Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 6/16/2017
-
Dow, Dupont Win U.S. Antitrust Nod to Create Chemicals Giant
Jun 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David McLaughlin and Jack Kaskey
Dow Chemical Co. and DuPont Co. won U.S. antitrust approval for their $73 billion merger, overcoming one of the last remaining hurdles to a deal that would create a global chemicals giant. -
Former Arizona Environment Chief Tapped as EPA's COO
Jun 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Lee
A former top aide to Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R), is joining the EPA as its chief operating officer, a position that doesn't require Senate confirmation, according to an agency spokeswoman and Ducey's office. -
Beckton Dickinson Reports Progress on Substitution
Jun 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
US-based global medical equipment producer Beckton Dickinson (BD) has revealed its progress towards cutting use of materials of concern in its products. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Task: Balance Chemical Trade Secrets With Public Data
Jun 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA says it's hard pressed to withhold the identities of certain chemicals while also making public any health, worker safety, or environmental risk information about the chemicals under the amended toxics law passed last June. -
Pruitt Faces Bipartisan Pushback on Proposed EPA Budget Cuts
Jun 15, 2017 | Morning Consult
By Jack Fitzpatrick
...Pruitt also followed up on previous promises to work on the EPA’s backlog of chemicals awaiting approval under the Toxic Substances Control Act, saying the agency will “have the backlog of chemicals entirely addressed by the end of July.” -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Commits to Weighing New Glyphosate Data
Jun 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA will consider Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) data showing that exposure to glyphosate does not cause cancer as part of its ongoing registration review of the world's most commonly-used herbicide, data that news reports say European risk assessors... -
(ACC Mentioned) Monsanto: Hidden Cancer Study is ‘Scientific Vandalism’
Jun 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
Disputes over the impartiality of an international cancer research agency are flaring again, as documents suggest that a major study's preliminary data was hidden by a U.S. scientist when reviewing the cancer-causing potential of Monsanto Co.'s Roundup. -
(ACC Mentioned) In California Battles over Product Labels, Industry Usually Wins
Jun 15, 2017 | Daily Democrat
By Laurel Rosenhall
Nail polish and hair dye. Cleaning products. Plants and flowers for the garden. -
EU Moves to Limit Chemicals in the Workplace, Electronics
Jun 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
European Union member countries are backing a plan to establish bloc-wide workplace exposure limits on five cancer-causing substances that would protect more than 4 million workers at industrial sites producing chemicals, lubricants, plastics and pharmaceuticals. -
European Commission Publishes Cosmetics Nano Inventory
Jun 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has today published the first version of an inventory of nanomaterials in cosmetics on the EU market. -
(ACC Mentioned) Grants Bolster Region
Jun 16, 2017 | Hazelton Standard-Speaker
By Jim Dino
Two grants are on the way to the area to try to find some rare elements that are present in anthracite coal. -
Trump Admin Defends Decision to Delay Obama Methane Rules
Jun 16, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
U.S. EPA's decision to delay Obama-era methane standards for the oil and gas industry was lawful, the Trump administration today told a federal court. -
California Utilities Must Reduce, Fix Pipeline Methane Leaks
Jun 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California adopted new standards requiring natural gas utilities for the first time to reduce methane leaks from pipelines. -
Lessons of the Energy Export Boom
Jun 16, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Editorial Board
Sometimes politics changes so rapidly that few seem to notice. Remember the “energy independence” preoccupation of not so long ago? -
Can Trump Achieve His "American Energy Revolution?"
Jun 16, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
President Donald Trump has promised an "American energy revolution," doing away with what he describes as the "job killing regulations" of the Obama era. -
Groups Sue Over EPA Delay of Chemical Plant Safety Rules
Jun 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
A coalition of environmental and public health organizations is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review EPA's decision to delay new chemical plant security regulations to 2019. -
Malicious Attacks on Electric Grid Facilities Over-Reported
Jun 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Llewellyn Hinkes-Jones
The incidence of sabotage and vandalism to the U.S. electric grid might be less severe than data reported to the federal government suggest, a Bloomberg BNA data analysis shows. -
Trump Chemical Safety Cuts Put Frelinghuysen on the Hot Seat
Jun 16, 2017 | NJ.com
By Star-Ledger Editorial Board
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen votes in line with President Trump's position, 100 percent of the time. You wonder, what it would take for him to listen to his colleagues and constituents instead? -
(ACC Mentioned) House Democrats Fail in Bid to Require CASAC Approval for Ozone Delay
Jun 15, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
House Democrats at a June 15 markup failed with a bid to attach an amendment to a bill overhauling EPA's national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) program to require the agency's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) to affirm any ozone... -
Pruitt Fares Better Than Budget in 1st Hearing as Agency Chief
Jun 16, 2017 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, a polarizing figure in energy and environmental circles, emerged yesterday from his first appearance on Capitol Hill largely unscathed. But his hard-cutting budget, aimed at refocusing the agency on its core mission, is likely in tatters. -
GOP Tells Pruitt He Will Get Bigger Budget Than Requested
Jun 16, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
Republican lawmakers made it clear today that EPA is not going to get the budget it asked for — it’s going to get a whole lot more. -
Despite Trump Bar, OMB Mulls 'Rigorous' Method to Estimate GHG Damages
Jun 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
Despite President Donald Trump's bar on the use of the Obama-era social cost of carbon (SCC) metric to estimate climate damages, the administration is “trying to figure out a good, rigorous technical way” of calculating carbon dioxide damages...
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Dow, Dupont Win U.S. Antitrust Nod to Create Chemicals Giant
Jun 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David McLaughlin and Jack Kaskey
Dow Chemical Co. and DuPont Co. won U.S. antitrust approval for their $73 billion merger, overcoming one of the last remaining hurdles to a deal that would create a global chemicals giant.
The companies said the assets they agreed to sell to win U.S. approval didn't go beyond what they had already agreed to with other jurisdictions. DuPont will sell off some of its herbicide and insecticide products and Dow will unload a plastics packaging unit, according to a settlement filed June 15 in federal court in Washington.
The so-called merger of equals is among a trio of mega-deals that would reshape the global agrochemicals industry if approved by regulators around the world. Bayer AG is seeking approval to buy Monsanto Co., while China National Chemical Corp.’s agreement to buy Syngenta AG is nearing completion. If cleared, the transactions together would consolidate the industry into four major players, including BASF SE.
Price Concerns
The deals have drawn complaints from farmers and environmental activists who say the combined companies’ control of pesticide and seed markets might increase prices for farmers.
The U.S. approval of the Dow-DuPont tie-up follows the European Union's clearance of the deal in March, when DuPont agreed to divest part of its pesticide business, including research and development. Brazil, China and India have approved the deal, while Canada's decision is still pending. The companies said they “are working constructively” with regulators in the remaining jurisdictions.
The new company is to be called DowDuPont Inc.
August Closing
Dow and DuPont said on March 31 that they were pushing back the expected closing of the deal, which they reached in 2015, to August after DuPont agreed to sell part of its pesticides business to FMC Corp. to satisfy competition regulators. That pending deal would make Philadelphia-based FMC the world's fifth-biggest producer of crop-protection chemicals. South Korea-based SK Innovation Co. agreed to buy the Dow packaging unit in February.
The companies said June 15 that they still expected the deal to close in August.
Dow and DuPont are planning to split the merged company into three within 18 months of closing, including a materials-science company that will retain the Dow name. The other two post-split companies will focus on agriculture and specialty products.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=114381323&vname=dennotallissues&fn=114381323&jd=114381323
-
Former Arizona Environment Chief Tapped as EPA's COO
Jun 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Lee
A former top aide to Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R), is joining the EPA as its chief operating officer, a position that doesn't require Senate confirmation, according to an agency spokeswoman and Ducey's office.
Henry Darwin, a longtime government official and former director of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, will serve as EPA assistant deputy administrator.
In a statement, EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman said Darwin “will focus the agency on providing value to taxpayers by helping us measure performance, improve our processes and solve the issues that matter to Americans.”
He will be involved in defining the EPA's policy and strategy, James Aidala, a former EPA official in the Clinton administration.
In a 2014 hearing before a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee, Darwin testified against the Clean Power Plan, the Obama administration rule that would have put the first carbon dioxide limits on power plants. He said he did not believe the Clean Air Act gave the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases as the rule allows.
His experience at the state level could prove helpful to the Trump team if it wants to devolve more power to the states, Aidala, now senior government affairs consultant with Bergeson & Campbell, PC, told Bloomberg BNA.
Alexandra Dunn, executive director of the Environmental Council of States, said Darwin “really understands how state agencies operate” and that he improved efficiency at the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, such as reducing the time it took applicants to get Clean Air Act permits.
Bowman also said Darwin would “deploy the same Lean Management System that he successfully deployed” in Arizona.
Darwin will remain in the Arizona governor's office until June 30. Bowman said there was no start date yet at EPA, “but we are looking at early July.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=114381303&vname=dennotallissues&fn=114381303&jd=114381303
-
Beckton Dickinson Reports Progress on Substitution
Jun 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
US-based global medical equipment producer Beckton Dickinson (BD) has revealed its progress towards cutting use of materials of concern in its products.
The company's 2016 sustainability report outlines actions towards its 2020 goals to eliminate:
· phthalates and PVC from devices;
· phthalates, brominated flame retardants (BFRs) and heavy metals from instruments; and
· polystyrene and PVC from packaging
BD senior director of global sustainability, Ellen Kondracki, told Chemical Watch, that the company's customers had identified these substances as a priority and "also happened to be included Regulations."
Last year, BD launched a catheter in China containing extension tubing made from polyurethane instead of DEHP-plasticised PVC. It was designed specifically for clinical practices within the local market and was not intended to be launched more widely.
Ms Kondracki said there was no 'one fits all solution' and the company would continue to evaluate the best material fit for each product.
"Through dedicated research efforts and integration of sustainability considerations into our product development efforts, we will continue introducing non-PVC infusion products into the market," she said.
NGOs, such as Health Care Without Harm (HCWH), have raised concerns that phthalates commonly used as softeners in PVC-based medical devices are endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs).
HCWH chemicals policy advisor Philippe Vandendaele told Chemical Watch it welcomed the substitution of hazardous chemicals where safer alternatives are available and technically feasible. "Companies striving to achieve this goal should be commended and their leadership should be acknowledged."
He added that the EU medical devices Regulation (MDR), which comes into force in May 2020, will provide a legal framework where "such substitution is hopefully encouraged".
The MDR includes a 0.1% concentration limit for category 1A and 1B carcinogenic, mutagenic, and reprotoxic (CMR) substances, and for endocrine disrupting chemicals, in devices that are invasive and come into direct contact with the body. Devices would only be permitted to contain these substances at a level above this limit if a justification is provided to the notified body overseen by the national competent authority.
Chemical Footprint
In 2016, BD took part in the Chemical Footprint Project (CFP) survey, run by the NGO Clean Production Action (CPA). This tracks companies' progress towards safer chemicals, by measuring the total mass of substances of concern in their products.
Ms Kondracki said BD joined the CFP because it understood that material transparency in products was a priority for its customers and the project "offered a good roadmap of how to improve our performance in this area."
She also said that it was helping the company define a methodology for compiling quantitative measures of performance across its different businesses.
"We will be fully transparent in future sustainability reports about the progress we are making toward the 2020 goals," she added.
In 2016, BD also completed product changes to bring in vitro diagnostic devices (IVDs) into compliance with the EU RoHS Directive. On 22 July 2016 IVDs came within scope of the Directive. This bans from the European market any electrical and electronic equipment that contains more than the permitted level of six hazardous substances – the heavy metals lead, mercury, cadmium and hexavalent chromium, plus two types of brominated flame retardants, PBBs and PBDEs.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56799/beckton-dickinson-reports-progress-on-substitution
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Task: Balance Chemical Trade Secrets With Public Data
Jun 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA says it's hard pressed to withhold the identities of certain chemicals while also making public any health, worker safety, or environmental risk information about the chemicals under the amended toxics law passed last June.
The law gave the EPA a difficult dual obligation, Derek Swick, regulatory and scientific affairs manager for the American Petroleum Institute, told Bloomberg BNA. “It's unclear how EPA will do this,” Swick said.
The agency is accepting comments through July 7 on its initial ideas about fulfilling a confidentiality requirement in the 2016 Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act. The agency must shield from public disclosure the specific identities of certain chemicals it determines qualify for that protection to guard trade secrets such as market share while at the same time making non-confidential information about the same chemicals available to the public.
“Protecting confidential business information is the bread and butter of any company,” Christina Franz, senior director of regulatory and technical Affairs at the American Chemistry Council, told Bloomberg BNA. “It's critical to innovation, to creating new, important products and to maintaining or gaining a competitive advantage.” For chemical makers, confidential business information (CBI) can mean keeping secret the specific identity or unique performance attributes of a chemical, she said.
But Richard Denison, lead senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, told Bloomberg BNA the law's requirement is not as hard to achieve as industry and the EPA have suggested. Congress’ intent was to have the EPA review CBI claims more strictly and often favor disclosure of risks the public involuntarily faces from air, water and soil pollution. The agency has navigated similar situations involving confidential identities in the past, he added.
Shift in Thinking
Thus far, it has been easy for companies to overbroadly shield many different types of information—including chemical identity—as confidential, which bars agency public disclosures, Denison said. Companies got accustomed to asserting such claims without challenge.
Information chemical manufacturers often claim as confidential includes: their manufacture or importation of a particular chemical; production or import volumes; the number of workers they estimate are exposed to it; and whether children or consumers are exposed to it.
Companies can continue to assert that much of this information as confidential under the Lautenberg Act, which overhauled the Toxic Substances Control Act. The amended law, however, requires them to provide more detailed substantiations of a company's need for confidentiality.
The TSCA amendments, however, raised the bar chemical makers will have to clear to prove to the agency that the public must be denied knowledge that a chemical exists, Denison said.
Many concerns that information disclosure could cause competitive harm can be addressed, for example, by claiming a company's relationship to a particular chemical is confidential, Denison said. This may take some getting used to for companies that have traditionally claimed everything possible as confidential, he said.
Emphasis on Public Right-to-Know?
The amended statute directs the EPA to use what the law calls a “unique identifier” for “each specific chemical identity for which the administrator approves a request for protection from disclosure.” The agency can decide a chemical's identity warrants such protection if its manufacturer proves disclosure would cause competitive harm to the company by revealing, for example, commercially sensitive market share information.
EPA must apply the unique identifier consistently across data received on a compound. The agency also has annual reporting requirements for CBI-protections and related health information.
By requiring a unique identifier, Congress sought to maximize public access to information about such a chemical, Denison said. Congress “resolved any possible conflict in favor of the public's right to know,” he said.
The unique identifier allows industrial hygienists, public health officials, labor organizations, first responders, researchers and the general public to link together any health, safety, and environmental effects the agency receives for the same chemical, he said.
Compiling the non-confidential safety information about a chemical can allow researchers and organizations to recognize that some chemical is raising concerns—even if they don't know the specific identity of the chemical, Denison said.
That knowledge would allow the public to demand the agency look into unwarranted health and environmental risks.
When CBI claims expire in 10 years—unless re-substantiated—then the previously submitted non-confidential health and safety information could be matched to the specific chemical.
Disclosure to Competitors
The EPA said in a May 8 Federal Register notice that it isn't sure it can both design a unique identifier that fully shields chemical identities from disclosure and use that same identifier on all non-confidential information (82 Fed. Reg. 21,386).
“EPA has identified several situations where applying the same unique identifier to every instance where information pertaining to the same chemical substance is reported under TSCA could cause confidential business information, including specific chemical identity, to be revealed,” the agency wrote.
EPA's notice described scenarios where it envisions complying with the dual obligation could result in competitors being able to follow a paper trail and figure out the confidential chemical identities.
First Option
The agency discussed two possible strategies for balancing CBI with the public's right to know at a May 24 meeting.
The agency's first option would require it to review all non-confidential information about a trade-secret-protected chemical. The EPA would place the unique identifier on the information and remove any details that could result in disclosure of the chemical.
The agency would remove identity revealing information even if the person, organization or company that submitted the information to the agency did not claim confidential business protection, Pamela Myrick, director of information management in the EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, said during the meeting.
But screening and redacting the wide variety of information the agency receives for chemicals could be so burdensome that it may not be viable, she said.
Second Option
Under the second alternative, the EPA would use unique identifiers on non-confidential information, but only when it's submitted by the same company that originally asked that the chemical's identity be kept confidential, Myrick said.
“The public would be able to link some submissions on the same chemical, but not necessarily all submissions on that chemical,” she said.
This would mean the same chemical could have different identifying numbers, which could be linked to different pieces of health, ecological and worker safety data.
EPA is proposing that each trade-secret-protected chemical identity would get multiple unique identifiers. Most of the industry groups and consultants that attended EPA's meeting said they favored the second alternative.
EDF: Options Inconsistent With Law
But Denison told meeting participants both of the EPA's options are inconsistent with the law's requirements.
“EPA finds an apparent conflict that doesn't exist in the law, and overstates a problem that it has successfully negotiated in the past,” he said.
The agency has managed to balance the need to protect CBI with public access as it established policies in its new chemicals program and for the production volume, worker exposure and other information companies periodically report under the Chemical Data Reporting rule, Denison said. That rule requires periodic reporting of chemical production and import information.
Chemical identity should only qualify as CBI if companies carefully craft their trade secret protection rationales and demonstrate that identity disclosure would likely cause the company substantial competitive harms, Denison said.
Eventual Legal Challenge?
But Swick, from the American Petroleum Institute, said the law's requirements aren't black and white.
The provision requiring the unique identifier is in the amended TSCA, but so is the statute's “clear mandate to protect trade secrets and encourage innovation,” he said. The agency should implement this legal requirement through rules to make sure all issues are flagged, Swick said.
Providing case studies describing the variety of chemical information it receives under TSCA and other statutes would be valuable, he said. That would help companies understand whether their CBI could be discovered through other types of required submissions.
Franz, from the American Chemistry Council, said EPA has a tough job ahead. Whatever path it chooses may be challenged in court, because of these different interpretations of what the law requires, she said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=114381301&vname=dennotallissues&fn=114381301&jd=114381301
-
Pruitt Faces Bipartisan Pushback on Proposed EPA Budget Cuts
Jun 15, 2017 | Morning Consult
By Jack Fitzpatrick
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt on Thursday downplayed some of the White House’s proposed budget cuts to his agency at a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing, where lawmakers from both parties pushed back against the Trump administration’s request for steep spending reductions at the EPA.
Pruitt told the panel he understands the importance of programs that support the Great Lakes, Puget Sound and chemical safety, all of which are facing proposed cuts. He also said there is no plan to eliminate any of the EPA’s 10 regional offices.
The White House budget request for fiscal year 2018 calls for $2.6 billion (31 percent) in cuts to the EPA’s budget.
“I can assure you you’re going to be the first EPA administrator that’s come before this committee in eight years and actually gets more money than they asked for,” Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said at the hearing. “And that doesn’t mean you’ll get as much as you’ve had, but you’ll do better than you’ve asked for.”
Pruitt dismissed media reports that the agency is considering closing some of its regional offices.
“That’s pure legend as far as the discussion about moving or — there’s no consideration presently with respect to any regional offices about moving them, one location or another,” Pruitt said. “I’m not sure where that came from.”
House Appropriations Committee Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) noted that the administration’s budget calls for a $330 million (30 percent) cut to the EPA’s Superfund program for cleaning up contaminated sites. He recommended Pruitt exercise “caution before you take too many dramatic steps.”
Rep. Derek Kilmer (D-Wash.) pressed Pruitt on the budget’s proposal to eliminate funding for Puget Sound recovery efforts, which were appropriated almost $28 million for fiscal year 2017, which ends on Sept. 30. Kilmer said after the hearing that he was not satisfied with Pruitt’s response. Pruitt said he is “very sympathetic and sensitive” to an application for a no-discharge zone in Puget Sound to limit pollution there — but he did not directly address Kilmer’s complaint that all federal funds for the sound would be eliminated.
Kilmer said in a brief interview that if the federal government doesn’t maintain its role in protecting Puget Sound, it may violate treaty obligations to 19 tribes in the area.
“If in the end, Congress doesn’t provide funding for a recovery of Puget Sound, they sure as hell had better set aside money to deal with litigation,” Kilmer said. “Because whether it comes to endangered species, or whether it comes to treaty rights, the government is going to get sued if it doesn’t maintain those obligations.”
Two Ohio lawmakers whose districts border Lake Erie expressed concern for water projects in their area. Rep. Dave Joyce (R) criticized the budget’s proposal to cut programs in the Great Lakes Region, including the $300 million Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. Pruitt accepted an invitation from Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D) to join a bipartisan group of lawmakers to see the environmental challenges facing Lake Erie.
When Kaptur asked if the EPA had initially recommended eliminating funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative to the Office of Management and Budget, Pruitt said it had “been a little while,” but that he “talked about the importance” of the initiative.
Rep. Nita Lowey of New York, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, criticized the proposed cut to the EPA’s program on endocrine disruptors — chemicals that can interfere with hormones — which was appropriated $7.5 million for the current fiscal year. Pruitt said he understands the importance of the issue and hopes the same functions can be absorbed into the agency’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, rather than operating as a standalone program.
Pruitt also followed up on previous promises to work on the EPA’s backlog of chemicals awaiting approval under the Toxic Substances Control Act, saying the agency will “have the backlog of chemicals entirely addressed by the end of July.”
https://morningconsult.com/2017/06/15/pruitt-faces-bipartisan-pushback-proposed-epa-budget-cuts/
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Commits to Weighing New Glyphosate Data
Jun 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA will consider Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) data showing that exposure to glyphosate does not cause cancer as part of its ongoing registration review of the world's most commonly-used herbicide, data that news reports say European risk assessors did not consider before deeming the substance probably carcinogenic.
During June 15 testimony before the House Appropriations Committee, Administrator Scott Pruitt said EPA would consider HHS' Agricultural Health Study (AHS) as part of the agency's ongoing Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) registration review of glyphosate, and report back to Congress on its analysis.
Pruitt's assurance responded to Rep. Tom Cole's (R-OK) request that EPA consider the AHS, which Reuters, in a June 14 report, said the World Health Organization (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) did not consider before issuing its 2015 finding that glyphosate probably causes cancer, a conclusion that conflicted with other risk findings, even from within the WHO.
Pruitt also committed to working with HHS and the U.S. Department of Agriculture as it continues its FIFRA-mandated reviews supporting the potential re-registration of glyphosate. “[I]t is important that we collaborate and work together around these issues, and we will do that and report back,” he testified.
Long-standing disagreement over glyphosate's potential cancer risk has been a driving concern in EPA's ongoing review of the herbicide. While the 2015 IARC monograph concluded that glyphosate probably causes cancer, EPA in a September paper concluded that the substance is not likely to cause cancer.
And in March, an agency advisory panel split on whether to back EPA's conclusion.
More recently, documents released in litigation over the potential risks of products containing glyphosate has prompted questions over how the studies that have yielded competing risk findings were conducted. Last month, EPA's Office of Inspector General announced it is investigating whether a former EPA official colluded with pesticide producer Monsanto to downplay glyphosate's potential risks or promised to deter a HHS review.
This week, Reuters reported that the chairman of the IARC review knew that data in the AHS showed no link between glyphosate and cancer but did not share that information with the rest of the committee. The news report says that IARC only considers published data, and that the information from the AHS study was unpublished.
In response to the report, American Chemistry Council President and CEO Cal Dooley has called for an investigation of IARC's glyphosate review and reform of how IARC conducts its chemical assessments.
“These allegations suggest that an IARC Monograph has become nothing more than a rubber stamp for predetermined outcomes,” Dooley said in a June 14 statement. “Today’s revelations lend even greater urgency to the need for fundamental reform of IARC’s Monographs program, and because IARC’s glyphosate monograph is fatally flawed and no longer credible, it should be immediately withdrawn."
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-commits-weighing-new-glyphosate-data
-
(ACC Mentioned) Monsanto: Hidden Cancer Study is ‘Scientific Vandalism’
Jun 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
Disputes over the impartiality of an international cancer research agency are flaring again, as documents suggest that a major study's preliminary data was hidden by a U.S. scientist when reviewing the cancer-causing potential of Monsanto Co.'s Roundup.
News reports June 14 said that Aaron Blair, a retired epidemiologist at the National Institutes of Health's National Cancer Institute (NCI), told Monsanto attorneys in a high-profile lawsuit that he did not disclose findings of a long-term study of farmers and cancer that could have influenced a 2015 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) finding. IARC found that Roundup is a “probable carcinogen.”
The revelations in Blair's deposition—first reported by Reuters—are ammunition in the battle the chemical industry is waging to discredit IARC's cancer evaluations for chemicals. They have also raised questions on the role unpublished information should play in weighing evidence on carcinogenicity.
The dismissal of the Agricultural Health Study's (AHS) preliminary findings is “tantamount to scientific vandalism,” Scott Partridge, vice president of strategy for Monsanto, told Bloomberg BNA. But another scientist involved in the review disagreed with Monsanto's assertions and said the unpublished human data may not have swayed IARC's call.
Lack of Space?
Since 1993, the AHS has tracked incidences of cancer in more than 57,000 farmers and family members in Iowa and North Carolina.
Although the study has produced several peer-reviewed papers on other pesticides and cancer, AHS data on glyphosate—a widely-used herbicide whose safety record is being tried in court—has not been re-evaluated in the scientific literature since 2005. Glyphosate is the main ingredient in Roundup.Unpublished data from 2013 in the AHS study showed no association with cancer, but Blair did not alert members of the IARC working group about it, he said in a March 20 deposition conducted by Monsanto lawyer Eric Lasker of Hollingsworth LLP in Washington, D.C. Nearly 200 people afflicted with non-Hodgkin's lymphona allege in a federal lawsuit that Roundup caused their cancer.
NCI spokeswoman Shannon Hatch told Bloomberg BNA that Blair was unable to discuss glyphosate in a larger study on pesticides due to space constraints in the paper. Hatch said NCI has a draft paper on glyphosate that it plans to submit for peer review and could not comment on an estimated publication date.
Journal peer review practices can take months, and sometimes years, to go from submission to publication. But IARC's requirements to use only publicly available, peer-reviewed data to guide their determinations would have prevented the agency from considering the study, said one of the chairs of the group that evaluated glyphosate.
Would Data Move the Needle?
The additional information from the unpublished studies would not have been usable for IARC's decision, Ivan Rusyn, a member of one of the member groups that evaluated glyphosate at IARC and a professor at Texas A&M University, told Bloomberg BNA.
Rusyn chaired the group evaluating “mechanistic” data—the biochemical cascade of events that would examine how certain substances might cause cancer. He said the overall strength of the epidemiological data for the link between glyphosate and human cancers was considered limited by IARC. The 2005 published AHS data did not show either a positive or negative association between glyphosate and cancer, while several other population studies conducted in different parts of the world were positive.
The possibility that knowledge of the unpublished AHS data could have played a role in the final determination “is a hypothetical argument” at this point, Rusyn said. The IARC decision “is not based solely on human evidence.”
The NCI findings on glyphosate and cancer were last published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. Researchers found no association between glyphosate exposure and cancer incidence overall but found a suggested association with the incidence of multiple myelomas.
IARC should have prodded Blair for information on the AHS study, which is considered one of the most robust population surveys of cancer in agricultural communities, Partridge said.
“They could have encouraged Dr. Blair. They specifically chose not to,” he said.
Call for Investigation
The American Chemistry Council, which is leading the campaign to change IARC's cancer evaluation program by pressuring U.S. lawmakers to stem funding to the institution, called for an investigation.
“Today's revelations lend even greater urgency to the need for fundamental reform of IARC's Monographs program, and because IARC's glyphosate monograph is fatally flawed and no longer credible, it should be immediately withdrawn,” ACC President Cal Dooley said in a statement.
IARC responded to the report June 15.
“The IARC Monographs does not base its evaluations on opinions presented in media reports,” the agency said in a statement. “Instead, the IARC Monographs conducts evaluations of the carcinogenicity based on the systematic assembly and review of all publicly available and pertinent scientific studies, by independent experts, free from vested interests.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=114381296&vname=dennotallissues&fn=114381296&jd=114381296
-
(ACC Mentioned) In California Battles over Product Labels, Industry Usually Wins
Jun 15, 2017 | Daily Democrat
By Laurel Rosenhall
Nail polish and hair dye. Cleaning products. Plants and flowers for the garden.
All of these could get new labels under proposals being considered by California lawmakers, triggering an annual conflict in the state Capitol over how much to tell people about what they buy at the store or use at work.
The bills reflect a recurring tension in the statehouse: Environmentalists and consumer advocates argue that people have a right to know what’s in everyday products, while industry lobbyists say putting too much information on a label could harm sales by creating unfounded fear. In most cases, industry wins.
Already this year, the Democratic-controlled Legislature sidelined a bill to label soda and other sugary drinks with warnings that they contribute to obesity, diabetes and tooth decay – a proposal lawmakers have rejected for the last few years. They also killed a different bill that would have added warning labels to foods containing synthetic dyes. In past years, lawmakers rejected bills to label genetically-engineered foods and require ingredients to be listed on the labels of cleaning products.
“You’re fighting the manufacturers, the retailers, the chemistry industry and a long list of business groups who are probably irrelevant with the general public but are highly relevant within the Capitol,” said Richard Holober, executive director of the Consumer Federation of California, which supports more information on labels. “It’s almost always an uphill battle.”
Business groups that oppose such bills work to influence the process in ways big and small. They donate to political campaigns, hire well-connected lobbyists and provide goodies to lawmakers and their staffs. As Pepsi-Co lobbied against the soda-labeling bill this year, it donated more than $3,800 worth of products to fundraising parties for four lawmakers – including $442 to an event for Sen. Ed Hernandez, chairman of the health committee in which the bill stalled.
The Personal Care Products Council, which opposes legislation to list ingredients on beauty products, hosts an annual reception for lawmakers and their staffs. Thirty of them attended last year’s event at a swanky restaurant near the Capitol, and the group gave gift bags to an additional 145.
The business groups also make persuasive arguments about the downsides of slapping products with new labels: The supply chain becomes complicated if one state requires labels different from others, label requirements create the potential for new lawsuits and consumers could become confused by label information without much context.
“If you say there’s a chemical in something, the connotation is that it’s bad, when in reality chemicals serve a number of valuable purposes,” said Michael Shaw, a lobbyist for the California Manufacturers and Technology Association.
“It creates concerns about the product that aren’t necessarily legitimate concerns.”
The possibility that new labels could change what people buy is exactly why these bills remain a perpetual battleground in Sacramento. Here are a few bills still pending that would require new product labels:
What’s in that window cleaner?
Senate Bill 258, by Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens), would require that cleaning products carry labels listing all ingredients and a pictogram illustrating their potential health effects. Environmentalists, health advocates and a union representing janitors support the bill, arguing that it would allow people to avoid products that may cause them harm.
“I have seen firsthand how chemicals have impacted my coworkers through breathing problems or exposure to the skin,” janitor Marvin Mugallo testified at a hearing in March.
The chemical industry, as well as groups representing manufacturers and retailers, are fighting the bill. They say disclosing ingredients could give away trade secrets and listing potentially hundreds of chemicals on a label is impractical for companies and unhelpful to consumers.
“Just because a product might contain a certain chemical, it would be inappropriate to send a message that that product may somehow be harmful to human health and the environment,” said Tim Shestek, a lobbyist for the American Chemistry Council.
Lawmakers killed a similar proposal last year.
Beauty products sold at the retail level already must list their ingredients. Assembly Bill 1575, by Assemblyman Ash Kalra (D-San Jose), would put a similar requirement on cosmetics used in beauty salons. The bill is supported by many groups that advocate for women’s health; their position is that hair stylists and nail salon workers are exposed to harsh chemicals on the job.
“At work, I often experience headaches and skin rashes that I believe may be related to the products I used. Many of my coworkers experience similar symptoms,” nail salon worker Kathy Pham testified.
The Personal Care Products Council opposes the bill, saying it already lists cosmetic ingredients on information sheets that salons are required to make available to their employees.
“Our companies often provide [this] information in multiple languages – not just English – in recognition of the diversity of the workplace professionals that use our products,” said Thomas Myers, a lawyer for the group.
Advocates who want to stem the ongoing decline in the population of bees have proposed Senate Bill 602, filed by Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), which would add a new label to flowers and plants that have been treated with certain pesticides. Nursery shoppers would see a label that says, “State of California Safety Warning: May harm bees,” on plants and seed packets treated with a class of chemicals known as neonicotinoids.
Those chemicals have been found in tomato plants, salvias and daisies and remain in the plant long after the initial application, said Paul Towers, organizing director of the Pesticide Action Network, which supports the measure. Labels would help consumers, he said, because many “don’t have any knowledge that products they’re purchasing may in fact harm bees or kill them outright.”
Numerous agricultural groups and gardening stores oppose the bill. Their lobbyist,
Louis Brown, Jr., challenged the value of a new label, saying it “informs consumers of very little.”
“In our mind,” he said, “warning without context is nothing but… instigating fear to keep people from buying products.”
CALmatters is a non-profit journalism venture dedicated to exploring state policies and politics.
http://www.dailydemocrat.com/general-news/20170615/in-california-battles-over-product-labels-industry-usually-wins
-
EU Moves to Limit Chemicals in the Workplace, Electronics
Jun 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
European Union member countries are backing a plan to establish bloc-wide workplace exposure limits on five cancer-causing substances that would protect more than 4 million workers at industrial sites producing chemicals, lubricants, plastics and pharmaceuticals.
Ministers from the EU's 28 nations June 15 approved the amending directive, which would write the exposure limits into Annex III of a 2004 law (Directive 2004/37/EC), requiring employers to reduce worker exposure to carcinogens and mutagens. The law also obliges employers to provide workers and authorities with information about the risks of carcinogenic substances in the workplace.
The five substances covered by the amending directive are 4,4’-methylenedianiline, epichlorohydrine, ethylene dibromide, ethylene dichloride and trichloroethylene. An impact assessment on the proposed exposure limits, published in January by the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, found that epichlorohydrine and trichloroethylene are estimated to cause a combined 95 cancer deaths of workers in the EU each year. The likely number of deaths caused by the other three substances is unknown.
The exposure limits are “not controversial” and should be straightforward to agree between the council and parliament, Evi Liaskou, a spokeswoman for the Council of the EU, the EU institution that represents the governments of member countries, told Bloomberg BNA June 15.
In addition to setting exposure limits, the amending directive introduces “skin notations” for the substances, meaning employers should monitor and take steps to prevent skin absorption. The amending directive would also add skin notations for used engine oils and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.The ministers’ approval must be confirmed by the European Parliament, which has not yet voted on the amending directive. The council and parliament must also finalize a separate but similar amending directive that would set or tighten workplace exposure limits for 13 carcinogenic substances. The European Parliament's employment committee approved that amending directive in February.
Substances In Electronics
Council and parliament representatives are now set to meet June 21 seeking an agreement on technical amendments that would close loopholes in the EU's Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS Directive, 2011/65/EU). RoHS prohibits cadmium, hexavalent chromium, lead, mercury and some brominated flame retardants from household appliances, consumer electronics and other electrical and electronic products.
The European Commission proposed the RoHS update in January that would aim to correct oversights in the law that could result in certain medical and professional equipment and some spare parts becoming illegal on the EU market in July 2019.
Both the council and the parliament have provisionally approved the RoHS amendments. If the directive containing the amendments is agreed June 21, it would then require formal ratification by the two institutions.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=114381316&vname=dennotallissues&fn=114381316&jd=114381316
-
European Commission Publishes Cosmetics Nano Inventory
Jun 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has today published the first version of an inventory of nanomaterials in cosmetics on the EU market.
The Commission had initially planned to release the inventory almost three and a half years ago. The delay, it says, was due to manufacturers and importers submitting inaccurate and inconsistent data to the cosmetic products notification portal (CPNP) and failing to state whether they contain nanomaterials.
It also took longer to prepare because member states were asked to conduct market surveillance.
The catalogue contains 43 substances used as colourants, preservatives and UV-filters, among others. For each substance, the category of cosmetic product it is used in, as well as its foreseeable exposure conditions, is included.
The Commission says the inventory is for information only and is not a list of authorised nanomaterials.
"The catalogue remains a 'work in progress', subject to modifications, and will be updated regularly," it says, with the assistance of member states.
By the end of 2016, less than 1% of cosmetic products notified in the CPNP were identified as containing nanomaterials, the Commission adds.
‘Learning experience’
Doreen Fedrigo-Fazio, senior policy officer for nanotechnology at the European Environmental Citizens Organisation for Standardisation (Ecos), says she welcomes the inventory, but says the information is "limited".
And the drawn-out process of preparing it serves as evidence of "how weak the EU’s legislative framework is in regulating nanomaterials", Ms Fedrigo-Fazio says.
The data provision exercise, she says, has illustrated how difficult it is to ensure that companies provide the information legally required, "even for a piece of legislation as clearly written as the Cosmetics Regulation".
"The Commission should use this as a learning experience as it continues to work on amendments to REACH to make nano information requirements more specific."
John Chave, director of trade body Cosmetics Europe, says he acknowledges there was a lack of clarity over whether some of the materials originally notified to the CPNP were actually nanomaterials.
And an inaccurate list may cause "unnecessary concern and misunderstanding and may, to an extent, undermine the credibility of our approach to nanomaterials regulation," he says.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56922/european-commission-publishes-cosmetics-nano-inventory
-
(ACC Mentioned) Grants Bolster Region
Jun 16, 2017 | Hazelton Standard-Speaker
By Jim Dino
Two grants are on the way to the area to try to find some rare elements that are present in anthracite coal.
Those elements are called rare earth elements, or REEs — which all come from China now — that are used in the production of various high-tech products, including cellphones and computers, and are instrumental in U.S. defense weapons systems, according to U.S. Rep. Lou Barletta.
Thursday, Barletta, R-11, Hazleton, announced the U.S. Department of Energy has awarded a $1 million grant for a pilot program to extract REEs from soil overburdened by Jeddo Coal Company’s anthracite mining operation in Hazleton.
Meanwhile, Ben Franklin Technology Partners of Northeastern Pennsylvania is providing a $25,000 grant to the Blaschak Coal Corporation, Mahanoy City, to partner with Lehigh University’s Energy Research Center to conduct anthracite coal characterization and REE technology transfer activities at Blaschak.
REEs are a set of 17 metals found in the Earth’s crust. Due to their unique chemical properties, they can be used in a wide range of products, including in optical and magnetic devices, the Ben Franklin group said.
The possibility of future, large-scale REE production from anthracite coal could boost job creation and economic growth in Northeast Pennsylvania and present an opportunity for the U.S. to move away from its reliance on China for these minerals, said Barletta, the first member of Congress to send a letter in support of this pilot program.
“The Department of Energy’s studies have shown that the Appalachian coal fields throughout northeastern Pennsylvania contain some of the highest concentrations of rare earth elements,” Barletta said. “These elements are critical components of everyday electronics and equipment used in the health care, transportation and defense industries. With our abundance of anthracite, we have the potential to create and support good-paying jobs, not just in the coal industry, but in manufacturing and related industries that rely on these elements.”
According to the American Chemistry Council, REEs support more than $329 billion of economic output in North America.
The U.S. gets 100 percent of its REE supply from China, which currently produces more than 85 percent of the world’s REEs, Barletta said. The Ben Franklin group said since China produces nearly all REEs, there is great demand for domestic suppliers.
“It is critical for our national security that we turn to a domestic source of these minerals,” Barletta said. “Our military should not have to rely on China or any other country for the resources necessary to keep us safe, especially when those resources are readily available right here in Pennsylvania.”
DOE awarded the $1 million grant to a consortium comprised of Penn State University, Texas Mineral Resources Corporation, Indenture Renewables and K Technologies through the department’s “Production of Salable Rare Earth Element Materials from Coal and Coal By-Products” funding opportunity announcement.
Ben Franklin’s $25,000 investment is part of $320,530 in support of regional economic development.
http://standardspeaker.com/news/grants-bolster-region-1.2206956
-
Trump Admin Defends Decision to Delay Obama Methane Rules
Jun 16, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
U.S. EPA's decision to delay Obama-era methane standards for the oil and gas industry was lawful, the Trump administration today told a federal court.
The Justice Department urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reject an emergency motion by green groups to restore the standards, which affect new oil and gas operations.
"There is no emergency and petitioners have failed to demonstrate the requirements necessary for a stay," DOJ said in a court brief on behalf of EPA.
Oil and gas industry groups also urged the court to leave EPA's stay of the rule in place, while a group of states led by West Virginia asked the court to intervene in defense of the rule delay.
The Obama administration issued the standards at issue in 2016 to halt leaks of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from new oil and gas operations.
Earlier this month, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt granted a 90-day delay in the rule's fugitive emissions, pneumatic pumps and professional engineer certification provisions. Pruitt has since announced EPA would further delay those provisions by two years (Energywire, June 14).
Green groups — 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 over the first delay earlier this month, along with the emergency motion to overturn EPA's decision and put the standards back in place.
They argued that EPA had no authority to pause the requirements and that the decision would cause irreparable harm (Greenwire, June 5).
But the Trump administration today argued that it was only temporarily staying limited portions of the standards.
EPA was taking another look at those aspects in response to administrative petitions for reconsideration, the administration told the court.
"EPA has broad discretion to reconsider its rules," EPA's brief says. The emergency stay motion, the administration added, is a "sideways effort to attack EPA's decision to convene reconsideration proceedings."
In effect, green groups are trying to force operations to comply with "the very provisions of the 2016 rule that may change following reconsideration," the brief says.
The environmental groups, though, have argued that the energy industry's request for EPA to reconsider the rules was invalid because the issues it raised had already been extensively hashed out during the Obama rulemaking process.
DOJ today also argued that the environmental groups had not met their burden to show that staying the compliance deadlines would have "irreparable harm" — a threshold that must be met for the court to grant an emergency stay.
"The methane emission reduction that would result in the absence of the stay is just 0.046 percent of the annual methane emissions from the oil and gas industry," according to EPA's brief.
But according to the environmental groups, EPA's decision to block the methane standards affects more than 18,000 wells and associated equipment in 22 states.
"Every day that the administrative stay is in place irreparably harms petitioners and their members, as well as all Americans similarly situated," the groups said in their emergency stay motion. "Because of the administrative stay, these individuals will now continue to experience high levels of dangerous air pollution due to unmonitored and unfixed leaks."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/06/15/stories/1060056119
-
California Utilities Must Reduce, Fix Pipeline Methane Leaks
Jun 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California adopted new standards requiring natural gas utilities for the first time to reduce methane leaks from pipelines.
Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Southern California Gas Co., and San Diego Gas & Electric Co. must develop plans to demonstrate compliance with the standards designed to ensure leaks in gas transmission and distribution systems are fixed as soon as possible.
Adopted by the California Public Utilities Commission June 15, the Natural Gas Leak Abatement Program augments a California Air Resources Board rule approved in March to cut methane emissions from oil and gas production facilities. Both efforts aim to reduce emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, to 40 percent below 2013 levels by 2030.
California's methane-reduction rules come as federal agencies seek to delay national policies to reduce methane from oil and gas operations.
“These programs are the first of their kind,” Tim O'Connor, director of the Environmental Defense Fund's oil and gas program in California, told Bloomberg BNA June 15. “It's the first fully comprehensive approach to methane for oil and gas operations in the nation.”
In all, the CPUC program includes 26 best practices.
Flexibility of Best Practices
Finding, fixing, and preventing leaks is “an integral part of our business,” SoCalGas spokeswoman Melissa Baily told Bloomberg BNA in an email. The CPUC best practices “provides us with the flexibility to prioritize identifying and repairing leaks on the system to meet these policy goals,” she said.
SoCalGas and San Diego Gas & Electric Co. are subsidiaries of Sempra Energy.
The standards require the utilities to use enhanced mobile leak-detection technologies and stationary detectors at compressor stations, terminals, and gas storage facilities. All leak-related data must be retained and leak information provided to the public with zip code-based maps. Leaks must be repaired as soon as reasonably possible, but no longer than three years. Methane emitted through evacuation of lines must be mitigated. Systemwide leak surveys are required every three years and below-ground surveys annually.
Utility regulators will consider the second phase of the methane program, which involves implementation and cost analysis, later, a CPUC spokesman told Bloomberg BNA.
A CPUC study found that 6.6 billion standard cubic feet of methane leaks from gas transmission and distribution systems a year, O'Connor said. Leaks were only required to be fixed if they posed a safety issue, he said.
Climate legislation enacted in 2014, S.B. 1371, required CARB and the CPUC to develop rules to reduce methane emissions. More recent legislation, S.B. 1383, mandated CARB adopt rules to cut emissions methane and other short-lived climate pollutants to help the state achieve its 2030 goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels.
PG&E didn't immediately return requests for comment on the CPUC standards.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=114381300&vname=dennotallissues&fn=114381300&jd=114381300
-
Lessons of the Energy Export Boom
Jun 16, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Editorial Board
Sometimes politics changes so rapidly that few seem to notice. Remember the “energy independence” preoccupation of not so long ago? The U.S. is now emerging as the world’s energy superpower and U.S. oil and gas exports are rebalancing global markets. More remarkable still, this dominance was achieved by private U.S. investment, innovation and trade—not Washington central planning.
Thanks largely to the domestic hydraulic fracturing revolution, the U.S. has been the world’s top natural gas producer since 2009, passing Russia, and the top producer of oil and petroleum hydrocarbons since 2014, passing Saudi Arabia. By now this is well known.
Less appreciated is the role that energy exports are now playing in sustaining U.S. production despite lower prices. Since Congress lifted the 40-year ban on U.S. crude oil exports in 2015, exports are rising in some weeks to more than one million barrels of oil per day. That’s double the pace of 2016 when government permission was required, according to a recent Journal analysis of U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) data.
The U.S. still imports about 25% of petroleum consumption on net, mostly from Canada and Mexico, but lifting the ban has resulted in a more efficient global supply chain. Most domestic refineries are configured to process heavy crudes, but fracking tends to produce light sweet crudes. Exporting the light and importing cheaper heavy oil results in lower prices for gasoline and other petro-products, and the larger world market has allowed U.S. drillers to revive production after prices fell from close to $90 a barrel in 2014.
Then there is the surge in liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. Since the first LNG shipment from the lower 48 left a Louisiana port in 2016, the EIA expects exports will climb by about 200% over the next five years.
What is responsible for this progress? Well, producers are responding to a modest recovery in commodity prices after the price bust amid rising demand, and break-even costs for production continue to fall as technology and cost-management improve. But better policy decisions have also been crucial.
Under federal law, natural gas exports must be certified by the Department of Energy as “consistent with the public interest,” whether the U.S. has a free-trade agreement with the destination country or not. DOE approval is also necessary to build liquefied natural gas export terminals, and the Obama Administration slow-walked these licences until deep into the second term.
Yet starting in April, Energy Secretary Rick Perry approved a burst of LNG projects and promised to speed review of some two dozen other export terminals. In May the rhetorically trade-averse TrumpCo mmerce Department signed a market-access pact that welcomed China to receive U.S. liquefied natural gas shipments and make long-term LNG contracts with U.S. suppliers.
This wave of American LNG is already moving the global market toward a single price, like oil. As long as pipelines were the only transportation option, outfits like Gazprom were able to force their customers to take gas at inflated prices. Increased competition and energy diversification in Europe, where 14 NATO countries now buy 15% or more of their oil and gas from Russia, will also decrease Russia’s leverage as the region’s dominant producer.
As for the oil-export ban, this policy triumph arrived as part of a compromise between Republican leaders in Congress and the Obama White House in the 2015 budget deal. The GOP had to extend green-energy subsidies for several years as the price of Mr. Obama’s signature, but opposition from the left to any exports was certain to grow. GOP leaders recognized that a policy victory established by statute was worth the trade, and they are being vindicated now as exports grow with dividends for U.S. workers and energy production.
Conservative critics at the time didn’t take the long view, to say the least. The Heritage Action pressure group instructed Congress to vote against the compromise, saying it “fails to achieve significant conservative policy victories.” Steve Bannon and Julia Hahn, now White House aides, wrote a Breitbart.com manifesto “ Paul Ryan Betrays America,” calling the bill “a total and complete sell-out of the American people.” Opposition was concentrated among Republicans: 95 Representatives and 35 GOP Senators voted nay, but Democrats didn’t get the better of the deal.
All of this is a lesson in free-market energy policy but also the occasional wisdom of accepting partial victory. The last two Presidents—including George W. Bush, President Ethanol—had too much confidence in government to drive energy change. President Trump doesn’t appear to be following their example, and Americans are benefiting as a result.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/lessons-of-the-energy-export-boom-1497568180
-
Can Trump Achieve His "American Energy Revolution?"
Jun 16, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
President Donald Trump has promised an "American energy revolution," doing away with what he describes as the "job killing regulations" of the Obama era.
As Trump's administration begins the process of unwinding regulations designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the hope within the White House would be a corresponding uptick in U.S. production of oil, natural gas and coal.
But economists are weary, even at oil companies. Speaking at an event in Washington Thursday, Spencer Dale, chief global economist for BP, expressed doubt that the agenda would have a significant impact on U.S. production.
"The most significant constraint is economic, not regulatory," he said. "Why did gas production fall in the U.S. last year? It was because prices were falling."
The Obama years were not known as being friendly to the oil industry, with new regulations on everything from fracking to methane leaks. But still, between Obama's election in 2008 and his last year in office, U.S. oil production grew more than 75 percent to 3.2 million barrels per day.
Asked what trends he would be watching in the years ahead, Dale said he was focused on the growing demand for renewable energy, the electrification of the developing world and how technology was improving both energy production and efficiency.
"We're going from an era of scarcity to an abundance of energy," he said. "We're not going to run out of these things."
http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Can-Trump-achieve-his-American-energy-11222565.php
-
Groups Sue Over EPA Delay of Chemical Plant Safety Rules
Jun 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
A coalition of environmental and public health organizations is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review EPA's decision to delay new chemical plant security regulations to 2019.
In a petition filed June 15, 13 environment and public interest groups asked the court to review a final rule issued June 14 by Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt (Air Alliance Houston v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, D.C. Cir., No. 17-01155, 6/15/17).
“Our clients and community groups around the country are really, really concerned that this delay is going to put their health and their lives at risk,” Gordon Sommers, an associate attorney for Earthjustice and a petitioner on the case, told Bloomberg BNA June 15.
The rule grants a petition by industry organizations to delay the effective date of updates to EPA's risk management plan program for high-risk chemical facilities to Feb. 19, 2019. If implemented, the changes would require chemical facilities to more closely coordinate with first responders, share information with local communities, plan for emergencies and in some cases evaluate if they can run their plants using safer chemicals or chemical processes, among other provisions.
Groups’ Likely Argument
While the filing does not explain the organizations’ legal objections to EPA's decision, the groups are likely to argue Pruitt provided insufficient justification for the delay, among other flaws.
“We, along with our partners, really believe that the delay is unlawful,” Yogin Kothari, a Washington representative at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told Bloomberg BNA June 15. “We wanted to get out in front and file this case in the D.C. Circuit to argue in court that the delay is not appropriate.”
Joining UCS on the petition are California Communities Against Toxics, Clean Air Council, Coalition for a Safe Environment, Environmental Integrity Project, Louisiana Bucket Brigade, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, the Sierra Club, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment and others.
In granting the industry petition, EPA cited objections by trade organizations. They were concerned that they did not have enough time to comment on findings by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives last year that a fertilizer plant explosion that killed 15 people and formed the basis for subsequent EPA rulemaking was the result of arson.
At the same time, ATF has not released its evidence for the claim, which the agency largely explained was the product of its failure to find alternative explanations.
The rule delaying the risk-management regulation added that staff also needed to “consider other issues that may benefit from additional public input.”
EPA did not respond to requests for comment June 15.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=114381304&vname=dennotallissues&fn=114381304&jd=114381304
-
Malicious Attacks on Electric Grid Facilities Over-Reported
Jun 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Llewellyn Hinkes-Jones
The incidence of sabotage and vandalism to the U.S. electric grid might be less severe than data reported to the federal government suggest, a Bloomberg BNA data analysis shows.
A high-profile attack on the Metcalf substation in San Jose, Calif., during an upswing in reported attacks to the Department of Energy in the last seven years led to new Federal Energy Regulatory Commission security regulations for electric grid facilities as well as various proposals in Congress to prevent future attacks.
But cases of sabotage and vandalism may have been over-reported to the Energy Department because the reporting requirement was unclear. Many of these reports simply involved petty theft, and few led to any loss of power. The potential over-reporting calls into question whether the risk of a physical attack was overestimated as members of President Donald Trump's Cabinet raise alarms about grid reliability.
An April memo from Energy Secretary Rick Perry called for a study of grid reliability related to energy subsidies. And Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt recently warned that the draw-down on coal is making the energy grid more vulnerable to infrastructure attacks in a TV interview June 6. The EPA did not respond to requests to clarify how diminishing fuel diversity might lead to an attack on infrastructure.
Separate data compiled by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) list fewer incidence of malicious acts than cases of overgrown vegetation, and it was ranked the lowest in terms of outage risk.
Flood of Reported Attacks
Bloomberg BNA analyzed data from the Energy Department's OE-417 forms for Electric Disturbance Events, which go back to 2002, as well as numbers on outage causes published in NERC's State of Reliability reports.
According to Energy Department regulations, OE-417 reporting is mandatory for any electrical incident that crosses reporting thresholds. FERC regulations requires reporting of all non-recovery and disturbance control events to NERC.
The Energy Department forms classified as malicious acts as those that contained the words “sabotage” or “vandalism” as their event type. NERC classified malicious acts in a similar manner.
In 2010, the Energy Department changed its reporting requirements for Form OE-417 to add a secondary category for vandalism. The new category included lower-threshold events such as cutting of locks and fences.
As a result of the change, there were 116 incidents listed as a variation of sabotage or vandalism in 2011 alone and between 40 to 90 each year since.
Yet only 20 of those malicious events since 2011 led to any demand loss to customers. Prior to 2011, there were only two incidents in the DOE data in total.
Some of the incidents in the period since 2011 were high-profile. One was a 2013 arson attack on Arkansas electrical facilities. Another involved individuals using high-powered rifles to damage transformers in 2013 at Pacific Gas and Electric Co.'s Metcalf Transmission Substation in near San Jose, which supplies power to Silicon Valley.
The Arkansas attacks were eventually tied to a single individual who was sentenced to 15 years in prison in 2015.
No suspects or motives were ever identified in the Metcalf attack. Power was maintained, but the incident prompted industry critics and lawmakers to call for tougher standards.
FERC and NERC developed new standards in 2014 that would require physical security for critical facilities. Owner-operators within the bulk power system must identify critical facilities that could be at risk, evaluate any potential threats, and implement security plans.
Physical Security vs. Cybersecurity
Gavin Bade, editor at Utility Dive, an electricity sector trade publication, told Bloomberg BNA that “security is already paramount” in the industry, whether or not the incidents are common or not.
“The numbers won't decrease their priorities,” he said by phone.
A 2017 report from Industry Dive, the publisher of Utility Dive, listed security issues as dominating the concerns of utility operators.
Mike Hyland, senior vice president of engineering at the American Public Power Association, told Bloomberg BNA that the industry has moved from a culture of reliability to a culture of safety in the 1960s and ‘70s, to the current focus on security.
Jessica Matlock, director of government and external affairs with the Snohomish County Public Utility District in Washington state, told Bloomberg BNA that they are hardening their security regardless of the underlying motivation.
Bade added that cybersecurity is probably driving the conversation. “It's something that utility operators don't totally understand all of the risks for,” he added.
NERC's State of Reliability report for 2016 lists an increasing number of cybersecurity events, but none that resulted in loss of load.
Energy Department data lists about 20 cybersecurity attacks or events since 2003, but so far there have yet to be any cybersecurity attacks leading to a power outage in the U.S.
In December 2016, malicious software was found on a laptop at a Vermont electric utility. But the risks were downgraded after reports that the laptop was not connected to the power grid at the time. A 2015 cyberattack took down a quarter of Ukraine's electric grid.
Prajit Ghosh, head of power and renewables research for the Americas at the risk analysis firm Wood Mackenzie, told Bloomberg BNA that a smart electric grid—one that is more connected and has more access points for various generation sources and sensors across the whole transmission system—could add reliability and security to the system, but it also complicates the picture.
“More access points opens up the potential for more hacks into the grid at critical points,” he added. “It comes with a lot of baggage.”
Hyland said that electric utilities see the benefits to a digital overlay for control and reporting, but it adds a new threat vector into the mix.
“There needs to be air-gaps in the system to keep supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems separate from email systems and the outside world,” he added.
Difference from NERC Standards
Martin Coyne, a communication director with NERC, told Bloomberg BNA that NERC requirements differ from those of the Energy Department. He declined to comment further.
A Bloomberg BNA analysis of their requirements shows that NERC has no category for lower-level vandalism, and the organization avoids any description of events as “sabotage” since such a determination is difficult to make without the expertise of law enforcement officials.Data from NERC show fewer than 10 malicious incidents of sabotage or vandalism per year since 2009, with vegetation overgrowth being a larger cause of concern. Just one malicious event was recorded in 2015.
Weather-related incidents, particularly lightning, remain the largest cause of major outages, according to both DOE and NERC data sets, with human error, failed equipment, and excess load further behind.A representative for FERC and the FBI declined to comment on the data for this story. A representative from DOE did not respond to a request for comment.
The Metcalf attack and a general heightened focus on grid security prompted the creation of a 2015 Congressional Research Service report on the risks of a coordinated attack on multiple high-voltage transformer units.
According to the report, such an attack could have catastrophic consequences, but has yet to occur. Otherwise, vandals and careless hunters are the most common cause of malicious attacks.
Washington State Copper Thefts
The Energy Department's numbers show that a large portion of physical attacks—deliberate attacks or sabotage that disrupt system operations or had the intent to harm the national security of the United States, according to the DOE—took place in Washington state (15 percent) with many of them occurring at the Commonwealth Edison Collins substation near Tacoma, Wash.
But Detective Ed Troyer with the Pierce County Sheriff's department, whose jurisdiction contains the Collins substation, told Bloomberg BNA that all criminal incidents at the facility were related to copper theft to sell at scrap metal yards, something that was common during the methamphetamine epidemic in the state.
Troyer added that there hasn't been a report at the location since, potentially due to stricter enforcement of scrap metal recycling and the methamphetamine trade plus increased security at the facility.
Christine Gleason, a spokeswoman with Tacoma Power—the utility that oversees the Collins substation—told Bloomberg BNA that they may have been over-reporting because the original Energy Department reporting language was fairly ambiguous.
“We took a very conservative approach and filled out reports for every instance of cut or stolen ground wires,” she said. She added that the utility now is reporting less ever since the language was clarified.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=114381307&vname=dennotallissues&fn=114381307&jd=114381307
-
Trump Chemical Safety Cuts Put Frelinghuysen on the Hot Seat
Jun 16, 2017 | NJ.com
By Star-Ledger Editorial Board
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen votes in line with President Trump's position, 100 percent of the time. You wonder, what it would take for him to listen to his colleagues and constituents instead?
Something truly explosive?
Well, New Jersey congressmen in both parties are opposed to Trump's budget slaying of a federal agency that investigates chemical blasts and recommends vital safeguards. They just sent a letter to Frelinghuysen (R-11th Dist.), asking him to defend the Chemical Safety Board from pending annihilation.Will the chairman of the powerful House Appropriations committee, a past supporter of the board's probes into ghastly New Jersey accidents and catastrophes like Deepwater Horizon, finally rise to the occasion?
After all, this agency was first created because of a deadly blast in New Jersey - one that killed five men, injured 41 others and rained burning debris down on an entire neighborhood in Lodi in 1995, forcing 400 to evacuate.
While federal regulators with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration investigated for violations of existing rules, their report was criticized for not deeply examining how the accident could have been prevented in the first place.
Among the lawmakers demanding more accountability and funding for a new, independent board with a broader mandate was - you guessed it - Frelinghuysen.Now, the Trump administration claims the Chemical Safety Board has "been focused on the need for greater regulation of industry" and its actions "overlap with other agency investigative authorities" and cause "unhelpful friction."
We haven't seen evidence of that. This board has zero power to regulate or levy fines, and there's hardly any overlap with other investigative agencies.
While federal regulators with OSHA and the Environmental Protection Agency also probe chemical accidents, they're out to learn what existing rules were violated, and punish a company. The Chemical Safety Board is looking for causes of the accident outside of existing regulations - such as inadequate training.
Its findings are sometimes used to write new regulations, or adopted voluntarily by industry, but its mandate is entirely different: To take a much more comprehensive look at how to prevent the same thing from happening again.
Consider a 2013 explosion in West Texas that killed 15 people, mostly volunteer firefighters, and injured 260. This board found oversight gaps by the EPA and a state agency had contributed to the accident, and recommended better firefighter training. The EPA is not going to investigate itself for such failures.
After a 2012 fire at the US Ink Plant in East Rutherford burned seven workers, one seriously, the board laid out a series of changes for federal and New Jersey agencies that would reduce the likelihood of similar incidents.Our state has at least 90 facilities handling hazardous chemicals, and the board has done major investigations of chemical fires in Paterson, East Rutherford and Perth Amboy.
It's a bargain, really - a small agency with an $11 million annual budget: less than what Gov. Christie spent on one special election in 2013, to increase his expected margin of victory. Less than what Trump has spent on weekend trips to Mar-a-Lago, in just his first few months in office.
It more than pays for itself in lives saved and billion-dollar disasters averted. And without it, no one else would be doing this kind of work. So will even a Trump-tagalong like Frelinghuysen step up again to support it?http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/06/trump_chemical_safety_cuts_put_frelinghuysen_on_th.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) House Democrats Fail in Bid to Require CASAC Approval for Ozone Delay
Jun 15, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
House Democrats at a June 15 markup failed with a bid to attach an amendment to a bill overhauling EPA's national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) program to require the agency's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) to affirm any ozone NAAQS delay would not harm public health before it could proceed.
At the House Energy & Commerce Committee's markup of the bill, H.R. 806, Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-CA) pronounced himself “extremely concerned” with the bill's potential health impacts. The bill would delay from October this year until 2025 the deadline for EPA to designate areas in attainment or nonattainment with the Obama EPA's 2015 ozone standard of 70 parts per billion (ppb) and make a host of changes to the NAAQS program, including delaying the NAAQS review cycle.
Ruiz offered an amendment to require that EPA not proceed with the bill's ozone NAAQS implementation delay unless CASAC decides it does not worsen public health. The agency recently announced a one-year delay in issuing initial designations for whether areas are attaining or in nonattainment with the 2015 standard, and is also reconsidering the decision to tighten the limit from the 2008 NAAQS of 75 ppb.
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), ranking member of the full Energy & Commerce Committee, speaking in favor of the amendment to require CASAC's input, said, “You can't deny the science, and the science is clear” that the 70 ppb NAAQS is justified and should be implemented.
Bill sponsor Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX) countered that he believes CASAC in reviewing the 2015 decision and endorsing a stricter limit than 75 ppb ignored its statutory duty to assess non-health effects of tightening the limit. GOP lawmakers say CASAC should weigh costs and other factors as well. Olson urged against the amendment, arguing that “CASAC is the last agency we want to empower,” and the amendment was rejected on party lines.
Democratic Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-CA) also offered an amendment to eliminate a bar on any additional funding for EPA to perform tasks the bill requires such as studying impact of foreign pollution.
During debate on the measure, Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) said, “we cannot continue to ask EPA to do more with less,” while Pallone added that “I believe their real goal is just to have EPA do less.” McNerney's amendment would have stripped the additional funding prohibition, but also failed on party lines.
Therefore the legislation cleared through the subcommittee without amendments on a party-line vote of 12-08. Should H.R. 806 make it though the House, it faces a possible Democratic filibuster in the Senate, sources have said, given Democratic opposition to the measure and GOP air policies.
One Democrat on the House panel, Rep. Gene Green (TX) did, however, praise EPA's one-year designation delay for the ozone NAAQS, calling the issue “extremely complicated.” Green also expressed his support for the 2015 ozone NAAQS and ultimately voted with his fellow Democrats against the bill.
Ozone Legislation
H.R. 806, which has 21 cosponsors including two Democrats, would prohibit any ozone NAAQS review before 2025, and extend the compliance date for states to meet EPA's 2008 and 2016 ozone NAAQS.
States' suggested designations of areas in attainment or nonattainment with the 2015 NAAQS would now be due in 2024, with EPA's final decisions on designations due in 2025, rather than October this year as currently foreseen, and state implementation plans (SIPs), outlining states' plans to attain the NAAQS, not due until 2026.
The bill would further extend the NAAQS review cycle from five years to 10 years for all six NAAQS, including those for ozone, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and lead.
In addition, it would require EPA to issue implementation guidance for how states should craft plans to meet the standards concurrently with new NAAQS, rather than years after issuance of a NAAQS, as has been the pattern in the past. Permit applicants with applications deemed complete at the time a new NAAQS is promulgated would be allowed to comply with permit requirements relating to the NAAQS in effect when they filed their application.
Further, the bill would force EPA to prepare within two years a report on the impact of foreign-sourced air emissions on NAAQS attainment in general, and to report on the effectiveness of states' petitioning EPA under the air law for a regulatory exemption for foreign emissions beyond their control under air law section 179(B).
Although primary, or health-based NAAQS are required to protect public health with an “adequate margin of safety,” the bill would allow the EPA administrator to set the NAAQS using the technological feasibility of attainment as a “secondary consideration.” It also eliminates requirements in areas of the country classified in “extreme” nonttainment to introduce “contingency measures” -- a provision in effect reserved for California -- and makes provision for greater regulatory exemptions based on “exceptional events” such as dust storms or wildfires.
EPA would be required to consult CASAC on “any adverse public health, welfare, social, economic, or energy effects which may result from various strategies for attainment and maintenance of such national ambient air quality standard.” The Clean Air Act already requires CASAC to consider these issues, but the panel has never done so in any of its NAAQS reviews. The Obama EPA took the position that existing air law language does not tie the requirement to any particular NAAQS review, but H.R. 806 would do so explicitly.
House Republicans have praised H.R. 806 as necessary to ease the regulatory burden on states and industry struggling with implementation of the ozone standards.
The bill has a Senate companion, S. 263, sponsored by Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) and 6 co-sponsors including one Democrat, Sen. Joe Manchin (WV).
Markup Debate
Republicans at the markup were harshly critical of EPA's slow issuance of implementation rules for the 2008 NAAQS, which was delayed by protracted litigation over the NAAQS. EPA has yet to finalize its implementation rule, proposed Nov. 17. Olson said the ozone designations delay gives EPA “the time they have proven they need” to implement NAAQS standards, calling the agency's handling of the issue “a mess.”
Olson in his remarks also reiterated his claim that the bill would not weaken any existing standards, and pointed to factors such as foreign pollution that local regulators cannot address. “You can't control what you can't control,” he said. “Nowhere does this bill allow states to increase their emissions.”
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) issued a statement June 15 saying the bill “updates and improves the implementation process for EPA ozone standards” and will help industry win air permits more quickly.
Democrats, however, were unified in their opposition to the bill, pointing to the sweeping changes to the NAAQS program it would introduce that they argue would weaken environmental protections, by undermining the scientific process for setting NAAQS and slowing down both the review and implementation process.
“I opposed this bill in the last Congress and I oppose it now,” said Pallone. Democrats linked the bill with broader policies of President Donald Trump's administration aimed at cutting back EPA regulation, including the administration's proposed 31 percent budget cut for the agency and retreat from measures aimed at curbing greenhouse gases.
Brownfields Legislation
Meanwhile, the House panel in other business approved by voice vote a bipartisan bill reauthorizing EPA's brownfields redevelopment program. Among other provisions, the bill increases the maximum allowed grant for brownfields projects from $200,000 to $500,000. The previous authorization expired in 2006.
Lawmakers praised the program as widely popular with municipal authorities, industry and environmentalists, noting the potential of brownfields cleanups to generate economic value from sites that are otherwise liabilities.
Tonko said the program will turn “liability into an opportunity,” and larger grants will allow remediation of more difficult and complex sites.
The increased grants funding in the bill will also send a strong signal to the Trump administration that Congress wants to fund such work, Tonko said. Several Democrats expressed concerns that states are being asked to do more in environmental regulation, including cleanups, with sharply reduced funds under the president's budget proposal.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/house-democrats-fail-bid-require-casac-approval-ozone-delay
-
Pruitt Fares Better Than Budget in 1st Hearing as Agency Chief
Jun 16, 2017 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, a polarizing figure in energy and environmental circles, emerged yesterday from his first appearance on Capitol Hill largely unscathed. But his hard-cutting budget, aimed at refocusing the agency on its core mission, is likely in tatters.
Pruitt, a former Oklahoma attorney general whom some see as a potential successor to Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) if he retires in 2020, acted every bit a politician as he deftly deflected lawmakers' concerns. Pruitt often left the impression that he was sympathetic to even opposing views. His Southwestern drawl never rose nor did his firm smile break for much of the two-hour hearing, during which he never directly challenged a lawmaker.
Concerns over the Paris climate deal were met with promises he was already working with allies on other climate reduction efforts. He rebutted criticism about rolling back the Clean Power Plan by saying little could have been done anyway with it tied up in federal court. And he laughed off talk about plans to close regional EPA offices as "pure legend."
"Well, he's an accomplished attorney," senior appropriator Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) said when asked afterward to assess Pruitt's performance before the House Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, which writes EPA's budget.
Kaptur, who bashed plans to zero out funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, sought to bait the EPA chief by inviting him to "travel east of the Mississippi" to see how successful the conservation program has been.
He did not take the bait, saying he'd be "happy" to make the visit.
"We will not serve you Asian carp," Kaptur shot back, drawing laughs from Pruitt and lawmakers of both parties for her reference to the Great Lakes' well-known invasive species.
While appropriators may not have had much success in tarnishing Pruitt, they made clear they would reject the administration's fiscal 2018 budget request to slash spending at EPA by a third and eliminate thousands of agency workers.
"I am here to remind everyone that the power of the purse lies here on Capitol Hill," said Appropriations Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.), who said he was most alarmed about Superfund cuts as his state leads the nation with toxic waste cleanup sites.
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), the chairman of the subcommittee, did not cite any specific budget cuts he favored, suggesting a major rewrite is coming when his panel marks up the EPA spending bill in July. Calvert used his opening statement to say many cuts would be "nontenable," including those to the Superfund and a diesel emissions grant program.
Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a senior appropriator who said he'd known Pruitt for more than 20 years and encouraged him to run for attorney general, reminded him the "final decisions rest here" on the EPA funding.
"I can assure you that you will be the first EPA administrator to come before this committee in eight years that will get more money than they asked for," Cole added.
Several Democratic lawmakers were especially concerned with cuts to EPA research programs.
Minnesota Rep. Betty McCollum, the subcommittee's ranking Democrat, said she was "baffled" that efforts on radon were cut, while Rep. Nita Lowey of New York, the top Democrat appropriator in the House, asked Pruitt if he knew about the endocrine disruption research program on the chopping block.
Pruitt said he knew the program and suggested research into the chemicals that can dispute hormones would be absorbed by another part of the agency.
"That's great," said Lowey, who only minutes earlier had called the budget a "disaster" and questioned Pruitt's ties to the oil and gas industry.
Rep. Derek Kilmer (D-Wash.) noted several women from Moms Clean Air Force were at the hearing with their toddlers, who would suffer in the future if the budget eliminated voluntary emissions reduction programs.
"I will work with you," replied Pruitt, nodding along with Kilmer's concern.
The EPA chief seemed to have little interest in defending a budget that he said Congress will rewrite, but he often made vague commitments to how he would change it.
Asked about reports he had complained about some of the reductions to the White House, Pruitt said he did not recall the specific conversation but said he had talked to the Office of Management and Budget about EPA's importance.
Kaptur, who asked the question, replied to Pruitt's spin, "I had a hunch."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/06/16/stories/1060056145
-
GOP Tells Pruitt He Will Get Bigger Budget Than Requested
Jun 16, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
Republican lawmakers made it clear today that EPA is not going to get the budget it asked for — it’s going to get a whole lot more.
Multiple GOP members of the Appropriations committee overseeing EPA said they will not come close to enacting the administration's proposed 31 percent cut.
“I can assure you you’re going to be the first EPA administrator that’s come before this committee in eight years that actually gets more money than they asked for,” Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) told EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. “That doesn’t mean you’ll get as much as you’ve had, but you’ll do better than you asked for.”
Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.) noted that Congress has already cut EPA’s budget by more than $2 billion since 2010. “No one’s standing on the rooftops begging for dirty air and dirty water,” he said in calling for no more than moderate spending reductions.
Other Republicans on the panel made sure to defend specific programs they favor.
House Appropriations Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J) told Pruitt that his state is home to more than 100 of the nation’s 1,300 Superfund sites. “I think it’s good to move with precaution before you take too many dramatic steps,” he warned about EPA’s 31 percent cut to that program.
Subcommittee chairman Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) criticized steep cuts to a popular diesel engine refit program and lamented the complete deletion of targeted air shed grants.
And Rep. Dave Joyce (R-Ohio) criticized the budget for killing the $300 million Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.
WHAT'S NEXT: Appropriators will write EPA's spending bill for next year, expected to be released later this summer.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard/2017/06/gop-tells-pruitt-he-will-get-bigger-budget-than-requested-089181
-
Despite Trump Bar, OMB Mulls 'Rigorous' Method to Estimate GHG Damages
Jun 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
Despite President Donald Trump's bar on the use of the Obama-era social cost of carbon (SCC) metric to estimate climate damages, the administration is “trying to figure out a good, rigorous technical way” of calculating carbon dioxide damages in rules' cost-benefit analysis, a top regulatory review official says.
Jim Laity, chief of the natural resources branch of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), told a June 14 meeting on future updates to the SCC hosted by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that agencies will ultimately use some non-zero figure to assess the issue even though they will not use the SCC metric.
But he signaled that the values would not be as large as what the Obama administration adopted, citing Trump administration policy that requires officials follow Bush-era cost-benefit guidance that uses higher discount rates and focuses primarily on domestic, rather than global, damages when calculating the values.
Trump's March energy executive order formally disbanded an interagency working group (IWG) created by the Obama administration to develop the SCC and withdrew a series of technical reports on the SCC, saying they did not represent official government policy.
But Laity, a career official, says that Trump's order “did not forbid us to work on this or tell us not to think about this.” And he added that Trump's order also recognizes that agencies “would need to continue monetizing [greenhouse gas] damages.”
The Obama administration's SCC created a series of default values for the damages caused by an incremental ton of CO2, which could then be counted as benefits in EPA and other agency measures that reduce GHGs.
Citing industry and Republican criticisms of the SCC tool, Laity said the administration “decided that we needed to have a pause to kind of re-think what we were doing in this area. . . . There was a feeling that these [estimates] should be re-examined in terms of their potential impacts on domestic energy use.”
As an “interim measure,” Laity said, agencies were directed to use values that are consistent with Bush-era guidance, known as Circular A-4, that outlines basic procedures for cost-benefit reviews.
He noted that agencies under the Trump administration have not yet “issued any rules that require valuation of carbon emissions,” though some “may be coming in the not too distant future.”
That likely alludes to a proposed EPA rule, currently undergoing OIRA review, that would rescind the Clean Power Plan GHG standards for existing power plants.
Sources say that rule includes a revised economic analysis that reduces what the Obama EPA had calculated as significant net benefits of the rule. In addition, an administration source told E&E News the proposal would come with a regulatory impact analysis that considers societal benefits of reducing GHGs in the United States but not globally.
Circular A-4
Laity highlighted two key issues that SCC critics have raised, agreeing with their assessment that on those issues, the Obama SCC was inconsistent with the A-4 guide.
For instance, A-4 requires agencies to use both 3 and 7 percent discount rates to estimate future benefits into present day values in cost-benefit reviews, while the SCC used 2.5, 3 and 5 percent rates.
The guide does allow for consideration of lower rates when assessing very long-term damages -- as is the case with climate change -- but Laity notes that it specifically requires use of both 3 and 7 percent rates.
Additionally, the guide says that an assessment should focus on domestic costs and benefits. The SCC, however, uses global benefits -- because the climate models used to craft it are based on global damages, and because climate change is an inherently global problem.
Laity said the A-4 guide only allows use of global damages or benefits in a “sensitivity” scenario.
On both of those issues, he said, the SCC “was not consistent” with the Bush-era guidance.
Environmentalists and other SCC backers have noted prior court precedent that says agencies are required to calculate the cost of avoided GHG damages in rules, and that the figure cannot be zero. A separate appellate court ruling has also upheld the use of the Obama SCC as “reasonable” in the development of an Energy Department appliance efficiency standard.
Laity's statements suggest that Trump administration officials appear to acknowledge those court rulings and are trying to fashion a “rigorous” approach that still values avoided GHGs while also addressing prior industry concerns about the Obama-era values.
“We are actively working on thinking about the guidance we have been given in the new executive order, and technically how best to implement that in upcoming agency rulemakings,” he said.
But environmental attorneys have said the administration will likely face legal hurdles, particularly as it seeks to explain to a court why it has reverted to prior policy that in many ways has been “superseded by new scientific and economic knowledge.”
One attorney told Inside EPA that “judicial reaction” to the administration's explanation “will depend in no small part on who is the judge and how much deference they choose to afford” to the agencies.
And it is unclear from Laity's remarks if the White House is seeking to put forth a new, softer metric to value CO2 damages, or whether the administration would simply craft guidance for agencies on how to best follow the A-4 guide when developing rules that affect GHGs.
Outside Researchers
Because Trump has disbanded the IWG, any near-term update will be done by outside researchers.
NAS, for example, hosted the June 14 event to discuss next steps to implement a January report from an NAS panel that offered a suite of recommendations to update the SCC.
And the think tank Resources for the Future (RFF) recently announced a three-year project, which would essentially replace any government-led effort.
The IWG “has, at this point, been disbanded. But the need to update estimates of the social cost of carbon . . . is still necessary,” RFF President Richard Newell, who chaired the NAS panel, said during the event.
Additionally, RFF's Kevin Rennert noted that the SCC is “not going away,” in part because it is starting to be adopted by states, other countries and even some businesses' internal planning decisions. “It really deserves to have the full, most up-to-date science behind it.”
RFF hopes to implement a number of key recommendations in the NAS report, including crafting a new model that creates separate “modules” for four key issues necessary to develop the SCC -- long-term future emissions projections, estimates of how such emissions would affect average global temperature, calculations of a host of damages that would occur from that temperature rise, and how to discount those damages to present-day costs.
The group hopes to offer significant transparency when conducting the work, including opportunities for comment from a wide range of stakeholders. Rennert said RFF likely will publish revised SCC figures when the project is complete. But almost as important, he said, RFF hopes to create a process to continually revise the tool that can eventually be incorporated by the federal government.
Regardless of the long-term future of the SCC, however, other observers have warned that the Trump administration's potential use of weaker GHG damage values would aid its climate regulatory rollbacks, given that lower climate-related benefits would make the calculated net costs of rules higher.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/despite-trump-bar-omb-mulls-rigorous-method-estimate-ghg-damages
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested