Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 7/10/2017
-
Subcommittee Markup - FY 2018 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Bill
Jul 11, 2017 | House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agen
Location: 2358-A Rayburn / 7:00 PM -
Oversight Hearing on "Evaluating Federal Offshore Oil and Gas Development on the Outer Continental Shelf"
Jul 12, 2017 | House Natural Resources Committee
Location: 1324 Longworth / 10:00 AM -
Committee Business Meeting
Jul 12, 2017 | Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
Location: 406 Dirksen / 9:45 AM -
The Use of TIFIA and Innovative Financing in Improving Infrastructure to Enhance Safety, Mobility, and Economic Opportunity
Jul 12, 2017 | Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
Location: 406 Dirksen / 10:00 AM -
Review of the FY2018 Budget Request for the U.S. Dept. of Transportation
Jul 13, 2017 | Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Age
Location: 192 Dirksen / 2:00 PM -
(ACC Mentioned) DC Circ. Pares Down EPA's 'Sham Recycling' Rule
Jul 7, 2017 | Law 360
By Juan Carlos Rodriguez
The D.C. Circuit on Friday struck down portions of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory definition of solid waste that were challenged by industry groups but left the rest of the rule intact. -
(ACC Mentioned) New Recycling Program Set to Kick Off Along the Coast this Weekend
Jul 7, 2017 | WNCT
By Elizabeth Tew
A broad coalition of cities, counties, businesses, and recycling will launch a campaign in Coastal North Carolina to encourage residents and visitors to recycle plastics bags and consumer product wraps. -
(ACC Mentioned) Eastman Chemical vs Albemarle: Which Stock Is a Better Pick?
Jul 10, 2017 | Zacks Equity Research
The chemical industry has clawed its way back from the trough of the Great Recession. The highly cyclical industry put up a commendable performance in first-quarter 2017. -
(ACC Mentioned) Associated Press Caught Fabricating Cabinet Meeting That Never Happened in Order to Publish Fake News
Jul 10, 2017 | Newstarget
By Jayson Veley
It’s a fair statement to say that the mainstream media has never been this hateful and this politically biased towards any sitting president as they have been towards President Trump. -
(ACC Mentioned) Clutching At Straws
Jul 10, 2017 | Weekend Post
By Stuart White
Last night at a restaurant in Gaborone I ordered a diet coke which, when it was delivered, was presented with a plastic straw. -
Former EPA Risk Assessor Said To Be Top Contender For Toxics Chief
Jul 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Michael Dourson, a former EPA risk assessor and founder of a leading risk assessment consulting group, is the leading contender for the appointment to head EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), which is responsible for implementing... -
Regional Role in Chemicals Nixed in EPA Guidance to Staff
Jul 10, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
EPA regions are no longer directed to intensify their work promoting chemical safety in guidance to agency officials overseeing the program. -
In a Milestone, California Lists Monsanto’s Glyphosate as a Carcinogen
Jul 10, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
In an action with national and global implications, today California officially listed glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller, as a chemical known to cause cancerunder the state’s Proposition 65 law. -
EU Criteria on Endocrine Disruptors in Pesticides Draw Fire
Jul 10, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
A European Union committee's approval of criteria for identifying endocrine-disrupting substances in pesticides—which could be applied to other chemicals in future EU legislation—is under fire from industry and lawmakers. -
EU Chemicals Agency Chief: Firms Not Updating Dossiers
Jul 10, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
Companies that trade chemicals in the European Union are failing to meet their obligations to update the substance registration dossiers they submitted under the bloc's REACH law, according to the head of the European Chemicals Agency. -
(ACC Mentioned) Updated North American Trade Deal Could Boost U.S. Chemical Exports
Jul 9, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Glenn Hess
With talks aimed at revising the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) expected to start soon, chemical manufacturers recently offered advice to the Trump Administration for updating the 23-year-old accord with Canada and Mexico. -
(ACC Mentioned) Capito Says Private Sector Starting to Get Interested in Storage Hub Proposal
Jul 10, 2017 | West Virginia MetroNews
By Jeff Jenkins
U.S. Senator Shelley Moore Capito continued the state’s congressional delegation’s push for an ethane storage hub to be located in the Appalachian region during a roundtable discussion Friday at WVU in Morgantown. -
Citing Industry Risk, EPA Asks Court to Recall Methane NSPS Vacatur
Jul 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
EPA is urging the federal appellate court panel that vacated its administrative stay of Obama-era methane standards for new oil and gas sources to recall its mandate for the agency to immediately lift the stay, particularly as EPA is evaluating options for appeal... -
Court Vacatur of EPA Methane NSPS Stay Leaves Oil & Gas Sector in Limbo
Jul 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
The recent federal appellate court ruling vacating EPA's 90-day administrative stay of Obama-era methane standards for new oil and gas sources is leaving the industry in regulatory limbo and vulnerable to citizen suits, with the rule's compliance deadlines restarting... -
Energy Bill on Standby with Health Care, Budget in Flux
Jul 10, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Geoff Koss
While congressional Republicans struggle to check off big-ticket agenda items from their to-do list before the August recess, bipartisan Senate energy legislation reworked from last year could fill the legislative vacuum in the coming weeks. -
Keystone XL Foes Weigh Appeal to South Dakota Supreme Court
Jul 10, 2017 | AP (In The New York Times)
Foes of the Keystone XL oil pipeline said Friday they may appeal a South Dakota judge's decision upholding state regulators' approval for the pipeline to cross the state, potentially extending the legal conflict over the pipeline. -
US Agencies Reviewing Potential Cyber Attacks on Power Plants
Jul 7, 2017 | Platts
By William Freebairn, Elaine Hiruo and Steven Dolley
US federal agencies are working with utilities to understand the threat from recent potential cyberattacks on the country's electricity system, following reports this week that a nuclear plant in Kansas was among power plants targeted by hackers. -
Scariest Thing About Cyberwarfare: No Rules of Engagement
Jul 7, 2017 | Bloomberg
By Leonid Bershidsky
A new report by Bloomberg News about Russia being suspected of recently hacking a dozen U.S. power plants, including a nuclear one, is far more serious than any possible attempt to influence an election. -
EPA Defeat on Methane Could Hinder Other Regulatory Rollbacks
Jul 10, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers and Sam Pearson
A defeat in court of the EPA's plan to postpone methane standards for oil and gas wells could bolster challenges to delays of emissions limits for landfills and regulations for new chemical plant security. -
Safety Board's Push for Exxon Records Carries High Stakes
Jul 10, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
A years-long dispute over the Chemical Safety Board's access to ExxonMobil Corp. documents will enter a new phase at a Los Angeles federal courthouse in August, posing a test for the agency—and for corporations seeking to avoid disclosure... -
Eastman, American Water $150M Elk River Settlement Approved
Jul 10, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
Eastman Chemical Co. and public drinking water providers gained preliminary court approval of a settlement with those impacted by a 2014 chemical spill into West Virginia's Elk River that could total $151 million... -
After ‘Infrastructure Week,’ Legislative Spadework Must Begin
Jul 10, 2017 | Morning Consult
By Pete Sepp
Last month the White House kicked off a series of ambitious policy proposalsdesigned to improve the nation’s infrastructure, without having to spend a trillion in precious tax dollars. -
G20 World Leaders’ Agreement Hinges on U.S. Climate Change Issue
Jul 8, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Alicia Cohn
The U.S. wants a reference to fossil fuels included in the G20 joint statement and the group of 20 world leaders’ negotiations surrounding the communique hinges on the issue, according to reports on Saturday. -
Worried About Your Health Care? Then Don't Let Them Cut EPA's Budget.
Jul 10, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Keith Zukowski
As America continues to be consumed by the health care debate there is one thing everybody can still agree on: We all want to lead happy, healthy lives.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Subcommittee Markup - FY 2018 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Bill
Jul 11, 2017 | House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agen
Mark up Appropriations Bill, FY2018
-
Jul 12, 2017 | House Natural Resources Committee
-
Jul 12, 2017 | Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works will hold a Business Meeting to consider the following items:
PN 560, Annie Caputo, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
PN 562, David Wright, of South Carolina, to be a Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
PN 460, Susan Parker Bodine, of Maryland, to be Assistant Administrator of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance of the Environmental Protection Agency
Substitute amendment to S. 822, the Brownfields Utilization, Investment, and Local Development Act of 2017
S. 1447, the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2017 S. 1359, John F. Kennedy Center Reauthorization Act of 2017
Substitute amendment to S. 810, a bill to facilitate construction of a bridge on certain property in Christian County, Missouri, and for other purposes.
S. 1395, a bill to revise the boundaries of certain John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System units in Delaware
5 General Services Administration resolutions
-
Jul 12, 2017 | Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works will hold a full committee hearing entitled, “The Use of TIFIA and Innovative Financing in Improving Infrastructure to Enhance Safety, Mobility, and Economic Opportunity.”
Witnesses: Anne Mayer, executive director, Riverside County (Calif.) Transportation Commission; Jennifer Aument, group general manager, Transurban North America; and Christopher Coes, vice president for real estate policy and external affairs, Smart Growth America, and director, LOCUS: Responsible Real Estate Developers and Investors.
-
Review of the FY2018 Budget Request for the U.S. Dept. of Transportation
Jul 13, 2017 | Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Age
Agenda
Hearing to review the President’s Fiscal Year 2018 funding request and budget justification for the U.S. Department of Transportation
Member Statements
Senator Susan Collins (Republican - Maine)
Witnesses
The Honorable Elaine Chao
Secretary
U.S. Department of Transportation
-
(ACC Mentioned) DC Circ. Pares Down EPA's 'Sham Recycling' Rule
Jul 7, 2017 | Law 360
By Juan Carlos Rodriguez
The D.C. Circuit on Friday struck down portions of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory definition of solid waste that were challenged by industry groups but left the rest of the rule intact.
The EPA had touted its 2015 rule as an effort to cut down on “sham recycling,” when companies claim to reuse materials that actually get discarded. Industry groups such as the American Chemistry Council and the American Petroleum Institute challenged parts of the rule including a test to determine when materials are actually recycled or just discarded. The appeals court panel, in a 2-1 decision, sided with the industry groups on that issue.
One component of the legitimacy test that the panel vacated — dubbed Factor 4 — was an effort to prevent recyclers from loading products with “hazardous secondary materials that provide no recognizable benefit to the product” and that are “just along for the ride.”
Judges Brett M. Kavanaugh and Stephen F. Williams said Factor 4 creates one track for determining which products are clearly “legitimate” and another for when making a determination is more difficult. The court said the line between “genuine and sham” is not adequately defined, however, and that an exception intended to clarify the issue failed to do so.
“Factor 4’s complex provisions fall short of the aim,” the judges said. “Factor 4 imposes tasks tangential to disposal … and thus tangential to EPA’s authority … even when EPA has offered little reason to doubt a product’s legitimacy.”
Judge David S. Tatel said he would have upheld that factor.
The industry groups had also challenged another component of the test — Factor 3 — that requires businesses to “contain” secondary materials, meaning they must be labeled or otherwise identified as a hazardous secondary materials. But the appeals court said the EPA was within its authority to impose such a requirement.
The industry groups succeeded again with a challenge to a different part of the rule that addressed the reclamation of materials handled by third parties. Reclamation, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, occurs when secondary materials are “processed to recover a usable product, or … regenerated.”
The rule holds that certain hazardous secondary materials are so “waste-like” that true reclamation isn’t really possible, but it offered an exception if the third party could prove it had an RCRA permit or RCRA variance and met emergency preparedness standards.
Judges Kavanaugh and Williams found that except for the emergency preparedness provision, the exemption was too limited, and they reinstated the exemption that was part of the 2008 rule, which allowed a business to transfer secondary materials to a third party if it made “reasonable efforts” to ensure that materials would be properly handled by third parties.
Again, Judge Tatel sided with the EPA and said he would have left the 2015 exemption intact.
Separate from the industry groups’ challenges, environmentalists including the Sierra Club had challenged parts of the rule as too lenient. The panel said that before 2008, the EPA had exempted 32 materials, products and processes from RCRA hazardous waste regulation. In the 2015 rule, the EPA required exempt facilities to prove they are legitimately recycling the materials.
The environmental groups said the agency also should have required facilities to store all hazardous secondary materials according to certain safety and labeling standards and to periodically submit compliance-related information to the EPA.
But the panel said it did not have jurisdiction to decide those matters.
“Because EPA expressly stated that it was deferring action on applying containment and notification conditions to the pre-2008 exclusions, we lack jurisdiction to review environmental petitioners’ claim,” it said.
None of the parties immediately responded to requests for comment Friday.
Judges Brett M. Kavanaugh, Stephen F. Williams and David S. Tatel sat on the panel.
The Sierra Club, California Communities Against Toxics, the Clean Air Council, the Coalition for a Safe Environment and the Louisiana Environmental Action Network and are represented by James S. Pew and Khushi K. Desai of Earthjustice and David R. Case of the Environmental Technology Council.
The American Petroleum Institute is represented by Thomas Sayre Llewellyn of the Law Office of Thomas Sayre Llewellyn and in-house counsel Stacy R. Linden and Matthew A. Haynie.
The American Gas Association, Edison Electric Institute, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and Utility Solid Waste Activities Group are represented by Aaron J. Wallisch of Venable LLP.
Freeport-McMoRan Inc. is represented by Jeremy C. Marwell, Kevin A. Gaynor, John P. Elwood and Benjamin S. Lippard of Vinson & Elkins LLP.
The National Association of Manufacturers and the American Chemistry Council are represented by Joel Visser of Sidley Austin LLP. The National Association of Manufacturers is also represented by Linda E. Kelly and Quentin Riegel of the Manufacturers' Center for Legal Action. The American Chemistry Council is also represented by in-house counsel Leslie A. Hulse.
The case is American Petroleum Institute v. EPA, case number 09-1038, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
--Additional reporting by Joyce Hanson. Editing by Sara Ziegler.
Update: This story has been updated with more detail.https://www.law360.com/articles/942217/dc-circ-pares-down-epa-s-sham-recycling-rule
-
(ACC Mentioned) New Recycling Program Set to Kick Off Along the Coast this Weekend
Jul 7, 2017 | WNCT
By Elizabeth Tew
A broad coalition of cities, counties, businesses, and recycling will launch a campaign in Coastal North Carolina to encourage residents and visitors to recycle plastics bags and consumer product wraps.
The recycling awareness campaign will kick off Saturday, July 8, 2017 at the Earth and Surf Festival- a popular, annual environmental awareness event at North Topsail Beach, NC. The campaign includes a variety of public outreach efforts sponsored by the American Chemistry Council, Onslow County Solid Waste and Keep Onslow Beautiful and Sonoco Recycling. Additional events in other coastal communities will occur throughout the summer to help spread the campaign messages.
“The need for this came from the fact that we’re seeing more plastic bags on our beaches, we’re seeing more of them on our roadsides and we’re seeing more of them at our recycling facility in Onslow County where they aren’t recyclable,” Lisa Rider, Onslow Co. Solid Waste deputy director, said.
The campaign emphasizes the importance of not putting plastic bags and wraps in curbside recycling bins. Instead, these bags can be returned for recycling to major grocery and retail stores such as Food Lion, Walmart, Target, Harris Teeter and Publix.
Consumers simply collect their clean, dry bags and wraps in a
Plastic bag and drop them in a storefront recycling bin. To identify what materials can be recycled and the nearest recycling locations, check out plasticfilmrecycling.org.
http://wnct.com/2017/07/07/new-recycling-program-set-to-kick-off-along-the-coast-this-weekend/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Eastman Chemical vs Albemarle: Which Stock Is a Better Pick?
Jul 10, 2017 | Zacks Equity Research
The chemical industry has clawed its way back from the trough of the Great Recession. The highly cyclical industry put up a commendable performance in first-quarter 2017. A host of companies in the space posted better-than-expected earnings in the quarter, driven by strength in key chemical end-use markets and strategic measures including productivity improvement, pricing actions and earnings-accretive acquisitions.
The bullish Zacks Industry Rank of 37 carried by the Zacks categorized Chemicals-Diversified industry testifies that the chemical industry is in fine fettle. An impressive rank places the industry in the top 14% of the 250+ groups enlisted.
The Chemicals-Diversified industry has also outperformed the broader market over the past year. The industry has gained 21.6% over this period, higher than S&P 500’s corresponding return of 14%.While the chemical industry still faces some challenges, its healthy momentum is expected to continue in the back half of 2017. The U.S. chemical industry remains on course for solid growth this year and the next. The American Chemistry Council (ACC), an industry trade group, envisions accelerated growth for the domestic chemical industry on the back of an improving global economy and a surge in shale-linked capital investment.
The European chemical industry is also showing signs of recovery after remaining in a rut for long. The business environment for the European chemical industry improved during the first quarter on the back of improving global economic sentiment.
In this write up, we run a comparative analysis on two prominent chemical payers – Eastman Chemical Company (EMN - Free Report) and Albemarle Corporation (ALB - Free Report) – to figure out which one is a better option for investment right now.
Eastman Chemical, sporting a Zacks Rank #2 (Buy), is a global chemical company boasting a broad portfolio of chemical, plastic, and fiber products with a market capitalization of $12.2 billion. Albemarle, also a Zacks Rank #2 stock, has a market capitalization of around $12 billion and is a premier specialty chemicals maker with leading positions in attractive end markets globally.
Let's take a closer look at how Eastman Chemical and Albemarle are stacked up against each other in terms of certain key metrics.
Price Performance
Eastman Chemical has gained 24.8% over the past year while Albemarle’s shares have rallied 32.9%. While both stocks have outperformed the Chemicals-Diversified industry over the same period, Albemarle clearly scores above Eastman Chemical.Leverage & Liquidity
Albemarle has a lower leverage as evident by its debt to equity ratio of 0.37 compared with Eastman Chemical’s debt to equity ratio of 1.39.In terms of liquidity (as determined by the current ratio), Albemarle also holds an edge over Eastman Chemical. The current ratio for Albemarle is 1.98 compared with 1.93 for Eastman Chemical.
Valuation
Going by the EV/EBITDA (Enterprise Value/ Earnings before Interest Tax Depreciation and Amortization) multiple, a preferred valuation metric for cyclical industries like chemicals, Eastman Chemical looks cheaper compared with Albemarle.
In case of Albemarle, the trailing 12-months EV/EBITDA multiple is 14.45, higher than the Chemicals-Diversified industry average trailing 12-months EV/EBITDA multiple of 10.72. On the other hand, Eastman Chemical is much cheaper with a trailing 12-month EV/EBITDA of 8.92.
Return on Equity (ROE)
ROE is a measure of a company’s efficiency in utilizing shareholder’s funds. ROE for the trailing 12-months for Eastman Chemical and Albemarle is 22.2% and 12%, respectively. While both stocks have scored below the industry’s level of 22.8%, Eastman Chemical holds an edge here.
Earnings Surprise History
Taking a look at both the companies surprise history, Albemarle has outpaced the Zacks Consensus Estimate in each of the trailing four quarters, with an average positive earnings surprise of 8.97%. On the other hand, Eastman Chemical has delivered positive earnings surprises in the three of the trailing four quarters, generating an average positive earnings surprise of 4.21%.
Estimate Revisions & Growth Expectations
Over the past 60 days, Eastman Chemical’s estimates for the current year has edged up 0.1% to $7.49 per share. On the other hand, Albemarle’s estimates for the current year increased 1.2% over the same period to $4.33.
The expected earnings per share growth rate for Eastman Chemical for the current year currently stands at 10.85% compared with an expected increase of 21.20% for Albemarle. Also, Albemarle has an expected long-term earnings growth of 14.4%, much higher than Eastman Chemical’s 7.9%. As such, Albemarle is a clear winner in terms of earnings growth expectations.
In Conclusion
Our comparative analysis shows that Eastman Chemical holds an edge over Albemarle in terms of valuation and ROE measures. However, when considering price performance, leverage, earnings surprise history and earnings growth projections, Albemarle seems to be the preferred stock. As the scale is tipped in favor of Albemarle, it makes a better investment proposition compared to Eastman Chemical.
Some Other Stocks to Consider
Apart from Albemarle, investors interested in the chemical space may also consider Kronos Worldwide, Inc. (KRO - Free Report) and Innospec Inc. (IOSP - Free Report) , both of which carry a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy). You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank stocks here.
Kronos has an expected earnings growth of 354.8% for the current year.
Innospec has an expected earnings growth of 7.9% for the current year.
Will You Make a Fortune on the Shift to Electric Cars?
Here's another stock idea to consider. Much like petroleum 150 years ago, lithium power may soon shake the world, creating millionaires and reshaping geo-politics. Soon electric vehicles (EVs) may be cheaper than gas guzzlers. Some are already reaching 265 miles on a single charge.
With battery prices plummeting and charging stations set to multiply, one company stands out as the #1 stock to buy according to Zacks research.
It's not the one you think.https://www.zacks.com/stock/news/266877/eastman-chemical-vs-albemarle-which-stock-is-a-better-pick
-
Jul 10, 2017 | Newstarget
By Jayson Veley
It’s a fair statement to say that the mainstream media has never been this hateful and this politically biased towards any sitting president as they have been towards President Trump. Their primary objective is not to inform the public, but rather to persuade the public through the use of lies, rhetoric and propaganda about the president of the United States. They want the American people to see President Trump as they see him – an incoherent, incompetent man who should never have been elected last November. Over the past few months, we have seen the true colors of the mainstream media really start to come out, and it’s quite obvious that they are now more interested in acting as something of an anti-conservative task force than they are in reporting fair, balanced information.
The most recent example of anti-Trump fake news comes from the Associated Press, which recently conjured up a false story about a meeting between EPA head Scott Pruitt and Dow Chemical CEO Andrew Liveris. The AP alleged that not only were the two in communication with one another, but also claimed that some kind of misconduct took place as a result.
“The Trump administration’s top environmental official met privately with the chief executive of Dow Chemical shortly before reversing his agency’s push to ban a widely used pesticide after health studies showed it can harm children’s brains,” wrote Associated Press columnist Michael Biesecker.
But then, on July 4, the Associated Press released a statement admitting that the story about Pruitt and Liveris was inaccurate and misleading. “In a story June 27, The Associated Press, relying on schedules provided by the Environmental Protection Agency, reported erroneously that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt met with Dow Chemical CEO Andrew Liveris for about a half-hour at Houston hotel,” they wrote. The AP noted that a spokeswoman for the Environmental Protection Agency said the meeting between Pruitt and Liveris was canceled, even though they did have a “brief introduction in passing.”
“The story also misreported the name of an industry trade group,” The Associated Press admitted. “It is the American Chemistry Council, not the American Chemical Council.”
If this story sounds familiar to you, it’s not just your mind playing tricks on you. This is no déjà vu. Indeed, just a couple of weeks ago, the fake news network known as CNN was once again caught spreading misinformation, alleging that Anthony Scaramucci, a close Trump ally, was linked to a Russian Investment Fund. This turned out to be a blatant lie, and CNN was forced to not only apologize to Scaramucci, but also to retract the story altogether. This was certainly an embarrassing moment for the left leaning cable news network, which takes great pride in branding itself as fair and unbiased.
The sad truth, though, is that even though CNN and the Associated Press were forced to apologize for participating in the spread of fake news, this will not stop. They will not learn from their mistakes and try to engage in more accurate reporting from this point forward. In fact, it’s extremely likely that just a few weeks from now, one of these left wing media outlets will be caught inventing a false story about President Trump yet again.
This is why it is so important that the president continues to use social media to communicate with the American people. There is a reason why Trump is routinely mocked and criticized for what they consider to be excessive and unnecessary tweeting – it’s because every time Trump communicates with the people via social media, the information can’t be funneled through the liberal media. It can’t be altered or manipulated in any way so as to fit their big government, anti-Trump agenda.
Keep tweeting, Mr. President, and for the sake of the country, do not stop taking on the mainstream media. It is a battle worth having.
http://www.newstarget.com/2017-07-07-priority-associated-press-caught-fabricating-cabinet-meeting-that-never-happened-in-order-to-publish-fake-news.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Clutching At Straws
Jul 10, 2017 | Weekend Post
By Stuart White
Last night at a restaurant in Gaborone I ordered a diet coke which, when it was delivered, was presented with a plastic straw. My dinner guest was horrified and proceeded to throw some shock-and-awe plastic pollutant statistics this way in order to enlighten me on the negative impact my consumer behaviour has.
Of the eight million tons of plastic trash that flow every year into the world’s oceans, the plastic drinking straw, this small, slender tube, utterly unnecessary for most beverage consumption, is at the centre of a growing environmental campaign aimed at convincing people to stop using them to help save the oceans – and I had not got the memo.A few years ago like me you may have seen the eight-minute video of a four-inch section of straw being removed from a Costa Rican sea turtle’s nostril. The video is painful to watch, and has been viewed more than 11 million times on you tube. I have now seen it a few times as it has been replayed recently on SKY news alongside coverage of sharks and other marine life being dissected to reveal masses of plastic waste inside their stomachs.
Despite this I have not changed my behaviour and it’s not because I am fond of straws – I rarely use them and although I certainly never ask for one, I never not ask either – and therein lies the point that I wish to make. “If you have the opportunity to make this choice and not to use a plastic straw, this can help keep this item off our beaches and raise awareness on plastic in the ocean,” says Jemma Jambeck, the University of Georgia engineering professor whose ground-breaking 2015 study was the first measurement of how much plastic debris enters the ocean every year. “And if you can make this one choice, maybe you can do even more.”Except for people with medical needs, straws are not needed to consume beverages or water. It is estimated that Americans use 500 million straws daily and citizen activists, my dinner guest being one, want to shrink that number. As it stands, being small and lightweight, straws often never make it into recycling bins; the evidence of this failure is clearly visible on any beach.
And while straws may amount to only a tiny fraction of ocean plastic, their size and shape make them one of the most insidious polluters because they entangle marine animals and are consumed by fish. Straws are the latest on an expanding list of individual plastic products being banned, taxed, or boycotted in an effort to curb seaborne plastic trash before it outweighs fish, a calculation projected to come true by 2050, according to one study.Last year, California became the first state in the US to ban plastic bags, joining a host of nations that already do so (Kenya, China, Bangladesh, Rwanda, and Macedonia). France has not only banned bags, it has become the first country to also ban plastic plates, cups, and utensils, effective from 2020. San Francisco banned polystyrene, including Styrofoam cups and food containers, packaging peanuts, and beach toys. And in Rhode Island, the release of celebratory balloons is being targeted by activists, after almost 2,200 balloons were picked up on the shores of Aquidneck Island in the last four years.
Naturally, the plastics industry opposes bans at every turn. Bag manufacturers have persuaded lawmakers in Florida, Missouri, Idaho, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Indiana to pass legislation outlawing the bag bans, but that’s a topic for another argument on corporate greed versus global survival; and with the way the US is going under the Trump administration who knows if all of this goes backwards instead of progressing.
And in this vein, Keith Christman Director for plastic markets for the American Chemistry Council, says they will fight the banning of plastic straws but, what sets the anti-straw campaign apart from other efforts—and why the anti-straw campaign may succeed—is that activists are not seeking to change laws or regulations. They are merely asking consumers to change their habits and say no to straws.
Linda Booker, a North Carolina filmmaker, whose documentary, ‘Straws’, is making the rounds of the spring film festival circuit in the United States, says the turtle video, in part, inspired her to take on straws as a film project. She interviewed the scientists and included them in her film. “I believe a lot of the catalyst for these straw campaigns was the video of the straw in the turtle’s nose,” she says.
My thinking is that I guess part of the problem is that people see straws as insignificant and unimportant. I saw the turtle thing but never objected when a can would be provided with a straw. I try to make sure that when I go to the supermarket I take by environment friendly bag and resist buying plastic bottled water but is it enough as I provide plastic water bottles in droves to clients who visit our offices for fear that we may offend them if we offer water from a purifier – so I may threaten the marine life just to keep my clients happy and free of offence.
Many times people are overwhelmed by the bigness of the problem and often give up says an actor and activist Christopher Griener. “We need something achievable for everyday humans. The challenge is if we can get rid of plastic straws, let’s start there. Then we can move on from there.”
Here’s a thought. There is a succinct old saying in English which goes ‘Don’t do as I do, just do as I say’, so maybe I need to put my morals where my mouthpiece is and offer my guests tap water in a straw-less glass (even clear glass is green!). And I would like to challenge you to resist taking straws, specifically asking waiters not to bring them and share this message or is this too much to ask or am I just clutching at straws?http://www.weekendpost.co.bw/wp-column-details.php?col_id=699
-
Former EPA Risk Assessor Said To Be Top Contender For Toxics Chief
Jul 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Michael Dourson, a former EPA risk assessor and founder of a leading risk assessment consulting group, is the leading contender for the appointment to head EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), which is responsible for implementing the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform law that President Obama enacted last summer.
But if nominated, Dourson is likely to face opposition from environmentalists who in the past have criticized his candidacy for other posts at EPA.
Sources say that while he has not yet been formally tapped for the post of assistant administrator, he is currently undergoing background checks.
Neither Dourson nor EPA returned calls seeking comment.
Dourson, one of the first EPA scientists involved with the creation of the agency's influential Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) risk analysis program, founded a non-profit risk assessment and peer review consulting organization called Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA) after leaving EPA in 1995.
Last summer, the group merged with the University of Cincinnati, where it is now housed as a center.
Before its merger, TERA touted its mix of government and industry clients, publicizing that in most years its government contracts have exceeded its industry work.
But Dourson's experience as a risk assessor may stand him in good stead as implementing the new toxics law places OCSPP leaders in the role of establishing and setting precedents with a wholly new risk assessment program -- particularly since EPA's toxics office has traditionally left such work to EPA's research office, as former Obama EPA toxics chief Jim Jones told Inside EPA last December.
"The IRIS program exists to support other parts of EPA in need of hazard assessments in their work," Jones said. "Since [the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics] has not been doing risk assessment it has not been a big customer of IRIS, but it is becoming so.”
In the past, Dourson had been a contender for a staff management position in EPA's research office as director of the IRIS program. As recently as 2014, Dourson was a finalist for the IRIS post, along with Vincent Cogliano, the EPA scientist who eventually landed the job. Cogliano has since been replaced by current IRIS Director Kris Thayer.
But Dourson's candidacy quickly led to concerns from environmentalists and public health activists, who questioned his industry contracts and relationships, and those concerns could resurface if Dourson is nominated.
IRIS Concerns
TERA used to release annual charts outlining its mix of industry and government contracts. The most recent of these on the organization's new website at the University of Cincinnati, shows “2015-2016 fiscal year project time by sponsor,” showing 30 percent profit and 70 percent government/non-profit time.
TERA has in the past posted financial disclosure reports indicating its annual funding mix. Before moving to the university, TERA's website indicated that in 2013, the funding mix for the group was 37 percent "industry and industry related work" and 63 percent was "government and other non-profit work.”
In 2014, the site indicated TERA's government work was with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the National Library of Medicine, Health Canada and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, and its industry work was with American Cleaning Institute, Amgen, American Chemistry Council, Eli Lily and Genentech.
A group of public health and environmental advocates wrote to EPA research office leaders in November 2014 with their concerns about leadership at IRIS, though the letter never mentioned either candidate for the IRIS director position open in 2014.
“We are writing you with our concerns regarding the need to maintain the scientific objectivity in the IRIS program," the group of public health scientists and advocates wrote EPA research office leaders. “Our concerns derive from external pressures that have plagued the IRIS program, at times confounding and slowing essential progress on chemicals to which millions of Americans are exposed.”
Among concerns raised by staff during Dourson's evaluation for the IRIS director job was his interaction with IRIS staff, where he reiterated some of the concerns about the program that he outlines in a 2009 letter to former Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA).
In that letter, and, sources said, also in the discussion with staff, Dourson outlined his approach to address a longstanding problem with IRIS -- its limited production.
In a 2014 interview, Dourson said that there are only two ways to increase IRIS output: increase staffing and resources, or seek help from outside groups.
The IRIS program's limited output has long been a concern, highlighted by agency advisors and the Government Accountability Office in multiple reports. The most recent past IRIS director, Cogliano, named production as his top challenge in 2014. But outsourcing IRIS work to others would likely raise conflict of interest concerns from environmentalists and others.
TERA's site includes a page discussing its efforts to build partnerships to produce more assessments more quickly. “In fulfilling its mission to protect public health, the Risk Science Center builds partnerships between industry and government to incorporate the best science in the development of risk assessment values and methods. Such partnerships provide the opportunity to leverage the scarce government funds that are available to keep up with the growing number of studies and improvements in risk methods.”
The site provides the example of the IRIS program, noting that “it would take over 20 years in order to provide only one update to the over 500 chemicals on IRIS, given the current rate of reevaluations by the IRIS program. Involving scientists who are not government employees or government contractors in assessments can take advantage of expert knowledge on the individual chemical; outside scientists may also be given more time to fully explore all technical issues.”
TSCA Challenges
The new chief of EPA's toxics program will face similar challenges as EPA continues its early efforts to implement the TSCA reform law, especially with its new requirements that the agency assess the risks of “existing” chemicals that were on the market when the original TSCA was enacted in 1976, and were at that time largely grandfathered.
Concerns over EPA's limited ability to assess and regulate these chemicals were a major driver for TSCA reform, and Congress directed EPA to conduct assessments of 20 prioritized existing chemicals per year in the reform law.
One, perhaps controversial, inclusion in the law is its requirement that EPA consider risk assessments conducted by outside parties, and its direction that EPA produce guidance on how these assessments should be performed.
EPA released that guidance June 22, along with a trio of framework rules establishing the new program for existing chemicals and scoping documents for the first 10 assessments EPA is conducting.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/former-epa-risk-assessor-said-be-top-contender-toxics-chief
-
Regional Role in Chemicals Nixed in EPA Guidance to Staff
Jul 10, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
EPA regions are no longer directed to intensify their work promoting chemical safety in guidance to agency officials overseeing the program.
A blueprint the previous administration laid out for Environmental Protection Agency regions to engage in chemicals management efforts has been removed from the draft National Program Managers guidance for Fiscal Years 2018-2019, although the agency sent Bloomberg BNA a statement saying the “Toxic Substances Control Act is a priority.” The draft guidance details priority regional activities in the agency's major programs and offices.
The draft guidance for EPA's chemical and pesticide offices, however, does not mention the toxics law.
The chemicals law is mentioned in the enforcement and compliance assurance draft. That document directs regional enforcement officials to project the total number of fiscal year 2018 TSCA inspections they will conduct and whether those will address asbestos, lead, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), or new or existing chemicals.
Regional offices also may review TSCA compliance as part of broader facility inspections. They may review records and other documents, and triage enforcement tips pointing out company noncompliance, the draft guidance says.
The lack of focus on TSCA contrasts with the role the Obama administration outlined in its final year in office. The Obama-era addendum to the EPA's final Fiscal Year 2017 National Program Manager guidance described EPA's regions as being “critical to successful implementation of TSCA chemical risk management actions.”
Regions were uniquely situated to help states, tribes, local governments, and others understand the results of chemical risk assessments, take measures to reduce risks, and coordinate data collection, EPA said in the April 2016 addendum.
That language supplemented the more traditional chemicals role laid out in the EPA's original fiscal years 2016-2017 guidance describing the regions’ roles in addressing asbestos, lead, PCBs and other compounds.
Comments on the draft guidance are being accepted through July 28.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=115830340&vname=dennotallissues&fn=115830340&jd=115830340
-
In a Milestone, California Lists Monsanto’s Glyphosate as a Carcinogen
Jul 10, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
In an action with national and global implications, today California officially listed glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller, as a chemical known to cause cancerunder the state’s Proposition 65 law. EWG applauded the action, but urged the state to go further and set much lower exposure limits to protect the health of children and fetuses.
Roundup, the most widely used herbicide in the world, must now carry a label warning California consumers that it can cause cancer in people. This marks the first time a governmental authority anywhere in the world has issued a regulation based on Roundup’s potential carcinogenicity.
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment still must set a limit for acceptable daily exposure to the herbicide. Scientists at the agency have proposed a limit of 1.1 milligrams a day – 127 times less than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s legal allowance for the average-sized adult.
“With this action today listing glyphosate as a cancer-causing chemical, California continues to lead the nation in implementing laws to protect human health and the environment,” said EWG President Ken Cook. “This is a significant blow to Monsanto, but a victory on behalf of the public, which could set the stage for similar actions in other states across the nation.”
EWG believes the state should do more and set a much lower limit for glyphosate – no more than 0.01 milligrams per day – which would protect all Californians, including children.
“While we applaud today’s action, we do believe the state can take additional steps to further protect its most vulnerable populations from this dangerous chemical,” said Cook.
A new analysis by EWG scientists found the legal limit for glyphosate should be roughly 100 times lower than California’s proposed level to be effective in safeguarding children’s health. The analysis argues that the risk level for glyphosate should include a tenfold safety factor to account for glyphosate exposures to children and developing fetuses.
http://www.ewg.org/release/milestone-california-lists-monsanto-s-glyphosate-carcinogen
-
EU Criteria on Endocrine Disruptors in Pesticides Draw Fire
Jul 10, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
A European Union committee's approval of criteria for identifying endocrine-disrupting substances in pesticides—which could be applied to other chemicals in future EU legislation—is under fire from industry and lawmakers.
According to the draft criteria, drawn up by the EU's executive arm, chemicals should be considered endocrine disruptors that alter the hormone system if they have adverse effects caused by “an endocrine mode of action” and “unless there is evidence demonstrating that the adverse effects identified are not relevant to humans,” but only evident in test animals.
Although the European Commission drew up the draft for the implementation of the European Union Pesticides Regulation ((EC) No 1107/2009), which prohibits the use of proven endocrine disruptors in pesticides, the criteria also could be applied to future EU legislation on plastics and related products.
“The adopted criteria will provide a stepping stone for further actions to protect health and environment enabling the Commission to start working on a new strategy to minimize exposure of EU citizens to endocrine disruptors, beyond pesticides and biocides. This strategy will aim to cover toys, cosmetics and food packaging as well,” the European Commission said in a July 4 statement.
Industry Opposition Continues
The European Crop Protection Association, which represents pesticide makers such as Bayer Crop Science, Dow AgroSciences, and Monsanto Co., said the draft criteria do not allow enough leeway for approval of substances where exposure to them is negligible. They are urging that the criteria be rejected.
The criteria were “fundamentally flawed, not sufficient, and do not allow authorities to clearly separate those substances that have the real potential to cause harm from those that do not,” Graeme Taylor, the ECPA's public affairs director, said in a statement to Bloomberg BNA.
Bagila Talipova-Somers, a spokeswoman for Dow AgroSciences, and Claudia Karsten, a spokeswoman for Bayer CropScience, declined to comment to Bloomberg BNA on the draft criteria and referred to the European Crop Protection Association's position. Syngenta did not respond to a request for comment.
European Parliament Veto?
The regulatory committee—the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feedwhich is made up of officials from the EU's 28 member countries, approved the draft criteria in a qualified majority vote July 4.
The criteria still could run into trouble in the European Parliament, which has three months to raise an objection. Lawmakers, environmental groups, and industry representatives criticized the draft criteria.
Bas Eickhout, a Dutch Green member of the Parliament, said the criteria would continue to allow use of harmful pesticides and it should be rejected. Green lawmakers will “work hard to build the majority needed in the European Parliament to veto these criteria” for being too weak, Eickhout said.
European Parliament environment spokesman Baptiste Chatain told Bloomberg BNA that is was unclear if or when the Parliament might vote on the issue. An absolute majority of lawmakers would be needed to veto the criteria, Chatain said.
Agreement on the criteria has been delayed by a long-running dispute among EU countries, the Commission, industry representatives, and environmental groups.
Industry groups said the criteria could hurt agriculture by preventing the use of a large number of substances in pesticides, while environmental groups said the criteria should be highly specific to prevent any use of harmful substances.
Genon K. Jensen, founder and executive director of environmental group the Health & Environment Alliance, said in a statement the European Parliament should reject the criteria because they “require such a high level of proof that they will not protect people or wildlife.” According to environmental groups, endocrine disrupting substances should be banned based on their intrinsic hazards, rather than on the basis of their hazards leading to proven effects.
REACH Impact?
Besides the draft criteria for pesticides, the European Commission drew up similar draft criteria to identify endocrine disruptors in biocides. The 2012 EU Biocidal Products Regulation (BPR, (EU) No. 528/2012) has similar provisions to the Pesticides Regulation, but the adoption of endocrine disruptor criteria for the biocides law is subject to a different procedure. The European Commission can adopt the criteria without a regulatory committee vote.
The commission said it will adopt the biocides criteria once the pesticides criteria are finalized, to ensure coherence between the two.
Endocrine-disrupting substances also can be prohibited from use in the EU under the bloc's REACH law (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation, and authorization of chemicals), which covers chemicals in industry and in manufactured products.
The European Chemicals Agency, which administers REACH, told Bloomberg BNA that “it seems very probable to us that the new endocrine disruptor criteria would not make a difference to how we currently identify endocrine disruptors under the REACH Regulation,” because the agency already follows a similar process when identifying endocrine disruptors to that set out in the draft criteria for pesticides.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=115830351&vname=dennotallissues&fn=115830351&jd=115830351
-
EU Chemicals Agency Chief: Firms Not Updating Dossiers
Jul 10, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
Companies that trade chemicals in the European Union are failing to meet their obligations to update the substance registration dossiers they submitted under the bloc's REACH law, according to the head of the European Chemicals Agency.
The agency's director, Geert Dancet, said in an interview with Bloomberg BNA that companies were “still of the mindset that their job is done” once they have submitted registration dossiers. This view is “absolutely wrong,” Dancet said.
Article 22 of REACH (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals) says each company that registers a substance “shall be responsible on his own initiative for updating his registration without undue delay with relevant new information.” The article lists circumstances in which dossiers should be updated, including if new knowledge of risks becomes available or if substance classifications change.
Despite this, “we're getting not enough updates at all,” Dancet said. He added that the perception of some companies that they only need to file an initial registration “is wrong but it's hard to fight against it.”
Dancet also told Bloomberg BNA that REACH enforcement—which is carried out by authorities in EU member countries—should be more strict, and that the chemicals agency faces an “enormous” challenge in 2018 with a large number of substance registration dossiers expected to be filed ahead of a May 31, 2018 deadline.
Under REACH, companies that trade in chemicals in the EU must file registration dossiers with the agency as a condition of access to the EU market. Registration dossiers must include a wide range of substance identity, hazard, and safe-use information.
Companies ’Under Pressure’
Dancet said that many companies “have no structured way” of managing the REACH requirement to update their registration dossiers.
Irene van Luijken, a spokeswoman for the European Chemical Industry Council, told Bloomberg BNA July 7 that companies have multiple obligations arising from REACH and “can't do much more than they do now.” The council represents 29,000 chemical companies operating in Europe including 3M, Solvay, and Sumitomo Chemicals.
Companies are preparing for the 2018 REACH deadline and also are “confronted with mandatory updates” to their registration dossiers arising from REACH substance evaluations, van Luijken said. Substance evaluations involve the assessment of chemicals by authorities in EU countries to clarify their environmental and health risks. Evaluations can result in binding requests to companies to provide new safety information.
Companies are respecting legal deadlines, but REACH requirements without specified deadlines, such as the requirement to update registration dossiers “are being dealt with later,” van Luijken said.
The pressure companies are under from REACH compliance “is a lot bigger than many people realize,” van Luijken said.
Substance Information Exchange Forums
Dancet added that the process of updating dossiers could become more complicated after June 1, 2018, when a legal obligation for companies that register the same substances to work together in so-called substance information exchange forums (SIEFs) comes to an end.
Under REACH, companies producing the same substance are required to submit joint registrations to prevent duplication of information and to minimize animal testing to generate new information. The SIEF is the vehicle for joint registrations. SIEFs have their own rules, specified in EU legislation, including that sharing of data between joint registrants should be fair, transparent and non-discriminatory.
The requirement for companies to work together in SIEFs will end June 1, 2018 because by then all relevant substances should have been registered under REACH. The last REACH deadline of May 31, 2018 applies to substances manufactured in, or imported into, the EU in annual volumes of 1 to 100 metric tons. Previous deadlines, in 2010 and 2013, applied to higher volume and hazardous substances.
Although SIEFs will formally end after the last registration deadline, companies will still be required to work jointly to update their registration dossiers.
This promises to be “quite complicated,” Dancet said. “The question will be how to sort out the costs and so on of sharing the work,” he said.
Dancet added that in August, the chemicals agency will publish a report examining the reasons why companies fail to meet their obligations to update registration dossiers.
The European Chemicals Agency said in a statement to Bloomberg BNA July 7 that the report might recommend measures or legislative changes in a bid to push more companies to update their registration dossiers. However, “any updates to legislation are of course in the European Commission's remit,” the statement said. The European Commission is the EU's executive arm.
Tougher Enforcement?
Stricter enforcement of the REACH registration provisions would be one way to improve compliance with the dossier update obligations, Dancet said. Penalties have a deterrent effect because when one company is penalized, “it's quite well known in the whole environment,” he said.
Under REACH, authorities in EU countries carry out enforcement and penalties are decided on a national level, with some countries applying criminal penalties for serious breaches, while others use warnings and fines.
The variance in the penalties applied by different countries was “unfair” and “should be tackled at some point” to create a more harmonized system, Dancet said.
EU national enforcement authorities meet in the Forum for Exchange of Information on Enforcement, which the chemical agency manages. Dancet said that the forum is planning a 2019 coordinated enforcement project on the REACH registration obligations.
However, all countries aren't obligated to participate in joint enforcement projects. In the most recent joint enforcement project to conclude—which also dealt with registration obligations—EU countries Croatia, Malta, Poland and Sweden did not participate in the second phase of the project.
“Every single member state should participate” in joint enforcement projects, Dancet said. “Not a single one should drop out because this is unfair competition. If we check registration compliance, we must check it everywhere. No country should be allowed to stay out of this.”
He added that though awareness of REACH among EU companies is high outside of the EU, and in particular in China, many smaller companies are “totally unprepared for registration,” even though they export chemicals to the EU.
Challenging Year Ahead
Dancet will step down at the end of 2017 when his mandate as director of the European Chemicals Agency ends. He said his successor would face a major challenge in administering the final REACH registration deadline.
The chemicals agency has forecast it will receive 60,000 registration dossiers in 2018 as the deadline approaches, compared to 15,000 in a normal year, Dancet said.
The agency must check that registration dossiers are complete, meaning that they should provide information under a number of specified headings. Checks on the quality of the information provided follow at a later stage.
The dossier checks will amount to an “extraordinary volume of work, which is unfortunately still very unpredictable,” because the agency does not know for sure how many registration dossiers will be filed in 2018, Dancet said.
Achievement
Overall, despite continuing shortcomings in some areas, Dancet said July 4 that the REACH regulation, which entered into force in 2007, has “achieved a lot.”
Although it needs to be improved, a huge volume of information on chemicals has been provided by companies, and no other part of the world “comes near the numbers of risk assessments and risk management measures” carried out in the EU, Dancet said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=115830350&vname=dennotallissues&fn=115830350&jd=115830350
-
(ACC Mentioned) Updated North American Trade Deal Could Boost U.S. Chemical Exports
Jul 9, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Glenn Hess
With talks aimed at revising the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) expected to start soon, chemical manufacturers recently offered advice to the Trump Administration for updating the 23-year-old accord with Canada and Mexico.
For chemical manufacturers, capitalizing on the shale gas revolution by securing expanded access to the two largest markets for U.S. chemical exports—Canada and Mexico—is a key goal, said Greg Skelton of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), an industry trade association.
In a June 28 testimony before the U.S. Commerce Department’s International Trade Commission, Skelton noted that the U.S. has a large and growing trade surplus in industrial chemicals that stands at $28.2 billion. It is “likely to grow significantly as increased production from more than $185 billion in announced new investment in domestic chemical manufacturing comes on stream,” said Skelton, ACC’s senior director of regulatory and technical affairs.
An ACC report estimates that exports of chemicals linked to the availability of abundant, cheap natural gas from shale, such as polymers, plastics, resins, and specialty chemicals, will more than double from $60 billion in 2014 to $123 billion by 2030.
But this increased production cannot all be consumed domestically, Skelton said. “To maximize this competitive advantage, it is essential to strengthen and expand access to key foreign markets,” he said.
However, NAFTA has greatly benefited the chemical sectors in Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. Since the deal took effect in 1994, trade in chemicals among the three countries has more than tripled, from $20 billion to $63 billion per year.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i28/Updated-North-American-trade-deal.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Capito Says Private Sector Starting to Get Interested in Storage Hub Proposal
Jul 10, 2017 | West Virginia MetroNews
By Jeff Jenkins
U.S. Senator Shelley Moore Capito continued the state’s congressional delegation’s push for an ethane storage hub to be located in the Appalachian region during a roundtable discussion Friday at WVU in Morgantown.
Capito, who led the discussion, said it was important to have U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry there to hear the many advantages of having a storage hub in another part of the country.
“This is good infrastructure development, job creator and also a security issue–using our own energy resources for value added products,” Capito said.
Capito, U.S. Senator Joe Manchin and others have been pushing the project that would take the vast natural gas reserves and store liquid byproducts that can be used in manufacturing. Storage hubs are currently located in states like Texas but supporters say it’s time to place one closer to the natural gas.
A recent report by the American Chemistry Council said a storage hub could lead to nearly $70 billion in investment, economic expansion and tax revenues along with the creation of more than 100,000 jobs.
“There’s been a lot of groundwork getting other states on board–(private sector) investments are next,” Capito said.
Capito and Manchin are both on a bill that would expand some loan guarantees that would help attract private investment. There may be a chance for public-private partnerships, Capito said.
The private sector is looking for certainty that such a project would be viable, according to Capito.
“The supply question (amount of natural gas) has been answered. It’s much more than anyone could have imagined. The next question is the certainty in the regulatory environment,” she said.
The project appears to have the support of the Trump administration. Perry said Friday the President wants to maximize energy resources and maximize their benefits. The support is important, Capito said.
“In speaking as an (Trump) administration official, you need to have that solid backing not only from a regulatory aspect but also to spur investment,” she said.
Capito introduced the Appalachia Ethane Storage Hub Study Act of 2017 in May.
Manchin has called the ethane storage hub a “no brainer” and “game changer.”
“There’s not a better investment the state of West Virginia, the state of Pennsylvania and state of Ohio can make if they would take a certain portion and commit to, basically, what we call ‘prime the pump’ to get the private sector involved,” Manchin said earlier this year.
The board of directors of the West Virginia Oil & Natural Gas Association presented a resolution in favor of the storage hub during Friday’s roundtable.
“The opportunities presented by the development of the Appalachian ethane storage hub can transform economies throughout West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and New York”, Anne Blankenship, executive director of WVONGA, said in a news release. “Our members, the producers and processors of natural gas and its by-products, recognize that the creation of the storage hub will generate unprecedented growth in our chemical and manufacturing sectors; leading to an economic revival not seen in the region in decades”
Perry was spent two days in West Virginia. He toured the Longview Power Plant and the National Energy Technology Laboratory in Monongalia County Thursday.
http://wvmetronews.com/2017/07/07/capito-says-private-sector-starting-to-get-interested-in-storage-hub-proposal/
-
Citing Industry Risk, EPA Asks Court to Recall Methane NSPS Vacatur
Jul 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
EPA is urging the federal appellate court panel that vacated its administrative stay of Obama-era methane standards for new oil and gas sources to recall its mandate for the agency to immediately lift the stay, particularly as EPA is evaluating options for appeal, suggesting the immediate nature of the court's mandate places industry at risk.
“[E]ven in the event of an adverse judicial decision, the regulated community would ordinarily be afforded a reasonable amount of time to make the necessary adjustments to ensure compliance (including, in appropriate cases, the option of filing a motion to stay issuance of the mandate) . . . Not so here,” the Department of Justice (DOJ) writes on behalf of EPA in a July 7 motion.
“The Court has arguably placed the regulated community abruptly at risk of noncompliance with the 2016 Rule,” the motion adds.
EPA's motion comes in response to a July 3 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Clean Air Council et al. v. EPA, which vacated the agency's 90-day administrative stay of the Obama-era methane new source performance standards (NSPS).
In that ruling, two D.C. Circuit judges -- David Tatel and Robert Wilkins -- side with environmentalists' arguments that EPA improperly used its authority under Clean Air Act section 307(d)(7)(B) to pause provisions of the methane NSPS for 90 days while it reconsidered them.
The majority agreed with environmentalists that the reconsideration was invalid because it failed to meet one part of a two-pronged 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.
Judge Janice Rogers Brown dissented, arguing that the court did not have jurisdiction to consider the case because EPA's decision to grant reconsideration of the rule is not a final action subject to court review.
The D.C. Circuit panel, alongside its ruling, also issued a July 3 mandate requiring EPA to lift the stay on the methane NSPS requirements. But that move thrust the oil and gas industry into regulatory limbo, as the rule's compliance deadlines restarted even as EPA continues to advance a proposal to delay the regulation by an additional two years.
The agency will host a July 10 public hearing on that proposal, with comments due Aug. 9. EPA could then be in a position to finalize the two-year delay in late summer, though that move is also certain to face legal challenge and some observers say the agency could struggle to defend it following the D.C. Circuit's July 3 ruling.
EPA in its July 7 motion is calling on the court to recall the mandate requiring it to lift the 90-day stay of the methane NSPS requirements.
The motion suggests the court's immediate issuance of the mandate is an “unusual step” and a “departure from its norms,” suggesting that EPA and regulated entities would typically “be provided with 52 days, or longer, before compliance was required.” The 52-day timeframe appears to be a reference in part to the 45 days federal agencies like EPA are afforded to file a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc.
EPA does not indicate whether it will appeal the decision, noting it is “currently evaluating” to determine “whether to seek panel rehearing, rehearing en banc, or pursue other relief” -- though the agency's filing strongly suggests it will seek an appeal of some sort.
'Unusual Posture'
In the motion, EPA suggests the D.C. Circuit's move to rule on the case “without full briefing or oral argument” was “unusual,” and therefore supports giving the agency and regulated entities relief from having to immediately comply with the court's order.
“The unusual posture of the Court’s decision--summary vacatur, without full briefing or oral argument, of an agency decision involving first-impression issues of EPA’s authority to briefly stay a rule under [Clean Air Act section 307(d)(7)(B)] where it has decided, rather than is required, to grant reconsideration--further renders this case extraordinary and illustrates why it is appropriate that the mandate be recalled,” the motion reads.
The agency also cites the dissent of Rogers Brown and her argument that the court did not have jurisdiction to consider the case because EPA's decision to grant reconsideration is not subject to judicial review -- an issue that is likely to feature prominently in any appeal.
EPA writes that Brown's dissent casts “substantial doubt” on the D.C. Circuit's “power to hear this case or grant relief,” thus further justifying “affording EPA a meaningful opportunity to consider whether to seek rehearing before compliance with the Court's decision and the full scope of the 2016 Rule is required.”
In addition, EPA argues the circumstance of the reconsideration, through which a new administration is reviewing the policy of its predecessor, makes it “particularly compelling” that the agency be afforded “adequate opportunity” to review the court's decision for potential appeal before it must adhere to it.
EPA also suggests that the immediate nature of the court's mandate, throwing the methane NSPS back into effect, could “impair” the agency's ability to meaningfully review the court's decision, as well as its ability to direct compliance actions given the agency's ongoing work on the proposal to delay the rule an additional two years.
“For example, the immediate issuance of the mandate affords EPA little time to instruct the public or regulated community as to how the affected provisions of the 2016 Rule will be implemented. This task is non-trivial, particularly given EPA’s June 16, 2017, proposals that aspects of the 2016 Rule be subject to additional stays of the compliance deadline,” EPA writes.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/citing-industry-risk-epa-asks-court-recall-methane-nsps-vacatur
-
Court Vacatur of EPA Methane NSPS Stay Leaves Oil & Gas Sector in Limbo
Jul 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
The recent federal appellate court ruling vacating EPA's 90-day administrative stay of Obama-era methane standards for new oil and gas sources is leaving the industry in regulatory limbo and vulnerable to citizen suits, with the rule's compliance deadlines restarting even as EPA advances what some see as a legally risky proposal to delay the regulation by an additional two years.
The uncertainty is magnified, sources say, because the two-year delay proposal uses the same statutory authority as the prior stay that the court vacated. And the ruling also underscores that the court is likely to require EPA to cite specific statutory authority to stay rules, suggesting challenges for a range of other agency efforts to pause regulations.
EPA on July 7 asked the court to recall its mandate for the agency to immediately lift the stay, particularly as EPA is evaluating options for appeal, suggesting the immediate nature of the court's mandate places industry at risk.
EPA will hold a July 10 public hearing on its June 13 proposal to delay the methane new source performance standards (NSPS) by an additional two years. The agency says such an extended delay would ensure portions of the measure “do not take effect while the agency works through the reconsideration process.”
But sources say the July 3 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit invalidating EPA's 90-day administrative stay of the methane NSPS could make any final rule delaying the methane standards vulnerable to further legal challenges. Other agency proposals to further delay climate and environmental rules -- like a pending proposal to indefinitely delay its Clean Water Act power plant effluent limits -- could face similar issues, sources say.
That is because the D.C. Circuit's ruling in Clean Air Council, et al. v. EPA, et al. underscores that EPA can only administratively stay rules when it has a statutory justification to do so and it remains within the limits of that statute.
“One broader implication [of the ruling] may be that the D.C. Circuit can still force deregulators to follow the regulatory process,” the consulting firm ClearView Energy Partners writes in a July 3 analysis.
Industry attorney Tom Lorenzen of Crowell & Moring adds that the ruling could also limit EPA's options to pause rules while it reviews them.
“It takes one of the tools from EPA's shed, that EPA thought it was going to be able to use to halt these rules while it reconsiders them, and it either blunts it or takes it away entirely,” Lorenzen said on a July 6 podcast. “The options available to EPA are a little more limited than they were last week.”
Not A 'Significant Setback'
In the July 3 ruling, two D.C. Circuit judges -- Judges David Tatel and Robert Wilkins -- sided with environmentalists' arguments that EPA improperly used its authority under Clean Air Act section 307(d)(7)(B) to pause provisions of the methane NSPS for 90 days while it reconsidered them.
The two judges 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.
Nonetheless, the court also emphasized that “nothing in this opinion in any way limits EPA's authority to reconsider the final rule and to proceed with its June 16” proposal to delay the methane NSPS provisions by two years -- though it does not opine on the legality of the proposal.
“Although EPA had no section 307(d)(7)(B) obligation to reconsider the methane rule, it is free to do so as long as 'the new policy is permissible under the statute . . ., there are good reasons for it, and . . . the agency believes it to be better,'” the July 3 ruling adds.
As a result, ClearView does not consider the ruling “a significant setback” to the Trump EPA's broader “deregulatory agenda.” It writes the agency's June 16 proposal to delay the rule for two years could take effect in September. Following the July 10 hearing, public comment on the proposal is due Aug. 9.
EPA is also seeking public input on a second proposal to delay the methane NSPS by an additional three months. According to the agency, that proposal is “to ensure there is no gap in the stay between the 90-day stay and the proposed two-year stay if finalized,” though it is unclear how EPA will proceed with the three-month proposal now that the court has struck down its original stay.
But some observers say a key flaw in EPA's proposed two-year delay of the methane rule is that it links the move to its reconsideration proceedings. Citing the original 90-day administrative stay, the agency writes that, “[w]hen we have issued similar stays in the past, it has often been our practice to also propose a longer stay through a rulemaking process.”
It cites a 2009 proposal to extend an administrative pause of certain provisions of the Clean Air Act's new source review program -- after the agency had issued a 90-day stay of those issues under its section 307 authority to reconsider and pause rules.
'Fundamental Problem'
But the new proposal to delay the methane NSPS by two years has the same “fundamental problem” as the original 90-day stay, says one attorney with an academic institution. That source notes EPA links the delays to its reconsideration proceedings, but “you can't peg your stay to that. You need a statutory basis for” the two-year delay.
The attorney says the proposed rule under which EPA is seeking to further delay its power plant effluent limitation guidelines (ELG) rule could face similar issues, because the agency does not provide a statutory basis for that delay.
That proposal comes after EPA in a separate action delayed the ELG rule indefinitely using Administrative Procedure Act (APA) section 705, which allows agencies to stay rules under judicial review if “justice requires.” That delay is being challenged in D.C. District Court, though observers say even if the APA delay is upheld, it would expire at the conclusion of separate litigation over the merits of the ELG rule.
As such, EPA on May 25 proposed a rule to further delay the water rule beyond the conclusion of judicial review over its merits. “EPA is undertaking this notice-and-comment rulemaking to postpone certain compliance dates in the rule in the event that the litigation ends, and while the Agency is undertaking reconsideration. These compliance dates would be postponed until EPA promulgates a final rule specifying compliance dates,” the proposal says, though it cites no statute to justify the action.
In the recent methane stay ruling, “the court confirmed that EPA needs statutory authority to stay a rule. It doesn't have authority outside of the statute to do whatever it wants to postpone deadlines,” the attorney says.
The oil and gas industry, in the meantime, continues to push for EPA to re-examine the methane NSPS, though it is unclear what the agency's ongoing review -- as well as its efforts to delay its deadlines -- mean for compliance.
“The final rule remains in place at the moment. Companies will have to assess” what they need to do, says one industry source. That source notes “some significant deadlines coming next year on this. People will want to be prepared.” But the source adds industry hopes the two-year delay will be granted and “EPA addresses this by next year.”
Some observers suggest many in the industry were all but prepared to comply with the rule's initial June 3 deadline for oil and gas operators to conduct an “initial monitoring survey” to identify leaks in their equipment that they would be required to subsequently fix. EPA issued its first pause just two days later and made it retroactive to that deadline.
“Most large oil and gas companies have already worked to comply with the rule, either because they saw this coming or because they have shareholders who care” about wasted natural gas, Amy Myers Jaffe, director for energy and sustainability at University of California Davis, told Politico.
Citizen Suits
Even so, others say EPA could decide to conduct extremely lax enforcement of the methane NSPS as it reviews the rule. “There is nothing to stop the EPA from doing that,” Lorenzen said, adding that EPA “may well” issue directives to personnel and regional offices “not to enforce these rules with a heavy hand.”
But he added that “what ties their hand somewhat is the threat of citizen suits.” The Clean Air Act allows any party -- including an environmental group or a state -- to bring a suit against an alleged violator of air rules, provided they provide EPA with 60 days notice. “If EPA doesn't institute action itself, they are free to go forward,” Lorenzen said.
As a result, Daniel Wolff, another Crowell & Moring attorney, said that dynamic “puts industry on the hook under the law, irrespective of whether EPA is taking action.”
Industry also faces risks if EPA's two-year delay rule fails in court, due to similar reasons the 90-day administrative stay failed. Environmentalists have already pledged to challenge the two-year delay, if finalized.
Even if EPA were to determine that its reasoning for the two-year proposed delay is legally risky following the July 3 ruling, it may face difficulties in switching its reasoning when it promulgates a final delay rule.
The attorney with an academic institution suggests that EPA likely would not be able to successfully invoke APA section 705 -- the other statute under which it can stay rules. “If they try to go with that, that would be an unfair change” from the proposal, the attorney says. The source notes that changes from a proposed to a final rule “have to be a logical outgrowth. Using a whole new statutory provision is not a logical outgrowth.”
The source adds, “The question is whether they drop [the delay proposal] and try to work on a repeal,” which is what officials would need to “start prioritizing if they really want to try to get rid of” the rule.
Nonetheless, ClearView's analysis suggests EPA's broader review of the methane NSPS could ultimately weaken or scrap the regulation. And the firm notes that litigation over the merits of a repeal or revision, and over EPA's delays, appears “likely to further stave off” any EPA progress toward writing methane limits for existing oil and gas sources, which are likely to be significantly larger emitters than new and modified sources.
“[L]engthy and uncertain litigation that delays the NSPS could also strengthen EPA's foundation for deferring existing-source regulations,” ClearView writes.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/court-vacatur-epa-methane-nsps-stay-leaves-oil-gas-sector-limbo
-
Energy Bill on Standby with Health Care, Budget in Flux
Jul 10, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Geoff Koss
While congressional Republicans struggle to check off big-ticket agenda items from their to-do list before the August recess, bipartisan Senate energy legislation reworked from last year could fill the legislative vacuum in the coming weeks.
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) set the procedural wheels in motion to bring up S. 1460directly to the floor, skipping the committee process and expediting the chamber's consideration of the bill (E&E News PM, June 29).
A McConnell spokesman on Friday declined to comment on the floor schedule for the coming work period, which is currently set to conclude on July 28, launching a six-week recess, but lobbyists and staffers said they anticipate the energy bill coming up as soon as next week.
The energy bill presents an opportunity for McConnell to claim a bipartisan victory. The latest version, unveiled last month by Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), largely tracks legislation that passed the Senate, 85-12, last year but died in December after House negotiators closed the door after months of negotiations.
A legislative accomplishment would be welcome as the Senate stumbles over other priorities, including passing a budget and spending bills, as well as trying to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.
McConnell was forced to scrap a planned health care vote before the July 4 break, and GOP senators over the weekend said the weeklong recess did little to bridge intraparty disagreements, raising doubts about a vote planned for this week.
"My view is that it's probably going to be dead," Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said on CBS's "Face the Nation" yesterday.
As for the spending blueprint, House Budget Chairwoman Diane Black (R-Tenn.) told constituents last week she was hoping to mark up a budget resolution in committee this week, although nothing had been officially scheduled Friday. Conservatives and defense hawks have been squabbling for weeks over defense spending levels and the size of mandatory cuts.
Passing a spending blueprint is key for GOP plans to enact tax reform through the reconciliation process, which will allow the majority to skip a Senate filibuster and pass the overhaul along party lines.
Even without a budget, the House Appropriations Committee this week will continue to mark up spending bills in committee, as leaders scramble to head off a possible government shutdown in September.
Senate appropriators, meanwhile, continue to hear from Trump administration officials over the fiscal 2018 request but have not yet unveiled any of their bills.
An opening for energy?
Despite bipartisan interest and McConnell's efforts to smooth the way for the energy bill, long-simmering policy disputes and the general perils of legislating on energy cloud the path to a successful outcome in this Congress as well.
Later today, more than 250 groups will send a letter to Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) urging Democrats to oppose the bill, citing provisions to expedite oil and gas drilling permits, new authorities for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, as well as natural gas exports and research into methane hydrates.
"This energy bill is, at its core, a bad bill that expands upon the billions of taxpayer dollars already given to the fossil fuel industry," said Bill Snape, senior counsel with the Center for Biological Diversity. "This special interest bonanza would take our country and our people in the wrong direction."
One contentious provision that drew the ire of environmentalists, which instructed federal agencies to consider biomass energy "carbon-neutral," is gone from the bill, having been enacted in the omnibus appropriations bill earlier this year.
Also absent in the new bill are provisions that were intended to streamline environmental permitting for renewable energy projects on public lands. One Senate aide said the measure was dropped by agreement between both parties.
A summary of the bill has not been released, but one revision that has drawn attention is the section setting building efficiency codes. Like last year's bill, the new legislation outlines steps for the Energy secretary to take to "encourage" states, tribes and local governments to adopt such codes, which advocates say hold enormous potential to save energy and reduce emissions.
The new bill would add a requirement that the Energy Department consider whether revised codes are "economically justified," a nod to a dispute that was a stumbling block in conference talks last year. It also adds language labeling such codes as "voluntary."
The National Association of Home Builders, part of a coalition that supports language in a competing bipartisan House bill, H.R. 2361, last week commended Murkowski and Cantwell for attempting to bridge differences over approaches to measuring cost-effectiveness.
"They made a good attempt here, unfortunately it still doesn't address all our concerns," said Billie Kaumaya, federal legislative director for NAHB.
Kaumaya lauded the explicit language emphasizing the voluntary nature of the codes but noted that, in practice, when states receive incentive funds to adopt such standards, they often end up being mandatory.
NAHB also has concerns with the "economically justified" criteria in the new bill, which Kaumaya said would allow DOE to consider cost savings over the life of an entire building.
"That's just not realistic for most families," she said.
The inclusion of language highlighting the need for national energy and water conservation as a criterion is another concern. "That's a little bit problematic for us because that could sort of justify any cost," Kaumaya said.
NAHB still prefers the "simple payback" period of 10 years or less for DOE to use when considering building codes included in the House bill, sponsored by Reps. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.).
"The 10-year simple payback makes the most sense," Kaumaya said, likening it to the mileage stickers shown on cars. "It's easily understandable by the consumer."
The Alliance to Save Energy, which strongly supported the model code provisions from last year's Senate bill, continues to review the updated bill, a spokesman said Friday.
In a statement, alliance President Kateri Callahan noted the group's support for "how things worked out" with the Senate bill last year and vowed to work to "get a bill across the finish line with strong efficiency provisions that will create jobs, save consumers and businesses money, strengthen energy security and reduce harmful emissions."
House eyes pipeline bills
The comprehensive energy package could also become a vehicle for two contentious pieces of legislation on pipeline permitting, which have been advancing in the House.
Changing the permit process for infrastructure has been a focus for the Energy and Commerce Committee this year, particularly for pipelines and hydropower. And while the bipartisan Senate bill includes several actions on hydro, it does not take action on pipelines.
H.R. 2883, opposed by most Democrats on Energy and Commerce during a markup last month, would remove presidential involvement for cross-border pipe and electricity transmission, transferring those authorities to FERC and DOE, respectively. Similar language was part of the House's energy package last year.
The decision on whether H.R. 2883 will move forward as part of broader legislation will be up to panel and House leaders, an aide said, and sponsor Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas) is preparing for both scenarios.
H.R. 2910, which also passed committee largely on party lines, would give FERC more authority during pipeline permitting and allow it to impose deadlines on other federal and state agencies.
A spokesman for the bill's sponsor, Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), would not comment specifically on whether the congressman could use broad energy legislation as a vehicle but did say that he will "continue to work to pass his language to send to the Senate."
Russia sanctions
The House may also move this month on language that passed the Senate that would enshrine Obama-era sanctions against Russian energy projects, while also limiting the Trump administration's ability to unilaterally dismantle them.
Before the July Fourth break, the Senate passed a technical fix to its bill that addressed a provision that the House said ran afoul of the Constitution's requirement that revenue measures originate there (E&E Daily, June 22).
Democrats have also charged the House held up the issue in deference to the Trump administration, which opposes Senate language giving Congress time to reject any effort to ease sanctions. Major oil companies, including Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp., are also lobbying against the Senate bill (Energywire, July 6).
The president's meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week has made the debate even more contentious, with the White House calling for flexibility and top lawmakers demanding tough action against Russia.
Reporter Sam Mintz contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/07/10/stories/1060057113
-
Keystone XL Foes Weigh Appeal to South Dakota Supreme Court
Jul 10, 2017 | AP (In The New York Times)
Foes of the Keystone XL oil pipeline said Friday they may appeal a South Dakota judge's decision upholding state regulators' approval for the pipeline to cross the state, potentially extending the legal conflict over the pipeline.
Two groups said they are weighing whether to raise the issue to the state Supreme Court, while an attorney for a Native American tribe in South Dakota also said its lawyers are examining an appeal. A state judge last month affirmed a Public Utilities Commission decision that tribes, landowners and others challenged.
Robin Martinez, an attorney for conservation and family agriculture group Dakota Rural Action, called the judge's decision a "disappointment." The organization is considering an appeal, director Frank James said.
"The clear effect is on the landowners who are now living with this perpetual threat of having their land taken away from them for this pipeline that may or may not ever happen," Martinez said. "That's a heavy burden."Continue reading the main story
The Keystone XL project would move crude oil from Alberta, Canada, across Montana and South Dakota to Nebraska, where it would connect with existing pipelines feeding refineries along the Gulf Coast.
Terry Cunha, a spokesman for pipeline developer TransCanada Corp., praised the decision in a statement, saying the project will help U.S. energy security, create well-paying jobs and offer substantial economic benefits. Native American tribes, some landowners and environmental groups oppose the pipeline, fearing it would contaminate water supplies and contribute to pollution.
The Public Utilities Commission initially authorized TransCanada's project in 2010, but the permit had to be revisited because construction didn't start within the required four years. The panel last year voted to accept TransCanada's guarantee that it would meet all conditions laid out by the commission when it first approved that state's portion of the project.
Opponents appealed the commission's decision to state court, which heard arguments in March. Judge John Brown wrote in his decision that the issues opponents raised have been adequately addressed by the commission or aren't appropriate to be addressed in the case.
The pipeline has frequently been delayed. Former President Barack Obama rejected the project in 2015, but President Donald Trump's administration overturned that decision this year. Nebraska regulators haven't decided whether to approve the proposed route through that state.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/07/07/business/ap-us-keystone-south-dakota.html
-
US Agencies Reviewing Potential Cyber Attacks on Power Plants
Jul 7, 2017 | Platts
By William Freebairn, Elaine Hiruo and Steven Dolley
US federal agencies are working with utilities to understand the threat from recent potential cyberattacks on the country's electricity system, following reports this week that a nuclear plant in Kansas was among power plants targeted by hackers.
The US Department of Homeland Security and Federal Bureau of Investigation "are aware of potential cyber intrusion affecting entities in the energy sector," the agencies said in a joint statement emailed Friday. There was no threat to public safety, as the attacks were "limited to administrative and business networks," they said.
The intrusion is part of a "campaign" of attacks targeting nuclear plants and critical manufacturing facilities, Bill Gross, director of incident preparedness at the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's trade group, said in an interview Friday. The attacks are part of "a new, very broad campaign" that is ongoing, he said.
NEI said in a statement that nuclear industry officials are working with the federal government to apply lessons learned from a broad cyberattack on the electricity infrastructure of Ukraine late last year.The North American Electric Reliability Corp., a nonprofit regulatory group that helps assure the reliability and security of the bulk power system, is aware of the incident and is exchanging information with the electricity industry through its secure communications system, spokesman Martin Coyne said in Friday statement.
Some news reports this week, citing unnamed government sources, said that federal agencies sent an alert June 28 to the power industry identifying Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corp.'s 1,249-MW Wolf Creek nuclear generating unit in Kansas as the target that had administrative systems breached by hackers. The hackers are suspected of having worked for a foreign government, Bloomberg News reported.
"We don't make public comments about security issues, except to confirm there has been absolutely no operational impact to Wolf Creek," WCNOC spokeswoman Jenny Hageman said in an email.
"The reason that is true is because the operational computer systems are completely separate from the corporate network," she said. "The safety and control systems for the nuclear reactor and other vital plant components are not connected to business networks or the Internet. The plant continues to operate safely."
The US Department of Energy is working with government and industry partners "to mitigate any impact from a cyber intrusion affecting entities in the energy sector," it said in a Friday statement.
"At this time, there has been no impact to systems controlling U.S. energy infrastructure," it said.
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Scott Burnell said in an interview Friday that the agency "has not been notified that any of the NRC-regulated safety, security, or emergency preparedness functions at the operating nuclear plants have been penetrated by a cyberattack."
Burnell declined to comment on reports of cyberattacks on other categories of computer systems at US nuclear power plants generally, or at Wolf Creek specifically.
NRC issued a rule in March 2009 requiring all US nuclear power plants to adopt cybersecurity protections for systems that provide nuclear reactor safety, security and emergency preparedness. Interim protection measures were required to be in place by the end of 2012 for the most serious threats, while the full regulations must be implemented by the end of 2017.
NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SYSTEMS ISOLATEDNuclear power plants have multiple computer systems, many of which are not connected to each other, David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists said Friday via email.
"There's an intranet that contains programs and data used to schedule work, keep track of worker radiation exposures, conduct online computer-based training and so on," said Lochbaum, who heads the Nuclear Safety Project at UCS, a nonprofit science advocacy group. He said this computer network also handles email and houses the digital collections of such things as blueprints, procedures and vendor manuals.
"A separate system handles the security measures for the plant," Lochbaum said.
While control systems for the nuclear reactor are largely analog in the US, those for steam turbines and generators increasingly have digital controls using industry-standard architecture.
"Sometimes, the intranet and system control computers are cross-connected," Lochbaum said.
He added that from a safety perspective, US power reactors still have a certain level of immunity from cyberattacks. "Their computer systems control non-safety equipment," Lochbaum said. "True, hackers could cause a nuclear plant to shut down unexpectedly, but the safety systems are designed to automatically step in and perform the necessary cooling functions."
NERC said a cyberattack in December in Ukraine targeted electricity system relays using malware that penetrated administrative computer systems at power plants first, before propagating over internal networks to the industrial control systems. The malware operated relays for some time and later deleted key operating system files at Ukrainian plants, NERC said in a June 13 alert on its website.https://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/washington/us-agencies-reviewing-potential-cyber-attacks-21264149
-
Scariest Thing About Cyberwarfare: No Rules of Engagement
Jul 7, 2017 | Bloomberg
By Leonid Bershidsky
A new report by Bloomberg News about Russia being suspected of recently hacking a dozen U.S. power plants, including a nuclear one, is far more serious than any possible attempt to influence an election. It could be a sign of something even scarier: two military superpowers stepping up a cyberwar in the shadows and without rules of engagement that protect civilians from other kinds of warfare.
Attacks on power grids have a potential for mass destruction. A temporary power outage doesn't appear to be all that threatening compared with the use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, but blackouts kill people even when they don't last long. During the East Coast blackout of 2003, some power was restored within seven hours, and still dozens of deaths were ascribed to the event. A lasting power grid breakdown could be an apocalyptic scenario, with hospitals and other critical services running out of fuel for reserve generators and unable to obtain it easily; traffic, food and water supplies disrupted; urban life plunged into chaos. And that's before we even think of nuclear power plants getting out of control.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Federal Bureau of Investigation are stressing that "there is no indication of a threat to public safety, as any potential impact appears to be limited to administrative and business networks." But that's a bold statement, given that a 2015 report by the think tank Chatham House said this about the security of civilian nuclear facilities:
There is a pervading myth that nuclear facilities are ‘air gapped’ – or completely isolated from the public internet – and that this protects them from cyber attack. Yet not only can air gaps be breached with nothing more than a flash drive (as in the case of Stuxnet), but the commercial benefits of internet connectivity mean that nuclear facilities may now have virtual private networks and other connections installed, sometimes undocumented or forgotten by contractors and other legitimate third party operators.
Stuxnet was the malware the U.S. used in its most successful hacking operation to date, the crippling 2010 attack on the Iranian nuclear program. It's openly celebrated now as an example of what the U.S. can do to an adversary's infrastructure if it sets its mind to it. Paranoid security professionals in Russia and elsewhere have long worried about factory-installed backdoors in American-made software and equipment. National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden revealed a range of such physical and software-based implants.
If Russia is behind the power plant hacks, they could very well be responding to U.S. threats to deploy "implants" in important Russian networks. According to a recent Washington Post report, then President Barack Obama ordered the use of implants on Russian networks that would cause "pain and discomfort if they were disrupted."
Russia appears to be eager to demonstrate -- without admitting it -- that it has a similar capability. There's circumstantial evidence that it has messed with the Ukrainian power grid, causing two brief blackouts. The current attacks on the U.S. power plants can only loosely be attributed to any state agents, let alone to Russia, but they reportedly match the profile of earlier attacks by a hacker group known as Energetic Bear, which has targeted energy companies in Russia's adversary nations.
I've long written that I consider the story of Russian meddling in last year's U.S. presidential election overblown. If the actual voting and tabulation weren't affected -- which no one appears to doubt -- Americans made up their own minds how to vote; propaganda and the release of stolen emails, Russian or not, are par for the course in election campaigns. Only strong evidence of something like collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and the Russian intelligence services could make this a national security problem.
Attacks on civilian services, and especially on nuclear plants, are a different matter. They are unambiguous acts of war. It is known that the U.S. is capable of them, and it would stand to reason that Russia wouldn't let itself be outdone. Nor would China and, given that cyberweapons are relatively cheap to develop, smaller players such as Israel or North Korea. And yet there are no rules of engagement for countries that have the capability to shut off each other's power grids or, say, traffic light systems. There's no cyberwar equivalent of the Geneva and Hague conventions, which set rules for the treatment of civilians and ban certain kinds of cruel weapons.
In the so-called Tallinn Manual, originally published in 2013, a group of experts working for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization attempted to lay down some rules, warning against attacks on critical infrastructure. It specifically named hospitals and nuclear power plants as facilities that should be out of bounds. But the manual is not even an official NATO document.
In February, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2341 calling on states to arm themselves against terrorist attacks on critical infrastructure. But what about such attacks initiated by other governments, not terror groups? It's time there were some internationally recognized principles that applied to them, defining, for example, what constitutes an attack, what response is permissible, and what can and cannot be done to civilian networks. It would be helpful to establish some international attribution mechanism; a nation's intelligence services cannot be trusted to make an assessment that would be used to justify international sanctions.
Conventions have often been broken in wartime. Some countries still make and use chemical and biological weapons, even if they won't openly admit it. Some militaries mistreat prisoners and kill civilians. But rules of engagement are still useful: Most belligerent parties aim to act honorably and avoid being branded as war criminals. Official cyberwar rules wouldn't stop attacks, but they would define unacceptable behavior for all concerned. These rules are necessary before the U.S., Russia and China go after each other with all they've got, which is more than we know.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-07-07/scariest-thing-about-cyberwarfare-no-rules-of-engagement
-
EPA Defeat on Methane Could Hinder Other Regulatory Rollbacks
Jul 10, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers and Sam Pearson
A defeat in court of the EPA's plan to postpone methane standards for oil and gas wells could bolster challenges to delays of emissions limits for landfills and regulations for new chemical plant security.
A federal appellate court's ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency lacked the authority to halt the oil and gas methane emissions standards for 90 days could be a signal the agency's regulatory rollback is in line for additional legal scrutiny, environmental advocates said. While the decision is only a bump in the EPA's larger efforts to reconsider rules set by the Obama administration, environmental groups hope to capitalize on it to get other environmental rules enforced even as the Trump team seeks to quash regulation.
“If the court has now sat up and is going to look carefully at these arguments, they're going to see the EPA has no justification for what they're doing,” Ann Weeks, senior counsel at the Clean Air Task Force, which is challenging the delays of the methane standards for both oil and gas wells and landfills, told Bloomberg BNA.
While environmental advocates are emboldened, landfill operators and and oil and gas operations are preparing for the re-imposition of compliance deadlines they thought had been eased. The concern is particularly acute for smaller producers who operate on thinner margins than major companies like ExxonMobil or BP.
“Small and midsize producers are suffering and don't have the resources to absorb the additional regulatory costs in combination with a very challenging market,” Ed Longanecker, president of the Texas Independent Producers & Royalty Owners Association, which represents small oil and gas companies, told Bloomberg BNA.
Other Industries Take Notice
The EPA had made similar arguments—that the regulated industries were never given an opportunity to comment on several provisions in the rules—for temporarily halting methane standards for landfills and for chemical safety requirements.
The EPA's loss on the oil and gas rule has those industries now carefully watching to see if they might also have to comply with regulations EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt wants to see overturned or significantly revised. That could force those landfill operators or chemical facilities to invest in expensive efforts to comply with rules that could later be eased or revised.
The Solid Waste Association of North America and the National Waste & Recycling Association—as well as companies such as Waste Management Inc. and Republic Services—have petitioned the EPA to reconsider the landfill requirements, arguing the standards would force operators to install expensive gas capture systems costing millions of dollars on smaller landfills where it would not be economical.
“The EPA is driving those requirements onto smaller and smaller landfills and it becomes a real cost-benefit concern,” a waste industry official, not authorized to speak publicly on the issue, told Bloomberg BNA. .
EPA Invoking Multiple Authorities
Though getting the methane rule reinstated even as the EPA reconsiders the rules is a victory for environmental advocates, that one success doesn't guarantee that other regulatory rollbacks also are in jeopardy.
The EPA has invoked a variety of its authorities to halt or delay Obama-era regulations, which means the approach that worked in this instance may not apply elsewhere, Lisa Heinzerling, an environmental law professor at Georgetown Law who advised former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson on climate policy, told Bloomberg BNA.
“Where the Clean Air Act is available, they've used that, and where it's not, they've used other theories based on the Administrative Procedure Act,” Heinzerling said.
The EPA has invoked the same Clean Air Act authority under Section 307(d) to halt the methane standards for landfills and oil and gas wells as well as the risk management program requirements for chemical facilities. While portions of both methane rules had been halted for 90 days, the EPA has issued a final rule to postpone the risk management plan requirements for two years while it reconsiders the rules, something that it has proposed to do for oil and gas wells also.
Pruitt invoked a separate Clean Air Act provision in a June 6 letter to states announcing his plans to postpone for one year decisions on which areas of the country fail to meet new, more stringent ozone pollution requirements. Pruitt has said the EPA lacks the data necessary to make those determinations, which sets up a much different fight for environmental groups opposed to the delay.
Weeks said Pruitt has made no attempt to show that the agency doesn't have sufficient data necessary to make the determinations.
Separately, the EPA's attempt to roll back a rule determining the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act is being done under Administrative Procedure Act authority.
Methane Ruling Among ‘Milestone Victories’
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's July 3 decision in Clean Air Council v. Pruitt will inevitably be referenced in pending challenges to the landfill and risk management plan delays. Weeks wouldn't say if environmental groups would seek the same emergency motion in the landfill case that secured them victory in the oil and gas well delay, but opponents of the risk management program delay have made a similar request.
Ultimately, getting the regulatory delays overturned is only a prelude to larger battles over the EPA's reconsideration of its various regulations.
The oil and gas decision is one of environmental groups’ “milestone victories and at the end of the day the agency could still go back and fix its mistakes,” Heinzerling said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=115830330&vname=dennotallissues&fn=115830330&jd=115830330
-
Safety Board's Push for Exxon Records Carries High Stakes
Jul 10, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
A years-long dispute over the Chemical Safety Board's access to ExxonMobil Corp. documents will enter a new phase at a Los Angeles federal courthouse in August, posing a test for the agency—and for corporations seeking to avoid disclosure that could prompt new regulations.
Justice Department attorneys are fighting to enforce subpoenas the CSB issued in 2015 related to an explosion at Exxon's Torrance, Calif., refinery that injured two and put the surrounding community in danger (United States of America v. Exxon Mobil Oil Corporation, C.D. Cal., 5/2/17). After asking for documents on the refinery's hydrofluoric acid storage and emergency response operations for more than two years, the CSB published a May 3 final report detailing Exxon's faults leading up to the blast.
CSB Chairperson Vanessa Sutherland said in a statement to Bloomberg BNA the board's authority “clearly includes all the circumstances surrounding an incident, including potential near miss events.”
Sutherland said the oil company “has made several unsupported assertions in response to CSB's petition, including an improper interpretation of the CSB's statutory authority” that would force it to consider the issue of hydroflouric acid separately from the rest of the investigation.
An Exxon spokesman didn't respond to a request for comment on the case.
The report blamed Exxon for operating the refinery's fluid catalytic cracking unit with a critical safeguard that was not working properly and using operating procedures that let workers deviate from normal safety requirements. Exxon sold the refinery to PBF Holdings Company LLC in July 2016.
“This explosion and near miss should not have happened, and likely would not have happened, had a more robust process safety management system been in place,” Sutherland said in a statement when the report was released.
But the company has yet to comply with the subpoenas, arguing among other things that the requests are overly broad and exceed the agency's authority. If the strategy works, other companies willing to litigate aggressively are “definitely going to view this as a smart strategy to push back as hard as possible to delay having to respond to these subpoenas,” Tracy Hester, a law professor at the University of Houston, told Bloomberg BNA.
A hearing on the case is scheduled for Aug. 29 at the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Narrow or Broad Investigations?
Exxon lawyers contend Congress did not intend CSB “to wield its subpoena powers to conduct discretionary research into the potential for accidental releases,” the company said in a court filingJune 13 in response to government attorneys.
The company also said it agreed to give CSB the documents on the condition the agency use them “for an investigation into the February incident, and not for a general hazard study,” but the board refused.
Should Exxon's interpretation of CSB's legal authority hold up, it could set a precedent for other companies to freeze out the agency for any information beyond establishing narrow sets of facts.
Attorneys for CSB said in a response filed June 26 Congress “did not intend to limit the Board's investigation to the ‘cause or probable cause’ of accidental releases—as Exxon contends—but meant to also empower the Board to investigate the ‘facts, conditions and circumstances’ of those releases.”
Hydrofluoric Acid
The CSB said they would add information to their final report if they obtained Exxon's documents, like that about the company's use of hydrofluoric acid.
Left unanswered in the board's report were critical questions of what would have happened had the explosion damaged an area of the refinery containing a form of hydrofluoric acid, a highly corrosive chemical that causes death or harm to skin, lungs, heart, bones and the nervous system. The chemical was featured as a method of dissolving bodies on the television show “Breaking Bad.”
The CSB found a “near miss event” occurred when debris from the explosion damaged scaffolding around the alkylation unit containing thousands of gallons of modified hydrofluoric acid. In particular, a 40-ton piece of debris flew more than 100 feet and came within five feet of hitting the structure, the agency said in a court filing.
Exxon uses what it calls modified hydrofluoric acid, which the company has used in place of hydrofluoric acid since it settled a lawsuit over the issue with the city of Torrance in 1990. While oil companies believed at the time modified hydrofluoric acid was safer, the CSB noted in court documents “few scientific studies show whether modified hydrofluoric acid is actually safer.”
Sally Hayati, the president of Torrance Refinery Action Alliance, a group of residents critical of the refinery's management, told Bloomberg BNA the CSB could play an important role advancing public understanding of modified hydrofluoric acid. Hayati said CSB could obtain evidence to show if the modified chemical is any safer than the chemical it replaced.
The local group believes modified hydrofluoric acid is “a difference without a distinction,” Hayati said. “It gives no safety advantage.”
The CSB has published several subject-matter investigations in the past, including safety bulletins on chlorine releases, a study of combustible dust hazards, restarting facilities after Hurricane Katrina, and a nationwide review of 167 reactive hazard incidents that stemmed from one facility.
Sutherland said the CSB has no plans to conduct a study of hydroflouric acid or modified hydroflouric acid but wants “to be able to fully analyze the circumstances of the entire explosion.”
CSB Doesn't Regulate, but Others Might
While CSB cannot propose its own regulations, companies often fear information obtained by the agency will later be used against them by other agencies, which could explain Exxon's tough stance, Hester said.
In California, the South Coast Air Quality Management District is pursuing regulations that could phase out the use of modified hydrofluoric acid at refineries under its jurisdiction of Orange, Los Angeles, and Riverside counties and portions of San Bernardino County. Other refineries under the district's oversight include nine others operated by Tesoro Corp., Chevron Corp., Alon USA, Phillips 66, World Oil Corp., and Valero.
CSB's records could be “potentially subject to subpoena themselves, or information requests from other agencies,” Hester said.
California state lawmakers have also introduced legislation in the past to ban the use of hydrofluoric acid at oil refineries.
Long Delay Poses Problems
The CSB's two-year wait for records is far longer than a previous subpoena dispute against Transocean Corp. over whether the agency could investigate the blowout that led to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010.
In that instance, the U.S. Attorney's office in Houston sued the company about six months after the last of five subpoenas were issued to the company. The CSB won access to the records when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled against Transocean in March 2015.
“From the perspective of any agency, taking this long to get a subpoena enforced is acutely problematic,” Hester said. “It undermines the credibility and authority of the agency to pursue investigation and typically with other agencies that have broader enforcement powers, the subpoena cycle would be much shorter.”
The lack of information affected the investigation, board members said at the time. At a public meeting in Torrance in January 2016, Board Member Rick Engler described the CSB as having “one hand tied behind our back, because, if you're not complying with the subpoenas, it's very difficult for our investigative staff to view the information and make a judgment.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=115830331&vname=dennotallissues&fn=115830331&jd=115830331
-
Eastman, American Water $150M Elk River Settlement Approved
Jul 10, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
Eastman Chemical Co. and public drinking water providers gained preliminary court approval of a settlement with those impacted by a 2014 chemical spill into West Virginia's Elk River that could total $151 million (Good v. W. Va. Am. Water Co., 2017 BL 233263, S.D. W.Va., No. 14-1374, 7/6/17).
The global settlement, approved July 6 in the Southern District of West Virginia, involves more than 224,000 class members in some 105,000 households and over 7,000 businesses and governmental entities.
Eastman, West Virginia American Water, American Water Works Service Co., and American Water Works Co., Inc. will pay between $101 million and $151 million to settle the water contamination suit, portions of which were previously announced.
The settlement creates two funds—the first consists of $101 million, including $25 million from Eastman and $76 million from the water companies. This guaranteed fund is intended to pay “simple claims” that do not require documentary support or proof of causation.
If that fund is exhausted, a second “contingent” fund of $50 million–supplied entirely by the water companies–will be used to pay more complicated claims after they have been individual reviewed and approved.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys will be awarded 30 percent of the $101 million guaranteed fund.
The agreement, if given final approval, will resolve residential claims, business claims, wage earner claims, and medical claims.
Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. approved the agreement.
Counsel for the plaintiffs included The Calwell Practice in Charleston, W. Va., Thompson Barney in Charleston, W. Va., Underwood & Proctor Law Offices in Huntington, W. Va., Ciccarello Del Giudice & Lafon in Charleston, W. Va., and Smith Stag in New Orleans.
Blank Rome in Washington and Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough in Huntington, W. Va. represented Eastman.
Jackson Kelly in Charleston, W. Va. and Baker Botts in Washington represented the water companies.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=115830361&vname=dennotallissues&fn=115830361&jd=115830361
-
After ‘Infrastructure Week,’ Legislative Spadework Must Begin
Jul 10, 2017 | Morning Consult
By Pete Sepp
Last month the White House kicked off a series of ambitious policy proposalsdesigned to improve the nation’s infrastructure, without having to spend a trillion in precious tax dollars. Starting with a vital plan to create a nongovernmental user-funded entity for air traffic control, and concluding with reforms to onerous permitting, over the course of a week the administration sketched a blueprint that rightfully relies on private-sector ingenuity, rather than public largesse to strengthen our economic backbone. But now, when Congress comes back after July 4 recess, the hard work begins — translating these smart ideas into legislation capable of making a speedy trip to the president’s desk.
Fortunately, neither President Donald Trump’s team nor members of Congress have to travel on a completely unpaved path here. Dozens of countries, including Canada and the United Kingdom, have successfully transformed their air traffic control systems to organizations responsive to customers rather than mired in bureaucracy. The House has already marked up a bill with these principles. Meanwhile, states such as Arizona, Iowa and Virginia are showing how to clear tax and regulatory obstacles to the next big leap in telecommunications infrastructure — 5G wireless. Equally important lessons, however, can be learned from long-standing infrastructure success stories, among them freight rail.
The Staggers Act of 1980, which among other steps provided greater latitude for railroads and their customers to negotiate freight-hauling rates, was along with airline and trucking regulatory reform, a sweeping effort to remove government’s stranglehold on infrastructure innovation.
The ability of private actors rather than public agencies to set most service prices has been, and remains key to freight rail’s vitality. As Brian Slack wrote in the 2017 edition of “The Geography of Transport Systems”:
With the release of regulatory control over rates, the railroads could begin charging market rates, and because they were allowed to enter into confidential contracts they had greater flexibility in negotiating with large volume shippers. This introduced more competition between the modes and led to lower rates overall. … [as well as] a revitalization of the general freight business.
But even as taxpayer advocates continue to press forward on long overdue changes to numerous areas of infrastructure, they can’t neglect to maintain the sound foundation upon which freight rail has been rebuilt. Recently the U.S. Surface Transportation Board proposed several regulations that could reverse the progress of the past four decades. One example among these would be requiring under certain circumstances (and at the government’s behest) an incumbent railroad to serve a rival’s customers on its own facilities with the non-incumbent railroad paying compensation. This would represent a major expansion of reciprocal switching, a practice that generally occurs through private market negotiations.
Government regulations must of course adapt to evolving circumstances, but a new spate of rulemaking, including from the Federal Railroad Administration, could create unforeseen headaches. Indeed, as a recent analysis from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation pointed out, shortsighted federal policies that seem fearful of developments such as Positive Train Control (which integrates information technology to help operate trains) tend to overlook “evidence that the combination of PTC and one-person crews may be able to deliver reduced costs and potentially enhanced safety.”
Earlier this year, House and Senate hearings on infrastructure explored many sectors, but a standout was the regulatory framework articulated by the freight rail industry that ought to apply to all rulemakings — whether from the FAA, EPA, IRS, or any of the agencies in the federal “alphabet soup.” Elements include: New rules must respond to a carefully defined need that is grounded in hard evidence of harms rather than ill-defined “risks.” Cost-benefit analysis, including the interaction with other existing or proposed regulations, should be a prerequisite to any rulemaking. Transparency and opportunities for public comment must be augmented and encouraged. Articulating an end result, rather than the methods to achieve that result, can encourage innovative private-sector responses to problems identified by the public sector.
That last point is the primary aim of legislation introduced by Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.). His bill, the Revamping American Infrastructure Act (HR 2714), would create a process at the Department of Transportation to identify more opportunities for converting “prescriptive” federal dictates into outcome-based rules. This is precisely the kind of nimble approach to regulation that serves everyone better.
Much more spadework from the legislative and executive branches will be necessary to modernize our nation’s infrastructure affordably and sustainably. But with bills like HR 2714 leading the way, all modes of transportation, communications, and shipment can benefit, in the process putting policy to work for a brighter economic future.
Pete Sepp is the president of the National Taxpayers Union, a nonpartisan citizen group founded in 1969 to work for efficient, limited government that is accountable to those who must pay for it.
https://morningconsult.com/opinions/infrastructure-week-legislative-spadework-must-begin/
-
G20 World Leaders’ Agreement Hinges on U.S. Climate Change Issue
Jul 8, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Alicia Cohn
The U.S. wants a reference to fossil fuels included in the G20 joint statement and the group of 20 world leaders’ negotiations surrounding the communique hinges on the issue, according to reports on Saturday.
The 20 world leaders at a meeting in Hamburg, Germany have agreed on every aspect of the statement except a section on climate change, an official told Reuters.
The group worked late into the night and are still in final negotiations on Saturday in hopes of issuing a united statement.
"We have a G20 communique, not a G19 communique," the official told Reuters.
The statement reportedly noted that 19 of the 20 countries - with the U.S. the only exclusion - are committed to the Paris agreement on climate change. Trump announced his intention to pull the U.S. out of the accordin early June.
Every member of the group except the U.S. reaffirmed the Paris climate accord as “irreversible," according to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, reported the Associated Press.
The contentious passage in the section reportedly reads: “The United States of America will endeavor to work closely with other partners to help their access to and use of fossil fuels more cleanly and efficiently.”
-This report was updated at 10:48 a.m. with the latest information.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/341087-g20-world-leaders-statement-hinges-on-us-climate-change-issue
-
Worried About Your Health Care? Then Don't Let Them Cut EPA's Budget.
Jul 10, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Keith Zukowski
As America continues to be consumed by the health care debate there is one thing everybody can still agree on: We all want to lead happy, healthy lives.
But here’s the secret: Access to affordable care is not the only thing that keeps us healthy. Thousands of Americans at organizations and agencies nationwide go to work every day to keep people out of the doctor’s office without you even knowing it.
We’d better make sure they can continue to do their jobs.
Here’s something we wish wasn’t so secret: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t just protect our environment; part of its core mission is also to protect our health. Without the EPA – or even with a weakened EPA – people would get sicker, which translates into more hospital visits, more medical bills and more strain on our economy.
The EPA is health care, too.EPA cuts “will make people sick”
Our national discussion is currently focused on premiums and deductibles, CBO scores and votes. That’s all critically important.
Another, direct threat to our health that gets a lot less attention is the Trump administration’s proposal to slash nearly one-third of the EPA’s budget, hammering critical health programs the agency funds.
To quote former regional EPA administrator Judith Enck: It’s “going to make people sick. It literally will make people sick.”
So while health care is on your mind, let’s consider the ways that your health could be affected by these drastic cuts.Budget cuts = more unsafe drinking water
Places such as Toledo, Ohio, have already seen what can happen when we don’t properly care for our drinking water.
In the summer of 2014, residents woke to a grim warning: Don’t drink your tap water or use it to wash dishes or to bathe your kids. Lake Erie, the source of Toledo’s drinking water, had been overtaken by a dangerous algae bloom.
State water programs, which rely heavily on funding from the EPA, are responsible for keeping our water clean and preventing episodes like the one in Toledo. The Trump administration’s proposed $482-million cut to traditional state environmental grants could strip away much of that support, stretching already-thin resources needed to keep communities healthy.Budget cuts = more dirty air
Without proper oversight from local EPA officials, expect some polluters to feel emboldened to send more dirty emissions into our air. That means sicker people, especially children and the elderly.
Incidents of asthma would likely go up. So, too, would other pulmonary and cardiac diseases. What’s worse, it will disproportionately affect people of color and low-income communities.
It’s fair to say that people would die.How the EPA saves lives
To put it all in perspective, the laws the agency enforces:
· save 230,000 lives each year through EPA’s implementation of the Clean Air Act between 1990 and 2020.
· prevent 2.4 million asthma attacks through the Clean Air Act by 2020.
· resulted in 1,308 enforcement actions taken in 2016 under the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water acts.
· safely disposed of 62 billion pounds of hazardous waste in 2016 through EPA enforcement actions that required companies to treat, minimize and properly manage such waste.
The EPA is health care. It is our silent guardian working every day to ensure that we breathe cleaner air, drink purer water and live our lives to the fullest.
The next several months will be filled with debate over which policies make for the best health care. Whatever the answer, one thing is certain: We are all made healthier by the work of the EPA.
That work should be protected and funded. Lives depend on it.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2017/07/07/worried-about-your-health-care-then-dont-let-them-cut-epas-budget
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested