Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 7/7/2017
-
US EPA Seeks Nominations for Science Advisory Board
Jul 6, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA is calling for nominations for new members to serve on its Science Advisory Board (SAB). -
EPA Unveils Scoping Analysis for Risk Evaluations Under Amended TSCA, Requests Comments on the First Ten Chemicals
Jul 6, 2017 | National Law Review
By Mark N.Duvall
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued the three framework rules called for by the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to direct future review of chemical risks. -
Groups Threaten Seven Companies with Lawsuit for Alleged Failure to Report Imports of Toxic Solvent
Jul 7, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By CJ Frogozo
Public health advocates began the process to sue seven companies, including a unit of Dow, for their apparent failure to report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) their importation of n-Propyl Bromide... -
Five States Jump In Lawsuit to Oppose Dow Pesticide
Jul 7, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
Five states and the District of Columbia have formally entered a lawsuit to push back against EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's decision to continue most uses of a controversial Dow pesticide after agency staff... -
DuPont’s Newest Toxic Contamination: GenX – America’s Lawyer
Jul 6, 2017 | The Ring of Fire Network
By Mike Papantonio
Via America’s Lawyer: Mike Papantonio discusses Dupont’s chemical called GenX that has been found in the drinking water of North Carolina residents and speaks with attorney, Chris Paulos about the case. -
(ACC Mentioned) Abundant Natural Gas is Giant Step Toward Energy Independence
Jul 7, 2017 | Auburn Reporter
By Don C. Brunell
In the last half century, Americans yearned for energy independence. We were tired of being held captive by foreign governments – some of which continue to be hostile toward the United States and our way of life. -
Trump Sells U.S. Energy, LNG at European Summit
Jul 6, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
President Trump told representatives of 12 European nations gathered for a summit of the Three Seas Initiative that the United States is eager to build strong trade ties and export energy supplies to them... -
Zinke Signs Order to Ensure Quarterly Lease Sales
Jul 7, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Jennifer Yachnin
The Western Energy Alliance acknowledged today it could end its lawsuit against the federal government over canceled or delayed lease sales as Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke signed a new secretarial order... -
Grijalva Wants Zinke to Clarify 'Energy Dominance'
Jul 6, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Kellie Lunney
The top Democrat on the House Natural Resources panel wants Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to explain how the administration plans to balance its "energy dominance" strategy with environmental... -
D.C. Circuit Ruling on Methane Rule Delay Boosts Series of Pending Suits
Jul 6, 2017 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss, Abby Smith , and Dave Reynolds
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruling that struck down EPA's administrative stay of Obama-era methane standards for new oil and gas operations could provide a boost... -
How ‘Energy Week’ Could Learn from State Clean Energy Leaders
Jul 6, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Rory Christian
President Trump’s administration dubbed last week “Energy Week,” including a theme of “energy dominance.” Instead of exploring America’s clean energy potential, we’re waiting for the July release of a report by the U.S. Department... -
Renewables Top Nukes in U.S. Power Mix for First Time Since 1984
Jul 7, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Martin
For the first time in more than 30 years, America's nuclear plants have fallen behind wind farms, solar panels and other renewable energy suppliers as a source of electricity. -
Former OSHA Official's Criticisms May Aid Opposition to EPA's RMP Delay
Jul 6, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
A former Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) official is faulting the Trump EPA's delay of Obama-era revisions to the Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility safety program, saying the agency's justification for the stay is “totally frivolous”... -
States Seek to Intervene in Defense of 2015 Ozone NAAQS
Jul 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
Citing EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's recent criticism of the Obama administration's national air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone, seven Democrat-led states and the District of Columbia are seeking... -
G-20 Seeks to Contain Trump by Avoiding Climate Mention
Jul 7, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Martin and Jessica Shankleman
German Chancellor Angela Merkel is seeking to unite the Group of 20 nations on key environmental goals by steering clear of references to climate change wherever possible, according to a draft... -
Here's How Texas Polluters Escape Penalties
Jul 7, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Mark Collette
From the chemical plants of Houston to the oil and gas wells of West Texas, the state is letting polluters off the hook, foregoing penalties in about 97 percent of incidents, environmental groups reported Friday. -
California Governor Plans to Host 2018 Global Climate Summit
Jul 6, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Kathleen Ronayne
California Gov. Jerry Brown plans to convene a climate conference next year, his latest action to position the state as a leader in battling global warming as the White House recedes.
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
-
US EPA Seeks Nominations for Science Advisory Board
Jul 6, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA is calling for nominations for new members to serve on its Science Advisory Board (SAB).
The SAB is the largest of the agency’s advisory panels, with 47 members. It also has the broadest mandate, to review "the quality and relevance" of scientific information being used as the basis for regulations and the agency's research agenda, as well as advising "on broad scientific matters".
The EPA is also seeking nominations specifically for six SAB subcommittees, including the Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee.
Appointing new members is a process that takes months, and the 27 June Federal Register notice came about two months later in the year than the agency typically acts to fill vacancies.
Board members eligible for a second term have been reappointed in the past. This, however, seems unlikely, given the agency's controversial decision in May to dismiss nine members from another panel, the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), including the chair of its Chemical Safety for Sustainability Subcommittee. NGOs criticised that move as likely to increase industry influence on EPA decisions.
The Federal Register notice began a 30-day period in which the public can nominate potential members. The EPA will then seek public comment on the list of nominees, before the SAB's staff submits its recommendations.
The EPA announced that the BOSC second-term members would not be reappointed at the end of this nomination period.
SAB's charter states that it should have "about 45 members", and the law creating it requires a minimum of nine. The only set criteria for members is that they be "independent experts in the fields of science, engineering, and economics and other social sciences to provide a range of expertise required to assess the scientific and technical aspects of environmental issues."
The bulk of the 47 current members are academics. Three come from industry, three represent NGOs and two are from state regulatory agencies.
The EPA did not respond to a request for information on which members might be departing and how many the agency might replace. But a database of advisory committee members indicates that the terms of 14 of them expire on 30 September.
Most members did not respond to attempts to contact them, and none would comment publicly, but two confirmed they had not been told whether their terms would be renewed.
The SAB charter does not specify term lengths, although members are usually appointed for three years at a time. Of the 14 members whose terms are expiring, 12 were appointed in 2014, according to the General Services Administration, which maintains the member database.Expertise sought
The notice says the EPA is seeking members with expertise that includes:
· analytical chemistry;
· benefit-cost analysis;
· ecological sciences and ecological assessment;
· geochemistry;
· health sciences;
· modelling;
· risk assessment; and
· toxicology.
And the SAB staff is "especially interested" in such scientists who have knowledge of epidemiological risk analyses, chemical safety and green chemistry.
The SAB has a number of projects underway, including peer reviews of draft assessments of multiple chemicals under the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) programme. It has several meetings scheduled in July.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57494/us-epa-seeks-nominations-for-science-advisory-board
-
Jul 6, 2017 | National Law Review
By Mark N.Duvall
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued the three framework rules called for by the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to direct future review of chemical risks. Without waiting for those rules, however, EPA had previously launched risk evaluations for the initial ten chemical substances. On June 22, 2017, EPA posted the scope documents (follow the links under “First ten chemicals for Risk Evaluation”) for those substances. They present a less complete scoping process than what the scope analysis will look like in the future. For each of the ten chemicals, EPA has opened dockets for public comments. The next step for these ten chemical substances is problem formulation .
Background
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (LCSA) revamped TSCA’s section 6 regulatory scheme by requiring a risk evaluation process for high-priority chemicals before any section 6(a) regulation. Three groups of chemical substances will be subject to risk evaluations:
· The initial ten EPA-selected chemicals from the 2014 TSCA Work Plan;
· High-Priority substances designated in the prioritization process; and
· Chemical substances for which EPA has granted requests by manufacturers for risk evaluations.[1]
For each covered chemical, section 6(b)(4)(D) requires EPA to publish the scope of the risk evaluation that identifies the “hazards, exposures, conditions of use, and the potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations [EPA] expects to consider.” Scope documents must be published no later than 6 months after the initiation of the risk evaluation process.
The scope documents published on June 22 are for the ten initial risk evaluation chemicals. Section 6(b)(2)(A) requires that EPA select ten chemicals from the 2014 TSCA Work Plan for the initial risk evaluations; none of the ten chemicals was subject to prioritization. To start the evaluation process, EPA designated the chemicals on December 19, 2016, assigning each chemical its own rulemaking docket.[2] It then held a public meeting and accepted written comments in early 2017 for initial public inputs.[3] The ten selected chemicals are listed below (with links to the EPA webpages with corresponding scope documents and supplemental files):[4]
· Asbestos (CAS No. 1332-21-4)
· 1-Bromopropane (CAS No. 106-94-5)
· 1,4-Dioxane (CAS No. 123-91-1)
· Carbon Tetrachloride (CAS No. 56-23-5)
· Cyclic Aliphatic Bromide Cluster (Hexabromocyclododecane or HBCD) (CAS Nos. 25637-99-4, 3194-55-6, and 3194-57-8)
· Methylene Chloride (CAS No. 75-09-2)
· N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP) (CAS No. 872-50-4)
· Pigment Violet 29 (Anthra[2,1,9-def:6,5,10-d'e'f] diisoquinoline-1,3,8,10(2H,9H)-tetrone) (CAS No. 81-33-4)
· Tetrachloroethylene (also known as perchloroethylene) (CAS No. 127-18-4)
· Trichloroethylene (TCE) (CAS No. 79-01-6)
The publication of the scope documents was the latest step of the risk evaluation process, intended to satisfy the section 6(b)(4)(D) requirements. The scope documents (and the scope publication process) for these ten chemicals will have both similarities and differences in comparison with later scoping work. In announcing the scope documents, EPA explained that it “has aligned these scope documents with the approach set forth in the risk evaluation process.”[5] However, citing the absence of prioritization and the “compressed” timeframe, EPA also recognized that these first scope documents are “not as refined or specific as future scope documents are anticipated to be.” Procedurally, EPA issued no draft scope document for any of these chemicals, which it intends to do in future risk evaluations. The scope documents likely reflect EPA’s general scoping approaches, but EPA’s practices in future scoping work may deviate somehow from its actions here.
General Approach
EPA took a highly uniform approach for the ten scoping documents chemicals. One common core message is that EPA’s scoping analysis focuses on individual “conditions of use,” instead of the chemical substance in its entirety. EPA’s scoping work started with information gathering and integration, which resulted in the scope documents. The scope documents themselves have three primary components: statutorily-required information, conceptual models, and analysis plans.
EPA collected and evaluated data prior to issuing the scope documents. These initial surveys investigated the regulatory and assessment history of the chemicals, as well as the data and information relevant to the specific subjects to be addressed in the scope documents. For the latter, EPA drafted a separate Strategy for Conducting Literature Searches protocol for each chemical. The collected data are categorized into “on-topic” and “off-topic” references, based on their presumed relevance to subsequent risk evaluations. Subcategories are also assigned as part of the screening process. EPA, however, stated that these designations are subject to change.
The scope documents lay out the basic information of the chemical substances, mostly required under section 6(b)(4)(D). Such information covers four subjects: Physical and chemical properties of the substance, conditions of use, exposures, and hazards (effects). Issues relating to potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations, which TSCA directs EPA to consider, are addressed in exposures and hazards sections.
EPA integrated the above data into conceptual models, which “describe the actual or predicted relationships between the chemical substance and receptors.” In all ten scope documents, EPA provided three conceptual models: for industrial and commercial activities and uses, for consumer activities and uses, and for environmental releases and wastes. Finally, EPA developed analysis plans. These plans are EPA’s checklists of key considerations and action items that presumably would be taken in further risk evaluation analysis.
Conditions of Use
In section 2.2 of each scope document, EPA provided detailed characterization of various conditions of use for that chemical, with references to separate “use documents” in the docket. It also provided life-cycle diagrams to provide comprehensive overviews of potential scopes of risk evaluations in terms of likely affected life cycle stages. More detailed information relating to life-cycle analysis is in each scope document’s Appendix B.
Other than asbestos, each chemical will be evaluated for risks at five different life cycle stages: manufacturing, processing, use (industrial, commercial, and consumer), distribution, and disposal. EPA further specified different categories of use for each chemical with information from the Chemical Data Reporting and other sources.
EPA classified conditions of uses subject to risk evaluation for non-asbestos chemical substances in a highly standardized format for four life-cycle stages.[6] “Manufacturing” includes domestic manufacturing and import. “Processing” mostly includes uses as reactants or intermediates; incorporation of the chemical into formulation, mixture, or reaction products; incorporation of the chemical into articles; repackaging; and recycling. “Distribution” is evaluated throughout the entire life cycle instead of based on single use scenarios. “Disposal” covers emissions to air, wastewater, liquid wastes, and solid wastes. Scenarios under the “Use” stage, on the other hand, vary more considerably depending on chemical. Below, for example, is the scope of the carbon tetrachloride risk evaluation. Other non-asbestos chemicals follow a similar pattern, although the level of details may vary for individual life cycle stages.
· Manufacturing
o Domestic manufacturing
o Import
· Processing
o Reactant / Intermediate
§ HCFCs, HFCs, and HFOs
§ PCE;
§ Inorganic chlorinated compounds
§ Chlorinated paraffins
o Incorporation into formulation, mixture, or reaction product
§ Petrochemical manufacturing
§ Agricultural products manufacturing
§ Solvents for cleaning and degreasing
§ Adhesives and sealants
§ Paints and coatings
o Incorporation into article
o Repackaging
o Recycling
· Distribution
· Uses
o Industrial use
§ Catalyst regeneration (petrochemical manufacturing)
§ Processing aid (petrochemical manufacturing)
§ Additive (petrochemical manufacturing)
§ Fertilizers and other agricultural products manufacturing (Agricultural products manufacturing)
o Industrial/commercial/consumer uses
§ Machinery cleaning (solvents for cleaning and degreasing)
§ Textile cleaning (solvents for cleaning and degreasing)
§ Brake cleaning (solvents for cleaning and degreasing)
§ Rubber cement (adhesives and sealants)
§ Arts and crafts (adhesives and sealants)
§ Asphalt (adhesives and sealants)
§ Industrial adhesives (adhesives and sealants)
§ Paints and coatings (paints and coatings)
§ Laboratory chemicals (laboratory chemicals)
o Other uses
§ Reactive ion etching
§ Processing aid (e.g. metal recovery, nitrogen trichloride removal in chlor-alkali production)
o Disposal
§ Emissions to air
§ Wastewater
§ Liquid wastes
§ Solid wastes
For asbestos, although the life-cycle diagram reflects similar stages, EPA identified asbestos conditions of uses by “use status” and individual product categories:
· Known use
o Asbestos diaphragms (example: chlor-alkali industry);
o Sheet gaskets (example: chemical manufacturing);
· Evidence of use
o Industrial friction products (example: brake blocks in oil industry)
o Aftermarket automotive brakes (example: passenger vehicles)
o Other vehicle friction products (non-passenger vehicles)
o Adhesive and sealants (examples: mirror adhesive; tile cement);
o Roof and non-roof coatings (examples: roofs / foundations; mastics);
o Other gaskets and packing (example: washers);
· Reasonably foreseen use
o Building materials (example: imported cement)
o Woven products (example: imported textiles)
o Other (not specified articles)
EPA elaborated several general principles relating to conditions of use in the Introduction to each scope document. One was that EPA generally will not “reach[] back to evaluate the risks associated with legacy uses, associated disposal, and legacy disposal.” EPA explained that it interprets section 6 to mean that it must focus on “uses for which manufacture, processing or distribution in commerce is intended, known to be occurring, or reasonably foreseen (i.e. is prospective or on-going).” For instance, under the trichloroethylene scoping document, EPA left open the issue of whether dermal exposure is the result of legacy uses or legacy and ongoing uses.[7] Thus, “legacy uses, associated disposal, and legacy disposals” will only be considered in terms of background exposures in aggregate exposure assessment or evaluation of risk of exposures from non-legacy uses. This is consistent with EPA’s position in the preamble to the risk evaluation final rule.
EPA repeated this principle as specifically applicable in at least two scope documents. Asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) remaining in older buildings are excluded from the asbestos risk evaluation based on the “legacy use” principle. Similarly excluded are those ACMs that are part of older products that are no longer intended, or known or reasonably foreseen, to be manufactured, processed, or distributed in commerce.[8] EPA also asserted the applicability of the “legacy use” principle to carbon tetrachloride.
In addition, EPA excluded certain uses covered by previous section 6(a) actions. These include the uses of methylene chloride[9] and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP)[10] for paint and coating removal and the use of trichloroethylene for vapor degreasing and aerosol degreasing.[11]
Next Steps
Section 6(b)(4)(G) of the amended TSCA requires EPA to complete risk evaluations “not later than 3 years” after the initiation of the risk evaluation, but gives EPA the discretion to extend the deadline for no more than 6 months. Therefore, final risk evaluations for these ten chemicals will be due in June 2020 at the latest. Prior to releasing any final risk evaluation, under section 6(b)(4)(H), EPA must first issue a draft risk evaluation and provide a notice-and-comment period no less.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-unveils-scoping-analysis-risk-evaluations-under-amended-tsca-requests-comments
-
Groups Threaten Seven Companies with Lawsuit for Alleged Failure to Report Imports of Toxic Solvent
Jul 7, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By CJ Frogozo
Public health advocates began the process to sue seven companies, including a unit of Dow, for their apparent failure to report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) their importation of n-Propyl Bromide (“nPB,” also known as 1-bromopropane), as required by EPA regulations.
Collectively, the seven companies imported at least 1.6 million pounds of nPB. Originally marketed as a “safer” alternative for use in everything from dry cleaning to industrial degreasing, nPB is now recognized as a carcinogen, a cause of neurological problems, and an ozone depleting substance. While health impacts have been observed in industrial and commercial workers, nPB’s presence in consumer products used for cleaning and degreasing as well as its use in some dry-cleaning processes raises wider health concerns.
Nearly all of the unreported nPB was sourced from China, which is the origin of most of the nPB imported into the US. While nPB continues to be produced domestically, the domestic manufacturers have publicly promised to limit their sales to prevent certain high exposure uses. These voluntary controls do not go far enough to protect American workers from exposure to nPB, but even such limited restrictions on use are largely lacking for imported nPB.
“The fact that imported nPB can end up in direct to consumer products with virtually no restrictions speaks to the need for EPA to regulate nPB and other toxic solvents,” noted Patrick MacRoy, Deputy Director of the Environmental Health Strategy Center. “The U.S. chemical industry may undertake ‘stewardship’ and voluntary efforts to help prevent their products from being used in the least safe applications, but the reality is foreign suppliers are not bound by these restraints and may supply imported chemicals for unsafe domestic uses that US producers no longer support.”
In December 2016, EPA named nPB as one of the first ten chemicals to be assessed for safety under the recently strengthened Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The companies’ apparent reporting violations deprive EPA of crucial information needed to conduct risk evaluations that could lead to significant restrictions on the use of nPB.
“EPA relies on companies to accurately report manufacturing and especially import of toxic chemicals in order to evaluate their potential risk,” said Andy Igrejas, national campaign director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. “By failing to report, companies effectively limit the scope of both the public’s and EPA’s understanding of the uses of these chemicals and the risks they present.”
Under EPA’s TSCA Chemical Data Reporting regulations, chemical companies were required to notify EPA by October 31, 2016 if they imported 25,000 pounds or more of nPB in any of the prior four years. According to a commercial database sourced from U.S. Customs and Border Protection importation records, these companies exceeded this legal threshold at least once during those years. EPA records obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request show no reports of nPB imports from these companies.
Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families and the Environmental Health Strategy Center sent a formal 60-day Notice of Intent to Sue to the companies, the first step in a citizen enforcement action under TSCA. The seven companies receiving notifications are:
If the case proceeds to court, the advocates will seek a judicial order for the companies to comply with the reporting requirements. There is no provision in the law for recovery of damages, although the EPA has the ability to impose fines, which the groups urge it to do.
Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, a national coalition of 450 organizations, works to ensure the safety of chemicals used in our homes, workplaces, and in the many products to which our families and children are exposed to each day.
Environmental Health Strategy Center works to ensure that all people are healthy and thriving in a healthy economy, through affordable access to safer food, water, and products; and investments that create and retain good, green jobs.
http://saferchemicals.org/newsroom/groups-threaten-seven-companies-with-lawsuit-for-alleged-failure-to-report-imports-of-toxic-solvent/
-
Five States Jump In Lawsuit to Oppose Dow Pesticide
Jul 7, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
Five states and the District of Columbia have formally entered a lawsuit to push back against EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's decision to continue most uses of a controversial Dow pesticide after agency staff recommended that it be banned.
New York, Maryland, Vermont, Washington, Massachusetts, and Washington, D.C., have intervened on behalf of environmental groups in the lawsuit, which asks the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to review the Environmental Protection Agency's March 29 decision to deny a 2007 petition to revoke the legal limits for applying chlorpyrifos on crops. The chemical is a widely-used insecticide made by Dow Agrosciences that has been linked to cognitive delays in children (LULAC v. Scott Pruitt, 9th Cir., 17-71636, 7/6/17).
Pruitt's decision to deny the petition reversed the agency's prior intentions to ban chlorpyrifos on food. The EPA during the Obama administration proposed to restrict use of the pesticide on edible crops, but never put the rule into effect. The decision spurred a legal challenge from groups who have sought a ban on the chemical for the last two decades.
In a June 27 hearing, Pruitt told the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies that he found the science justifying a ban “questionable” after discussing the issue with Agriculture Department officials.
The Agriculture Department's Office of Pest Management Policy Director Sheryl Kunickis told the EPA in a Jan. 17 letter that she had “grave concerns” about the proposed ban, based on the agency's “wildly different” human health risk assessments for chlorpyrifos over the last two years.
The jurisdictions—with the exception of the District of Columbia—filed formal objections to Pruitt on June 5. California and Maine also signed on to the objections, but have not intervened in the challenge.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=115774813&vname=dennotallissues&fn=115774813&jd=115774813
-
DuPont’s Newest Toxic Contamination: GenX – America’s Lawyer
Jul 6, 2017 | The Ring of Fire Network
By Mike Papantonio
Via America’s Lawyer: Mike Papantonio discusses Dupont’s chemical called GenX that has been found in the drinking water of North Carolina residents and speaks with attorney, Chris Paulos about the case.
Transcript of the above video:
Mike:
In 2009, DuPont officially stopped using a chemical known as C8 in the production of Teflon, mostly in response to the massive lawsuits that the company was facing.The company’s internal documents show that as early as 1988 they had been aware of the dangers of C8, yet they hid these dangers from the public, until the recent lawsuits exposed their coverup for the world to see.
But even before they stopped using C8, the company had been working with a new chemical that they said would replace their toxin. In 2006, they started using a new chemical called Gen X, which DuPont told both regulators and the public was far safer than C8.
The news surrounding DuPont’s Gen X chemical is unfolding the exact same way that their C8-Cancer story unfolded. Not only are we learning that this new Gen X chemical is causing cancer and reproductive problems, but that the company was FULLY AWARE of these dangers.
Dupont has filed 16 reports of “substantial risk of injury to health or the environment” over GenX.
These reports were filed with the EPA between 2006 and 2013 under Section 8-E of the Toxic Substances Control Act. That specific section of the law says that if a company is involved in the manufacture of a chemical, and they have information that “reasonably supports the conclusion” that the substance “presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment” then they must inform the EPA.
So in just 7 years, the company had to file 16 reports on the toxicity of the chemical that they told both regulators and the public was a whole lot safer and less toxic than C8.
GenX has been associated with dangerous health effects in test rats including cancer, changes to the immune system and problems related to reproduction.
In January 2013, DuPont said in a report that rats exposed to varying amounts of GenX over a two-year period formed cancerous tumors in the liver, pancreas, and testicles. Rats also developed benign tumors, kidney disease, and liver failure.
Even worse is that the DuPont scientist who signed off on these reports said
that they probably weren’t relevant to human health assessments — which the company has taken as a greenlight to dump these chemicals into the Cape Fear River in North Carolina.
And again, just like C8 being dumped into the Ohio River valley, we’re beginning to see this Gen X chemical popping up in people who live along Cape Fear River, and as many as 300,000 people could have been exposed to dangerous levels of this chemical.
It’s a tragic story that once again shows how criminal corporations will never change their actions, until their executives serve time behind bars.
Mike:
Joining me now to talk about the new revelations about DuPont’s GenX is attorney Chris Paulos. Chris, before we get into GenX, give us a quick rundown on C8 and how that directly relates to this story that we’re hearing about GenX.Chris:
What’s interesting, Pap, is that through the process of litigation over the C8 chemical in the mid-Ohio valley, we got a good glimpse at what DuPont’s playbook was when terms of how they respond to these types of crises in contaminating water districts or water supplies, and it appears that DuPont is playing the exact same playbook here with GenX.They’re initially going to decline to provide any information or any transparency into their file cabinets, into their toxicological data that they have regarding humans or animals. Then they’re going to say that there is no relevance to humans, and they’re going to downplay the amount of chemical that is in the water that people are exposed to to say there’s no health effects in humans. We’re seeing that play out as we speak in the Wilmington area, Fayetteville area in North Carolina.
Mike:
Chris, it’s incredible to me. They test these rats, they test the laboratory animals. They’re dying from cancer. They’re dying from liver problems. They’re dying from immune problems, but then the company says, “Oh, gee, that doesn’t mean anything.” Well, why are they testing the animals if it doesn’t mean anything? It’s like we saw with C8. They tested the animals for 50 years. Animals dying by the tons, and they were telling the public, “Well, it doesn’t mean anything that the monkeys died.” We know how ridiculous that is, but we see them saying the same thing with GenX.Tell us what we’re beginning to see with this new chemical, GenX. What do we know?
Chris:
According to the documents that have been provided to the EPA, we’re seeing the same types of cancers in rats as we saw with C8. We’re seeing the same types of reproductive and immune system effects as well as other toxic effects to the eyes and to the lungs, to the skin of animals that are exposed to this chemical, GenX. It’s the exact same types of harm we saw animals being exposed to C8 experience. It’s eerily similar in terms of the toxicological effects on the poor animal subjects that have been exposed to this chemical. What we’re being told is that they don’t have any idea how this actually affects humans who are exposed to it through drinking water and chronically, which is frightening. Absolutely frightening.Mike:
What’s the potential effect … The size of the population. How many people could potentially be affected here, Chris?Chris:
What we understand is that right now the water systems that are in Wilmington, North Carolina … That is, the Cape Fear Public Utilities Association … That water system, as I understand it, serves upwards to 200,000-300,000 people. Any water system that is drawing water from the Cape Fear river below the DuPont plant there could potentially have GenX in its water. Right now, I’m not aware of any data that says that it’s actually in the groundwater.That’s an important question that people in North Carolina need to be asking DuPont to answer: How did this chemical get in the water? How is it being released from that plant? Is it coming out through the air stacks? Is it being dumped through solid waste into unlined landfills, or is it being dumped directly into the water through process water or through the processes at the plant? Knowing that fate and transport of the chemical is absolutely critical to understanding how many people are exposed.
Mike:
What has DuPont said about the toxicity of GenX? If you really think about it, you have laboratory animals dying. That’s why we test laboratory animals. We test them. Do they get cancer? Well, we don’t test them just to give them cancer. We test them to see what’s the possible relationship to human beings? How long have they been aware of these potential problems that they’ve just seen from the laboratory animals alone, Chris? How long has this been going on?Chris:
It’s interesting. If you look at some of the documents that were just recently made non-confidential … They were documents submitted to the EPA as confidential business information in about 2006. Those were released in about 2013. One of those studies goes as far back as 1963 that DuPont was studying the toxic effects of this chemical. They’ve been sitting on this information for decades, and I’m sure have plenty more information in their file cabinets that has yet to be released, or they may be claiming is confidential business information.They’ve been looking at the toxic effects in animals for decades and decades, and it’s not until recently that we’ve seen it come out to light in the public and on the EPA docket.
Mike:
Chris, if you go back, as you pointed out earlier, and you look at the history of C8, first of all, they kept it quiet. They didn’t tell anybody that they were dumping this toxic garbage into their drinking water. Same thing here. Second of all, they come out and they tell people once everybody finds out, “Don’t worry about it. Don’t worry about it. It’s no problem here.” Then we find out, well, yeah, it is a problem because your animals, when you tested it, were dying by the tons. Then they come out and say, “Oh, well, that didn’t mean anything because they weren’t human.”Then the next thing they do, and exactly the same thing here, they convince the media that there is no story here. “Just move on. Everything’s okay. We’re going to be all right.” Corporate media barely covered the C8 story. We’re seeing the same thing here, aren’t we? All these similarities.
Chris:
Yeah, in fact, actually DuPont tried to ban the local press from Wilmington from their first meeting with some of the public officials in that area. They tried to prevent the press from participating in that meeting. Think of the gall that it takes to actually say that no press can be present. In fact, when they did relinquish, they allowed one reporter to go in and take notes on the meeting that occurred.To their credit, the Star News in the Wilmington area has been running stories and doing the best they can, has been asking some pretty hard-hitting questions, but they need to keep that up. They need to be persistent and they need to be diligent. There’s a lot of questions that are presently unanswered that the press and the community in Wilmington need to be asking. They need to ask, again, how did it get into their water? How is going to get out of their water? How much is in the blood and the tissues of the community members in that area? How are they going to figure that out? What are the long term health effects in humans from chronic exposure through drinking water? They need those answers, and they need to get them from DuPont. Any answer that DuPont gives them needs to be received with more than a grain of salt, with intense skepticism because this is a recidivist corporation that has poisoned thousands of people in other communities and has lied about it and covered it up in the past.
Mike:
Well, the lie went on in the Ohio Valley for C8 … It went on for 50 years, they lied to these people. They had internal documents that showed there was a relationship to cancer in C8. We’re not going to know until a water district does what they should do and say, “Look, you didn’t tell us about this. You said everything was going okay.”Now, if this is the same situation. There is something called bio-persistence. The problem is you’ve got a product that is in the environment for at least two million years. They’re never going to be able to do anything. It’s there for two million years. How long it’s in the human body, we don’t know yet.
Anyway, Chris, stay on top of this. It’s a critically important story going forward. It’s something that we are really going to have to follow.
https://trofire.com/2017/07/06/duponts-newest-toxic-contamination-genx-americas-lawyer/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Abundant Natural Gas is Giant Step Toward Energy Independence
Jul 7, 2017 | Auburn Reporter
By Don C. Brunell
In the last half century, Americans yearned for energy independence. We were tired of being held captive by foreign governments – some of which continue to be hostile toward the United States and our way of life.
Thankfully, things have changed in the last few years.
The American Petroleum Institute (API) put it best. “Over the past decade alone, America has undergone a major energy revolution, rapidly shifting from an era of energy scarcity to an era of energy abundance”.
API believes advances in hydraulic fracturing – or “fracking” – in conjunction with horizontal drilling are responsible for the welcome boom. They made our country the world’s top producer of natural gas and unlocked more oil reserves than in Saudi Arabia.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) credits the surge in natural gas production with reversing the fortunes of our country’s plastics industry. Companies forced off-shore because of high domestic feedstock prices are returning home to abundant low cost natural gas.
ACC officials recently told the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) that $185 billion in new U.S. petrochemical projects are under construction or in planning. In 2016, expenditures in chemical plants alone accounted for half of all American capital investments. That is up from less than 20 percent in 2009.
It projects plastics will become the major driver of U.S. exports and net exports will more than triple by 2030—growing from $6.5 billion in 2014 to $21.billion. China, Mexico and South American countries are leading destinations.
Those exports bring money back to the United States and plastics investments are expected to support 2.7 million American jobs in the next decade. Plastics manufacturers pay workers nearly $85,000 annually with good benefits. That is comparable to what Boeing pays its machinists in Washington.
Plastics manufacturers in Washington directly employed over 6,600 workers in 2014 and supported 3,500 related jobs, according to ACC data. Those totals do not completely account for companies which mold plastic parts for their products nor investments made in the last two years.
Companies like Dow Chemical, are investing heavily in our country. Dow is completing $8 billion in new and expanded petrochemical facilities mostly located along the Gulf of Mexico.
It produces plastic pellets. “Some of the pellets are exported to Brazil, where they are reshaped into the plastic pouches filled with puréed fruits and vegetables,” the WSJ reports.
“Integrated oil firms including Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC also are racing to take advantage of the cheap byproducts of the oil and gas being unlocked by shale drilling.” Those gases, once flared off at well sites, are now diverted to plastics production.
Foreign companies, often partnering with American firms, are also expanding petrochemical units in the U.S. They produce the materials eventually used to fashion car fenders, smartphones, shampoo bottles and other plastic products being bought more and more by the world’s burgeoning middle classes, WSJ added.
In addition, there are spinoff industries making plastics additives. ACC reported nearly $2.5 billion in new capacity is expected from expansion of ancillary plastics processing plants.
The U.S. is also exporting shale gas derivatives (ethane) to European countries, For example, in Scotland, petrochemical producers, such as Ineos, are running short of North Sea feedstocks used in the production of plastic products.
Ineos is now supplying its Grangemouth operation near Edinburgh with ethane made from U.S. shale gas. That gas is drawn from the Marcellus shale deposits in western Pennsylvania, converted to ethane in the Philadelphia area, and sent 3,500 miles by tanker ships across the Atlantic.
The bottom line: This is good news for America and Americans seeking well-paying jobs with benefits.
Don C. Brunell is a business analyst, writer and columnist. He retired as president of the Association of Washington Business, the state’s oldest and largest business organization, and now lives in Vancouver. He can be contacted at theBrunells@msn.com.
https://www.auburn-reporter.com/opinion/abundant-natural-gas-is-giant-step-toward-energy-independence-brunell/
-
Trump Sells U.S. Energy, LNG at European Summit
Jul 6, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
President Trump told representatives of 12 European nations gathered for a summit of the Three Seas Initiative that the United States is eager to build strong trade ties and export energy supplies to them, quipping "if you need energy, just give us a call."
The president particularly emphasized his support for exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe, noting recent and potential future natural gas export deals with Poland. Polish President Andrzej Duda followed up during a later press conference saying he was convinced Poland could become a hub for U.S. LNG deliveries to other countries in central Europe, creating a north-south natural gas corridor and an alternative to gas supplies from Russia and Ukraine.
Speaking at the summit Thursday, Trump said the U.S. strongly supports the creation of the Three Seas Business Forum, which the initiative -- so named because its members are in a region bordered by the Adriatic, Baltic and Black seas -- plans to use to create energy infrastructure projects.
"New energy infrastructure is essential to this rebuilding effort," Trump said, adding "greater access to energy markets, fewer barriers to energy trade and development, and strengthening energy security is what we're looking to do. The Three Seas Initiative has the potential to accomplish all of these essential objectives...very quickly."
Trump congratulated the Polish government and its people for receiving their first shipment of LNG from the U.S. last month. Last April, the Polish Oil & Gas Co., a state-controlled oil and gas company, struck a deal for a spot cargo from Cheniere Energy's Sabine Pass LNG terminal in Louisiana.
Two proposed energy infrastructure projects were also lauded by Trump: the Gas Interconnector Greece-Bulgaria, a 32-inch diameter, 182-kilometer (113-mile) pipeline with 3-5 billion cubic meters (105.9-176.6 Bcf) of transportation capacity; and LNG Croatia LLC's floating LNG import terminal on the Croatian island of Krk, which would have 2 billion cubic meters (70.6 Bcf) of import capacity.
"These projects and many others are crucial to ensuring that your nations continue to diversify your energy sources, suppliers, and routes. I also applaud Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, and Austria for pursuing a pipeline from the Black Sea," Trump said. He drew parallels to the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, which he pushed forward with presidential memorandums in January.
In an apparent swipe at Russia, Trump said, "Let me be very clear about one crucial point: The United States will never use energy to coerce your nations, and we cannot allow others to do so. You don't want to have a monopoly or a monopolistic situation. The United States is firmly committed to open, fair, and competitive markets for global energy trade."
Trump repeated the comment on coercion later in the day Thursday to a crowd gathered in Warsaw's Krasinski Square. "America is eager to expand our partnership with you," he said. "We welcome stronger ties of trade and commerce as you grow your economies. And we are committed to securing your access to alternate sources of energy, so Poland and its neighbors are never again held hostage to a single supplier of energy."
During the press conference question-and-answer session with the Polish president, Trump joked that the U.S. and Poland could enter a long-term LNG contract "within the next 15 minutes." Duda laughed, but countered that such an agreement would be signed between American and Polish companies, not elected officials.
"The most important thing is the green light given by the U.S. government, [and] administration, that there is an incentive given for us to buy gas from the United States," Duda said. "On the Polish side, there is also a green light and interest in those particular things...Negotiations are ongoing, [but] I believe that after the conclusion of those negotiations there will be a long-term contract for U.S. LNG deliveries to our LNG terminals in Świnoujście."
The 12 member countries of the Three Seas Initiative are Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/111005-trump-tells-european-nations-us-wants-to-meet-their-energy-needs
-
Zinke Signs Order to Ensure Quarterly Lease Sales
Jul 7, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Jennifer Yachnin
The Western Energy Alliance acknowledged today it could end its lawsuit against the federal government over canceled or delayed lease sales as Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke signed a new secretarial order aimed at ensuring they occur quarterly.
But Zinke's action, which also aims to expedite the issuance of drilling permits, could prompt a new legal challenge from conservationists who charge the order oversteps the secretary's authority.
In Order 3354, Zinke directs the Bureau of Land Management to conduct quarterly lease sales and aims to reduce the permit approval or denial period to 30 days, down from the 257-day average in fiscal 2016.
"We are also looking at opportunities to bring support to our front line offices who are facing the brunt of this workload," Zinke said in a statement. "This is just good government and will further support the president's goal of American energy dominance."
In a press call with reporters, Zinke declined to comment specifically on the WEA lawsuit, but the organization's president, Kathleen Sgamma, told E&E News that the secretarial order closely tracks the group's complaint.
The WEA lawsuit asserts the Interior Department violated federal law by canceling or delaying oil and gas lease sales in recent years, in violation of the Mineral Leasing Act requirement for quarterly sales. Zinke noted that 11 lease sales had been canceled last year.
If Interior executes the order as planned, Sgamma said, WEA could move to settle its lawsuit.
"We're open to seeing how this is actually implemented and settling hopefully in the near future," Sgamma said.
But she added that the process is more complicated than simply holding quarterly lease sales.
"The process that was put in place with the 2010 leasing reforms needs to be unraveled," Sgamma said. "They need to pull back policies put in place with the stroke of a pen ... and get on with a rational leasing process."
She added: "There are layers of red tape below the surface that need to be addressed."
Sgamma specifically pointed to rotational lease sales, which she said limit sales in areas like the Permian Basin to an annual event.
"They need to get away from that. They need to get away from holding things up indefinitely," Sgamma said.
While conservationists have argued that additional lease sales are unnecessary given that oil and gas industry representatives have bid on fewer than a third of leases offered in the last year, Sgamma rejected that criticism, characterizing the unsold leases as being located in "unpopular" areas.
"Of course you're going to have lease sales where things aren't sold," she said.
The Independent Petroleum Association of America and American Petroleum Institute also praised the secretarial order today.
"We applaud the administration's steps to help strengthen the United States' energy position," API Upstream and Industry Operations Group Director Erik Milito said in a statement. "A key component of a successful policy is repairing the federal permitting process so that companies have the confidence to invest and see their projects move forward."
House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) likewise cheered Zinke's announcement.
"Secretary Zinke's commitment to foster regulatory certainty and unleash our energy potential is a welcome shift in priorities at Interior," Bishop said. "We will be working in close coordination with the secretary to provide the department with the statutory tools to ensure that responsible energy development on federal lands is no longer held hostage to intransigent bureaucracy and ludicrous permitting delays."
But WildEarth Guardians' Jeremy Nichols suggested that conservation organizations could challenge Zinke's new order in court.
"He's trying to tear down any and all checks on oil and gas development on public lands," Nichols said of the announcement. "We're going to be weighing our legal options."
In particular, Nichols argued that the secretary lacks the ability to limit BLM's own discretion on when and where to offer leases for oil and gas development.
"The law does not allow an Interior secretary to bind the discretion of the BLM in such an extreme way," Nichols said.
He also questioned Zinke's stated goal of increasing energy production, suggesting that merely offering more leases won't prompt a spike in extraction.
"Right now, the main obstacle seems to be the industry's own economic quagmire. They don't seem to be in a position to develop the way Zinke says they are," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/07/06/stories/1060057026
-
Grijalva Wants Zinke to Clarify 'Energy Dominance'
Jul 6, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Kellie Lunney
The top Democrat on the House Natural Resources panel wants Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to explain how the administration plans to balance its "energy dominance" strategy with environmental and multiple-use requirements for public lands under a key law.
Arizona Rep. Raúl Grijalva is worried that the Interior Department's emphasis on energy development will undermine the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which requires a multiple-use approach to public lands, by eating away at environmental protections as well as diminishing scenic and historical value.
"Not all federal land is appropriate for coal, oil, or gas development and certain areas should be managed to protect the value they provide outside of their energy resource potential," the Democrat wrote in a letter to Zinke today. "Federal lands generate billions of dollars and support millions of jobs through an outdoor recreation economy comprised of camping, hiking, hunting, and off-roading businesses."
Earlier today, Zinke announced a secretarial order aimed at furthering the administration's energy dominance initiative. It directs the department to follow its mandate of holding quarterly lease sales as a way to increase fossil fuel extraction on federal lands (Greenwire, July 6). It also seeks to expedite the permitting process for new leases to 30 days, down from last year's average of 257 days.
The Interior secretary in testimony before Congress last month said that the administration's proposed fiscal 2018 budget for the department supports an "all-of-the-above" energy development strategy, "increasing funding for onshore and offshore oil and gas, strengthening coal management activities, and sustaining the current pace of renewable energy development."
Grijalva argued in today's letter that the department appears to be "inappropriately interpreting 'multiple use' to mean that energy development should be allowed on all lands." In addition to ensuring that the administration's approach to energy development adheres to FLPMA, the Democrat asked Zinke to provide a more quantifiable measure for energy dominance: "Is there an end state at which the department would be able to state that 'energy dominance' has been achieved?"
Interior did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Grijalva's letter.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/07/06/stories/1060057024
-
D.C. Circuit Ruling on Methane Rule Delay Boosts Series of Pending Suits
Jul 6, 2017 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss, Abby Smith , and Dave Reynolds
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruling that struck down EPA's administrative stay of Obama-era methane standards for new oil and gas operations could provide a boost for environmentalists hoping to undo similar delays on several other rules, even though the suits test different legal principles.
Industry and environmental attorneys say the D.C. Circuit's July 3 order bringing the methane new source performance standards (NSPS) back into effect will serve as a marker for how judges are likely to consider the issues at play when EPA seeks to delay rules with an eye toward rewriting them.
“The facts matter and the law matters. . . . Regardless of the legal test at issue, the court's decision . . . underscored all of those things,” says one environmental attorney.
The attorney says the ruling in Clean Air Council (CAC), et al., v. EPA provides a valuable marker for groups hoping to prove that the agency is conducting an “end run” around its duty to enforce rulemakings that Trump administration officials oppose.
Environmentalists say the ruling could help at least three pending suits challenging administration efforts to delay the Obama administration's Clean Water Act (CWA) power plant effluent limits, its facility safety Risk Management Plan (RMP) rule and its landfill methane rule.
In addition, the ruling could aid expected challenges to other administration efforts to delay Obama-era policies, including the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone and worker protection standards for pesticide handlers.
“[I]t’s basic 'rule of law' 101 that existing standards are supposed to remain in place, and companies are supposed to comply with them, unless and until they are duly changed through this rulemaking process. With the barest exceptions that don’t apply here, the EPA Administrator may not yank existing safeguards out of operation while he mulls over changing them,” David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) wrote in a June 28 blog post.
The D.C. Circuit in CAC backed environmentalists' claims that EPA improperly used its authority under Clean Air Act section 307(d)(7)(B) to pause four provisions of the methane NSPS and stay those provisions for 90 days while it reconsidered them.
Judges David Tatel and Robert Wilkins joined a per curiam opinion that agreed with environmentalists that the basis for EPA's stay -- its reconsideration of the methane rule in response to industry petitions -- was invalid. The panel majority agreed with environmentalists that the reconsideration was invalid because it failed to meet one part of a two-prong test: that the provisions at issue were “impracticable” to raise during the original rulemaking's comment period.
The court found that because industry raised objections to the provisions at issue during the rulemaking, that prong of the test failed, meaning the reconsideration was not mandatory and thus EPA could not use air act section 307(d)(7)(B) to stay the rule.
The two judges also held that invoking the Clean Air Act's “pause” provision is a final agency action subject to judicial review -- even though the delay is linked to EPA's decision to reconsider the rule, which cannot itself be challenged in court. But Judge Janice Rogers Brown dissented on that point, arguing the decision is not subject to judicial review.
The CAC ruling may be most relevant in environmentalists' pending challenge to EPA's decision to delay Obama-era landfill methane rules, where EPA cited its pending reconsideration of the rules to justify a 90-day stay. The challenge to the landfill rules, NRDC, et al. v. Pruitt, is pending in the D.C. Circuit. Briefing is due to begin July 20.
Merely Helpful
However, despite being a positive sign for environmentalists, the D.C. Circuit decision is unlikely to prove decisive, rather than merely helpful, in other delay suits -- most prominently attempts to reinstate the Obama administration's power plant effluent limits and its RMP update rule.
That is because the legal circumstances in each test are different -- the D.C. Circuit methane case involved EPA's Clean Air Act authority under section 307 to briefly stay rules under reconsideration, while the stay of the RMP until February 2019 comes through a full notice-and-comment rulemaking issued June 14.
The RMP delay is under challenge in a D.C. Circuit case, Air Alliance Houston, et al., v. EPA and E. Scott Pruitt, where the petitioners have asked the courts for a preliminary injunction to stay the delay rule and/or to vacate it.
In addition, the power plant effluent limitation guideline (ELG) has been stayed indefinitely under authority in section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which gives agencies authority to delay implementing a rule that is under court challenge if “justice requires.”
The ELG delay suit is being litigated in Clean Water Action, et al., v. Pruitt, et al., before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia -- which must follow D.C. Circuit precedent. The court has already dealt EPA a setback, rejecting its attempts to quickly dismiss environmentalists' suit over its indefinite delay.
While the RMP and oil and gas rule delays are in different stages, one industry attorney says the RMP rule may not be as vulnerable to legal challenge as some believe. “I think EPA is safely past the stage where [the RMP delay] would have been vulnerable to a methane-like challenge, growing out of” the air law's delay provision, an industry attorney says, adding that environmentalists will instead have to prove that “it was arbitrary and capricious or contrary to the [Clean Air Act] for EPA to have stayed the effective date until Feb. 2019.”
Moreover, the D.C. Circuit's CAC ruling is based in large part on a finding that EPA's reasons for delaying the methane NSPS in particular were flawed, meaning that even a ruling that applies the same principles could lead to upholding a stay in a case where the agency provides a better justification for its actions.
"Maybe this sends a flavor on where two D.C. Circuit judges are on these kinds of issues, but I think the RMP ruling will involve a broader range of issues than what you see in the methane case. I don't think the methane case says [that] now we know how" other cases will turn out, the industry attorney says.
A second industry attorney says the D.C. Circuit's ruling “hasn't really changed how industry looks at it. It's not ideal, but there's a full expectation that there will be a regulatory stay that the court will uphold.” That source adds of the RMP rule, “[T]he ultimate resolution here is a rewrite of the rule.”
'Big Problem'
But an attorney with an academic institution says that EPA could still face a “big problem” in its efforts to delay the RMP rule. The source says EPA is trying to argue it has “general authority to set effectiveness dates” and an “inherent authority to reconsider” the rule, but the methane ruling will make it more difficult for EPA to justify that argument.
EPA's rule delaying the RMP rule for 20 months “says [Clean Air Act] section 307(d) allows us to set effectiveness dates unless another provision controls. There is another provision that controls, which is section 307(d)(7)(B),” the source says, noting that section only allows EPA to delay the rule for three months.
In addition, the attorney adds that the D.C. Circuit will not be able to ignore the panel's ruling. Even if there is another panel that considers other challenges, “they are going to have to follow this ruling,” the source adds, noting that environmentalists and others challenging the rule delays will “cite this case.”
“A lot of these are procedural hurdles that EPA needs to get over,” the attorney with the academic institution says, noting that although EPA is urging the courts to show it deference, “I don't know that discretion is that relevant.”
The source adds, “EPA wants to make it relevant, but they are putting things together in a way that doesn't make sense.”
And a second environmental attorney who has worked on the ELG case said the panel's finding that EPA's stay of the methane NSPS was a final action subject to judicial review could also aid challengers in the other suits, most notably the ELG case, since “EPA has argued in both cases that its stay actions should not be subject to judicial review."
The first environmental attorney says that even though some of the other delays being challenged do not involve the same Clean Air Act section at issue in CAC, the fact that Tatel and Wilkins were skeptical of EPA's claimed flaws in the existing rule is still a good sign for challengers.
“For all of those, the same sets of considerations will be quite important. . . . The court will look carefully at the facts, as they did here and found that the reasons EPA was putting forth for the suspension simply didn't hold water,” the source says.
However, the first industry attorney notes that the D.C. Circuit's ruling also underscores that EPA does have the authority to stay a rule in at least some circumstances, provided it can show a valid justification.
Where the Trump administration identifies flaws in a rule, “even if the Obama [administration] had a chance to consider them this administration wants to give some more -- it's allowed to do that as long as it shows it has a reasonable basis to do that,” that attorney says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/dc-circuit-ruling-methane-rule-delay-boosts-series-pending-suits
-
How ‘Energy Week’ Could Learn from State Clean Energy Leaders
Jul 6, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Rory Christian
President Trump’s administration dubbed last week “Energy Week,” including a theme of “energy dominance.” Instead of exploring America’s clean energy potential, we’re waiting for the July release of a report by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) examining whether the early retirement of power plants and impact on grid reliability can be blamed on requiring coal plants to reduce pollution while incentivizing clean energy sources. Taken together, and with the fact that the president pulled the country out of the Paris Agreement, America’s energy agenda gives me pause and cause to worry.
We don’t yet know what the DOE report is going to say, but judging from Secretary of Energy Rick Perry’s past stance on energy and his latest statements on the matter, it could suggest that the coal industry that has long-been economically uncompetitive due to oversupplied, cheap natural gas, could be propped-up to spew toxic emissions into the future.
Here is the reality: climate change is not a political issue; it is the single greatest threat we face as a generation. Clean energy is our best option to prevent the environmental situation from getting worse because it is at the core of every climate issue. Fortunately, Americans agree on this, and know something must be done.
New York is one example of how Americans and their businesses can “dominate” on their own and help determine the nation’s clean energy future. Moreover, their united effort reflects American spirit and innovation – not just during an “energy week,” but every day.
President Trump’s administration dubbed last week “Energy Week,” including a theme of “energy dominance.” Instead of exploring America’s clean energy potential, we’re waiting for the July release of a report by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) examining whether the early retirement of power plants and impact on grid reliability can be blamed on requiring coal plants to reduce pollution while incentivizing clean energy sources. Taken together, and with the fact that the president pulled the country out of the Paris Agreement, America’s energy agenda gives me pause and cause to worry. We don’t yet know what the DOE report is going to say, but judging from Secretary of Energy Rick Perry’s past stance on energy and his latest statements on the matter, it could suggest that the coal industry that has long-been economically uncompetitive due to oversupplied, cheap natural gas, could be propped-up to spew toxic emissions into the future. Here is the reality: climate change is not a political issue; it is the single greatest threat we face as a generation. Clean energy is our best option to prevent the environmental situation from getting worse because it is at the core of every climate issue. Fortunately, Americans agree on this, and know something must be done. New York is one example of how Americans and their businesses can “dominate” on their own and help determine the nation’s clean energy future. Moreover, their united effort reflects American spirit and innovation – not just during an “energy week,” but every day.
In the years since Hurricane Sandy, New York State and New York City have each committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050 while increasing clean energy and energy efficiency in buildings.
And, most importantly, New York backs-up its commitments by allocating funds toward programs, incentives, and projects to accelerate the transition to renewables where it is needed most:
· Since 2012 the State’s solar capacity has increased five-fold (from 175 megawatts to 1,000 megawatts) as a result of Reforming the Energy Vision (REV), New York’s initiative to build a more reliable and resilient electric system.
· Through its OneNYC plan, New York City has committed to installing 100 megawatts of solar on public buildings and to help private buildings put 250 megawatts more in their premises by 2050.
· The New York City Housing Authority has plans to install 25 megawatts of solar in public housing properties over the next 10 years as part of the Renew300 program established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
· New York City’s Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS), is dedicated to implementing projects in state facilities, such as the recently established Retrofit Accelerator to help private adoption of distributed energy resources.
http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2017/07/06/how-energy-week-could-learn-from-state-clean-energy-leaders/#more-15895
-
Renewables Top Nukes in U.S. Power Mix for First Time Since 1984
Jul 7, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Martin
For the first time in more than 30 years, America's nuclear plants have fallen behind wind farms, solar panels and other renewable energy suppliers as a source of electricity.
In March and April, U.S. power from utility-scale renewables topped output from reactors for the first time since July 1984, according to a U.S. Energy Information Administration report. Supplies from wind and solar rose to a record, while heavy rains in the West boosted hydroelectric power and nuclear generation dropped to the lowest monthly level since April 2014.
Though President Donald Trump announced plans last month to review U.S. nuclear energy policy, the surge of renewable power signals that reviving the flagging industry will be a complex and costly endeavor. Amid competition from renewables and abundant natural gas from shale basins, more than half of America's reactors are losing money, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. That's prompted states including New York and Illinois to pass legislation clearing the way for nuclear subsidies.
“As renewable generation has increased, net generation from nuclear power has remained relatively flat since the late 1990s,” Mickey Francis, an analyst at EIA, said in the agency's report. “Retirements of a number of nuclear plants have resulted in a slightly lower level of overall nuclear generation capacity.”
Entergy Corp. is planning to close its Indian Point reactors in New York by 2021 under an agreement with the state, while plans by Southern Co. and Scana Corp. to build new nuclear plants in Georgia and South Carolina have hit roadblocks after contractor Westinghouse Electric Co. filed for bankruptcy.
Nuclear power isn't about to disappear from the U.S. electricity mix, however. Output from reactors will surpass renewable generation during the summer and on an annual basis for 2017, according to the EIA report.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=115774817&vname=dennotallissues&fn=115774817&jd=115774817
-
Former OSHA Official's Criticisms May Aid Opposition to EPA's RMP Delay
Jul 6, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
A former Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) official is faulting the Trump EPA's delay of Obama-era revisions to the Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility safety program, saying the agency's justification for the stay is “totally frivolous” -- criticisms that could bolster environmentalists' lawsuit challenging the delay.
A recent federal appeals court ruling rejecting EPA's stay of an unrelated Clean Air Act rule setting limits on the greenhouse gas methane on new oil and gas drilling could also boost environmentalists' suit over the RMP delay, because the agency cited the same air law section 307(d)(7)(B) as part of its justification for both delays.
Environmentalists have sued EPA in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit over the agency's June 14 that delayed for nearly two years the Obama EPA's Jan. 13 final rule revising the RMP. The previous administration said the revisions were necessary following the massive West, TX, fertilizer plant explosion, as it highlighted the need for more-stringent RMP requirements to improve facility safety.
But some industry groups opposed the revisions, and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in the delay rule justified it in part by arguing that the Obama administration failed to provide adequate time for public input on an arson finding as reason for the delay. The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) concluded -- two days before the deadline for input on the proposed version of the Obama-era RMP revisions -- that arson caused the fire that led to the explosion, and Pruitt said EPA should have given the public more time to comment.
However, in a July 5 interview, Jordan Barab, deputy assistant secretary for OSHA under the Obama administration, argues that the ATF's arson finding “was totally frivolous” and without basis, and should not support delaying a rule that the Obama EPA deemed necessary to reduce the risk and consequences of industrial accidents.
Barab argues that ATF's May 11, 2016 arson finding, was based on a process of elimination rather than evidence of foul play, and that Obama OSHA officials sought to push back against ATF's conclusion but were rebuffed by White House officials who said such input risked interfering with an investigation.
The push-back could inform environmentalists and labor groups' D.C. Circuit suit challenging Pruitt's RMP delay because it might help to undermine the agency's factual justification for the move.
In a further potential boost for environmentalists' attacks on the RMP delay, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit issued a 2-1 ruling July 3 vacated the Trump EPA's stay of implementation for the Obama administration's methane rule for new oil and gas drilling. In its decision, the majority rejected EPA's claim that the prior administration failed to allow for adequate public comment on aspects of the methane rule.
RMP Revisions
EPA's RMP rule sought to implement former President Barack Obama's Aug. 1, 2013 Executive Order (EO) 13650 issued in the wake of the West explosion, which killed 15 people, including first responders.
The rule brings new auditing and hazard analysis requirements, as well as provisions bolstering release of facility data to emergency planners and the public, which have drawn strong opposition from industry groups as well as GOP state attorneys general, including Pruitt prior to his selection to lead EPA.
Petrochemical manufacturers and others have faulted the RMP update as costly and unnecessary and argued that disclosure provisions could worsen security risks. In petitioning EPA to roll back the rule, industry groups highlighted the arson finding as raising procedural concerns, arguing that a crime should not support strengthening a safety rule.
Delaying the RMP update 20 months -- from June 19 to Feb. 19, 2019 -- to allow for a process to review and potentially revise the Obama EPA RMP update, Pruitt backed industry claims that the Obama EPA should have extended its comment deadline on the rule to allow more time for public input on the arson finding's potential effect on the rule.
In May 19 comments opposing the delay, a coalition of environmental groups argued that Pruitt was “distorting the facts” in using ATF's arson finding “as a blanket license to delay the [RMP rule] by nearly two years without a reasoned basis or explanation.” But advocates have not yet faulted the substance of ATF's finding.
Barab faulted the ATF's arson announcement in an April 3 post to his blog Confined Space, saying investigators never issued a written report or briefed government agencies, and provided no evidence during a press conference.
“[I]n response to reporters' questions (1:40) about evidence, the ATF only responds that 'We have eliminated all reasonable accidental and natural causes and that includes smoking.' And 'Well, we came to the conclusion after we ruled out all reasonable accidental and natural causes. And, after the extensive testing we conducted.'"
Barab tells Inside EPA that such a weak conclusion should not be cited in delaying a rule. He also backs environmentalists' arguments that even an intentionally-set fire would not have had catastrophic consequences had the facility used a safer alternative substance to the ammonium nitrate that exploded once ignited. “The industry can argue that they didn't have time to comment on the ATF allegation, but the ATF allegation was unfounded and not related to the explosion itself, which is what the EO and the changes to the RMP regulation came out of,” he said.
Arson Finding
In a May 11 press statement, ATF did not identify a culprit in the explosion, and offered a $50,000 reward for information leading to an arrest.
“After more than 400 interviews, a systematic fire-scene examination, the review of witness photos, videos and observations, as well as extensive scientific testing at the ATF Fire Research Lab in Beltsville, Maryland, the fire has been ruled 'incendiary,' or intentionally set,” the bureau's statement said. “All viable accidental and natural fire scenarios were hypothesized, tested, and eliminated.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/former-osha-officials-criticisms-may-aid-opposition-epas-rmp-delay
-
States Seek to Intervene in Defense of 2015 Ozone NAAQS
Jul 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
Citing EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's recent criticism of the Obama administration's national air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone, seven Democrat-led states and the District of Columbia are seeking to defend the standard in court, arguing that they must step in because Pruitt is dropping prior defenses of the rule.
The states filed a July 6 motion to intervene in Murray Energy, et al., v. EPA, which would allow them to defend the 2015 rulemaking that tightened the NAAQS down to 70 parts per billion (ppb), even if EPA abandons the suit that is still pending -- though stayed -- before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
While the same group of states has already filed amicus briefs defending the 2015 NAAQS against attacks by industry groups and GOP-led states, they are now arguing that EPA's one-year delay in implementing the rule, and Pruitt's June 6 letter to governors calling for more study on how to achieve the 70 ppb target despite naturally occurring “background” ozone, show that the Trump administration may soon reverse the government's positions.
“EPA's vaguely alleged need for more information on this subject echoes Industry and State Petitioners’ arguments in this challenge, namely that EPA should have factored into its standard setting sources of ozone beyond the control of state regulators, such as those from which ozone is transported internationally. EPA’s new uncertainty about its rule similarly conflicts with State Movants’ position that these issues were already appropriately considered by EPA and can be addressed (if necessary) by other provisions of the Clean Air Act,” says the brief, which was filed by California, New York, Vermont, Washington, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Delaware and Washington, D.C.
The Trump administration won a stay of the suit just days before oral argument was set to begin, in order to decide whether to reconsider the October 2015 decision to tighten the ozone standard from 75 ppb.
EPA has yet to publicly state whether it will revise the rule, but the states say Pruitt's implementation delay, and public statements that side with challengers' claims that the new NAAQS is costly and difficult to achieve, show that the agency can no longer be trusted to defend its rule.
“EPA’s recent official statements, however, signal its agreement with arguments advanced by the Industry and State Petitioners who seek to weaken the rule, contradict EPA’s own briefing to this Court, and are contrary to the positions State Movants took in their amicus brief. EPA’s recent change in position on the 2015 Ozone NAAQS constitutes good cause for the Court to grant State Movants intervenor status at this time,” the motion says.
The states note that if approved as intervenors they have no plans to file additional briefs or arguments -- rather, they say, the step would only allow them to oppose the challengers if EPA itself does not.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/states-seek-intervene-defense-2015-ozone-naaqs
-
G-20 Seeks to Contain Trump by Avoiding Climate Mention
Jul 7, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Martin and Jessica Shankleman
German Chancellor Angela Merkel is seeking to unite the Group of 20 nations on key environmental goals by steering clear of references to climate change wherever possible, according to a draft being circulated ahead of a summit of world leaders.
A section of the current draft seen by Bloomberg notes the decision of the U.S. to withdraw from the landmark Paris Agreement, while promising collaboration on other less controversial areas such as innovation, sustainable growth, and competitiveness.
Climate change has become one of the biggest issues at stake during the G-20 summit, after President Donald Trump last month decided to pull the U.S. out of the 2015 Paris deal that promised to keep global warming “well below” 2 degrees Celsius. Trump has questioned the scientific consensus of climate change, even once suggesting it was a hoax created by China.
“This is about trying to contain Trump and not provoke him,” said Nick Mabey, who used to advise the U.K. government on climate issues and now runs E3G, a policy-research group. “This language would show that he's isolated on climate change but leave him with a bit of dignity.”
Investor Concern
As the world's second largest emitter, the U.S.’s involvement in the Paris deal is seen as crucial to global efforts to tackle climate change. Investors are concerned that a U.S. exit could have a domino effect around the world, yet no other country has said they will follow Trump in leaving the accord.
While previous G-20 leaders’ summits promised strong action on climate change, the communique currently being considered doesn't appear to mention the phrase, instead noting the opportunities for job creation “of increased investment into sustainable and clean energy technologies and infrastructure.” It also promotes energy security, a key issue for Trump. The statement is not final and can still change.
As president of the G-20 this year, Germany is seeking to avoid leaving the U.S. as a footnote on the issue of climate change. Merkel wants to avoid a repeat of Group of Seven talks in Italy in May that confirmed a crack between six member states and the U.S. after environment ministers were unable to find common ground on climate measures.
Steffen Seibert, Merkel's chief spokesman, declined to comment on the G-20 draft's substance. “Nothing is decided for now,” he said by email. “There are many options.”
While the main communique won't affirm the group's commitment to tackling climate change, the section of the draft said the remaining 19 parties will endorse a separate climate and energy action plan, which will act as an annex.
The other heads of state and government from G-20 countries, as well as the European Union's leaders, will affirm their belief that the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement are irreversible.
—With assistance from Tony Czuczka.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=115774818&vname=dennotallissues&fn=115774818&jd=115774818
-
Here's How Texas Polluters Escape Penalties
Jul 7, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Mark Collette
From the chemical plants of Houston to the oil and gas wells of West Texas, the state is letting polluters off the hook, foregoing penalties in about 97 percent of incidents, environmental groups reported Friday.
Companies chalk up the releases as unavoidable consequences of complex chemical processes and necessary maintenance. But they could be stopped with equipment upgrades if companies had the incentive to do so in the form of stiffer penalties, according to the report, "Breakdowns in Enforcement."
Houston, with its massive industrial complex, had more such incidents than anywhere else during the five-year period examined in the report. But in one surprising finding, the analysis showed that supposedly small polluters were escaping penalties for big emissions by gaming the system.
"The result is that thousands of tons of illegal air pollution is threatening public health, but is not being taken into account by Texas regulators," said Gabriel Clark-Leach, an attorney for the Environmental Integrity Project, which produced the report with Environment Texas.
State officials and companies have not seen the report, because it was published early Friday.
The groups logged more than 400 million pounds of pollution in the incidents, and penalties averaged just 3 cents per pound.
In the absence of state enforcement, advocates have turned to lawsuits, including a recent one that netted a civil penalty of $20 million against Exxon Mobil for releases from its Baytown complex.
The analysis of state records reveals that Texas imposed penalties on 588 out of 21,179 malfunction and maintenance events reported by companies from 2011 through 2016. The total fines for these violations of the law was $13.5 million.
The Houston area had more than 3,800 incidents, which released 5.2 million pounds of illegal air pollution, the analysis found.
But the largest releases of illegal pollution, in terms of total pounds, happened in the oil fields of West Texas, where 10 million pounds were released.
Under state and federal law, sources that emit less than 25 tons of sulfur dioxide and volatile organic compounds each year can claim an exemption from the federal Clean Air Act's more stringent permitting requirements that call for public notice and modern air pollution control equipment.
But many Texas facilities that have claimed this exemption emitted more than 25 tons of these pollutants during 2016, meaning that they violated emission limits, the report said.
Of the 96 sites statewide that reported more than 25 tons of sulfur dioxide emissions during maintenance and malfunction in 2016, almost half — 47 — improperly claimed to be "insignificant sources" that are exempt, according to the analysis.
A Chronicle series last year, Chemical Breakdown, exposed the lack of penalties and oversight for chemical facilities across the nation.
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Here-s-how-Texas-polluters-escape-penalties-11269890.php
-
California Governor Plans to Host 2018 Global Climate Summit
Jul 6, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Kathleen Ronayne
California Gov. Jerry Brown plans to convene a climate conference next year, his latest action to position the state as a leader in battling global warming as the White House recedes.
The summit set for 2018 in San Francisco will mark the first time a state is hosting a climate gathering aimed at upholding the goals of the Paris climate agreement, an international pact to fight global warming that President Donald Trump is exiting.
Brown announced the Global Climate Action summit on Thursday in a video message to the Global Citizen Festival in Hamburg, Germany. His announcement comes as Trump is in Hamburg for a meeting of the Group of 20 economic powers, which includes many European allies that encouraged the president not to withdraw from the Paris agreement.
The Trump administration’s decision to roll back environmental regulations in the United States and withdraw from the international agreement has elevated Brown’s profile on the world stage. He traveled to China earlier this year to discuss climate policy and will serve as a special envoy to states and regions at the United Nation’s November climate conference.
“Yes, I know President Trump is trying to get out of the Paris agreement, but he doesn’t speak for the rest of America,” Brown said in the video. “We in California and in states all across America believe it’s time to act.”
Brown’s climate conference will feature representatives of subnational governments, businesses, investors, musicians and others to highlight action to fight global warming and to “spur deeper commitment” from national governments. A full list of attendees hasn’t been released, and it’s unclear if any foreign presidents or prime ministers plan to attend.
“It’s up to you and it’s up to me and tens of millions of other people to get it together to roll back the forces of carbonization and join together to combat the existential threat of climate change,” Brown said in the video.
Building alliances to fight climate change has been a key piece of Brown’s tenure. He’s already launched a multi-state effort to keep the country on track to meet the Paris goals and created an alliance of subnational governments aimed at slowing the warming of the planet.
Meanwhile in Sacramento, Brown is struggling to reach consensus on a bill to reauthorize California’s cap-and-trade program, the cornerstone of the state’s efforts to reduce carbon emissions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/energy-environment/california-governor-plans-to-host-2018-global-climate-summit/2017/07/06/7e6d6896-626a-11e7-80a2-8c226031ac3f_story.html?utm_term=.b837ca2d31d4
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