However, the former agency official is aware of several instances in which EPA during the Obama administration made use of the AD classification. Yet this source says that designations were “typically” either for junior staff, or occasionally special advisers -- someone with discrete expertise, not someone with significant roles in supervising employees or in “key leadership positions."
While the source could not provide a comprehensive list of Obama administration AD hires, they included former Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Director Teresa Marks, who advised former Administrator Gina McCarthy on unconventional oil and gas extraction, and Ellen Gilinsky, a former Virginia water regulator who was hired as an adviser to EPA's water office.
Sources say another issue to watch is whether staff classified as AD are later “converted” to other classifications, including but not limited to so-called Schedule C designation for political employees. There is precedent for such conversions, which may raise salaries of the staff in question but also means they can become subject to the ethics pledge, according to several sources.
Such conversions, however, have previously required a demonstrations that a given staffers' responsibilities and duties have changed, according to the former agency official, and at least in the past have required additional White House vetting.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/pruitt-faces-questions-over-use-special-sdwa-power-speed-hiring
-
5 Things To Watch For At Pruitt's First Budget Hearing
Jun 15, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Kevin Bogardus and George Cahlink
Scott Pruitt will be in the spotlight on Capitol Hill today.
The U.S. EPA administrator will appear before a congressional committee for the first time since his Senate confirmation hearing. Pruitt, along with senior adviser Holly Greaves, will testify about President Trump's budget plan for the agency before the House Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee.
Lawmakers have plenty to chew on, with both Democrats and Republicans protesting the president's plan.
Trump has proposed a dramatic shrinking of the agency, offering to cut EPA funds by roughly 30 percent or more than $2 billion. Those budget cuts would affect every corner of the agency, which Pruitt will have to explain in detail for Congress.
Here are five things to watch for in today's hearing in the House.Categorical grants
The issue that Pruitt could draw the most opposition from lawmakers is cuts aimed at small, targeted programs that help states and municipalities — in other words, programs that most noticeably affect lawmakers' constituents.
Many of those programs fall into the bucket of categorical grants. Those grants are given out to state environmental regulators to help them enforce laws like the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act.
Under Trump's plan, their funding would be cut nearly in half, with the president requesting $597 million in fiscal 2018 for the grants.
While some of those grant programs would be reduced, others would be eliminated in Trump's budget. The Trump administration says that states can adjust to reduced funding by ending programs that are not required under federal law or finding other funding sources, like boosting industry fees.
In response, the Environmental Council of the States has looked to meet Pruitt on his vision of "cooperative federalism," noting that state regulators will see less funding from the agency in the future. The group released its own report on the issue earlier this week, laying out where states and EPA can better work together (E&E News PM, June 12).
Lawmakers, however, could be less forgiving and push Pruitt today to leave those grant programs alone.Geographic programs
Another budget item that affects the states, EPA's regional cleanup efforts, is zeroed out in Trump's budget, triggering an uproar on Capitol Hill.
Known as geographic programs, initiatives to reduce pollution in the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, Puget Sound and other areas would be no more. Those programs received funding of close to $436 million in the 2017 spending bill.
The Trump administration has said the programs are local efforts and that states should take responsibility for running them. Further, backing away from the regional cleanup efforts would allow EPA to return to its core national work.
But both Democrats and Republicans have said they want to see funding kept for several of those programs, including the Great Lakes cleanup effort.
Last month, Pruitt met with one of those GOP critics of budget cuts — Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan, a senior House member — to discuss the Great Lakes cleanup effort (E&E Daily, May 24).
In addition, a Democratic member of the Appropriations subcommittee, Rep. Mary Kaptur of Ohio, blasted proposed cuts to the Great Lakes program on a press call hosted by the Sierra Club earlier this week (E&E Daily, June 14).Climate and Paris
Perhaps no member of the Trump administration has been as closely identified with championing the United States' exit from the Paris accord as Pruitt. And today, he will face lawmakers for the first time since Trump pulled the nation out of the historic accord earlier this month.
Democrats could use the chance to bash Pruitt for the decision and question his budget plans to eliminate most climate research and 15 voluntary emission reductions programs at EPA.
One likely Pruitt critic will be Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), the panel's ranking member, who has said, "Washington took a major step backward with Pruitt at EPA."
McCollum, one of the few lawmakers to hold town halls on climate change, says she believes leaving the accord will make the U.S. a "pariah" in the international community and that the administration is trying to "destroy" the agency.
Republicans may respond by stressing their support for low-carbon energy technologies that would help reduce emissions rather than weighing in on the controversial withdrawal.
Both subcommittee Chairman Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) and senior member Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) signed onto legislation the day after Trump pulled out of the agreement that would extend several renewable energy tax credits left out of the 2015 budget deal.Clean Power Plan
Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a senior appropriator on the subcommittee, expects Pruitt will get a warm welcome today from Republicans for his regulatory rollback efforts.
Chief among them have been his efforts to dismantle the Obama administration's signature environmental initiative, the Clean Power Plan.
GOP appropriators could praise the dismantling of the CPP to deflect concern over Pruitt's proposal to cut the agency's budget by roughly 30 percent. They could argue that the agency will need fewer dollars with CPP being scrapped and Pruitt's call to scale back to the agency's core mission.
Democrats are likely to raise the demise of CPP as an example of the concessions Trump has made to his supporters in the business community, who generally have loathed the effort.
Democratic appropriators would likely have little authority to even try to restore funding for the CPP in the spending bill since the regulations were issued by executive order, not federal law.Workforce
Along with big budget cuts, Trump has proposed big downsizing for EPA.
Under the president's budget, the agency would lose roughly 3,800 employees, leaving about 11,600 workers in total.
In addition, EPA has already begun moving forward to reduce its workforce in response to guidance from the Office of Management and Budget.
The agency has said it will offer early retirement and buyout packages to employees starting in July this year. EPA has set aside $12 million in fiscal 2017 funds for the buyouts, which it hopes to wrap up by September.
That effort, however, will likely only result in hundreds, not thousands, of EPA employees leaving the agency.
Pruitt could be asked what other measures he plans to take to reduce EPA's workforce, such as a "reduction in force" — a heavily regulated process that could take years to complete (Greenwire, April 5).
He could also shutter regional branches of the agency, which would run into headwinds from lawmakers. EPA officials have already denied rumors that there are plans to close EPA's Region 5 office in Chicago, its largest branch.
Pruitt could also face questions over his own use of EPA personnel. The agency has increased the administrator's personal detail to provide 24/7 security, which former EPA officials say is a significant change in security compared with past chiefs.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/06/15/stories/1060056065
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Criticises EPA’s Review Of TCE Alternatives In Proposed Ban
Jun 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Industry groups say that the US EPA has not fulfilled its statutory requirement to assess the feasibility of alternatives in its proposed rule to ban trichloroethylene (TCE) in vapour degreasing applications.
The comments came in response to the second of two TSCA section 6 proposals to ban the solvent in certain uses, amid concerns at the adverse health effects it presents.
In its proposed vapour degreasing rule, the EPA says it has found a "wide variety of technically and economically feasible" alternatives. These include:drop-in solvents like methylene chloride, 1-bromopropane and tetrachloroethylene (perc);"designer solvents" like hydrofluoroolefin (HFO) or hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) and hydrofluoroether (HFE) solvent blends;aqueous cleaning systems; andother cleaning solvents, such as glycol ethers, siloxanes, terpenes and soy-based cleaners.
But federal agency the Small Business Administration (SBA) said in comments that there are "significant issues associated with the possible alternatives, such as potential health hazards, availability for safe use, related (and prohibitive) equipment costs, low boiling points and uncertainty with cleaning effectiveness."
Drop-in replacement solvents, such as those proposed by the EPA, can be used in existing vapour degreasing systems with some modification, said the SBA. But these are all among the first ten substances subject to risk evaluation under the new TSCA, and may themselves become subject to regulation.
The "vast majority" of the cleaning substitutes, it said, do not clean as well as TCE, are more expensive and will require a "large capital investment for a cleaning process that is less efficacious".
SBA concerns with the non-drop in alternatives include that they:boil at a much lower temperature, resulting in increased worker exposure because they are harder to keep in the machine;require the addition of a flammable chlorinated derivative to be cleaned; andare "ten times more expensive per pound", and significantly more product must be used.
In its comments, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) said that the EPA, "without any degree or evidentiary support", has claimed that aqueous water systems present less risk to workers and may seamlessly replace TCE systems.
But the trade group says these "are not adequate replacement systems", especially in areas with water supply constraints or facilities without room to install larger systems.
Dow Chemical subsidiary Safechem Europe said in comments that having investigated the impacts of the REACH authorisation process, it believes the effects of a ban would be "very negative and far-reaching".
For a "wide range" of applications in industrial parts cleaning operations, no feasible substitutes exist, says the company - and Echa’s scientific committees "accepted this conclusion".
Under the authorisation process, TCE was banned from the EU market in April 2016 - except for authorised uses. Safechem’s application for continued permitted use in vapour degreasing applications was backed by the committees - but only for seven years, after which time the company would have to reapply. It now awaits approval by the EU member states.Call for alternatives assessment
The Chemical Users Coalition (CUC) – a cross-industry group of nine multinationals including Intel, Boeing, Honda and Procter & Gamble – urged the EPA to conduct an alternatives assessment "examining the comparative hazards, exposures, resource impacts and performance attributes of these substances".
It says the EPA has received "substantial information" showing how alternatives were impractical, incompatible with customer specifications and economically infeasible. But the agency has asked for more information on the alternatives.
It is not clear what information the agency needs, said the coalition, or how it considered the evidence already submitted to it, in making its determination that a TCE ban was not infeasible.
The coalition also said the EPA has not established a basis for why two years was a "reasonable" transition period.
But the Toxics Use Reduction Institute (Turi) at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell, said that experience with the state’s toxics reduction programme has shown that businesses can switch to aqueous or semi-aqueous solutions for many vapour degreasing applications – often, resulting in savings for the business.
And it said that in those cases where businesses think they need to continue using a solvent, safer ones are available, despite posing some concerns of their own.
Technical and laboratory assistance for testing safer alternatives can help businesses overcome the barriers to transition, it added.Time-limited exemptions
In its proposed rule, the EPA said it will consider granting time-limited exemptions for specific conditions of use, provided:the use is essential and no technically or economically feasible safer alternative is available;that compliance with the ban would "significantly disrupt" the national economy, national security, or critical infrastructure; orthat the TCE vapour degreasing application, as compared to reasonably available alternatives, provides a "substantial benefit" to public health, the environment or public safety.
The agency has requested comments to determine a process for receiving and evaluating petitions, and for issuing critical use exemption rules.
The ACC says the exemption process is essential for implementation of the new law, and the EPA therefore will "need to employ sufficient flexibility and transparency in its rulemaking".
But the CUC says it should define how a petition process could work before adopting a section 6 ban on TCE. And it should include exemptions in the rule itself in cases where it has already received "substantial information" about their necessity.
If the EPA decides to relegate these decisions to a future process, it "has a responsibility to define clearly what specific additional information, besides what it has already received ... would be needed to make a decision."
The CUC also wants a section 6 rule not to apply to a party that has filed a timely exemption request, while EPA deliberates on it.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56866/industry-criticises-epas-review-of-tce-alternatives-in-proposed-ban
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Evaluation Guidance at OMB Aims to Help Industries
Jun 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Draft EPA guidance intended to help chemical manufacturers, consultants and other parties develop chemical risk assessments to submit to the agency is under review at the White House Office of Management and Budget.
The draft guidance (RIN:2070-ZA18) is mandated by the Toxic Substances Control Act amendments of 2016, which require the Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate the risks of chemicals in commerce and, if warranted, regulate or otherwise control unreasonable health or environmental risks.
The EPA submitted the draft guidance to the White House regulatory review office on June 13 so that the guidance can be released in conjunction with a final rule also under review. That regulation describes the procedures the agency will use to assess chemical risks. The updated chemicals law directs the agency to issue that final rule and two others by June 22.
As the agency reviews chemicals, it is expected to receive risk assessments from manufacturers or other “third parties” with particular interests in those chemicals. The EPA should commit to reviewing third-party risk assessments within 90 days, the American Chemistry Council told the agency in a March letter.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=114289434&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=499003500&searchid=30055147&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0
-
(ACC Mentioned) Scope Of 'Use' In TSCA Revision Seen Driving New Industry Data-Sharing
Jun 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
If EPA opts to narrowly consider chemicals' "uses" when it reviews their safety under the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), it could prompt manufacturers to enter data-sharing deals on how their products are used and disposed of, and even limit some uses, in order to ensure they stay within the assessments' scope, an industry attorney says.
Speaking at a recent seminar on environmental regulation hosted by the Practising Law Institute in New York, NY, attorney Lynn Bergeson said competing calls from industry and environmentalists on whether risk assessments should consider "all" conditions in which a chemical might be used are placing new pressure on companies that previously had little need to closely oversee downstream users.
"If you're a manufacturer of a substance, you may not have any earthly idea how your substance is being used in the global community. . . . That's a big, seismic game-changer in the chemical community system, that you have to be aware of how your chemicals are being used," Bergeson said.
She continued that if EPA opts to review only certain uses of chemicals under TSCA, she expects formal business deals between chemical producers, manufacturers who use the chemicals in finished products, users and disposers in order to ensure there are no unforeseen uses occurring that would require EPA to go beyond its original assessment.
She continued that the agreements could range from information-sharing to outright bans on certain uses "because the producer doesn't want it used in those conditions."
Environmentalists and industry groups have sparred over whether the new TSCA statute enacted in 2016 requires EPA to consider all possible uses of a substance when reviewing its safety, or merely the chemicals' current uses.
Most prominently, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), in comments on an Obama-era list of 10 substances EPA will review first under the new law, pushed back against what it described as stakeholder comments from a February in-person meeting that "claimed that EPA is required to examine all conditions of use, all vulnerable subpopulations, aggregate risks, continuing exposures to legacy contamination, intended and actual uses (even misuses), and incidental and cumulative exposures."
The agency has yet to definitively answer how it will apply the new law's mandate to consider "the circumstances, as determined by [EPA], under which a chemical substance is intended, known, or reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed, distributed in commerce, used, or disposed of," and ACC has pressed EPA to explicitly hold that there is no mandate to consider "all" uses instead of only those that are "current."
But Bergeson said at the June 9 seminar that if EPA strictly limits the uses it reviews in risk assessments as ACC and other industry groups have argued Congress intended, that will pressure manufacturers to strictly control how their chemicals are used.
Such controls will require "much more information sharing" than has previously been the norm, she continued.
TSCA Implementation
During her presentation on TSCA, Bergeson also praised Administrator Scott Pruitt for aggressively moving forward with rules and guidance implementing the new law. Pruitt "seems to be, and his administration seems to be, working extremely hard at meeting the very strict implementation deadlines embedded in the new law," she said.
She continued that she expects the agency to meet statutory deadlines for finalizing three rules that will establish policies for assessing existing chemicals' risks, and prioritizing substances for review and "resetting" the long-standing inventory of chemicals in commerce. The toxics law, enacted June 22 of last year, requires EPA to finalize the rules within one year of that date.
"It is crystal clear that this administration is squarely behind the timely and robust implementation of this new law," Bergeson said, noting that both of the TSCA rules that require White House Office of Management & Budget review are undergoing that process now.
But she added that even with the agency acting quickly on TSCA rules, there could still be a long wait for manufacturers to submit new chemicals for EPA to review, if only because of the uncertainty involved in being the first participant in a new regulatory program.
"You haven't seen a lot of people saying 'me first, me first,' because nobody wants to be first in a program that hasn't been truth-tested," she said.
Bergeson continued that the first participants in the new process will likely be companies that are either extremely confident their products will be considered low-risk, or see a major competitive advantage from being assessed by EPA.
"There are a whole series of very consequential business, scientific and legal determinations that derive" from EPA's evaluation of a new chemical, she said.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/scope-use-tsca-revision-seen-driving-new-industry-data-sharing
-
EPA Advances TSCA Guide For Industry-Led Chemical Risk Evaluations
Jun 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA has sent for White House review a guidance document for companies that want to conduct their own chemical risk evaluations of chemicals for EPA to consider in addition to or rather than the agency performing the reviews under its new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) authority, a further step in the Trump EPA implementing the revised law.
The agency sent the “Guidance to Assist Interested Persons in Developing and Submitting Draft Risk Evaluations Under [TSCA]” for White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) review on June 13. OMB review typically takes 90 days but can take more or less time depending on the rule under review. The guidance is the latest of several rulemakings EPA has submitted to OMB ahead of a statutory June deadline for issuing several TSCA rules.
The guidance is mandated by the TSCA overhaul, known as the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, signed into law last June by former President Barack Obama.
Among the many deadlines for implementation rules that the statute imposes, in addition to chemical evaluation scoping documents and higher profile items, the new law reforming the original 40-year old TSCA directs EPA to craft the guidance within one year of the reform law's June 22, 2016 enactment.
TSCA section 6 has been amended giving EPA new authority and responsibilities to prioritize existing chemicals -- those on the market when the original TSCA was enacted in 1976 -- and to evaluate the risks of those deemed high priority within specified deadlines. The toxics law overhaul was designed to overcome years of complaints that the agency lacked adequate authority to assess and regulate existing chemicals in particular.
EPA is directed to begin a certain number of assessments each year, and industry is allowed to request that EPA assess specified chemicals. Further, companies are allowed under the new law to conduct their own evaluations of chemicals, with EPA's guidance, and the agency is required to consider these in its own evaluations.
Section 17 of the reform law, which amends section 26(k)5 of the original TSCA, directs EPA to “develop guidance to assist interested persons in developing and submitting draft risk evaluations which shall be considered by the Administrator. The guidance shall, at a minimum, address the quality of the information submitted and the process to be followed in developing draft risk evaluations for consideration by the Administrator.”
Risk Evaluations
EPA explained in its Jan. 19 Federal Register notice releasing two of its TSCA framework rules for public comment that the TSCA reform law “requires that a portion of ongoing risk evaluations be conducted on chemical substances requested by manufacturers 'in a form and manner and using criteria' EPA prescribes by rule. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(C)(ii),(E)(i). The statute also requires EPA to develop guidance (which will be forthcoming) to assist interested persons in submitting draft risk evaluations, and requires EPA to consider such submitted drafts. 15 U.S.C. 2625(l)(5).”
But environmentalists are likely to push back on conclusions in industry self-assessments of chemicals, and have urged EPA to never rely solely on third-party chemical reviews in regulatory decisions.
For example, the Environmental Defense Fund in March 20 comments on EPA’s proposed Jan. 29 rule for conducting chemical risk evaluations under the revised TSCA said that the final version of the rule “should require that EPA always conduct its own risk evaluations and that it cannot solely or heavily rely on a third-party draft risk evaluation in making decisions on whether to conduct or in conducting its own risk evaluation.
“This is critical to ensure full independence of EPA from any third party that may have a vested interest in the outcome of EPA’s risk evaluations or its decision whether or not to conduct one.”
OMB continues its review of two of the three framework rules credited with implementing the reform law, describing how EPA will prioritize chemicals for assessment and the final version of the evaluation rule.
The agency's top toxics official, Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, indicated at a recent event that she anticipates an expedited review from OMB and expects to meet the June 22 deadline to publish the rules.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-advances-tsca-guide-industry-led-chemical-risk-evaluations
-
Impacts of Oil Spill Dispersants Getting New Review
Jun 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
The lessons of the Deepwater Horizon disaster and much recent research should help a panel of scientists come up with a new evaluation of the use of chemical dispersants in oil spills.
It has been 12 years since the last book-length report issued by the National Research Council on the efficacy and effects of oil spill dispersants. Scientists and their sponsors starting work on the next version of that report half-jokingly said the 2005 version had become “bible” to many experts and spill responders.
The chemicals used on spills are approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, but that does not free oil companies from potential liabilities, nor does it lay to rest the concerns of citizens, environmental activists, scientists and the regulators themselves that dispersants pose an unclear set of additional threats to the health of people and marine wildlife.
A panel of 16 academic and industry scientists and technologists gathered June 13 in the National Academy of Sciences headquarters building in Washington, D.C., to talk with each other and the project's federal and private-sector sponsors about the basics of what they should address in their project, “Evaluation of the Use of Chemicals Dispersants in Oil Spill Response.”
The committee's tentative goals included evaluating the state of research on the dispersants’ effectiveness and environmental and health effects, the adequacy of information to support risk-based decision-making, the comparative risks of dispersant use and other responses to spills, the trade-offs in such response options, and recommendations to improve research and fill gaps in knowledge on the subject.
‘Very, Very Difficult’
Mary Landry, the committee chair and a retired Coast Guard rear admiral, said they might need to manage expectations to avoid inflated hopes. Her remark came in response project to sponsors’ expressed hopes.
For example, Paul Schuler, who works for a global spill response organization, Oil Spill Response Ltd., told the committee it would be best if the project produced an overarching synthesis of research, but he admitted it might not be doable.
“I just view that, frankly, as a very, very difficult challenge for you,” Schuler said.
One of the spill response groups that merged into Oil Spill Response Ltd. was Clean Caribbean & Americas. Leftover money that could not be transferred into the new group is being used to help sponsor the committee's work.
Other sponsors included the American Petroleum Institute, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, and the Gulf Research Program, a program established by the National Academy of Sciences with money from legal settlements over the Deepwater Horizon spill.
The project is expected to take two years. It will draw on support from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine.
Real-World Research
More than one of the representatives of sponsors at the meeting stressed the importance of real-world research rather than laboratory studies using conditions unrelated to what actually happens in the use of dispersants.
Studies on chemical biodegradation assuming extremely high concentrations of dispersant chemicals “just don't make sense,” given what is known about how rapidly the chemicals thin out in water, said Tim Nedwed, an Exxon Mobil Corp. spill researcher. He spoke to the committee as a sponsor through the American Petroleum Institute.
Similarly, Gregory Wilson of the Environmental Protection Agency said the EPA was hoping for an evaluation of toxicity research that would focus on realistic exposure levels and would give the EPA guidance on under what circumstances and to what extent dispersants should be used. The work needed to look at toxicity impacts sorted by acute, chronic, developmental, and reproductive categories, he said.
Prospects for field tests, specifically controlled spills in marine environments, were unclear. The EPA representatives at the meeting said they did not know what might be decided by the Trump administration.
Field tests not only provide direct research results but also can be important to lab research, the scientists indicated. If lab research models are to be used, as one committee panelist said, “How do we go out and validate those models?”
How much of Deepwater Horizon spill data will be available in time from BP Plc remains uncertain. One speaker said BP was expected to publish some useful toxicity data late this year.
Thinking of Action Options
The Obama administration, reacting to criticism over dispersant use in the Deepwater Horizon spill in 2010, said it was necessary to consider the comparative impacts of dispersant impacts and what otherwise would happen if the chemicals were not used and the floating mats of oil were allowed to linger at sea and wash ashore.
Mechanical recovery is one of the options, as is setting fire to floating oil to disperse it into the air through combustion. Another action is to take no action, either because it is considered the least harmful option or because the physical circumstances allow nothing else.
The options might or might not be worse for people and wildlife. Researchers looking at chemical dispersants need to consider exposure variables, said Steven Murawski, a University of South Florida marine science professor and member of the committee.
The degrees of relative risks under various scenarios—differing spill sizes, weather conditions, dispersant exposures, and other variables—all need consideration, the scientists said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=114289436&vname=dennotallissues&fn=114289436&jd=114289436
-
Less Use of Flame Retardant Lessens Impact of California Rule
Jun 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
An industry shift away from using two chlorinated flame retardants in children's foam sleeping products may dull the impact of the first regulation under California's Safer Consumer Products program.
The regulation, effective July 1, requires manufacturers selling the mats and other polyurethane foam-padded children's sleeping products treated with Tris (1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TDCPP) and Tris (2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP) in California to figure out how to make the products safer. Exposure to TDCPP and TCEP has been linked to cancer, developmental harm and other adverse health effects, according to the state.
But, use of chemical flame retardants in polyurethane foam is a declining trend, California's Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) said in 2016, when it launched the rulemaking to identify the children's products and two chemicals as its first priority product under the program. At the time, the department assumed only 20 percent of the 50 manufacturers doing business in the U.S. would be affected by the regulation.
“Many companies saw this coming and voluntarily removed” the chemicals, DTSC spokesman Sandy Nax told Bloomberg BNA June 14. “This is incentive for companies to remove toxic chemicals.”
‘No One’ Makes These Products
Companies that have already stopped using the chemicals by July 1 have no duty under the regulation, Nax said. The DTSC also released an Alternatives Analysis Guide June 14, a tool to help companies identify, evaluate and compare product formulation alternatives.
“We have compiled resources and tools that we believe will help manufacturers conduct those evaluations” and identify safer substitutes, Meredith Williams, deputy director of the Safer Consumer Products program, said in a statement.
Beginning July 1, manufacturers still using the two chemicals in children's sleeping products must conduct a lifecycle alternatives analysis to determine how the products can be made safer. If an alternatives analysis shows no safer alternatives are available, the state may issue a range of regulatory actions, including banning the products.
In the case of children's sleeping mats, flame retardant-free foam is available and less expensive, according to the DTSC.
“As far as I know, no one makes the products that are subject to the regulation,” Maureen Gorsen, a partner in Alston & Bird's Environment, Land Use and Natural Resources team in Sacramento, told Bloomberg BNA in a email. It “begs the question—how could this then be what the State of California has chosen as its first ‘priority’ product?”
The regulation applies to companies that make and sell nap mats, soft-sided portable cribs and play pens, play yards, infant travel beds, bassinets, baby pillows, and other infant and children's foam-padded sleeping products.
Evenflo, Children's Factory, Dorel Juvenile Group Inc., Fisher-Price, Simmons Kids and Safe to Sleep were among DTSC's initial list of manufacturers. A complete list of those that have stopped using the chemicals wasn't unavailable.
“The safety of the parents and children who use our products is our top priority,” Danielle Clark, spokeswoman for Newell Brands Inc., the parent company of Graco Children's Products Inc., told Bloomberg BNA in an email. “Graco Children's Products Inc. does not add Tris (1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TDCPP) or Tris (2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP) to any flame retardant treatment used in our products.”
DTSC has also proposed a rule to identify spray foam systems with methylene chloride as its second priority product under the program.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=114289435&vname=dennotallissues&fn=114289435&jd=114289435
-
California Releases Alternative Analysis Guide For SCP Programme
Jun 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has released the first version of the alternatives analysis guide that will be used to support its Safer Consumer Products (SCP) programme.
The document comes after more than a year and a half of development. It is intended to guide manufacturers of priority products through the regulatory alternatives analysis (AA) process, to help them identify safer alternatives to hazardous ingredients in certain consumer products.
During consultation on the document, industry groups raised concerns that the guide lacks specificity to ensure compliance with the SCP regulations, but the DTSC says it has not made changes regarding this.
"The regulations allow flexibility for the responsible entity in conducting an AA," reads a document addressing stakeholder comments. "The department will not prescribe arbitrary thresholds for AA decision-making processes. The burden lies with the responsible entity."
Meredith Williams, deputy director of the programme for DTSC, added: "We have compiled resources and tools that we believe will help manufacturers conduct those evaluations. Manufacturers have the flexibility to integrate those tools that best align with their own business processes so they can be innovative in their approach to identify substitute chemicals."
The scope of the guidance is also unchanged. Although stakeholders questioned whether it exceeds what is required under the SCP programme, the department says it has taken care to ensure the guide does not impose additional requirements nor create new legal obligations.
It does, however, follow stakeholder recommendations to include detailed reference and guidance documents. It has also added a discussion on how it will treat confidential business information (CBI).
The department says the guide will continue to evolve, and additional tools will be developed, to support regulated parties.
Under the SCP, manufacturers of products designated by the agency as "priority products" must develop an AA. Completed analyses will inform the DTSC's regulatory response to the specified chemicals of concern.
An initial draft of the first phase of the AA guidance was issued in September 2015, with the full draft released for public comment in December 2016.
It has been finalised shortly ahead of the designation of the first priority product – the regulation to designate children’s foam padded sleeping mats containing the flame retardants TDCPP or TCEP is set to take effect from 1 July.
The public comment period on the second priority product – spray polyurethane foam (SPF) containing MDI – ended on 6 June. Regulations to list paint strippers containing methylene chloride are under development.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56871/california-releases-alternative-analysis-guide-for-scp-programme
-
Canada Bans Microbeads In Cosmetics
Jun 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The government of Canada has adopted regulations banning the manufacture, import and sale of personal care products containing plastic microbeads.
The Microbeads in Toiletries Regulations finalise a proposal issued in November. It bans the manufacture and import of personal care products containing plastic microbeads equal to or below 5mm in size by 1 January 2018. A sales prohibition takes effect six months later on 1 July.
The microbead definition extends to biodegradable plastics, as the extent to which these actually biodegrade in real-world applications has not been sufficiently demonstrated. This aligns with the definition under the US's Microbead-Free Waters Act, signed into law in early 2016.
Muhannad Malas, toxics programme manager at NGO Environmental Defence, applauded the Canadian government's action. "This ban will prevent millions of microplastic particles [from] entering our waterways," he said.
Canada's action marks the latest in a worldwide effort to phase out the use of the small plastic particles from cosmetics, as the tiny beads have been found to accumulate in waterways. Bans are under consideration in the UK and Ireland, while South Korea and Taiwan are contemplating similar measures.
Many retailers have also committed to voluntarily phasing out the use of microbeads ahead of regulatory deadlines.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56870/canada-bans-microbeads-in-cosmetics
-
Echa Updates Call For Evidence On D4 And D5
Jun 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa has updated its ongoing call for evidence on the uses of octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) and decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5) in 'leave-on' cosmetic products and other consumer/professional products.
The update marks a new call to specify additional information the agency hopes to receive from stakeholders in relation to the impacts of a previous restriction on the placing on the market of D4/D5 in 'wash-off' cosmetic products.
The consultation is open until 3 August.
In May, EU member states approved a proposal to restrict the use of D4 and D5 in wash-off cosmetic products in a concentration equal to or greater than 0.1% by weight.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56869/echa-updates-call-for-evidence-on-d4-and-d5
-
EU Institutions To Discuss Proposed RoHS Amendments
Jun 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission, Parliament and the EU Council of Ministers will discuss proposed amendments to the RoHS Directive at their trilogue meeting on 21 June.
The main objective of the amended text is to exempt the resale of used electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) and spare parts that contain hazardous substances beyond the 2019 deadline.
The RoHS Directive states that both the first placing on the market and secondary market operations, such as reselling, of non-compliant EEE will be prohibited after 22 July 2019.
EU ambassadors agreed on the EU Council of Ministers’ negotiating position on 14 June – the same day the European Parliament said it is ready to start negotiations. Its Environment Committee (Envi) voted toapprove the changes on 30 May.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56876/eu-institutions-to-discuss-proposed-rohs-amendments
-
Court Orders Added Review; Pipeline Can Still Operate For Now
Jun 15, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Army Corps of Engineers did not adequately consider all of the potential impacts of the Dakota Access pipeline, a federal court ruled today.
In a much-anticipated decision released tonight, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the Army Corps to reconsider sections of its environmental assessment for the contentious oil pipeline, which is now shipping crude from North Dakota to Illinois.
"Although the Corps substantially complied with [the National Environmental Policy Act] in many areas, the Court agrees that it did not adequately consider the impacts of an oil spill on fishing rights, hunting rights, or environmental justice, or the degree to which the pipeline's effects are likely to be highly controversial," Judge James Boasberg wrote.
The pipeline can continue operating for now. Boasberg noted that "whether Dakota Access must cease pipeline operations during that remand presents a separate question of the appropriate remedy, which will be the subject of further briefing."
The decision is a major win for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, which have been challenging the pipeline in court since last summer. The project crosses a section of the Missouri River a half-mile north of the Standing Rock Indian Reservation.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1060056048
-
Dakota Access Pipeline Requires Further Environmental Review: Federal Judge
Jun 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Harris and Meenal Vamburkar
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers didn't adequately consider the impacts of an oil spill from the Dakota Access Pipeline on fishing rights, hunting rights or “environmental justice” and will have to reconsider those sections of its decision to allow the pipeline to go forward, a judge ruled.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C., said in a ruling June 14 that whether Dakota Access will have to cease operations during the review will require further legal arguments.
The court ruling comes just two weeks after the $3.8 billion Dakota Access pipeline went into service, moving crude 1,172 miles across North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and Illinois.
Dakota Access was thrust last year into the center of an escalating battle between the energy industry and environmentalists over a nationwide expansion of oil and natural gas pipelines. It became a rallying point for tens of thousands of anti-fossil fuel and Native American-rights protesters.
The pipeline stands to be a boon to drillers in the once-prolific Bakken shale formation of North Dakota who have lost market share amid low oil prices to rivals in Texas and elsewhere with better access to Gulf Coast refineries and terminals.
President Donald Trump's support of the project represented a dramatic reversal from former President Barack Obama's opposition and proved instrumental in getting it cleared.
In early 2016, members of the Sioux nation and environmentalists began camping out along the proposed route in protest. Their ranks swelled in late summer after construction crews bulldozed a site sacred to Native Americans. Hollywood celebrities including Mark Ruffalo and Leonardo DiCaprio flocked to the Standing Rock reservation to lend support. Shailene Woodley was arrested and led away in handcuffs. It all went viral on social media.
The case is Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 16-cv-01534, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (Washington).
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=114289427&vname=dennotallissues&fn=114289427&jd=114289427
-
LNG, Oil Make Analyzing North American NatGas A Global Undertaking, Say BP, Macquarie
Jun 15, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jeremiah Shelor
Shaped by both liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports and crude oil production, the North American natural gas market is becoming increasingly globally interconnected -- and more complex as a result.
That's according to two keynote presentations delivered at the recent LDC Gas Forums conference in Boston.
BP Energy Co. North American Gas and Power COO Michael Thomas told attendees that the growth of natural gas-fired power generation has made it harder to understand weather-driven changes in the market over the last few years.
"But I think it's getting way more complex. If you're on a bumper car and you see someone, and you're barrelling at them, and all of the sudden you get side-swiped and taken out, I think that's what's going to be happening in the natural gas space due to the global connectivity," Thomas said.
With the United States emerging as a global exporter, LNG and crude oil -- a historical influence on LNG pricing -- will factor more heavily into North American natural gas prices.
"So you really need to understand what the global analytics are to understand what's going on in North America," Thomas said. BP previously had separate analytics groups in Europe and North America but "recognizing this connectivity, we formed a single analytics group across BP so we'd be able to understand what's going on. So when we have a bumper car our head's going to be on a swivel trying to understand all the different factors that are going to play into the North American natural gas market."
In a separate presentation in Boston, Macquarie Global Oil & Gas Strategist Vikas Dwivedi also keyed in on the significance of the crude oil markets -- and the potential associated gas production from the U.S. onshore -- for natural gas.
Dwivedi said his firm's modeling shows "U.S. oil production's just going to boom. It's just going to keep growing and dragging associated gas production up with it."
As breakevens for oil fall, "you start getting a little bit more hedged to oil prices naturally. You don't need $60/bbl to get good growth. In some cases $40/bbl works" with prices in the high-$40s/bbl to low-$50s/bbl the "sweet spot for our projections. But we can still grow below that. That's the key, and with that comes a lot of associated gas.
"...That type of growth, it will overwhelm most demand scenarios, so if you're watching, thinking about gas, you almost have to start with oil, or at least keep oil pretty close in terms of priority and how you're thinking about and analyzing the U.S. natural gas market."
Dwivedi noted that, with an estimated 2.5-3 Bcf/d hitting the market with every 1 million b/d of oil production, associated gas has accounted for "the lion's share of total growth" in U.S. natural gas output over the last several years. "Now you can say it's a little bit of a sleight of hand, because the non-associated gas is the sum of big growth in some areas, like the Appalachians, and declines in other areas, but on a national level, it's accurate, and we think it's very meaningful for the national supply/demand balance."
As for LNG, Dwivedi said Macquarie expects U.S. exports to reach around 10 Bcf/d by the end of 2020. Thomas, citing BP's outlook to 2035, said the energy giant expects U.S. LNG output to grow to 22 Bcf/d by 2035.
So "even though it feels like we're oversupplied, there are price signals that we feel are going to be in the early 2020s, mid-2020s, that we feel are going to call for additional LNG facilities to come online...Europe's going to be importing, Asia's going to be importing a massive amount of LNG, and then North America and Australia are going to be the dominant players," Thomas said.
Dwivedi said the energy demand growth in China and India could have a big impact on the global market.
"They're both still growing their coal generation quite a bit, but they're also growing gas and LNG, so it's kind of all-of-the-above in both countries," he said. "...The direct impact to U.S. gas might be limited, but the indirect impact could be big, meaning if they're getting LNG from elsewhere, it's still tightening the market...everything will go as those guys go, and we're still expecting big growth from both."
Thomas said growth in LNG introduces more potential for volatility moving forward, envisioning a scenario where demand peaks in multiple countries simultaneously. He pointed to historical data showing that a number of membership countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) experience similar seasonal demand cycles.
"You can see that" countries such as the United Kingdom, Germany, France and the United States "really peak at the same time. So if you're having extremely cold weather across the Northern Hemisphere, all the sudden you have a significant amount of natural gas demand in North America at the same time that you have in other OECD countries, and how do you manage that?" Thomas said.
"What we're trying to figure out is what is the value of storage longer-term, the summer/winter spreads? As well as, even in the shorter-term, understanding the flexibility that you're going to have. If you have these massive LNG facilities concentrated in the Gulf Coast, facilities that shut down, or they're not baseload, and we're trying to manage them coming on and off, what type of flexibility are you going to need in North America to be able to handle that?"
Dwivedi said the lack of new storage in a growing North American natural gas market is a main ingredient in a recipe for volatility.
Looking at demand from LNG, "what we think is interesting about this is the volatility of that demand, so I think the need for high-turn storage will just keep rising...if you're a buyer of natural gas needing to manage upside price risks, weaving this into your planning is going to be important, because what this will create in our view is upward skews. The average may not be a lot higher, but there could be blowouts, a chance to visit $5/MMBtu and $6/MMBtu more frequently than in the past, where we visited $2/MMBtu and sub-$2/MMBtu a lot. Now it may be a little bit more symmetrical around the middle with just as many upside trips on price."
Cyclical-type demand continues to grow as storage capacity has remained at about the same level for years, he said.
"We've gotten away with it, because it hasn't really been tested in a big way -- a couple mild winters, even last summer when the demand was good, we still had decent production," Dwivedi said. "We think we're entering an era where it's going to be tested. What is the test? The test is I need a ton of gas quickly to demand centers, in a much bigger scale market.
"The storage has been about the same since the market was in the low 60s Bcf/d. Now it's 72-73 Bcf/d. It's going to be 85 Bcf/d in the blink of an eye as far as these things are concerned. We're not going to have a lot more storage. Think about that. You've got a much bigger market with more cycling and high-volatility demand, and about the same storage."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/110787-lng-oil-make-analyzing-north-american-natgas-a-global-undertaking-say-bp-macquarie
-
Bills Look To Boost Infrastructure
Jun 15, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Sam Mintz
House and Senate lawmakers introduced a handful of bills this week aimed at promoting energy infrastructure, including dams and pipelines.
One, from Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), is the latest in his efforts to establish an Appalachian natural gas storage facility. S. 1337 would make the proposed regional storage hub eligible for the Department of Energy's loan guarantee program.
It follows pieces of legislation from Manchin and his West Virginia colleague Sen. Shelley Capito Moore (R) aimed at studying and developing the energy hub (E&E Daily, June 13).
Three other bills introduced this week deal with hydropower:
· H.R. 2880, from Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.), aims to promote closed-loop pumped storage hydropower.
· H.R. 2872, from Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.), would promote hydropower development at existing non-powered dams.
· S. 1336, from Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), would reauthorize production incentives and efficiency improvement incentives for hydropower projects.
Griffith also introduced a bill that would expand the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's duty to hold meetings and collect public comment during its approval process for natural gas pipelines. H.R. 2893 is a House companion to legislation from Griffith's Virginia counterparts in the Senate, Democrats Tim Kaine and Mark Warner (E&E Daily, June 9).
"Knowing the long-term impacts of these projects, we must ensure that the right processes are in place so the public can more thoroughly evaluate the effects of a proposed pipeline, and opportunities for engagement should be a priority," Griffith said in a statement.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/06/15/stories/1060056058
-
(ACC Mentioned) Signed, Sealed, Delayed? The New Fate of the Added Sugar Rule and Other Safeguards
Jun 14, 2017 | Union of Concerned Scientists (blog)
By Genna Reed
The FDA announced this week that it “intends to extend compliance dates” for the nutrition facts label final rules, which will include the separate line for added sugars. We celebrated the finalization of this rule last May as science-based advocacy prevailing to give consumers key information on the foods they consume. While the FDA has not yet announced exactly how long that extension will push back implementation, the food industry has asked HHS Secretary Tom Price to delay the rule’s enforcement three years, until May 2021.
But do food manufacturers really need even more time to help them, as FDA puts it, “to complete and print updated nutrition facts labels for their products,” or are they using this delay tactic to keep consumers from knowing how much sugar is in their food as long as possible? FDA first began its work to revise the nutrition facts label in 2004, and the proposed rule which included the added sugar line was issued in 2014. Industry has had ten years to think about how it could give consumers the information they want to make informed decisions and ten years to come to terms with the mounting evidence that excessive sugar consumption can lead to adverse health consequences including heart disease, obesity, diabetes, and hypertension.
The longer we delay giving consumers the knowledge and power to make informed decisions about the foods they buy and eat, the longer we are missing out on an opportunity to improve Americans’ overall health. Since this rule was first proposed in 2014, representatives from food industry trade organizations, including the Sugar Association, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, and the American Frozen Food Institute, have made inaccurate claims about the science linking sugar consumption to adverse health impacts, the ability of labeling to positively impact consumer health, and the burden of technical challenges and excessive record-keeping in measuring added sugar for food companies.
If instead of spending time and resources coming up with reasons the FDA shouldn’t have issued its final rule, the food industry had accepted established science on added sugars and proactively worked with the FDA to roll out the label, most foods would be bearing these labels today. In fact, some companies have already updated their labels well before the compliance date, showing how very possible it is!
All of the protest and delay has only made consumers skeptical of food companies that appear to be actively working to undermine a rule that would empower them with knowledge of how much sugar has been added to their foods. This move from Scott Gottlieb’s FDA is a disappointing step backward from progress made in food label transparency during the Obama administration. And sadly, the added sugar rule is just one of many that has recently been thwarted by agency delay under the Trump Administration.
The latest policy targets of industry’s stalling tactics
Just this week, EPA administrator Scott Pruitt issued a final rule that would delay implementation of the Risk Management Plan (RMP) amendments for 20 months, until February 19, 2019. This move came after several petitions from the American Chemistry Council and a handful of other chemical manufacturing corporations, oil and gas companies, and trade organizations asked the agency to reconsider the rule. Even after receiving thousands of public comments, including those from individuals from low-income communities and communities of color that face the greatest risks from RMP facilities urging the EPA to enforce the rule as planned, the EPA sided with industry and went forward with its decision to delay.
Then there’s the ozone rule. My colleague, Gretchen Goldman, wrote a letter to Scott Pruitt after the EPA administrator announced that he would extending the deadline for promulgating the rule one year due to “insufficient information.” Perhaps Pruitt has been spending too much time with oil and gas industry lobbyists, because the science is actually more than sufficient on the need for a stronger ozone standard, including a 1,251-page Integrated Science Assessment that found several “causal” and “likely causal” relationships between ozone pollution and health effects, confirmed by a slew of independent advisory committees and independent scientists since the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee (CASAC) recommended tightening the standard a decade ago.
Speaking of rules that are long overdue but are being delayed anyway, the silica rule, beryllium rule, and formaldehyde rule that would have tightened standards that have been too low for decades have been targeted by this administration for further delay so that the construction industry, manufacturing industry, and oil and gas industry have more time to educate employees and change internal practices. You read that right. Even though the science on impacts of silica has been known since the 1970s, the industry still needs time to inform its own employees about it.
The Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Methane and Waste Prevention Rule, which was spared by senators as it was voted on in the final days of the Congressional Review Act window, is now being delayed by the agency because of the uncertain fate of the rule as it is being challenged in court by industry organizations and three states and because the American Petroleum Institute CEO, Jack Gerard, asked it to do so. This rule would have reduced some of the most dangerous impacts of fracking for natural gas extraction, including leaks, venting, and flaring, which would have reduced methane pollution that can lead to elevated levels of ground-level ozone and other hazardous air pollutants like benzene, formaldehyde, and hydrogen sulfide, triggering asthma and even cancer.
Public health progress demands action today, without delay
Whether we’ve waited four, ten, or even forty years for a particular standard, we must remember that every day of delay means:
· one more day that a pregnant mother trying to cut down on her sugar intake will have to guess whether the sugar in her food is natural or added;
· one more day that a person of color living near a chemical plant in Texas will have to fear the consequences of a toxic leak or explosion;
· one more day that a first-time homeowner could be exposed to formaldehyde from household items in amounts high enough to lead to an asthma attack or a nasopharyngeal cancer diagnosis;
· one more day that a worker in a metal foundry could be exposed to beryllium at levels high enough to one day lead to chronic beryllium disease.
Each and every one of these scenarios represents one day too long. When each of these rules were finalized, the scientific and cost-benefit analyses supported the date of implementation. The only reason for delay now is political. Often, the reaction of industry trade associations to final rules designed to protect our public health makes it seem like government is blindsiding them. But in reality, the process that goes into crafting new rules is meticulously and thoughtfully executed by government, which takes years to gather input from stakeholders, including industry, to inform several iterations of rules that are eventually finalized. However, it seems not to matter if industry has one year or ten years to prepare for a change; the end result is the same. The fact is that science-based policies threaten an industry’s status quo and trade organizations with business interests in mind will work tirelessly to stop or slow any perceived disruptions in business as usual, regardless of what that means for public health.
http://blog.ucsusa.org/genna-reed/signed-sealed-delayed-the-new-fate-of-the-added-sugar-rule-and-other-safeguards
-
White House Creates Permit Streamlining Office in CEQ
Jun 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
The Trump administration plans to create a new structure within the White House Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) that will oversee permit streamlining as part of a major push across several agencies for upcoming infrastructure projects.
President Donald Trump announced the plan during June 9 remarks at the Transportation Department, saying the administration planned to create an office within CEQ to “root out inefficiency, clarify lines of authority, and streamline federal, state and local procedures so that communities can modernize their aging infrastructure without fear of outdated federal rules getting in their way.”
He called this new office, as well as a host of other new initiatives, “massive permit reform.”
Trump also announced the creation of a “new council” within CEQ that would help project managers “navigate the bureaucratic maze” by creating a “new online dashboard” which would allow stakeholders to track permit approval processes.
But the council could be controversial as it appears to have power to impose “tough new penalties” on agencies that “consistently” delay projects by missing deadlines, Trump said.
Congress has previously approved such penalties as part of the 2014 water resources funding bill, which includes language that requires the Army Corps of Engineers, together with resource agencies, to set National Environmental Policy Act review deadlines on a case-by-case basis and impose penalties on agencies that miss deadlines.
Environmentalists said at the time that the final language, a change from what was included in the House version of the bill, “provides enough flexibility that hopefully the fines will never be put in place.”
But it is not clear from Trump's statement whether the administration plans to apply the penalties to all infrastructure projects, not just water infrastructure requirements.
The reorganization within CEQ is one of a number of steps the administration is taking to speed permitting. Earlier last week, Trump announced plans to ensure permitting takes two years rather than the current average of 10 years.
The president has frequently expressed his desire to address critics’ concerns that permits for infrastructure projects take too long due to environmental review and other requirements.
Earlier this year, he also signed an order requiring CEQ to determine whether infrastructure projects qualify as a "high priority" project that is eligible for expedited permitting. “All agencies shall give highest priority to completing such reviews and approvals by the established deadlines using all necessary and appropriate means,” the order says.
And the Transportation Department last week began soliciting public comments for a review of its “existing policy statements, guidance documents, and regulations to identify unnecessary obstacles to transportation infrastructure projects.” according to a June 8 notice in the Federal Register.
The department asks “affected stakeholders and the public to identify non-statutory requirements that the Department imposes and that should be removed or revised.”
The transportation effort comes after a similar initiative at the Commerce Department, which is slated to soon release its report with its recommendations for speeding the permitting process for manufacturers. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had indicated that much of the report will target EPA rules.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/white-house-creates-permit-streamlining-office-ceq
-
Columbia Gorge Commission Backs County's Denial Of Railroad Expansion
Jun 14, 2017 | AP (In the Oregonian)
An Oregon county had substantial evidence when it denied Union Pacific Railroad's proposed track expansion along the Columbia River where an oil train derailed last year, a board ruled Tuesday.
The Columbia River Gorge Commission upheld the findings by Wasco County commissioners who cited concerns about the project's impacts on the treaty rights of Native American tribes in rejecting the railroad's application last November.
Omaha, Nebraska-based Union Pacific sought to reverse the commissioner's denial. The railroad argued in part that local law is pre-empted by federal law governing railroad transportation and that county commissioners also didn't specify what treaty rights were at issue or how they would be affected.
Union Pacific sought a permit in 2015 to add about four miles of a second mainline to existing tracks in and around Mosier, Oregon.
The June 3, 2016, train wreck in the tiny Oregon town sparked a massive fire and renewed concerns about the safety of oil trains rolling through the region.
"We are pleased to see that the Columbia River Gorge Commission broke with the trend of allowing railroads to violate our right," JoDe Goudy, chairman of the Yakama Nation, said in a statement. "We know the fight is not over, and we will not rest, but it is good to see progress being made in Wasco County and with the Gorge Commission."
Michael Lang, conservation director for the Friends of Columbia River Gorge, said: "It's a big win for the national scenic area. It means that railroads are not exempt from (Columbia River Gorge) protection laws."
Union Pacific spokesman Justin Jacobs said after Tuesday's meeting held in The Dalles, Oregon, that he wasn't clear yet what the company's next steps are.
In his statement, Jacobs noted that the railroad separately obtained project approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Wasco County planning commission also approved the project with conditions that the railroad mostly agreed with, he said.
"The 4.02-mile track extension project will enhance the fluidity of Oregon's rail network and reduce emissions by reducing the number of locomotives idling in the Gorge," the statement said.
After Wasco County planners approved the project in September, the Yakama Nation appealed, saying the project violated tribal treaty rights. The tribe said the expansion would increase train traffic along the Columbia River and interfere with tribal members' ability to access fishing sites that lie alongside those train tracks.
Wasco County commissioners reversed the county planners' approval. Union Pacific appealed in December.
The railroad also sued Wasco County and the Columbia River Gorge Commission in federal court in Portland in January. A judge sided with three Northwest tribes and dismissed the railroad's complaint in March.
Separately, three groups including Columbia Riverkeeper, Friends of Columbia River Gorge and Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility also appealed the county's decision to deny Union Pacific's application.
While the groups agreed that the application should be denied based on tribal treaty rights, they also argued that commissioners should have denied the project based on other factors such as wildlife habitat and natural resources.
The commissioners on Tuesday declined to decide those issues.
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2017/06/columbia_gorge_commission_back.html
-
States See Effects Of EPA's Ozone Delay
Jun 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
States are starting to see the effects of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's recent decision to delay implementing Obama-era ozone standards -- even as summer heat raises concerns about harmful levels.
EPA announced last week that it is delaying by one year -- from Oct. 1, 2017 to October 2018 -- the deadline for designating areas' attainment with the 2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Pruitt said the extra year will give the agency more time to collect “the most recent air quality data” to make the designations and to conduct its previously announced review of the Obama EPA's decision to tighten the ozone limit.
EPA's announcement came just days before a heat wave spread across much of the East Coast and Midwest, prompting warnings about high ozone levels. “The air was so bad on Monday,” Bloomberg reported “that air quality alerts were posted from Virginia to Maine, as well as parts of Indiana, Michigan and across upstate New York.”
And as Inside EPA's Stuart Parker reported from the Ozone Transport Commission's (OTC) spring meeting in Saratoga Springs, NY, last week, state members of the commission said that early data show 2017 ozone levels are worsening and that EPA's one-year delay for implementing the 2015 ozone limit risks stopping the states' “momentum” on tackling ozone air pollution.
In New Jersey, for example, environmentalists are raising concerns that the delay in implementing the Obama-era standard will delay local efforts to curb emissions. “This rule would have helped New Jersey more than most states since we are at the end of the air stream and get a third of our pollution from out of state,’’ Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, told NJ Spotlight. “We are seeing more and earlier bad ozone days making it harder for people to breathe.’’
EPA's efforts to address ozone and help states comply also appear likely to be on hold. OTC, for example is again urging EPA to advance a rulemaking strengthening standards for nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, an ozone precursor, for heavy-duty vehicles, though the priority for such an action is doubtful given the agency's review of the 2015 standard.
The priority for addressing ozone also appears to be diminishing in some states in the wake of EPA's decision. In Texas, for example, News4 San Antonio reports that Gov. Greg Abbott (R) vetoed nearly $1.5 million in funding slated to help the city come into attainment with the now delayed standard.
Abbott said funding “should be prioritized to directly address problems in our non-attainment areas of the state so that we are better positioned to combat the business-stifling regulations imposed on these areas by the Environmental Protection Agency.”
But Peter Bella, the former Natural Resources Director for the Alamo Area Council of Governments, told the station that the cuts will make it difficult to attain the standards. “Our air pollution is not now meeting the federal air quality standards,” he said. “We’re growing like gangbusters -- we’re having a great time growing -- but we need to be able at the same time to control the pollution that accompanies that growth.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/states-see-effects-epas-ozone-delay
-
Industry Groups Support EPA In Methane Litigation
Jun 15, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
The oil and gas industry today moved to defend the Trump administration's decision to suspend Obama-era methane standards.
The American Petroleum Institute and the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America filed motions to intervene in litigation brought by green groups in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
API told the court it wanted to avoid "unwarranted or unsupported imposition of potentially burdensome and costly emission control obligations."
INGAA, which represents natural gas transmission pipeline companies, likewise said it was concerned that "absent the stay [companies] must comply with the fugitive emission requirements."
At issue is EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's decision earlier this month to grant a 90-day delay in key provisions, including fugitive emissions requirements, in the Obama administration's 2016 methane rule for new oil and gas operations.
Environmentalists — the Clean Air Council, Earthworks, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Environmental Integrity Project, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club — filed a lawsuit earlier this month (Greenwire, June 5).
The green groups also asked the D.C. Circuit for an emergency stay of EPA's decision, arguing that the agency had no authority to pause the requirements and that the decision would cause irreparable harm.
As the litigation is pending, Pruitt yesterday announced that, on top of the three-month stay, EPA would further delay the rule's fugitive emissions, pneumatic pumps and professional engineer certification provisions by two years.
Environmental groups are also expected to sue the Trump administration over that two-year delay (Energywire, June 14).
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/06/14/stories/1060056039
-
Industry Cheers Methane Rules Pause Despite New Uncertainty
Jun 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The energy industry is cheering the EPA's plans to place a two-year hold on an Obama-era methane regulation despite any additional uncertainty the pause may introduce.
If the Environmental Protection Agency enacts this proposal (RIN:2060-AT59), oil and gas drillers will be able to avoid complying with several aspects of the regulation, which requires them to significantly increase their monitoring of leaking methane, a potent greenhouse gas. The agency wants to pause the rule for at least two years while it weighs whether to repeal it altogether.
Before the two-year stay can go into effect, the EPA will have to formally propose it in the Federal Register, and then solicit and analyze comments on it from the public. Late last month, the EPA placed this rule on hold for 90 days, a move it could take without having to go through this formal rulemaking process.
Additionally, the Bureau of Land Management also announced (RIN:1004-AE14) that it is delaying compliance deadlines for a separate rule that governs methane emissions from wells on federal lands.
Uncertainty?
Some of the monitoring provisions of the EPA regulation were scheduled to take effect earlier this month. But with this new proposal, it's unclear if oil and gas companies will ever have to comply with them.
Lee Fuller, one of the leaders of a trade association that represents small drilling operations, said this regulation was so onerous on the oil and gas industry and would have forced so many wells to shutter that any attempt to nullify it is welcome, regardless of the uncertainty it may cause in the short term.
The regulation “was creating certainty, but it was a certainty of a loss of production down the line,” Fuller, vice president of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, told Bloomberg BNA. “If you're going to do a program, do it right, and [the EPA] haven't done it right.”
Kathleen Sgamma, head of Western Energy Alliance, said in a statement that the regulation “kills jobs and economic growth needlessly,” but that well operators would continue to capture methane emissions due to market forces.
Litigation
Even before this latest move, environmental groups had taken the EPA to court over its 90-day stay of the methane regulations (Clean Air Council v. Pruitt, D.C. Cir., No. 17-1145, 6/5/17).
The groups, which include the Sierra Club, have filed an emergency motion asking the court to invalidate this initial stay on the regulations. The EPA has until 4 p.m. ET June 15 to file a response. The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, founder of Bloomberg L.P. Bloomberg BNA is an affiliate of Bloomberg L.P.
Joel Minor, an attorney with the group Earthjustice who is representing the plaintiffs in the suit, said he hopes the court rules on this motion soon, given the role methane emissions play in contributing to air pollution.
“This is an emergency summer ozone season upon us,” he told Bloomberg BNA. “This summer is really a key time to prevent air pollution that causes people to have heart attacks and asthma. We hope that court will rule very promptly so [the methane regulation] can go fully into effect.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=114289426&vname=dennotallissues&fn=114289426&jd=114289426
-
California's Jerry Brown Lands Seat at Global Climate Table
Jun 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joe Ryan
California Governor Jerry Brown, a leading critic of President Donald Trump's planned withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, will represent state and local governments at this year's United Nations conference on global warming.
Fiji Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama, who is hosting the conference in November, named Brown special adviser for states and regions, the Democratic governor said in a statement on June 14. Oregon Governor Kate Brown (D) and Washington State Governor Jay Inslee (D) will also travel to the meeting in Bonn, Germany.
While largely symbolic, Brown's appointment formalizes the role he has been playing as the U.S.’s leading environmental voice in the Trump era. His state, with 39 million residents, accounts for one-seventh of U.S. gross domestic product. As Trump has pushed to roll back federal efforts to stop global warming, Brown has moved to bolster California's programs.
“Jerry Brown has been leading the charge,” said Alden Meyer, who's followed climate talks for two decades as director of policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “He and Governor Brown and Governor Inslee are making it clear that there are major elements of the United States that remain engaged and committed to Paris.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=114289452&vname=dennotallissues&fn=114289452&jd=114289452
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested