ACC AM 6/28/2017

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) Public Affairs Shop Gets A Makeover

   Jun 27, 2017 | E&E News PM

   By Kevin Bogardus
   
   
   U.S. EPA's public affairs office during the Trump administration's early days has already undergone a shake-up.
2. (ACC Mentioned) 7 Of 45 New EPA Top Staff Come From The Coal, Oil, And Chemical Industries

   Jun 27, 2017 | Business Insider

   By Madeleine Sheehan Perkins
   
   
   Business Insider obtained a list of 45 official senior leadership hires for the EPA, and it's filled with people who have coal and oil industry connections. Many new hires worked close with EPA administrator Pruitt or other Oklahoma politicians – not an abnormal pick for someone like Pruitt.
3. (ACC Mentioned) EPA Staffers and Top Democrats Wary of Former Chemical Lobbyist Nancy Beck in Leadership Position

   Jun 28, 2017 | Legal Reader

   By Ryan J. Farrick
   
   
   The Trump administration is purportedly irking senior staffers at the Environmental Protection Agency with its appointment of Nancy Beck, a former industrial lobbyist, to a top position.
4. (ACC Mentioned) How Do We Generate Pull From Consumers Rather Than Depend On Push Through Builders And Contractors?

   Jun 27, 2017 | CompositesWorld

   By Dale Brosius
   
   
   A week before writing this, I went to the hardware store
 to buy a pointed shovel. I had the choice of a shovel with a wooden handle, or one with a composite handle — pultruded fiberglass.
5. (ACC Mentioned) Plastic Bag Wars Are Heating Up In The U.S.

   Jun 28, 2017 | Treehugger

   By Katherine Martinko
   
   
   The plastic bag wars are getting fierce. As people become more aware of the extent to which single-use plastics are polluting the world’s oceans and hurting wildlife, there is increasing pressure on municipal governments either to ban outright or impose a small fee on items such as plastic bags, foam takeout containers, disposable water bottles, and straws.

LCSA News

6. Chemical Makers Can Ask, Pay for Part of EPA Risk Analysis

   Jun 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Pat Rizzuto
   
   
   Chemical manufacturers can request and foot the bill for the EPA to review the risks of some chemical uses without triggering an obligation to cover the cost of a more comprehensive examination, a senior agency official said.

Chemical Management News

7. EU Asks for Input to Reduce Release of Microplastics Into Oceans

   Jun 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Stephen Gardner
   
   
   The European Commission said microplastics, or pieces of plastic less than 5 millimeters in diameter, are accumulating in oceans, where they can cause “disproportionately high” damage because they absorb natural toxins and pile up in the food chain.
8. What’s In Fireworks, And What Produces Those Colorful Explosions?

   Jun 28, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News

   By Elizabeth K. Wilson
   
   
   More than 1,000 years ago, most likely in China, someone made the serendipitous discovery that a mixture of sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate burns with startling speed and flash. The mixture, which eventually came to be known as gunpowder, was a Chinese mainstay for centuries, used in cultural ceremonies to scare off evil spirits and in military rockets to deter mortal enemies.
9. Monsanto's Foes Are Branching Out

   Jun 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Tiffany Stecker
   
   
   A coalition of attorneys, invigorated by their lawsuit representing cancer victims against Monsanto Co., is tackling the world's most popular weedkiller on multiple fronts.

Energy News

10. Perry Seeks Energy Pact with Mexico, Canada as NAFTA Talks Near

    Jun 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Josh Wingrove and Jennifer A. Dlouhy
    
    
    The U.S. has a unique opportunity to develop a “North American energy strategy” with Canada and Mexico, Energy Secretary Rick Perry said, striking a conciliatory tone with the other members of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
11. Interior May Restore Pre-2015 Federal Fracking Regulations

    Jun 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Alan Kovski
    
    
    The Interior Department appears poised to rescind its 2015 rule on hydraulic fracturing outright, after which it may simply revert to the pre-existing status quo on federal regulations for fracking on federal and Indian lands.
12. Natural Gas Exports — Centerpiece Of Trump’s Energy Plan

    Jun 27, 2017 | The Hill

    By Fred H. Hutchison
    
    
    It is entirely fitting that the Trump administration’s current policy focus, “energy week,” is largely centered on American energy exports, particularly liquefied natural gas (LNG). After all, the U.S. LNG story is one of the most significant global energy developments of 2017.

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News

13. E.P.A. Moves to Rescind Contested Water Pollution Regulation

    Jun 28, 2017 | The New York Times

    By Coral Davenport
    
    
    The Trump administration on Tuesday took a major legal step toward repealing a bitterly contested Obama-era regulation designed to limit pollution in about 60 percent of the nation’s bodies of water.
14. Energy Giants May Be Bowing to Investor Sway on Climate Stance

    Jun 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Andrea Vittorio
    
    
    Energy companies may be more willing to give in to investor demand for disclosure on climate change after a record show of support for environmental issues this proxy season.
15. States, Environmentalists Fault EPA Over Secrecy With Ozone 'Task Force'

    Jun 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Stuart Parker
    
    
    Some states and environmentalists are faulting EPA's secrecy over the work of its internal “task force” crafting a report to Congress on how to ease implementation of agency ozone standards, with states saying they are excluded from the effort and environmentalists fearing that the report will lead to weakening of the standards.
16. EPA Sends NO2 NAAQS Proposal For OMB Review

    Jun 28, 2017 | Inside EPA

    EPA has sent for White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) pre-publication review its proposal on whether to revise the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) last updated in 2010, with the agency facing a looming July 14 settlement agreement deadline for publishing the proposed rule.

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) Public Affairs Shop Gets A Makeover

   Jun 27, 2017 | E&E News PM

   By Kevin Bogardus

   U.S. EPA's public affairs office during the Trump administration's early days has already undergone a shake-up.

   Liz Bowman is now the acting associate administrator for public affairs. That is Bowman's title in an internal email sent today by EPA Chief of Staff Ryan Jackson that was obtained by E&E News.

   "I believe it is important to provide you with a listing and the responsibilities of the new team that has joined EPA to fill positions in the Office of the Administrator and program offices," Jackson said in the email, which listed other EPA political appointees (see related story).

   With Bowman's elevation, J.P. Freire, who is not listed in Jackson's email, is no longer EPA's associate administrator for public affairs. Freire, formerly communications director for Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), was reassigned elsewhere in the agency, sources tell E&E News.

   Freire didn't respond to messages asking for comment for this story.

   Like Freire, Bowman joined EPA's public affairs office earlier this year. She came to the agency from the American Chemistry Council, where she was director of issue and advocacy communications (Greenwire, April 14).

   Running EPA's public affairs office is one of the more demanding jobs in the federal government. The agency, whether during a Democratic or a Republican administration, is always under heavy scrutiny from the press as well as Capitol Hill.

   As head of public affairs, Freire was part of EPA's media response for several controversial stories. He answered questions and gave statements on Administrator Scott Pruitt's canceled fundraiser for the Oklahoma Republican Party; EPA not bringing back members of its Board of Scientific Counselors; and the agency scrubbing its climate change webpage.

   There has been some leadership churn at EPA recently. Top political officials left the agency during President Trump's first weeks in office, although they were part of the president's EPA "beachhead" team and came aboard before Pruitt's Senate confirmation in February.

   Don Benton, a senior White House adviser at EPA, reportedly clashed with Pruitt and left the agency in April to lead the Selective Service System, the country's military draft board (Greenwire, April 14).

   David Schnare, another beachhead team member, was expected to stay on at EPA in a senior job but resigned from the agency in March after he made allegations of wrongdoing (Greenwire, March 16).

   https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/stories/1060056672/search?keyword=%22American+Chemistry+Council%22
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

2. (ACC Mentioned) 7 Of 45 New EPA Top Staff Come From The Coal, Oil, And Chemical Industries

   Jun 27, 2017 | Business Insider

   By Madeleine Sheehan Perkins

   Business Insider obtained a list of 45 official senior leadership hires for the EPA, and it's filled with people who have coal and oil industry connections. Many new hires worked close with EPA administrator Pruitt or other Oklahoma politicians – not an abnormal pick for someone like Pruitt.

   A bit more surprising: seven of the hires come from the coal, oil, and chemical industries. 

   Here are some of the most notable hires, obtained from an EPA internal email sent by EPA Chief of Staff Ryan Jackson, welcoming the new staff members: Troy Lyons, Associate Administrator for the Office of Congressional and

   Intergovernmental Relations

   Lyons comes from a role as manager of federal government affairs at Hess Corporation, Greenwire reported. Hess Corp is a petroleum refineries company "engaged in the exploration and production of crude oil and natural gas." Tate Bennett, Deputy Associate Administrator for Intergovernmental Relations

   Bennett was a coal utility lobbyist as recently as this year, according to Inside Climate News. Her role as a coal lobbyist may actually violate Trump's ethics order. According to Inside Climate News, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) sent a letter to Pruitt arguing that "Because of her activities as a registered federal lobbyist she cannot work on legislation, communicate with Congress, or coordinate and monitor regional, state and local responses to a wide-range of major issues faced by EPA." Inside Climate News reported Bennett lobbied for National Rural Electric Cooperative Association — whose members are primarily reliant on coal – for two years.Christian Palich, Deputy

   Associate Administrator for Congressional Relations

   Palich is president of the Ohio Coal Association, which describes itself as "a trade association representing Ohio’s coal industry and committed to advancing the development and utilization of Ohio Coal."Liz Snyder Bowman, Acting Associate Administrator for Public Affairs

   Bowman is the first of a few names on the list to come from the American Chemistry Council, a lobbying group for chemicals and plastics. Bowman was Director of Issue and Advocacy Communications for the firm, according to her LinkedIn profile. The American Chemistry Council members include Dow Chemical Corporation, Monsanto, DuPont, Exxon Mobil Chemical Company and Marathon Petroleum Corporation, among others. Patrick Traylor, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

   Most recently, Traylor worked for Hogan Lovells as an associate attorney and then a partner, according to his LinkedIn. However, before that he worked at the American Chemistry Council as a law clerk.Erik Baptist, Senior Deputy General Counsel

   Baptist was previously senior counsel for the American Petroleum Institute, according to his LinkedIn page. According to the Institute, "API’s mission is to promote safety across the industry globally and to influence public policy in support of a strong, viable U.S. oil and natural gas industry."Dr. Nancy Beck, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Office of

   Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

   At her old position at the American Chemistry Council, Beck attacked the EPA for regulating toxic chemicals such as 1-bromopropane. Now, she'll be in charge of implementing the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which amends the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the country's primary chemicals management law, Bloomberg reported. The law — which received bipartisan support — includes "mandatory requirement for EPA to evaluate existing chemicals with clear and enforceable deadlines, a new risk-based safety standard, and increased public transparency for chemical information," with consistent funding to accomplish it.

   http://www.businessinsider.com/epas-top-staff-filled-with-coal-and-oil-industry-connections-2017-6
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

3. (ACC Mentioned) EPA Staffers and Top Democrats Wary of Former Chemical Lobbyist Nancy Beck in Leadership Position

   Jun 28, 2017 | Legal Reader

   By Ryan J. Farrick

   The Trump administration is purportedly irking senior staffers at the Environmental Protection Agency with its appointment of Nancy Beck, a former industrial lobbyist, to a top position.

   Although the government recently released a list of some of the most important chemical-safety rules in decades, the changes were purportedly made under the supervision of EPA Deputy Assistant Administrator Nancy Beck.

   Beck, writes Politico, was formerly among the top chemical industry lobbyists in the United States. Up until April, she was the ‘senior director of regulatory policy at the American Chemistry Council.’

   The American Chemistry Council is, in spite of a science-friendly-sounding name, among the largest lobbying groups for the chemical industry.

   Under Beck’s direction, the agency will be limited in its ability to review and restrict the use of ‘thousands of potentially hazardous substances.’ Complaints filed by EPA staffers in internal memos were apparently available for review to Politico, which discussed and analyzed some of the gripes emanating from the agency.

   The memo said that the limitations Beck helped guide through could “present an unreasonable risk to health or the environment.”

   The rules, which are a revision of last year’s update of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, have long needed a revamp.

   While the original act was groundbreaking in the amount of bipartisan cooperation necessary for its passage, the bill blocked the EPA from regulating asbestos and other known toxic substances.

   Politico’s reportage recorded Melanie Walsh of the Environmental Working Group as saying that Beck is the “scariest Trump appointee you’ve never heard of.”

   Walsh backed up her allegation by pointing to a 2009 report constructed by congressional Democrats, who accused Beck of ‘working to delay and undermine EPA’s chemical studies during her previous tenure at the OMB.’

   Doubtlessly troubling to proponents of keeping American clean and green, the appointment shouldn’t be particularly surprising – Trump’s nominee and current head of the EPA, Scott Pruitt, had sued the Environmental Protection Agency upwards of a dozen times as Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma.

   In a letter to Pruitt, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), lead Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, argued that Beck’s appointment “has the potential to undermine the scientific integrity of EPA’s TSCA implementation and the consumer confidence we sought to build with a reformed TSCA.”

   Pallone, Politico reports, is currently searching for information about Beck’s involvement with chemical rules and whether she should ethically be allowed to participating in the regulation of an industry she’s spent years championing.

   http://www.legalreader.com/epa-democrats-wary-lobbyist-nancy-beck/
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

4. (ACC Mentioned) How Do We Generate Pull From Consumers Rather Than Depend On Push Through Builders And Contractors?

   Jun 27, 2017 | CompositesWorld

   By Dale Brosius

   A week before writing this, I went to the hardware store
 to buy a pointed shovel. I had the choice of a shovel with a wooden handle, or one with a composite handle — pultruded fiberglass. I elected to buy the higher-priced composite-handled shovel, partly because I’m a composites geek but also because the shovel I was replacing has a composite handle that I broke prying up tree roots. The failure mode was benign in that the resin and fiber delaminated, but did not fully break under the heavy load. I could laminate some glass and resin over the top and it would still maintain some utility for light work. I know from empirical experience that the same force on a wooden handle would have snapped it in half, rendering that shovel completely unusable. That shopping experience led me to take inventory of what other composite products I own — those that can be purchased by anyone. Turns out I own a set of bypass pruners that have fiberglass handles, as well as two tree pruners with lightweight, extendible fiberglass poles, which are also electrically insulative, in case you are trimming branches up around power lines — a positive attribute, for sure!

   Among my other tools, I have a stepladder with pultruded side rails, and several types of hammers with fiberglass handles. These are really great for vibration damping. And my sporting goods collection is replete with composites, including a half-dozen carbon fiber tennis racquets (used frequently), a set 
of golf clubs with carbon fiber shafts (used less than I like), 
a couple of carbon/glass fishing rods (that I haven’t used in years — need to correct that), two pairs of fiberglass downhill skis (used each winter) and a pair of carbon fiber downhill ski poles that have performed flawlessly for almost 15 years. I had
 a prototype pair of carbon fiber ski poles that I managed to break in under a season, prior to these. Considering the shovel and the poles, it sounds like I might have a future career as a product tester.

   Speaking of sporting goods, why do manufacturers still use the term graphite when the product being used is what we insiders call carbon fiber? It’s such an archaic term from the 1980s. The Ford Econoline driveshaft that won the SPE Automotive Division Grand Award in 1984 is listed in the archives as a “vinyl ester/graphite/glass” product when the fiber that was used was a standard-modulus, AS4-type of carbon fiber. Several of my newer Wilson tennis racquets, in fact, have “Braided Graphite + Kevlar” printed on them, when it is obvious that standard-modulus carbon fiber is used. The truth is that the overwhelming majority of carbon fiber is produced with a carbon content of 93-97%.

   To be labeled graphite, the fiber needs to see heat treatment well above 2000°C, and typically has more than 99% carbon assay. When processed at these temperatures, the fibers develop highly oriented graphitic structures and achieve very high modulus, as well as high densities (often above 1.9 g/cm3). Examples include Hexcel’s HM63 and Toray’s M60J in the PAN family, and the high- modulus and high-conductivity grades of pitch-based fibers. 
Very stiff and lightweight fishing rods and some golf shafts really do use high-modulus graphite fibers, often in combination with standard- and intermediate-modulus carbon fibers.

   Although most of us deep in the industry call it carbon fiber, I’ve seen forums on fishing equipment sites where buyers are confused about terminology. In April of this year, I advocated here that we need a public relations effort to create more awareness
 of and provide education about composites among consumers. Perhaps something along the lines of the American Chemistry Council’s “Plastics Make It Possible” campaign would help. Maybe “Composites – Built to Last” or something like that?

   An article in the May issue of CompositesWorld about composite foundation walls for residential housing made me want to go out and build a new house just to take advantage of what these panels offer in durability and energy efficiency — what an exciting development! Like the fiberglass-handled shovel, the cost of composite foundation walls is a bit more, so how do we help the producers of these innovative building solutions reach critical mass and generate pull from consumers, rather than depend
 on push through builders and contractors? This is what a strong public relations campaign could do for our industry.

   And speaking of housing, I’ve come full circle. I’ve got some yard work to do around my current residence. Time to put that new shovel to use.... 

   http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/composite-musings
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

5. (ACC Mentioned) Plastic Bag Wars Are Heating Up In The U.S.

   Jun 28, 2017 | Treehugger

   By Katherine Martinko

   Local governments are being seduced by a petrochemical industry that's more lucrative than ever.

   The plastic bag wars are getting fierce. As people become more aware of the extent to which single-use plastics are polluting the world’s oceans and hurting wildlife, there is increasing pressure on municipal governments either to ban outright or impose a small fee on items such as plastic bags, foam takeout containers, disposable water bottles, and straws.

   These excellent progressive steps have been taken by cities such as San Francisco, New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., as well as the states of California and Hawaii, among others. But there’s a less-impressive flipside to these bans, which are states and cities banning bans on single-use, disposable plastics.

   The plastics industry is not happy about the growing environmental pressure and is pushing to prevent all bans and fees. It happened in Michigan last year, where a bill now “preempts local ordinances regulating the use, disposition, or sale of, prohibiting or restricting, or imposing any fee, charge, or tax on certain containers.” The governor of Minnesota did the same in May, killing a plastic bag ban that passed in Minneapolis the year before. Now, the Wall Street Journal reports, Pennsylvania is facing a similar corporate-backed ban on bans:

   “The Republican-led House and Senate passed a measure with support from Democrats that would prevent bans on plastic bags statewide. Supporters said the bill would preserve 1,500 jobs at 14 facilities in the state that make or recycle plastic bags. While no city in Pennsylvania has enacted a ban on plastic bags, the idea has been proposed in the past by officials in Philadelphia. The bill would pre-empt such laws and make the state more attractive to companies considering relocating there.”

   Much of the intense corporate pressure can be attributed to the fact that the plastics industry is hotter than ever. Dow, Exxon Mobil, and Royal Dutch Shell are racing to build enormous factories, many along the Gulf of Mexico, in which to make plastics from the cheap byproducts of the oil and gas unlocked by shale drilling. There’s big profit to be had, according to another Wall Street Journal article:

   “The scale of the sector’s investment is staggering: $185 billion in new U.S. petrochemical projects are in construction or planning…The new investment will establish the U.S. as a major exporter of plastic and reduce its trade deficit, economists say. The American Chemistry Council predicts it will add $294 billion to U.S. economic output and 462,000 direct and indirect jobs by 2025, though analysts say direct employment at plants will be limited due to automation.”

   No wonder these companies are so desperate to stop environmental measures from gaining traction. They are pouring money into the construction of hugely expensive, brand-new facilities, while expecting to make far more by selling plastics to burgeoning middle class markets in the U.S. and Latin America, specifically Brazil.

   As someone who’s lived in Brazil, it makes me sad to hear this. The pollution problem is already so huge there, especially in the poverty-stricken northeast, and everythingcomes in disposable plastic packaging. Recycling infrastructure consists of human garbage-pickers, or catadores, who sort through the landfill sites for plastics that can be resold.

   We haven’t reached that level of pollution here in North America, so it’s easy to deny the implications of it, or perhaps we just do a better job at hiding it. But the point is that the plastics industry should not even exist on the scale, nor for the purposes of packaging, that it currently does. It’s utterly destructive, from the moment at which shale drilling occurs to the immortal plastic bottle drifting through the seas for centuries. To use plastic for single-use purposes is deeply unethical.

   Corporate-backed legislation may seem like an insurmountable barrier to progress, but, as has always been the case, change can and will occur at a grassroots level. (This is the hopeful conclusion of Naomi Klein’s book, This Changes Everything.) These companies respond to consumer needs and desires, which is why effecting change on a personal level does matter.

   While municipal bag bans, the zero-waste movement, and anti-straw campaigns are miniscule when faced with the construction of multi-billion-dollar petrochemical facilities, remember that these alternative movements are far more noticeable than they were only five years ago – or even a decade ago, when they didn’t exist yet. The anti-plastic movement will grow, slowly but steadily, until these companies cannot help but pay attention.

   https://www.treehugger.com/environmental-policy/plastic-bag-wars-are-heating-us.html
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

6. Chemical Makers Can Ask, Pay for Part of EPA Risk Analysis

   Jun 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Pat Rizzuto

   Chemical manufacturers can request and foot the bill for the EPA to review the risks of some chemical uses without triggering an obligation to cover the cost of a more comprehensive examination, a senior agency official said.
   

   A 2016 update to the nation's primary chemical safety law allows chemical makers to ask the Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate the risks of chemicals they produce—provided the companies pay for the review, which can sometimes cost more than $1 million. Between 25 and 50 percent of the chemical risk evaluations the agency conducts can be carried out at the request of chemical manufacturers who also foot the bill.

   A recently issued regulation allows chemical manufacturers that want the EPA to evaluate specific uses of a chemical to ask the agency to assess only the uses they want, and the companies would pay for the portion of the risk assessment they sought, said Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, acting assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, June 27.

   That is a change from the proposed version of the rule, which would have required the companies to pay the costs of evaluating the risks of all the chemical's uses—even if the company didn't make the chemical for those other applications.

   The EPA's risk evaluation would cover all the uses it deemed appropriate to examine, not just the chemical uses companies asked it to look at, Cleland-Hamnett said at a forum on the revised chemicals law held at the George Washington University School of Public Health in Washington, D.C.

   Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), chief Democratic sponsor of the bipartisan bill that amended the chemicals law, said the EPA's decision “safeguards” industry rather than public health and the environment.

   Jim Jones, who oversaw chemicals and pesticides at EPA under the Obama administration, said the change could siphon EPA's staff time and money away from evaluating chemicals that pose the greatest risk. 

   Weakened Congress’ Mandate?

   For the first time ever, the Toxic Substances Control Act amendments of 2016 required the EPA to evaluate the risks of chemicals in commerce by specific deadlines set out in the amended law. The EPA must evaluate high-priority chemicals it selects along with chemicals manufacturers ask it to review provided they pay the tab for their requested evaluations.

   There are many reasons chemical manufacturers may want the EPA to assess the risks of a chemical they make. For example, one or more manufacturers may think the product they make—or certain uses of it—pose little risk. Having a formal EPA conclusion that agreed a chemical's uses were apparently safe could give them a market boost. Or, different states may have regulated a chemical in different ways, and manufacturers would like EPA to weigh in and possibly preempt those state controls.

   Udall said Congress required the EPA to look at all intended, known, or reasonably foreseen chemical uses during its risk evaluation. The EPA's proposed rules would have done that, he said.

   “I'm disappointed these final rules significantly weaken those proposals,” Udall said. The final rules return analysts to “old ways, piecemeal chemical evaluations” that don't reflect the complex, multiple ways people and the environment are exposed to chemicals, he said regarding several changes the agency made in its final rules.

   The final rules allow EPA to focus chemical risk reviews on a subset of uses rather than, as Congress intended, requiring comprehensive evaluations, Udall said. “Private industry can trump public interest.” 

   Skewing Priorities

   Jones, who is joining the Consumer Specialty Products Association as of July 5, voiced a different concern.

   Philosophically, EPA's approach in its final rules makes sense, Jones said.

   But companies could ask the EPA to examine only two or three of a chemical's 100 uses. The companies then might pay only 2 percent of the risk evaluation's cost, he said.

   The EPA would have to provide staff and money to look at all the other uses, even if the agency didn't think the particular chemical was a top priority to examine, Jones said. The agency's limited resources could be siphoned off its priorities, he said.

   The EPA has yet to propose a fee rule that may address this issue, Jones said. “That's what you want to keep an eye on.”

   http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=115023109&vname=dennotallissues&fn=115023109&jd=115023109

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

7. EU Asks for Input to Reduce Release of Microplastics Into Oceans

   Jun 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Stephen Gardner

   The European Commission said microplastics, or pieces of plastic less than 5 millimeters in diameter, are accumulating in oceans, where they can cause “disproportionately high” damage because they absorb natural toxins and pile up in the food chain.
   

   The commission, the EU's executive arm, is now calling for comments through Oct. 16 on potential measures the European Union could take to reduce the release into the environment of plastic microbeads, synthetic textile fibers, and other microplastics.

   The main sources of microplastics in the environment are particles from worn vehicle tires, microfibers from synthetic textiles, and accidental spills, for example, of raw materials used to make plastic products, according to the commission. Microplastics also are used as exfoliating agents in cosmetics.

   Jeroen Dagevos, head of programs at the Plastic Soup Foundation, which campaigns for plastic-free oceans, told Bloomberg BNA June 27 that microplastics are now found from the “highest mountain tops to the deepest trenches in the ocean; we're just beginning to realize how big it is.”

   Some “quite easy” measures could be taken to limit releases of microplastics, such as banning microbeads from consumer products, Dagevos said.

   Responses to the commission consultation should provide information on sources of microplastics, how their release into the marine environment can be reduced, and whether the intentional adding of plastic microbeads to cosmetics, detergents, and other products should be banned.

   Recommendations for EU measures to tackle the risks of microplastics, including possible legislation, could be included in a commission strategy on the recycling of plastics and the prevention of the leakage of plastic waste into the environment. The commission has said the strategy will be published by the end of the year.

   http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=115023125&vname=dennotallissues&fn=115023125&jd=115023125

   Return to headline | Return to top

8. What’s In Fireworks, And What Produces Those Colorful Explosions?

   Jun 28, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News

   By Elizabeth K. Wilson

   More than 1,000 years ago, most likely in China, someone made the serendipitous discovery that a mixture of sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate burns with startling speed and flash. The mixture, which eventually came to be known as gunpowder, was a Chinese mainstay for centuries, used in cultural ceremonies to scare off evil spirits and in military rockets to deter mortal enemies.

   Gunpowder eventually made its way to Europe during the early 1200s. During the Middle Ages, gunpowder-based creations—the precursor to modern fireworks—were limited to booms and a few sparkles. The orangey hues of these early fireworks were produced largely by the glow of very hot solid particles, a phenomenon known as black- or gray-body radiation. Any minor deviation from the campfire orange color—say, to yellow or white—came courtesy of iron, copper, or zinc filings added to the gunpowder mixture.

   During the 1800s, chemists began to burn recently synthesized compounds to produce red, green, blue, and purple explosions. The new, striking array of colors came from the spectral emissions of excited gas-phase molecules instead of from black-body radiation.

   Many of these quaint color-burning formulas are beloved by old-school pyrotechnicians. But the mixtures of mercurous chloride, arsenic sulfide, copper acetoarsenite, and barium chlorate are unstable, and they are toxic to human health and the environment.

   Artisans’ inventions in the past century have brought about fireworks that are not only more colorful but also safer and less prone to spontaneous explosion. In the past six to seven years, research scientists have also made much progress to devise more environmentally friendly fireworks.

   The colors of most modern fireworks involve a few metal chlorides, which fluoresce strongly in the visible wavelengths: Barium chloride produces green; strontium chloride produces red; and copper chloride produces blue. These compounds by themselves are so hygroscopic (that is, attractive to water) that they render any mixture damp, unburnable, and even unstable. The solution has been to keep the metal and chlorine separated until showtime. These components get married in a vapor during the burning process, where the energy can also excite the molecules’ electrons, producing the colorful emissions.

   A typical firework mixture consists of fuel, an oxidizer to provide the oxygen necessary for burning, and the color-producing metal- and chlorine-donating compounds. The entire mixture is wetted down to bind it together and then cut into flammable chunks known as stars—the colorful dots of light that burst from a firework shell into the sky.

   Old books on pyrotechnics are chock-full of recipes for stars, formulas that enthusiasts have been continually refining. In fact, says John A. Conkling, former technical and executive director of the American Pyrotechnics Association and emeritus chemistry professor at Washington College in Chestertown, Md., most developments in fireworks formulas stemmed from experiments by amateurs.

   People use to make stars with potassium chlorate, KClO3, which serves as both an oxidizer and a chlorine donor. But KClO3’s unfortunate propensity for forming friction-sensitive compounds when it comes in contact with sulfur, metal powders, ammonium salts, or moisture caused more than a few deadly explosions.

   Nowadays, most star formulas use the more stable potassium perchlorate (KClO4). The metal-donating compounds often include barium nitrate, strontium carbonate or nitrate, sodium oxalate, and copper carbonate.

   In the past few decades, colors have also gotten markedly more vivid—almost fluorescent and electric—thanks to the addition of the magnesium-aluminum alloy magnalium. Even blue, the most difficult color to produce, has evolved from an anemic bluish white to an honest-to-goodness azure. “People may think colors look brighter; well, they’re correct,” Conkling says.

   More seriously, lovers of fireworks have also had to grapple with the reality that the detritus, smoke, and chemical vapors that rain down during a fireworks show pollute the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency now regulates perchlorate levels in water and soil. Metals in fireworks such as strontium and barium are toxic to human and animal health, and the burning process produces other harmful species such as polychlorinated hydrocarbons.

   Pyrotechnic scientists have already begun to address some of these issues, says David Chavez, an explosives chemist at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Traditional firework shell casings, which are made out of cardboard, fall back to the ground. New casings, made from polymers such as hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene, burn entirely.

   Scientists are also developing new ways to produce brightly colored but environmentally friendly flames. A group led by Jesse Sabatini, an energetic-materials chemist at the U.S. Army Research Laboratory, has developed a green-burning compound that uses tris(2,2,2-trinitroethyl)borate instead of barium. The color’s spectral purity far surpasses that produced by barium formulas, Sabatini says.

   Over in Germany, a group led by Thomas M. Klapötke at Ludwig Maximilian University Munich enhanced the vividness of blue fireworks while improving their environmental profile. Copper bromide, the researchers discovered, emits a brilliant blue without the use of chlorine compounds. Their flame formula includes copper bromate [Cu(BrO3)2] as an oxidizer and hexamine as a fuel.

   These new color developments may take some time to enter mainstream commercial fireworks displays, but Sabatini says companies anticipating new regulations are cautiously receptive to the idea of using the new formulations, even if they cost more.

   Ironically, red flames, which were once the easiest to produce with toxic strontium compounds, are now the hardest to produce with environmentally friendly components. Scientists have been able to create red formulas without perchlorates, but they haven’t found a good replacement for strontium. Lithium, Sabatini says, is one possibility, but it also burns incandescently, emitting light of all frequencies, which washes out the red. It’s going to take a lot of effort to finally develop a strontium-free red, Sabatini, says. When researchers do, there will certainly be cause for celebration—and perhaps a few crimson-colored fireworks.

   https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i27/s-fireworks-produces-those-colorful.html
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

9. Monsanto's Foes Are Branching Out

   Jun 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Tiffany Stecker

   Call it the anti-Roundup dream team. 
   
   A coalition of attorneys, invigorated by their lawsuit representing cancer victims against Monsanto Co., is tackling the world's most popular weedkiller on multiple fronts. 
   
   They are veteran environmental attorney and political scion Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.; Aimee Wagstaff of Andrus Wagstaff LP in Lakewood, Colo.; Michael Miller of the Miller Firm LLC in Orange, Va.; Michael Baum and Brent Wisner of Baum Hedlund Aristei Goldman PC in Los Angeles; and Robin Greenwald of Weitz & Luxenberg PC in New York. 
   
   Their weapon? A glimpse at decades of Monsanto's internal deliberations on glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup herbicide. The attorneys have spent the last several months poring over hundreds of confidential documents they say show that the company actively worked to downplay the cancer risk for glyphosate. The plaintiffs in the high profile multi-district litigation (MDL), being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, allege that Monsanto's Roundup caused their non-Hodgkins lymphoma, a relatively common cancer of the blood.

   They are now extending to another legal challenge. On June 20, they joined other attorneys in filing a complaint that accuses the company of falsely advertising that glyphosate works by targeting an enzyme that is not found in people or pets. They are teaming up with another law firm that is building a name on suing food companies for making such claims.

   The attorneys have also weighed in on California's decision to list glyphosate as a carcinogen under the state's Proposition 65 law, which goes into effect July 7, and provided information to members of the European Parliament to sway decision-making on the herbicide. 
   
   The zeal with which the firms are taking on Monsanto—fueled, Kennedy said, by the troubling information culled from the documents—is rare in private practice, he told Bloomberg BNA.
   
   “I've never seen private attorneys so energized against a defendant,” Kennedy, whose Hurley, N.Y.-based firm Kennedy & Madonna LLP is working with Baum Hedlund on the litigation, said. “Everybody is cooperating so well, we've created a team.”
   
   Since March, the lawyers have successfully unsealed a trove of emails, letters and studies intended to inject doubt into the process by which Roundup earned its Environmental Protection Agency approval. They suggest that Monsanto's scientists ghost-wrote studies that cleared glyphosate of its cancer-causing potential; that the company tried to enlist EPA staff to shut down an investigation into the herbicide; and that officials hired a scientist in 1985 to persuade EPA regulators to change its decision on its cancer classification for glyphosate.

   Monsanto has denied these allegations, and the judge presiding in the case also has panned the attorneys for trying to unseal documents not directly relevant to the case, calling the move a “PR campaign” at a May 11 hearing. 

   Injury Lawyers as ‘Private AGs’?

   People seeking to sue over Roundup exposure may now be more inclined to approach the firms, Wisner of Baum Hedlund told Bloomberg BNA. 
   
   “We've all had a chance to see what's behind the curtain,” he said. “We bring a lot of institutional knowledge to the litigation.”

   Since its introduction to consumers in 1974, Roundup has helped revolutionize farming practices, allowing growers to control weeds more efficiently and boost agricultural productivity. But concerns over use with genetically-engineered crops, the chemical's presence in foods, and its role in fostering glyphosate-resistant weeds have left environmentalists skeptical.

   Nonprofits have been suing the EPA and other federal agencies for failing to properly regulate glyphosate since the 1990s.

   “The problem is so big, it's creating opportunities left and right,” Adam Keats, a senior attorney with the Center for Food Safety, told Bloomberg BNA.

   Regulatory bodies around the world, including the EPA, have backed findings showing that Roundup has low toxicity. But a contested 2015 finding from the International Agency for Research on Cancer that glyphosate is a “probable” carcinogen created an upwelling of cases from consumer protection and personal injury firms, many of which have been consolidated in the Northern District of California MDL.

   These firms have deeper pockets—and less to lose—than environmental nonprofits fighting an agricultural giant, Keats said.

   “We don't have the same resources that law firms have; therefore, we pick and choose what we challenge,” he said. In seeking to reform the regulatory process, “we're less subject to litigation tactics that would bleed us dry.”

   When government agencies are reluctant to change their practice, consumer protection lawyers serve as vigilantes against weak regulation, Wisner said.

   “I think that these [attorneys for] consumer fraud cases, for better or worse, were effectively becoming private attorney generals,” he said.

   Suit Is Frivolous, Says Monsanto

   The attorneys’ latest complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, pushes back against one of the company's claims.

   Glyphosate kills weeds by inhibiting an enzyme essential for keeping plants alive. The chemical disrupts the pathway that the enzyme, 5- enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate (EPSP), takes to process amino acids, the building blocks of proteins.

   Animals don't process amino acids through the same pathway as plants. But bacteria, including the microbes that populate mammals’ guts, do. Recent research has found that human intestinal flora can affect the immune system, allergies, and even behavior. Therefore, Monsanto cannot declare that “glyphosate targets an enzyme found in plants but not people or pets,” the plaintiffs say.

   SImilar “enzymatic pathway” arguments against Monsanto have failed in the past. Federal courts in New York and California dismissed cases when plaintiffs sought relief in the form of court-ordered label changes. The cases were thrown out because one of the nation's pesticides laws, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, dictates what information makes it on pesticide labels and pre-empts any injunctive relief claims.

   The current action does not seek label changes. Instead, it seeks to compensate consumers who bought Roundup under the representation that the product does not affect human health, Kim Richman, an attorney with the Brooklyn, N.Y.-based Richman Law Group, told Bloomberg BNA.

   The Richman Law Group has sued several food and tobacco companies for making false and deceptive claims on their products. They have gone after General Mills for calling Nature Valley granola bars “natural” despite the presence of glyphosate residues, and RJ Reynolds Co. for implying that their brand of American Spirit cigarettes are healthier and safer than other brands.

   In the Monsanto challenge, Richman said he wants to draw attention to glyphosate's “real and most pervasive effect — weakening the human gut biome.”

   “The public has been misled on this point, and it must be addressed,” he said.

   Monsanto is confident the challenge will go nowhere.

   “These are frivolous lawsuits without any merit. We will defend the Company vigorously, and we are confident we will prevail,” spokesman Sam Murphey said in an emailed statement.

   The match between Richman and the lawyers in the Non-Hodgkins lymphoma MDL is a natural one for the anti-glyphosate crusaders.

   “We're bringing the science, he's bringing his world class knowledge of consumer fraud,” Kennedy said. 

   David v. Goliath

    

   Richman has also sued Monsanto in D.C. District Court, as well as in Illinois federal court, over the company's claims that Roundup doesn't affect humans. In the latest complaint, the attorneys represent plaintiffs from Illinois, New York, Wisconsin, California, New Jersey and Florida, kicking off a nationwide class-action suit to recover monetary damages.

   It's Richman's latest “big tent” approach in bringing together firms and groups taking on glyphosate from different angles: from consumer deception to public health.

   Rather than having competing actions filed in different corners of the U.S., Richman said, his law group is coordinating attorneys across the country and across various practice areas.

   This is “all in an effort to file together against a Goliath and bypass an otherwise complicated MDL process, which can often waste valuable judicial resources and delay available relief,” he said. The group used a similar tactic in lawsuits against Quaker Oats and General Mills.

   The MDL process is triggered by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (JPML), a panel of judges that meet six times a year to consolidate complaints across the country into a single court, allowing the process of collecting evidence to play out in that court before a trial begins in the jurisdiction of origin. The judges centralize these cases to avoid duplication, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and save money.

   But the MDL process can also be complicated, delaying relief and inviting some firms to take advantage of the system in a way that does not serve the lead plaintiffs or classes they seek to represent. The JPML may unwittingly disenfranchise the plaintiffs or classes by centralizing the cases far from their chosen jurisdiction, Richman said.

   Instead of triggering an MDL, he said, the attorneys are able to self-organize and create a “mini” MDL. Avoiding the traditional process, when possible, reflects an emphasis to place plaintiffs and classes “before control and power,” Richman said.

   The choice of the Wisconsin court is a deliberate one. The court has a reputation for quickly moving cases off the docket, Kennedy said.

   Although these mini MDLs generally benefit plaintiffs, they also sidestep the neutral decision-maker in the MDL panel, said Andrew Bradt, an assistant professor at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law who studies the MDL process. Both plaintiffs and defendants like to “shop” for the best court, which can lead to gamesmanship and inefficiency in the legal system.
   
   “This is forum shopping on steroids,” he said.

   http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=115023103&vname=dennotallissues&fn=115023103&jd=115023103

   Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

10. Perry Seeks Energy Pact with Mexico, Canada as NAFTA Talks Near

    Jun 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Josh Wingrove and Jennifer A. Dlouhy

    The U.S. has a unique opportunity to develop a “North American energy strategy” with Canada and Mexico, Energy Secretary Rick Perry said, striking a conciliatory tone with the other members of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
    

    While President Donald Trump has blasted NAFTA and moved to renegotiate it, Perry referred to the upcoming talks as a “massage” of the 1994 NAFTA deal, saying it presents an opportunity to bolster energy ties, not enact new trade barriers.

    “That relationship I don't think has ever been more important than it is today, particularly from an energy perspective,” he told reporters at the White House June 26, while stressing his close ties with his counterparts in Ottawa and Mexico City. “Energy is going to play a very important role.”

    His comments come at the outset of so-called “Energy Week” from the White House, as Trump works to reduce regulations on energy producers and jump-start energy exports. Perry's comments are nonetheless the latest signal Trump's cabinet is warming to trade ties with Canada and Mexico—whether it's lauding NAFTA and its impact on farmers or saying any revisions of the pact will be good for the U.S. neighbors, as well.

    “Energy is an ideal area for the Trump administration to move forward with the relationship,” Duncan Wood, director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Intentional Center for Scholars, said in a telephone interview.

    Trump has long advocated for American energy dominance, Wood said: “But everybody knows that for the United States to do that on its own is a pipe dream in the short term at least—but for North America working together, it becomes feasible.”

    Canada Trade

    Perry likened NAFTA renegotiation to the “need to renegotiate a contract from time to time,” saying the president wants to “massage” and “rework” the deal, with energy playing an important role. When NAFTA was negotiated, the U.S. was reliant on oil imports from Canada and Mexico; it's now both a major exporter and importer of oil and natural gas with both nations.

    “I think we have a unique opportunity in this country to develop a North American energy strategy that will pay great dividends for Canadians, for Mexicans, for Americans, as we go forward,” he said, adding he has good working relationships with Canada Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr and Mexican Energy Secretary Pedro Joaquin Coldwell.

    Carr echoed the comments, saying in a June 26 interview that Perry has championed North American energy cooperation since his first days on the job.

    “We both understand the importance of that integrated market,” Carr said in an interview. “We understand we have to keep goods flowing, that we can establish North America as a world leader in the production of conventional and clean energy.”

    Oil Trade

    Energy is a pillar of North American trade. Imported crude from Canada and Mexico now accounts for a larger percentage of total U.S. imports, growing to 49 percent in 2016, from 34 percent in 2010, according to the American Petroleum Institute.

    North American energy trade acts to balance regional supply and demand needs. In 2016, the U.S. exported 2.1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas by pipeline to Canada and Mexico, while also importing 2.9 trillion cubic feet from the countries, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The U.S. exported 1.6 billion barrels of crude oil and petroleum products to Canada and Mexico that year, while importing 1.4 billion barrels from the two countries, the EIA reported.

    North American energy markets are already highly integrated, at least in oil, gas and petroleum products. Electricity is the outlier; while there are grid connections across the U.S.-Canada border, similar transmission does not occur between the U.S. and Mexico.

    Trade Disputes

    Already, a plurality of shipments of liquefied natural gas—20 percent, Bloomberg data show—from Cheniere Energy Inc.’s Sabine Pass export facility ultimately have been sold to Mexico since that site began shipping LNG in early 2016.

    “If you would have asked me to think about where these volumes would go a year, year and a half ago, I wouldn't have guessed our neighbors to the south of the border would be the single largest market to date,” Cheniere Executive Vice President Anatol Feygin said at an EIA conference in Washington June 26.

    To be sure, the trade disputes between the countries go beyond NAFTA and energy. The U.S. and Mexico hope to sign a final deal on sugar imports this month, settling a long-standing irritant.

    The U.S. imposed a second-round of duties on Canadian softwood lumber on June 26—a move widely expected even before Trump's election. The U.S. is also reviewing steel rules, though Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is confident his country will be spared by any new measures. The U.S. and Canada are also at odds over aerospace.

    Energy, Keystone

    There's more room for the conversation now, too, since the Trump administration authorized construction of TransCanada Corp.’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline to deliver oil sands crude from Alberta across the border, ultimately going to Gulf Coast refineries. For years as the Obama administration skeptically weighed the project and environmentalists battled the pipeline, it overshadowed trilateral talks.

    That's no longer the case.

    “Mexico and the United States could talk about pipelines for natural gas, but ultimately on a trilateral basis, it was all stymied by that issue of Keystone,” Wood said. Without the Keystone decision hanging over discussions, “it liberates the agenda a little more.”

    —With assistance from Jennifer Jacobs and Catherine Traywick.

    http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=115023119&vname=dennotallissues&fn=115023119&jd=115023119

    Return to headline | Return to top

11. Interior May Restore Pre-2015 Federal Fracking Regulations

    Jun 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Alan Kovski

    The Interior Department appears poised to rescind its 2015 rule on hydraulic fracturing outright, after which it may simply revert to the pre-existing status quo on federal regulations for fracking on federal and Indian lands.
    

    But, defenders of the Obama-era rule will have to wait and see exactly what the Trump administration does before they can formulate a legal strategy in response, Earthjustice attorney Michael Freeman told Bloomberg BNA June 26.

    Oil and gas companies, routinely using fracking to enhance the flow of subsurface hydrocarbons, also are waiting, but with more hope for the outcome. Two of their trade groups, the Independent Petroleum Association of America and Western Energy Alliance, joined in litigation against the 2015 rule.

    Interior asked a federal appeals court to hold the litigation in abeyance while the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) works to rescind the rule and considers what to put in its place.

    The most recent federal brief filed at the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Tenth Circuit said BLM anticipates it will repeal the 2015 rule and revert to federal regulations for fracking that have existed for decades (Wyoming v. Zinke, 10th Cir., No. 16-8068, 6/20/17).

    Looking to Pre-2015 Code

    “It certainly looks like they are just going to rescind the rule outright” rather than replace it with a revised rule, Freeman said. But as for a legal challenge, he said, “I think we'll have to see what they say and how they try to do it.”

    The federal brief filed June 20 said, “BLM expects to seek comment on a proposal to rescind the 2015 hydraulic fracturing rule and to restore the affected sections of the Code of Federal Regulations to their pre-2015 language.”

    A BLM notice of proposed rulemaking is under review at the White House Office of Management and Budget, but its contents are not publicly disclosed.

    The agency will provide for a public comment period of 60 days before a final decision, the government told the appeals court.

    Authority to Regulate in Question

    Wyoming, supported by three other states and the Ute Indian tribe, challenged the legal authority of the BLM to regulate fracking and won in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, vacating the 2015 rule. The Obama administration appealed, and the Trump administration has continued the appeal, hoping to defend its authority if not the details in the 2015 rule.

    Environmental groups intervening in the case have asked the appeals court to continue the case, not hold it in abeyance, to rule on federal authority over fracking. In the June 20 brief, the government said the question of authority need not be decided in the current case.

    “If BLM restores the earlier regulations, as it anticipates, BLM's statutory authority could be decided at that time within the context of a rule that BLM chooses to implement,” Interior said.

    The phrase “as it anticipates” was another indication of where the government was headed.

    Federal Explanation Wanted

    Freeman, whose Earthjustice law firm represents Earthworks, the Wilderness Society and other environmental intervenors in the case, said the federal government has not provided an adequate explanation to the appeals court of the rationale for the government's course of action.

    He described the administration's moves as an “abdication of responsibility” to protect public lands. Like the Obama administration, he said the older federal regulations for fracking were out of date.

    The government has indicated the 2015 regulations impose regulatory burdens that may be unjustified, but it has not spelled out the details. It also has cited President Donald Trump's March 28 executive order directing Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to publish a proposed rule for “suspending, revising, or rescinding” the 2015 rule.

    Oil and gas industry groups have been emphatic about what they see as the unjustified burden of additional reporting and approval requirements imposed by the Obama administration regulations.

    State regulations have been adequate to govern fracking on federal as well as other lands, the industry groups have said. To them, the 2015 fracking rule was a solution in search of a problem.

    http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=115023114&vname=dennotallissues&fn=115023114&jd=115023114

    Return to headline | Return to top

12. Natural Gas Exports — Centerpiece Of Trump’s Energy Plan

    Jun 27, 2017 | The Hill

    By Fred H. Hutchison

    It is entirely fitting that the Trump administration’s current policy focus, “energy week,” is largely centered on American energy exports, particularly liquefied natural gas (LNG). After all, the U.S. LNG story is one of the most significant global energy developments of 2017.

    The United States now has one major operational LNG export terminal, five others under construction and four more that are fully permitted.

    According to a study released Tuesday by the American Petroleum Institute, these first six LNG export terminals will support up to 170,000 (direct, indirect, induced) jobs during construction, about 50,000 jobs on a permanent basis, and up to $20 billion per year (2015 USD) in “value-added” economic activity over the next decade.

     

    But, this is just for the first “wave” of projects. If the second, equal-sized wave (approx. 70 million tons per year of LNG capacity) of projects/expansions comes to fruition — the number of jobs and value-added economic activity could literally double in magnitude.

    And, 12 more major projects — ten in the third wave and two in the fourth wave —are in the regulatory review process, awaiting authorizations from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy.

    There is no doubt that U.S. LNG exports and related upstream production and midstream gas processing and shipping activities can be a “monster tug” that pulls the U.S. economic ship forward in the years ahead. 

    However, the good news doesn’t stop at the U.S. coastline.

    Low-priced U.S. natural gas, spurred by the shale energy revolution, has led to massive domestic fuel-switching and thus big reductions in conventional air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. electric power sector are at their lowest levels since the early 1990s. Through LNG exports, these benefits can accrue to other nations — such as China, India and Korea — all of which now rely heavily on coal for power and industrial uses.

    Moreover, U.S. LNG can help to bring fuel source diversity to nations — such as those in Central and Eastern Europe — that need alternatives to an incumbent, state-controlled supplier that is not afraid to use its monopolistic power for political leverage. 

    There is still some skepticism that nations in that region will ever buy substantial volumes of U.S. LNG. However, that doubt does not extend to Poland — where nearly every leader of the Polish government turned out to meet the first cargo of U.S. LNG to the Świnoujście LNG terminal on June 8. Nor can it be found in the Baltic states where Lithuanian energy minister Žygimantas Vaičiūnas heralded the announcement Monday that U.S. LNG would soon reach his Baltic nation, saying: “I can boldly call this a historic moment. It proves that Lithuania [can] import gas from all over the world and offer a competitive price for it to the entire region. It is also historical that it is the first time when LNG brought through [the Klaipėda terminal will] be stored in Inčukalns natural gas storage facility in Latvia, where the gas market was liberalized just a few months ago.”

    U.S. LNG is already a remarkable success story. LNG cargoes from the first operating export terminal at Sabine Pass have been delivered to some two dozen nations in Asia, Latin America, Europe and the Middle East. And, as a result, U.S. LNG traffic through the Panama Canal has been greater than initially projected.

    But remember: We’re still at the beginning of the beginning.

    As U.S. LNG exports ramp up over the coming decades, the American economy will be stimulated, and economic, environmental and geostrategic benefits will flow to many other nations. And, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, this can all be accomplished without raising domestic gas prices unduly for U.S. residential, industrial, or electric power consumers.

    There is no doubt that the Trump administration is “all in” when it comes to LNG exports. Energy Secretary Rick Perry acted promptly to approve the first two LNG export licenses that appeared on his desk and President Trump raised U.S. LNG in his meeting Monday with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and is expected to do so when he meets Korean President Moon Jae-in on Thursday. Plus, there is the 100-day U.S.-China trade action plan that includes LNG.

    Of course, U.S. LNG exports will only grow as fast as the global demand for gas. Nonetheless, there are many actions that the federal government can take to support this nascent industry — from speeding up the pace of the U.S. regulatory process to providing unconventional financing support for certain LNG contracts and projects. We are optimistic that the Trump administration is headed in the right direction.

    Fred H. Hutchison is Executive Director of LNG Allies and Our Energy Moment, liquefied natural gas advocacy organizations.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/339712-natural-gas-exports-centerpiece-of-trumps-energy-plan
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News

13. E.P.A. Moves to Rescind Contested Water Pollution Regulation

    Jun 28, 2017 | The New York Times

    By Coral Davenport

    The Trump administration on Tuesday took a major legal step toward repealing a bitterly contested Obama-era regulation designed to limit pollution in about 60 percent of the nation’s bodies of water.

    The rule, known as Waters of the United States, or Wotus, had extended existing federal protections of large bodies of water, such as the Chesapeake Bay and Puget Sound, to smaller bodies that flow into them, such as rivers, small waterways and wetlands. Issued under the authority of the 1972 Clean Water Act, the rule has been hailed by environmentalists. But farmers, ranchers and real estate developers oppose it as an infringement on their property rights.

    President Trump signed an executive order in February directing Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to begin the legal process for rolling back the water rule, calling it “one of the worst examples of federal regulation.”

    On Tuesday, Mr. Pruitt released a 42-page proposal to rescind the rule. Publication of the plan is the first step in a lengthy legal process that the Trump administration must undertake to eventually enact a new regulation, one that is expected to have far fewer restrictions and pollution protections. The administration will also have to detail its legal reasoning for scaling back the rule, a case environmental groups are sure to challenge.

    The proposed rollback of the Obama water protection rule will have little immediate practical effect: A federal court had already delayed implementation of the regulation until legal questions are resolved.

    Supporters and opponents of Mr. Trump’s agenda to aggressively roll back federal regulations both saw the move as a significant step toward reversing President Barack Obama’s environmental actions.

    “This proposal strikes directly at public health,” said Rhea Suh, the president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group. “It would strip out needed protections for the streams that feed drinking water sources for one in every three Americans. Clean water is too important for that. We’ll stand up to this reckless attack on our waters and health.

    Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, the Republican chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and an ardent champion of Mr. Trump’s push to unravel environmental regulations, cheered the move. “The Wotus rule would have put backyard ponds, puddles and prairie pot holes under Washington’s control,” he said in a statement. “I applaud the Trump administration for working to remove this indefensible regulation. I will continue to work closely with the administration as it seeks common-sense ways to keep America’s water clean and safe.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/climate/epa-rescind-water-pollution-regulation.html?_r=0
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

14. Energy Giants May Be Bowing to Investor Sway on Climate Stance

    Jun 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Andrea Vittorio

    Energy companies may be more willing to give in to investor demand for disclosure on climate change after a record show of support for environmental issues this proxy season.
    

    Average backing for environment-related proposals from shareholders at Fortune 250 companies rose from 21 percent of voting investors in 2016 to 27 percent so far in 2017, its highest point in 12 years tracked by the Manhattan Institute's Proxy Monitor database.

    Growth in support was driven by unprecedented majority votes for shareholder proposals asking Exxon Mobil Corp., Occidental Petroleum Corp. and electric utility PPL Corp. to report on the long-term business impacts of climate change. This proxy season marked the first time that kind of proposal has passed over board opposition. It also marked the first time BlackRock Inc. and likely more of the companies’ largest shareholders voted in its favor.

    “When a company as prominent as Exxon Mobil loses a vote,” the board or corporate governance team may change its negotiating stance in the future so that it doesn't happen again, James Copland, a senior fellow and director of legal policy at the Manhattan Institute, told Bloomberg BNA.

    Copland said companies could follow Chevron Corp.’s approach to a similar climate proposal, which shareholders withdrew after the oil explorer published a report earlier this year saying its efforts to manage climate risks are “sufficient.” The investors who requested the report, Wespath Investment Management and Hermes EOS, consider it a first step toward a more robust and comprehensive analysis. 

    Demand for Disclosure

    When Exxon Mobil issued a similar report for investors in 2014, it said it was “confident” in the resiliency of its resource portfolio. A company spokesman didn't comment on whether it planned to provide the annual disclosures investors are seeking on how its portfolio fares in a range of climate scenarios, including one consistent with the goal of an international climate accord.

    “We do intend to respond in a meaningful fashion to the feedback we received from shareowners,” PPL spokesman Ryan Hill said. “We haven't determined exactly how that response may be structured at this point. That is something we continue to explore.”

    A spokesman for Occidental didn't return a request for comment on how it planned to respond to its majority vote. A dozen other proposals making the same climate risk report request didn't pass this year, though most did get support of at least 40 percent, according to a tally by the sustainability advocacy group Ceres.

    “The time period between now and the filing deadlines in the fall is going to be a very busy one,” Ceres’ oil and gas program director Andrew Logan told Bloomberg BNA. “I think investors see an opportunity to really push companies forward on disclosure and companies now have even more reason than they usually do to want to keep these things off the ballot.”

    Even though the proposals aren't binding, boards that fail to respond to climate concerns could be held accountable come director election time. That's already happened at Exxon Mobil, where BlackRock voted against the re-election of two directors after repeated requests to meet with the board to better understand its oversight of climate risk and other issues were rebuffed.

    Another expectation for next season: a campaign by investors to push climate proposals that came close to passing. “This is the start of a broader trend,” said Edward Kamonjoh, who leads a group called the 50/50 Climate Project that is working with 50 large pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, and endowments on dialogues at 50 carbon-intensive companies.

    http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=115023106&vname=dennotallissues&fn=115023106&jd=115023106

    Return to headline | Return to top

15. States, Environmentalists Fault EPA Over Secrecy With Ozone 'Task Force'

    Jun 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Stuart Parker

    Some states and environmentalists are faulting EPA's secrecy over the work of its internal “task force” crafting a report to Congress on how to ease implementation of agency ozone standards, with states saying they are excluded from the effort and environmentalists fearing that the report will lead to weakening of the standards.

    “I have heard nothing out of the task force and not even certain who is on it. With 2015 ozone implementation on hold, the Agency may just be buying time” while it decides what to do with the NAAQS itself, one East Coast air regulator says. EPA in the June 28 Federal Register will formally publish a rule delaying implementation of the 2015 ozone standard of 70 parts per billion (ppb) by one year, with the task force report due Aug. 3.

    Language in the fiscal year 2017 funding legislation for EPA requires that the agency report by Aug. 3 to the environment panels of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on how it will ease regulatory burdens on industry, with specific reference to meeting ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). But several sources are concerned that the agency is not sharing any details about what the task force is debating.

    “Not being consulted by the Administration is par for the course and we all know that the task force idea is a joke. Denying health protection to millions of people by not implementing the revised ozone standard is the frustrating part,” says the regulator who supports ozone limits due to East Coast states' historic high ozone levels.

    A source with the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies (AAPCA) -- which represents state air agencies in primarily Midwestern, Southern and Western states -- says that states with a more conservative position on ozone policy are also not being consulted on the task force. Nevertheless, AAPCA would recommend to the task force measures that the Trump EPA would likely support, including greater accounting for naturally-occurring and uncontrollable “background” ozone and overseas transported ozone when EPA sets the overall ozone NAAQS.

    Environmentalists and public health groups are also faulting the lack of information, saying EPA did not bring it up during a recent meeting with them. “I wish that we had been able to raise that in the meeting,” says one source who attended the meeting, saying EPA should allow public comment on the pending report.

    Pruitt in his June 6 announcement delaying implementation of the 2015 ozone NAAQS by one year also said he established the “Ozone Cooperative Compliance Task Force” to “develop additional flexibility for states to comply” with the NAAQS, arguing that costs of compliance with it have “significantly increased."

    An EPA spokeswoman tells Inside EPA that the task force “this is an internal working group of key EPA staff who have relevant expertise that is working to develop the Congressional report and the guidance by which we will address concerns related to ozone” -- but the staff list and agenda for the task force are unknown.

    Task Force

    Among the possible topics that the task force might address is how to account in the NAAQS process for background ozone. Some Western states have said that they have such high levels of this uncontrollable ozone that it would be impossible for them to meet the 2015 NAAQS even with the strictest possible controls on industrial sources of ozone pollution, as they were already struggling to meet the weaker 2008 NAAQS of 75 ppb.

    Similarly, the task force might also discuss how to account for ozone associated with “exceptional events” such as unplanned and uncontrollable wild fires and dust storms when deciding the level of a NAAQS.

    In addition, the role of interstate ozone emissions that drift across states lines and ozone transported to the United States from other countries could also be topics that will be addressed in the task force report.

    In the Register notice announcing the delay of the 2015 NAAQS implementation, EPA says, “It is possible the outcome of that effort could identify flexibilities that could impact the designations process.”

    The agency adds, “In light of the analyses currently underway at the agency, the Administrator has determined he needs additional time to consider completely all designation recommendations provided by state governors . . . including full consideration of exceptional events impacting designations, and determine whether they provide sufficient information to finalize designations.”

    Although EPA has the legal authority to delay NAAQS designation by a year, environmentalist critics say it is unprecedented for the agency to delay all designations, especially without detailed technical justification or public comment. This lack of explanation and consultation means Pruitt's decision is unlawful, critics say. EPA's Registernotice is unlikely to change their view. At five pages in length, it lacks any technical analysis of states' proposed nonattainment designations, and excludes an opportunity for public comment.

    In the notice, the agency then appears to link the implementation delay to the review of the NAAQS itself. EPA successfully asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to indefinitely delay litigation over the 2015 standard while it reconsiders the rulemaking for possible revision or repeal.

    “We also note that new agency officials are currently reviewing the 2015 ozone NAAQS rule. The Administrator has determined that in light of the uncertainty of the outcome of that review, there is insufficient information to promulgate designations by October 1, 2017,” the agency says. 

    https://insideepa.com/daily-news/states-environmentalists-fault-epa-over-secrecy-ozone-task-force
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

16. EPA Sends NO2 NAAQS Proposal For OMB Review

    Jun 28, 2017 | Inside EPA

    EPA has sent for White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) pre-publication review its proposal on whether to revise the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) last updated in 2010, with the agency facing a looming July 14 settlement agreement deadline for publishing the proposed rule.

    OMB received the rule June 26 according to the White House's website, and while interagency review typically takes 90 days it can take less time for some rules -- so the agency could still make the legal deadline. The consent decree, which is the result of deadline litigation filed by environmentalists, sets an April 6 deadline for a final rule.

    The consent decree with environmentalists further sets a deadline of May 25, 2018, for EPA to propose a new sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS rule and requires a final SO2 rule by Jan. 28, 2019.

    The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set such “primary” NAAQS to protect public health “with an adequate margin of safety,” with statutory reviews required every five years. EPA has routinely taken much longer to complete reviews, prompting environmentalists to sue seeking binding legal deadlines for the reviews.

    While it is unclear whether EPA is proposing to revise the NO2 standard or leave it in place, agency staff in a recent policy assessment (PA) suggested leaving the 2010 standard unchanged.

    The Obama EPA most recently tightened the primary NO2 limit in 2010, introducing a 100 parts per billion (ppb) limit measured over a novel one-hour averaging time, compared to the prior 1971 standard of 53 ppb annually.

    Agency staff in the PA said there is too much uncertainty over possible adverse health effects of NO2 at levels below the current limit. EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), which advises the agency on how to set NAAQS, has also endorsed this finding given falling NO2 levels across the country.

    Given the Trump EPA's deregulatory agenda and advice from staff and CASAC, it is therefore extremely unlikely that the agency would opt to strengthen the NO2 standard. It could, however, choose to weaken it, although this would require substantial scientific justification in order to withstand legal scrutiny.

    https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-sends-no2-naaqs-proposal-omb-review
    

    Return to headline | Return to top