Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 7/14/17
-
Acting EPA Chemicals Chief to Retire, Leaving Leadership Vacuum
Jul 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
The top official in the EPA's chemicals and pesticides office will retire Aug. 24, according to an email obtained by Bloomberg BNA. -
House Committee Wants to Gut EPA
Jul 13, 2017 | NRDC
By Scott Slesinger
While the press concentrates on tweets and Russian assistance to the Trump campaign, the House Republicans continue their undercover assault on our environment and natural heritage. -
Practitioner Insights: TSCA Implementation in the Eye of the Hurricane
Jul 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Richard Denison
I would like to put the TSCA implementation actions taken to date into the broader context of our current political situation. -
EPA Releases First SNURs Since TSCA Reform Enactment
Jul 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA has released its first rules governing how a set of approved new chemicals can be used since the enactment of the law reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) last summer, as the agency works to cut a backlog of new chemicals awaiting review that developed shortly after the reform law took effect in June 2016. -
Chemical Makers Urge EPA to Accept Non-Animal Safety Data
Jul 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Chemical manufacturers want the EPA to be more receptive than they say the European Chemicals Agency has been in accepting chemical safety data derived from non-animal tests. -
Monsanto Roundup Documents Sought by European Lawmakers
Jul 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joel Rosenblatt
European lawmakers asked a U.S. judge overseeing litigation against Monsanto Co. to help them evaluate the risk that the company's Roundup weedkiller may be linked to cancer in humans. -
Thousands of Adults and Children Lost Their Hair. Will Anything Change?
Jul 13, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Scott Faber
Almost two years ago, EWG first reported that more than 17,000 adults and children had lost some or all of their hair after using a shampoo advertised by celebrity hair stylist Chaz Dean and sold by one of the nation’s largest direct marketing firms. -
(ACC Mentioned) Manchin Aims to Tack Appalachian Ethane Hub on Energy Bill
Jul 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin (D) is ready to take a stab at creating an ethane storage hub in Appalachia that could break ground for more ethane use nationwide, while boosting manufacturing in the region. -
Court Lets EPA Delay Methane Rule For 'Limited Period'
Jul 13, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
A federal court today granted U.S. EPA a two-week reprieve from complying with its recent ruling that the agency lacked authority to delay Obama-era methane standards for the oil and gas industry. -
U.S., China Immersed in Talks on LNG Export, Energy Issues
Jul 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By John Butcher
U.S. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry advanced the prospect of expanding American liquefied natural gas exports to China during a July 13 meeting with Executive Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli in Beijing. -
Northam Won't 'Hinder' Atlantic Pipeline; Greens Affirm Support
Jul 13, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Nick Bowlin
After months of hedging, Virginia Democratic gubernatorial nominee Ralph Northam voiced support this morning for the proposed Atlantic Coast pipeline — an enormous, contentious natural gas project that would span several states. -
Trump Intends to Tap McIntyre for FERC chair
Jul 13, 2017 | Politico Pro Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon
President Donald Trump plans to nominate veteran Jones Day attorney Kevin McIntyre to the FERC chairmanship, the White House announced tonight. -
Exxon Mobil Fined for Louisiana Refinery Explosion That Injured Four
Jul 13, 2017 | Reuters (in The New York Times)
Exxon Mobil Corp has been fined about $165,000 by U.S. regulators for safety lapses including inadequate training and equipment maintenance over an explosion that injured four workers at an aging Baton Rouge, Louisiana, refinery last year. -
Chemical Safety Board
Jul 13, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
One day a dozen years ago in Texas City, a massive explosion at the BP refinery killed 15 people and injured more than 180 workers. As flames and thick black smoke belched into the sky, helicopters flying out of the disaster scene ferried burn victims to UTMB Galveston and ambulances racing through the streets rushed injured patients to local hospitals. -
Texas Oil Market With Spare Pipeline Space Shrugs Off Shutdown
Jul 14, 2017 | Bloomberg
By Laura Blewitt & Sheela Tobben
Oil markets shrugged off a spill that shut a pipeline crossing Texas, signaling no immediate shortage of space to haul crude from the region’s prolific Permian Basin to Houston-area refineries. -
Trump Says He Might Rethink Withdrawal From Climate Pact
Jul 14, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Arianna Skibell
President Trump today signaled he might be open to changing his mind about the Paris climate deal. -
Official: No New White House Action on Climate Negotiations
Jul 13, 2017 | Politico Pro
By Eric Wolff
Despite comments from President Donald Trump Thursday that "something could happen" on the U.S. negotiating its re-entry into the Paris climate agreement, a White House official said the administration has made no progress on new climate talks. -
Gov. Brown Makes Dire Plea to Save California Climate Law
Jul 14, 2017 | AP (in The Washington Post)
By Jonathan J. Cooper
Gov. Jerry Brown warned of a California ravaged by forest fires, disease and mass migration if lawmakers fail to renew the state’s signature program to fight climate change, which he called “a threat to organized human existence.” -
Christie Again Blocks Attempt to Rejoin Environmental Pact
Jul 13, 2017 | AP (in The New York Times)
Republican Gov. Chris Christie on Thursday again blocked Democratic lawmakers' attempt to have the state rejoin a regional environmental pact.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Acting EPA Chemicals Chief to Retire, Leaving Leadership Vacuum
Jul 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
The top official in the EPA's chemicals and pesticides office will retire Aug. 24, according to an email obtained by Bloomberg BNA.
Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, acting assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, worked at the Environmental Protection Agency for 38 years, joining the chemical safety office fresh out of law school. She also served as principal deputy assistant administrator for the office during the Obama administration, and as director of the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, where she led the agency's chemical safety program under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
“It is hard to imagine a better opportunity to serve the American public, pursue a vitally important mission, learn an enormous amount, and work with incredibly smart, dedicated and collegial people,” Cleland-Hamnett wrote to colleagues in a July 10 email.
Her departure comes as almost all of the agency's top leadership posts remain vacant. The Trump administration has only nominated one assistant administrator—Susan Bodine, for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. She has yet to be confirmed by the Senate.
Next-in-command in the office are deputy assistant administrators Nancy Beck and Louise Wise. Beck was hired in April after serving as the American Chemistry Council's senior director for regulatory science policy. Wise has worked at the EPA since 1984, according to a LinkedIn profile.
The Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention is overseeing last year's legislative reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act, an effort to tighten the regulation of new and existing chemicals on the market. The EPA released three news rules June 22 to implement the new law, establishing its first-ever, comprehensive regulatory strategy to evaluate—and regulate, if needed—chemicals in commerce.
The EPA confirmed the retirement.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=116563877&vname=dennotallissues&fn=116563877&jd=116563877
-
House Committee Wants to Gut EPA
Jul 13, 2017 | NRDC
By Scott Slesinger
While the press concentrates on tweets and Russian assistance to the Trump campaign, the House Republicans continue their undercover assault on our environment and natural heritage. On Wednesday, July 11, 2017, the subcommittee responsible for funding EPA, the Department of Interior and related agencies, once again took a meat-axe to EPA and made deep cuts at the agencies responsible for our public parks and other public lands. The bill demonstrates the fix is in for those companies that want to exploit our public lands for drilling and mining.
The bill gives Administrator Scott Pruitt the tools to slash the professional staff. The bill gives polluters free reign by taking the “cops on the beat” and weaken the protections to our air, water, and land that EPA works to protect. The bill will undoubtedly put Americans at greater risk of polluted drinking water and toxic air.
Between 2010 and 2017, a period the country should have been concentrating on climate change and other insults to our environment, the Republicans controlled Congress cut the EPA 20%! The bill that was voted on in the subcommittee today adds another 7% cut from present levels severely limiting EPA’s ability to update the water standards for copper and lead, protect our air or set safe radiation levels.
Besides attacks on EPA and Interior’s budget the bill including unnecessary riders intended to further weaken environmental protections at the behest of giant corporations who want to socialize their costs with the public and keep their profits for themselves. For instance:
Sec 116 prevents the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS from fulfilling its obligations under the Endangered Species Act by disallowing FWS to issue or propose a rule to protect the greater sage grouse to help oil drillers.
Sec. 117 blocks efforts to protect endangered gray wolves in the continental United States by 2017 under the Endangered Species Act. This species is currently listed as endangered in most of the lower-48 states. A national delisting for wolves would reverse the remarkable progress the ESA has achieved for this species and once again put the gray wolf at risk of extinction.
Sec. 119 delists gray wolves in the Great Lakes and Wyoming from the Endangered Species Act and prevent judicial review of this action.
Sec. 407 allows the Secretary of Agriculture to rely on outdated forest plans, ignoring the reality that national forests are not being managed sustainably, nor taking into account additional considerations such as the increasing impacts of climate change.
Sec. 420 permanently prevents the EPA from regulating toxic lead in ammunition, ammunition components, or fishing tackle under the Toxic Substances Control Act TSCA or any other law.
Sec. 423 exempts livestock grazing permit renewals from environmental review.
Sec. 428 requires all biomass burned for electricity production to be considered to have zero carbon pollution despite the fact that emissions from wood biomass are often higher than those from coal. This language threatens the long-term health of forests by encouraging the burning of trees to generate electricity and worsens climate change by pretending climate-changing emissions don't exist.
Sec. 431 would allow the EPA Administrator and the Secretary of the Army to withdraw the Clear Water Rule without accepting public input that is required under the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946. The Clean Water Rule, which adhered to APA requirements, was the result of extensive public engagement and scientific analysis. It is unconscionable that Members of Congress are now cutting out an exemption to longstanding transparency and good governance laws for the purposes of dismantling clean water protections.
Sec. 432 delays EPA’s latest health standards for ground-level ozone smog pollution for ten years, preventing Americans from even having the right to know if the air they breathe is unhealthy for ten years and severely delaying cleanup steps. The rider also would let corporations that apply for air pollution permits pollute at levels that are unsafe under national health standards.
Sec. 433 blocks EPA from requiring industries with a high probability of causing catastrophic damage by releasing toxics into the environment from carrying insurance to cover environmental damages they cause. This provision will leave the taxpayer with the bill for their negligence.
Sec. 434 would prohibit EPA from writing any rule that would require the largest industrial animal farms: Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, or CAFOs to properly store, transport, or dispose of their wastes, including the hundreds of millions of tons of manure they generate annually. CAFO wastes contain dangerous pollutants that can increase the risk of birth defects, infant deaths, diabetes, and cancer. When not handled properly, CAFO wastes endanger drinking water sources and pose a particularly severe risk to rural communities reliant on well water.
Sec. 435 prevents implementation of the National Ocean Policy. The National Ocean Policy is a common sense policy that improves the way we manage our oceans, reducing duplicative efforts and conflicting government actions, and facilitates better coordination between federal, state, and local stakeholders.
Members of Congress, particularly Republicans, need to hear that the American public supports our natural heritage and our environment. Giving utilities, chemical companies and oil and gas companies—all important industries, but also risky businesses that can be more profitable if environmental standards are ignored—need to be held to a standard that does not jeopardize our public health or our natural heritage.
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/scott-slesinger/house-committee-wants-gut-epa
-
Practitioner Insights: TSCA Implementation in the Eye of the Hurricane
Jul 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Richard Denison
I would like to put the TSCA implementation actions taken to date into the broader context of our current political situation.
The common ground that allowed passage of the Lautenberg Act a year ago was based on two facts: The old law wasn't working for anyone, and a stronger federal chemicals management system was needed to restore lost confidence by the public and in the marketplace over the safety of chemicals. Those facts are just as true today as they were then.
This past year started on a sound track, with good prospects for strong implementation of the new law. EPA hit the ground running. Based on numerous stakeholder meetings, three major rules required by, and three others authorized under, the new law were proposed within the first six-seven months. The first 10 chemicals to undergo risk evaluations were identified on schedule. Despite no provision for a phase-in and no new resources, EPA implemented the major enhancements to new chemical reviews required under the new law and has steadily reduced the temporary backlog that developed, despite some stakeholders’ lack of patience with what EPA needed to do to make those changes.
But this situation quickly changed with the change in administration and one-party control of Congress, with many now intent on implementing the most anti-environmental and anti-regulatory agenda we have witnessed in modern times.
While my comments here will at times be very critical of what is happening at EPA, they are not meant to disparage the dedicated staff members who work tirelessly seeking to ensure strong, health-protective implementation of this law.
We cannot view TSCA reform in isolation. This administration's agenda threatens it, not to mention public health and environmental protections across the board. Among the threats:
· a slew of executive orders and legislation that would grind the regulatory process to a halt; some, like the Regulatory Accountability Act, would impose requirements across the entire federal government that TSCA reform just got rid of;
· a proposed EPA budget that would dramatically slash resources and staff across the agency, including in areas (such as the chemical assessment and chemical testing programs within the Office of Research and Development (ORD) and core functions (such as enforcement and information technology) that are vital to effective TSCA implementation;
· legislation that seeks to limit what scientific information the EPA can use to make decisions (the so-called HONEST Act) and what advice it can receive on science issues (the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act);
· initial indications that EPA intends to alter the composition of existing science panels (including the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals established by the new TSCA; ORD's Board of Scientific Counselors, and the agency-wide Science Advisory Board) in order to deselect independent scientists and allow industry scientists with conflicts of interest to serve; and
· the recent appointment of an official at EPA who comes directly from the chemical industry and has had a heavy hand in rewriting last week's final TSCA framework rules.
Many of these actions have the strong support of some in the chemical industry, who have been emboldened to seek repeal, delay or weakening of the early actions EPA has taken under the new law. These actions include proposed restrictions on certain uses of trichloroethylene, methylene chloride, and N-methylpyrrolidone, as well as a modest final reporting rule for nanoscale materials that was a decade in the making.
To be sure, there have been some symbolic efforts to preserve TSCA implementation, including the budget of the TSCA office. But it is hard to see how these help much, taking place in the eye of the hurricane that the forces I note above have unleashed.Then there are the final rules themselves. They have changed dramatically, with the vast majority of changes made being those that industry requested in its comments. Many of these changes will reduce public health protection, and some are contrary to law or counter to the scientific evidence. To provide one critical example: In the risk evaluation rule's preamble, EPA expressly states that it will not examine certain conditions of use, and may not examine other conditions of use, even where they can clearly present risks to health or the environment.
The final rules need to be examined in two ways: First, what the rules say. Second, what they say about how they will be implemented by this EPA, which is really important to consider under the political climate I have described. While the final rules don't always foreclose EPA doing the right thing, language in their preambles signals trouble ahead that we are likely to first see in action in how EPA approaches the first 10 chemicals selected to undergo risk evaluations. The scoping documents for these chemicals just released by EPA already reveal dangerous signs that suggest the agency intends to exclude important uses of these chemicals. If EPA fails to comprehensively examine real-world public health risks in the evaluations it conducts of these first 10 chemicals, it may fatally undermine confidence in the new law, which is in no one's interest.
Let me close by saying something that I would have thought would be obvious but apparently is not: The chemical industry won't get what it needs—restoring market and consumer confidence—if this administration's EPA implemented this law in a manner that destroys the careful balance that allowed its passage in the first place. And things will quickly revert back to the situation that drove the industry to support reform in the first place: More piecemeal action by state and local governments and more so-called “retail regulation.”
At the one-year mark, while the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) remains confident that the law is strong and can and will ultimately deliver on its promises. Its effective implementation in the near term is threatened, and EDF intends to remain ever watchful.
Richard Denison is a lead senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=116563905&vname=dennotallissues&fn=116563905&jd=116563905
-
EPA Releases First SNURs Since TSCA Reform Enactment
Jul 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA has released its first rules governing how a set of approved new chemicals can be used since the enactment of the law reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) last summer, as the agency works to cut a backlog of new chemicals awaiting review that developed shortly after the reform law took effect in June 2016.
EPA issued final significant new use rules (SNURs) for 29 new chemicals July 10. New chemicals are those that are not on the TSCA inventory, which contains all existing chemicals. Existing chemicals are those that were on the market when the original TSCA took effect in 1976, plus all chemicals that have been added to the inventory since.
The TSCA reform law includes new requirements for EPA's new chemicals review program, including mandatory reviews of all pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) and the requirements that EPA consider all uses and reasonable foreseeable uses and reach an affirmative finding on each PMN.
EPA leaders have pointed to these changes, as well as the lack of phase in time for the new requirements, as causes of the backlog of chemicals awaiting review that EPA says it is close to resolving.
Industry has protested the delays in the new chemical reviews, urging EPA to take various measures to address the problems. EPA officials have indicated at recent events that they are looking to tools, such as the TSCA section 5(e) SNURs, or consent orders, to address some of the issues with the many conditions of use that must be considered as part of the new reviews -- but which submitting companies may have no knowledge of or interest in.
Some industry representatives have welcomed EPA's efforts to find a solution to the backlog, while others have raised concerns with the ramification of the rapidly growing number of SNURs, which come with certain record-keeping and reporting requirements that could disadvantage the chemicals on the market.
“This rule includes 29 PMN substances that are subject to 'risk-based' consent orders under TSCA section 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I) . . . where EPA determined that activities associated with the PMN substances may present unreasonable risk to human health or the environment,” the agency's July 10 announcement says.
“Where EPA determined that the PMN substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health via inhalation exposure, the underlying TSCA section 5(e) consent order usually requires, among other things, that potentially exposed employees wear specified respirators unless actual measurements of the workplace air show that air-borne concentrations of the PMN substance are below a New Chemical Exposure Limit (NCEL) that is established by EPA to provide adequate protection to human health,” the agency says.
EPA adds that, “In addition to the actual NCEL concentration, the comprehensive NCELs provisions in TSCA section 5(e) consent orders, which are modeled after Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) provisions, include requirements addressing performance criteria for sampling and analytical methods, periodic monitoring, respiratory protection, and recordkeeping.”
EPA's pre-publication notice does not indicate when the agency will publish it in the Federal Register, which will trigger a 30-day comment period. EPA will publish the SNURs as a direct final rule, and if it receives adverse comment it will withdraw the rule, consider the comments, and craft a new version.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-releases-first-snurs-tsca-reform-enactment
-
Chemical Makers Urge EPA to Accept Non-Animal Safety Data
Jul 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Chemical manufacturers want the EPA to be more receptive than they say the European Chemicals Agency has been in accepting chemical safety data derived from non-animal tests.
“We've had challenges in the EU getting many of these alternatives accepted. We hope the U.S. will be a more friendly place,” Athena Keene, a senior toxicologist at Afton Chemical Corp., said at a recent science policy meeting.
Afton, a subsidiary of the NewMarket Corp., which makes fuel and lubricant additives, has registered chemicals under the EU's registration, evaluation, authorization and restriction of chemicals, or REACH, law. REACH encourages the use of non-animal tests, yet animal welfare groups and chemical manufacturers have appealed many decisions in which the European Chemicals Agency rejected non-animal data the companies sought to submit.
The Environmental Protection Agency soon will invite chemical manufacturers, trade associations, animal welfare advocates, and academic and other scientists to help shape an agency strategy to develop and use the results from non-animal, or “alternative,” tests for chemical decision making, said Tala Henry, who directs the risk assessment division of the EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Keene and Henry were among the speakers at a July 12 Toxicology Forum meeting that discussed the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, which amended the Toxic Substances Control Act in 2016.
TSCA's amendments require the EPA to develop a non-animal testing strategy by June 22, 2018, to promote the development and use of new scientifically valid test methods that don't use mammals or other vertebrates. That strategy is part a broader requirement for EPA to reduce and replace the use of animals at a time when more tests may be required.
The EPA is deciding whether to seek public participation through a workshop, releasing a draft concept document, or some other method, Henry said. The agency expects to invite interested parties to provide input in a few months, she said.
Reducing Liability
Harvey Clewell, a senior scientist at ScitoVation, a research institute specializing in cell-based and computational methods as chemical evaluation methods, echoed Keene's point that some European chemical regulators have not used available non-animal test methods.
The U.S., however, has a growing academic, federal and industry scientific infrastructure supporting their development and use, he said. Clewell pointed to federal agencies such the EPA and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), which have been developing and using a spectrum of automated chemical testing systems.
Using alternative tests “just makes good sense,” especially in the early stages of a new chemical's development, Clewell said. “There's a lot of liability potential for chemicals. They can cost a company a lot of money once they are out there. Wouldn't it behoove a company to run some quick tests and say ‘this has red flags why should we pursue it’.”
Suzanne Hartigan, director of science policy and regulatory affairs at the International Fragrance Association North America, said fragrance makers already have developed strategies to obtain chemical safety data from alternative tests, so they could comply with the EU's Cosmetics Products Regulation and its predecessor—the Cosmetics Directive—which phased out the use of animal tests on cosmetics and their ingredients.
The Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc., which assesses fragrance safety, has developed a phased in, or “tiered,” testing strategy that begins with evaluating existing data for a particular fragrance, proceeds to examining information about similar compounds, and builds toward in vitro and computer-modeled tests, Hartigan said. After such alternative data sources have been utilized, animal tests can be considered, she said, urging EPA to consider some of these strategies.
No Double Standard
Henry said EPA already would review non-animal chemical safety data if companies submitted it but added, “It's not flooding into us.”
The more companies submit alternative data, the more it will help the agency understand their uses and limitations, she said.
Richard Denison, lead senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, said that group supports the use of alternative tests. Details about tests used to generate data submitted to the EPA should, however, be made available to build public confidence in the tests’ predictions, he said. Protocols used for statutorily required animal tests are publicly available.
Many of the assays the EPA uses for its automated chemical testing program, called ToxCast, and that the NIEHS uses for a similar program called Tox21, are proprietary, Denison said.
Alternative test advocates also should avoid a double standard, Denison said.
There's a tendency for proponents to want to use data from an alternative test if it suggests a chemical would not raise health or environmental concerns, he said. Yet if such tests show a problem, then the proponents argue the tests aren't valid because they don't reflect the “real world,” Denison said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=116563887&vname=dennotallissues&fn=116563887&jd=116563887
-
Monsanto Roundup Documents Sought by European Lawmakers
Jul 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joel Rosenblatt
European lawmakers asked a U.S. judge overseeing litigation against Monsanto Co. to help them evaluate the risk that the company's Roundup weedkiller may be linked to cancer in humans.
Four members of the European Parliament wrote a letterto U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in San Francisco to share testimony from Monsanto executives and scientists. The lawmakers asked for help settling the “heated debate” about the herbicide as the European Union's authorization for the sale of glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, is set to expire Dec. 31.
The letter, posted to the court's docket July 13, from members of Europe's Green Party said their concerns were heightened by news reports in March about Jess Rowland, a former manager in the EPA's pesticide division. Rowland has become a central figure in more than 20 lawsuits in the U.S. accusing Monsanto of failing to warn consumers and regulators of the risk that its glyphosate-based herbicide can cause non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
“We will respond appropriately to the court regarding this attempt by these four activist members of the Green Party to improperly interject themselves into a U.S. court proceeding,” Scott Partridge, Monsanto's vice president of global strategy, said in a statement. “The reviews conducted by the European Food Safety Authority and the European Chemicals Agency evaluated all the relevant data and concluded that glyphosate is not carcinogenic.”
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit have submitted emails to bolster their claim that Rowland bragged to a Monsanto executive that he deserved “a medal” if he could kill a U.S. agency's investigation into the herbicide's key chemical.
The unsealed documents “showed that Monsanto had authored some scientific studies on glyphosate, downplaying its risks, which were then attributed to scientists,” according to the European lawmakers’ letter. “We need to know how much these kind of studies have been used in the ‘balancing of evidence’ and for that we need to have as much of the facts on the table.“
The lawmakers asks Judge Chhabria for testimony in the lawsuit from Monsanto toxicologist Donna Farmer; Monsanto Toxicology Manager David Saltmiras; William Heydens, the company's chief of regulatory research; Monsanto's lead EPA liaison, Dan Jenkins; and David Heering, Monsanto's Director of Global Glyphosate Sustainability program.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=116563897&vname=dennotallissues&fn=116563897&jd=116563897
-
Thousands of Adults and Children Lost Their Hair. Will Anything Change?
Jul 13, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Scott Faber
Almost two years ago, EWG first reported that more than 17,000 adults and children had lost some or all of their hair after using a shampoo advertised by celebrity hair stylist Chaz Dean and sold by one of the nation’s largest direct marketing firms.
Yet Congress has failed to give the Food and Drug Administration the basic tools it needs to ensure that cosmetics and other personal care products are safe – or to even know when products are hurting consumers.
In the case of WEN, the shampoo linked to the hair loss, the manufacturer had no duty to tell the FDA that thousands of women and girls had lost their hair. In fact, by 2015, the FDA had only received 127 “adverse event” reports lawsuit about WEN – less than one percent of the cases cited by court documents filed in a lawsuit in Los Angeles by some of the women against Guthy-Renker LLC, the maker of the shampoo.
Under current law, the FDA has virtually no power to review cosmetic chemicals to determine safety and has little power to act when companies produce unsafe products. As the case of WEN revealed, the FDA doesn’t even have the power to know when products harm American consumers.
In the last five years, Congress held one hearing on cosmetics. That’s it.
There’s been no progress on Capitol Hill despite efforts by Sens. Feinstein, D-Calif., and Susan Collins, R-Maine. They’ve introduced legislation that would ensure that companies report “serious” adverse events to the FDA within 15 days. Their bill would also give FDA the power to order recalls and stop the production of dangerous products. Most importantly, their bill would also require FDA to review the most dangerous chemicals in cosmetics. Reps. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., and Leonard Lance, R-N.J., have developed a House version of the Feinstein-Collins bill.
The good news is that Feinstein-Collins bill is broadly supported by the personal care products industry. Cosmetics giants including Estee Lauder, Revlon, L’Oreal, Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, as well as smaller companies like Juice Beauty and the Honest Company, support their bill.
Even hand-made soap companies, who opposed an earlier version of the bill, have endorsed the Feinstein-Collins bill after changes were made to address their concerns. The new version of the bill exempts home-based businesses with annual average sales below $1 million, exempts small companies with annual average sales below $500,000, and creates a simplified registration process for small companies with sales between $500,000 and $2 million.
The Feinstein-Collins bill is also “paid for,” as legislators like to say. Cosmetics companies have agreed to provide $20 million a year to finance FDA chemical reviews, with most of the funding provided by the largest players in the $62.5 billion industry. No company with sales below $2 million would help finance the FDA’s work.
Many other countries – including Canada, the U.S.’ largest trading partner – already set limits on which chemicals can be used to personal care products.
So what’s the holdup? It’s hard to imagine. The Feinstein-Collins bill is bipartisan, supported by large and small companies, will not cost the taxpayers a nickel and will help open export markets.
No wonder retailers like Wal-Mart, Target and CVS aren’t waiting for Congress and are instead taking steps to set their own standards for which chemicals can be included in cosmetics. Also impatient with Congress, state legislators (and even some city council members) are introducing bills to finally ban some of the most dangerous chemical in these products. The maker of WEN recently settled a class action suit, but consumers should not be forced to rely on the legal system alone to weed out unsafe products.
No one knows for sure which chemical in WEN may have injured more than 21,000 users (up from 17,000 two years ago). Under current law, the company was not required to provide safety studies to FDA.
But we do know there are chemicals found in cosmetics that are cause for concern, including lead, formaldehyde, parabens, phthalates, and 1,4-dioxane, a chemical linked to cancer but found in hundreds of kids’ products. Most consumers believe FDA already reviews these everyday products for safety. But the truth is that formulators can put just about anything in cosmetics.
It’s time for Congress to act. If thousands of American are losing their hair is not enough to spur action, what is?
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2017/07/thousands-women-and-girls-lost-their-hair-will-anything-change#.WWiZn_mGPIU
-
(ACC Mentioned) Manchin Aims to Tack Appalachian Ethane Hub on Energy Bill
Jul 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin (D) is ready to take a stab at creating an ethane storage hub in Appalachia that could break ground for more ethane use nationwide, while boosting manufacturing in the region.
Manchin told Bloomberg BNA July 12 he is aiming to propose an amendment on the Senate energy package to qualify a storage facility as a “critical infrastructure project,” which would expedite Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licensing.
The facility's supporters, including the American Chemistry Council, argue it will pave the way for more nationwide use of ethane, a liquid derived from natural gas production that is used in consumer products and chemicals.
Manchin, along with Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), introduced the measure as a stand-alone bill (S. 1337) in June.
“That just gives it so much certainty to move forward. It gives it a pathway,” Manchin, who described the energy bill as a “perfect vehicle,” told Bloomberg BNA.
The energy bill (S. 1460) already contains a provision to compel the Energy Department to study the benefits of a ethane storage facility in the Marcellus, Utica, and Rogersville shale regions, which span from New York to Tennessee, but a spokeswoman for Manchin said the licensing is now the bigger priority.
Both Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) are pledging an open amendment process for the energy bill, but timing is so far unclear.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=116563875&vname=dennotallissues&fn=116563875&jd=116563875
-
Court Lets EPA Delay Methane Rule For 'Limited Period'
Jul 13, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
A federal court today granted U.S. EPA a two-week reprieve from complying with its recent ruling that the agency lacked authority to delay Obama-era methane standards for the oil and gas industry.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said it was recalling the mandate "for a limited period" to allow time for EPA to decide whether to ask for a rehearing or seek another form of appeal.
The court, though, said giving EPA any longer would, in effect, give the agency the stay that was found to be illegal in the first place.
At issue are Clean Air Act standards that the Obama administration released last year to curb methane leaks from new and modified oil and gas operations. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in June announced he was staying compliance with the standards by 90 days as the agency considered an industry petition for reconsideration.
But a D.C. Circuit panel issued a split 2-1 ruling July 3 finding the Clean Air Act didn't grant EPA the authority to delay the standards. On the same day, the court issued a mandate cementing the decision and requiring EPA to restore the standards (Greenwire, July 3).
A few days later, EPA filed a motion to recall the mandate, arguing the court took an "unusual step" in requiring compliance after it issued the decision.
EPA said it needs more time to evaluate options for appeal and to figure out how to implement the rule.
"The regulated community would ordinarily be afforded a reasonable amount of time to make the necessary adjustments to ensure compliance," EPA said in its motion. "Not so here. The Court has arguably placed the regulated community abruptly at risk of noncompliance with the 2016 Rule" (Energywire, July 10).
Oil and gas groups had urged the court to grant the Trump administration's request, while environmentalists and state supporters of methane curbs had characterized the request as "extraordinary." Environmentalists say oil and gas companies have had more than enough time to comply with the standards (E&E News PM, July 11).
In today's per curiam order, the same three-judge panel said it would recall the mandate for 14 days.
But, the court noted, "to stay issuance of the mandate for longer would hand the agency, in all practical effect, the very delay in implementation this panel determined to be 'arbitrary, capricious [and] ... in excess of [EPA's] statutory ... authority."
Judges David Tatel and Robert Wilkins, both Democratic appointees, heard the case with Judge Janice Rogers Brown, a Republican appointee who announced this week she would retire from the court at the end of August.
Brown, who dissented from her colleagues in the decision to toss EPA's stay of the methane curbs, also diverged from her colleagues on the order to recall the mandate.
She would have held off on issuing the mandate until seven days after EPA's petition for a panel rehearing, "rather than a truncated time-frame which shortchanges all sides," according to the court.
EPA is still considering a proposal to further delay the methane standards by two years.
Click here to read the court order.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/07/13/stories/1060057361
-
U.S., China Immersed in Talks on LNG Export, Energy Issues
Jul 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By John Butcher
U.S. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry advanced the prospect of expanding American liquefied natural gas exports to China during a July 13 meeting with Executive Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli in Beijing.
LNG exports were among a range of energy issues the pair discussed, during a meeting in Zhongnanhai, the headquarters of China's Communist Party, according to a release by the U.S. embassy in Beijing.
LNG exports to countries that do not have a free trade agreement with the U.S. are restricted, but President Donald Trump last month agreed to lift barriers on those to China as part of a range of trade deals between the two countries. That could offer huge export potential for U.S. LNG suppliers to China, which is the world's largest growth market for gas, according to energy research firm Wood Mackenzie, and may prompt new investment in industry.
It also could benefit China, which seeks alternatives to coal as it tackles a serious problem with air pollution.
Perry's talks with Zhang will be welcome news for U.S. LNG suppliers such as Cheniere Energy, which has been in negotiations with China about increasing exports there.
The Trump administration also hopes it will help them make good on election promises to rebalance trade and deliver jobs. In a statement, released June 5, to kick off his visit to China, Perry said, “By unleashing our domestic energy sector, we are creating, and will continue to create, well-paying, middle-class jobs and economic prosperity, protecting our environment, promoting innovation, and strengthening energy security for America and our allies.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=116563894&vname=dennotallissues&fn=116563894&jd=116563894
-
Northam Won't 'Hinder' Atlantic Pipeline; Greens Affirm Support
Jul 13, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Nick Bowlin
After months of hedging, Virginia Democratic gubernatorial nominee Ralph Northam voiced support this morning for the proposed Atlantic Coast pipeline — an enormous, contentious natural gas project that would span several states.
Appearing on "The John Fredericks Show," a syndicated Mid-Atlantic talk show, Northam was pressed on whether he would "hinder it, stand in the way or delay it" as governor if the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approves the project.
"Sure," he answered. As he has done throughout the campaign, Northam emphasized his support for firm review but said, "If done safely and responsibly, then it's going to move forward."
The question became a central dividing point in the recent Democratic gubernatorial primary: Can the governor block a pipeline that falls under federal regulatory authority?
No, according to current Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D). Until this morning, McAuliffe's lieutenant governor and ally had taken a similar line, saying only that he supported strict state and federal review for the Atlantic Coast project.
The pipeline would bring hydraulically fractured gas from the Marcellus Shale formation through the center of Virginia, crossing both the West Virginia and North Carolina state lines. It would cross multiple watersheds and undeveloped sections of the Alleghenies and Blue Ridge Mountains.
But Northam's primary opponent Tom Perriello and pipeline activists disagreed, pointing to New York, where Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) blocked two pipeline projects by denying water quality permits under the Clean Water Act.
Perriello promised to fight the Atlantic Coast and another proposed pipeline, the Mountain Valley. He also pledged not to accept any contributions from Dominion Energy Inc., the state's largest publicly regulated utility. The company is the Atlantic Coast's lead stakeholder.
Over his decadelong political career, Northam has accepted about $106,000 from Dominion, according to state campaign finance records.
After his win, Northam picked up endorsements from the state Sierra Club and League of Conservation Voters chapters. In the hours after today's interview, both groups affirmed their support, condemned the Atlantic Coast project and noted that Northam continues to call for a stronger-than-required environmental review by the state, something the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality has said it will not do.
"We will continue to work with Lt. Gov. Northam to demonstrate the detrimental impacts these fracked gas pipelines will have," said Corrina Beall, Sierra Club Virginia's political director.
But local pipeline opponents remain wary of Northam (Greenwire, June 27).
At his victory party, members of the Virginia Student Environmental Coalition stormed the stage, waving signs with slogans like "We will stop your pipeline."
"This is no time to celebrate," the activists chanted.
Some see Northam's pipeline stance as a "cynical" political assessment: Dominion is a state political power that outweighs the small but vocal anti-pipeline activist movement.
"He's abandoning a potential Democratic coalition statewide," said Josh Stanfield, director of Activate Virginia, a campaign finance reform organization that partners with pipeline activists to oppose Dominion-backed candidates. "It's a very dangerous calculus."
Republicans were happy to frame Northam's interview as political expediency — several weeks ago, the national Republican Governors Association launched a website that shows "Dodgin' Ralph" jumping back and forth across the screen over a backdrop of pipelines.
Party organizers cited a Northam campaign email, sent today, that showed internal poll numbers with GOP nominee Ed Gillespie ahead by 1 point and implored supporters to donate.
"Well it's about time! Welcome aboard," Gillespie tweeted in regards to the pipeline, tagging Northam.
There is also the potential for a split ticket. Democratic lieutenant governor nominee Justin Fairfax opposes the pipeline projects and recently signed the pledge vowing not to accept fossil fuel funds.
But environmental advocates do not expect the pipeline issue to cost Northam votes. Gillespie supports offshore drilling — currently banned in Virginia — backed President Trump's decision to exit the Paris climate deal and has doubts about human-caused climate change.
Northam, meanwhile, has pledged if elected to enter the alliance of states pledging to meet the Paris emission cuts and opposes offshore drilling. These differences are substantial, according to Beall.
"There's real daylight between the candidates," she said.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/07/13/stories/1060057359
-
Trump Intends to Tap McIntyre for FERC chair
Jul 13, 2017 | Politico Pro Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon
President Donald Trump plans to nominate veteran Jones Day attorney Kevin McIntyre to the FERC chairmanship, the White House announced tonight.
McIntyre has represented companies across a wide cross-section of the energy industry with Jones Day since early 1994, when it was Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue. The White House said Trump wants him confirmed to two consecutive terms, letting him stay at FERC into 2023.
The long-anticipated announcement comes more than a month after the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved Neil Chatterjee, a senior energy adviser to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Pennsylvania regulator Rob Powelson for commissioner spots at the agency. Chatterjee and Powelson have been nominated for terms expiring 2021 and 2020, respectively. The White House announced plans to nominate Richard Glick, general counsel to energy committee Democrats, late last month.
FERC leadership has been operating without a quorum since early February, when Norman Bay resigned after Trump elevated Cheryl LaFleur to replace him as the agency's chairman.
POLITICO reported McIntyre pending nomination several months ago.
WHAT'S NEXT: Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski has vowed to prioritize moving new FERC nominees through her committee, but the White House still needs to formally send the Glick and McIntyre nominations to the Senate before she can conduct a hearing.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard/2017/07/hold-hold-trump-intends-to-tap-mcintyre-for-ferc-087731
-
Exxon Mobil Fined for Louisiana Refinery Explosion That Injured Four
Jul 13, 2017 | Reuters (in The New York Times)
Exxon Mobil Corp has been fined about $165,000 by U.S. regulators for safety lapses including inadequate training and equipment maintenance over an explosion that injured four workers at an aging Baton Rouge, Louisiana, refinery last year.
The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued nine citations, several of which echo previous cautions by federal agencies at two other Exxon plants. The citations, issued in May, were seen by Reuters this month.
A separate investigation by the U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) is ongoing and its report on the incident is due by year-end.
Exxon said it is contesting the OSHA citations and fines.
The facility was faulted five years ago by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for failing to address corrosion on pipes and valves and for inadequate shutdown and emergency procedures provided to workers.
The Nov. 22, 2016 explosion on a sulfuric-acid alkylation unit that makes octane-boosting components of gasoline in the sprawling Baton Rouge refinery and chemical plant injured four workers, two of them severely. Two of the affected workers declined to comment; others could not be reached.
A worker on the alkylation unit removed the cover of a malfunctioning valve on an isobutane line and used a wrench to turn the value stem, Exxon reported to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality in a letter. Volatile isobutane is converted in the alkylation unit to a component of gasoline.
As the operator turned the valve stem, portions of the valve fell out, releasing isobutane, according to the Exxon letter, which was ignited by a welding machine 70 feet away.
One worker was knocked off a scaffold next to the alkylation unit and left dangling over the fire, according to two sources. Another worker was burned over most of her body.
Exxon's safety procedures and training for operators on the alkylation unit were lacking, equipment was not properly maintained, and required inspections were not carried out within required time periods, according to a copy of the citations seen by Reuters.
"We cooperated with OSHA's investigation and shared extensive information and records," said Exxon spokeswoman Charlotte Huffaker. "We are contesting the citations and associated penalty."
Huffaker said "nothing is more important" to Exxon than maintaining a safe workplace for workers and residents near its facilities.
Eight of the nine citations were listed as serious, each carrying a fine of $12,675. The ninth, for failing to carry out external visual and ultrasonic inspections of piping, totaled $63,373.
The latter fine was higher because Exxon was cited in 2016 for violating the same inspection standard at a Baytown, Texas, refining and chemical plant complex, OSHA said in the citation.
In a report issued in May after a two-year investigation of a 2015 explosion at an 86-year-old Torrance, California, refinery then owned by Exxon, the CSB said the company lacked a procedure for operating a fluidic catalytic cracking unit in an idled mode, as was being done when the explosion took place.
Exxon sold the Torrance refinery to PBF Energy Inc in July 2016.
In 2012, the EPA inspected the Baton Rouge refinery as part of a risk management prevention program. It found Exxon had not examined in five years more than 1,000 underground pipes, many of which were corroded, according to the agency's report on the inspection. The EPA also said emergency and shutdown procedures failed to provide needed details for operators.
Huffaker said in an email that Exxon contested the violations, and said the EPA withdrew all but two of its findings. She did not specify the two violations but said Exxon resolved those issues.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/07/13/us/13reuters-refinery-probe-exxon-batonrouge.html?_r=0
-
Jul 13, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
One day a dozen years ago in Texas City, a massive explosion at the BP refinery killed 15 people and injured more than 180 workers. As flames and thick black smoke belched into the sky, helicopters flying out of the disaster scene ferried burn victims to UTMB Galveston and ambulances racing through the streets rushed injured patients to local hospitals.
The fateful chain of events that triggered the Texas City catastrophe was later documented in an authoritative report prepared by the U.S. Chemical Safety Board, the federal agency charged with investigating industrial accidents. The CSB not only recommended changes to BP's safety culture, it also offered suggestions that have since been adopted throughout the petrochemical industry.
Nobody needs to tell those of us who live along the Texas Gulf Coast about the importance of industrial safety. Now we need our representatives in Washington to get the message.
President Trump's proposed budget earlier this year startled workers, executives and other petrochemical business experts when it called for eliminating the CSB. After a wave of criticism from people working in the industry, an appropriations bill released by a House of Representatives subcommittee this week suggested restoring the CSB's funding. But it's far from a done deal, and our elected officials in the nation's capital need to make sure this crucial safety board survives.
The reason is obvious to anybody who takes a moment to research the important job this little known government body performs. We're not talking about some regulatory agency run amok. The CSB doesn't issue regulations, it issues recommendations. And we literally have no idea how many lives it has saved.
The CSB does for the chemical industry what the National Transportation Safety Board does for the airline business. Just as the NTSB investigates airline crashes and makes recommendations to prevent future accidents, the CSB probes industrial mishaps and gives people in the chemical business suggestions on how they can avoid repeating the same mistakes.
The Houston Chronicle's "Chemical Breakdown" investigation last year showed how agencies involved in the petrochemical industry are already overwhelmed, with too few resources to adequately oversee facilities handling hazardous materials. As a result, the industry largely polices itself. That makes the reports the CSB produces all the more important.
What's more, this board is one of those rare government entities that can brag it's a bargain. With a staff of fewer than 40 people, it employs fewer workers than a Costco store. Its annual budget of about $12 million is a tiny investment in preventing industrial accidents that can literally cost billions of dollars and, more important, save countless lives.
One chemical safety consultant told the Chronicle that gutting the CSB would be "standing up for death and destruction." Others warn that killing this board will come back to haunt lawmakers every time pictures of deadly petrochemical plant fires flash onto television screens.
Anybody who's ever worked at a petrochemical plant understands that safety is the absolute top priority. To ensure that, we're counting on our elected representatives in Congress - especially U.S. Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz - to support full funding of the CSB.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Chemical-safety-board-11287685.php
-
Texas Oil Market With Spare Pipeline Space Shrugs Off Shutdown
Jul 14, 2017 | Bloomberg
By Laura Blewitt & Sheela Tobben
Oil markets shrugged off a spill that shut a pipeline crossing Texas, signaling no immediate shortage of space to haul crude from the region’s prolific Permian Basin to Houston-area refineries.
The 1,200-barrel release Thursday on Magellan Midstream Partners LP’s 275,000 barrel-a-day Longhorn system near Austin started after a contractor struck the pipeline while doing maintenance, according to a company statement. Residents within a 1-mile radius of the spill were evacuated. The leak has been contained, Brian McGovern, a spokesman for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, said by email. Longhorn moves regional crudes like West Texas Intermediate to Gulf Coast refineries and export terminals.
“There is enough spare capacity for now to juggle barrels around to other pipelines,” John Auers, executive vice president at energy consultant Turner Mason & Co. in Dallas, said by phone.
The shutdown will affect other pipelines, hubs and markets as Permian producers look for other outlets for their crude, Auers said. More crude is likely to be shipped to Cushing, Oklahoma, the U.S. Midcontinent pipeline hub, and to Corpus Christi, Texas, on the Gulf Coast, he said.
WTI traded in spot markets in Houston and Midland, Texas, is likely to become depressed if the shutdown is prolonged, Auers said. WTI in both locations was steady relative to prices in Cushing, the U.S. benchmark, on Thursday, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.Long-term Implications
Magellan didn’t have an estimate on how long the line would be down. The federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration hasn’t issued any orders that would prevent Magellan from resuming service, spokesman Damon Hill said in an email.
Investigators from Phmsa, TCEQ and the Texas Railroad Commission, the state’s oil and gas regulator, are at the site, Hill and McGovern said. Texas Transportation Department and Bastrop County officials are already there.
Longhorn was running at or near capacity amid strong refining and export demand along the Gulf Coast, and an extended shutdown would cause crude inventories in the Houston area to decline, Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates LLC in Houston, said by phone. Gulf Coast crude inventories fell 6.07 million barrels in the week ended July 7 to the lowest level in almost six months, the Energy Information Administration reported Wednesday. Supplies at Cushing declined last week to the lowest level since November 2015.
“If it’s down for a substantial period of time, it’s going to impact crude oil available in the Houston market,” Lipow said. “If it was a significant problem, some refiners might have to reduce their runs.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-13/oil-spill-shuts-pipeline-carrying-crude-to-houston-from-permian
-
Trump Says He Might Rethink Withdrawal From Climate Pact
Jul 14, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Arianna Skibell
President Trump today signaled he might be open to changing his mind about the Paris climate deal.
Trump announced last month that the United States would leave the landmark climate pact in order to protect the U.S. economy from emissions restrictions, sending shock waves throughout international diplomatic circles. But he could be reconsidering.
"Something could happen with respect to the Paris accord," Trump said at a joint news conference today in Paris with French President Emmanuel Macron.
"We'll see what happens. We'll talk about that over the coming period of time; if it happens, that will be wonderful, and if it doesn't, that will be OK, too," he said.
Macron said he will help the United States on its "road map" and continue to talk about climate. He sidestepped giving a definitive answer over his and Trump's disagreements surrounding climate change.
"Regarding climate, we have a number of disagreements due to the commitments taken by President Trump during the campaign; so did I. I'm aware of the high importance of that, and we've talked about our disagreements," Macron said.
When the two world leaders first met in May, Macron was accused of asserting himself over Trump by crunching the American president's hand in a shake. The French president also criticized Trump for leaving the Paris accord.
But the tone has now shifted greatly, as Macron attempts to establish a closer relationship. Trump arrived in the City of Light this morning and was greeted by a lavish military fanfare and a tour of Napoleon's tomb.
Macron and Trump are scheduled to attend the Bastille Day military parade on the Champs-Élysées tomorrow morning ahead of Trump's return to Washington — but not before sharing a "between friends" dinner this evening at the Eiffel Tower.
"That will be something special," Trump said of the dinner.
Meanwhile, the 10 Democratic senators who represented the United States when 195 countries signed the Paris accord sent Trump a letter today urging him to reconsider his decision to withdraw.
"As you prepare to celebrate Bastille Day and the United States World War I Centennial with President Emmanuel Macron, we write to remind you of how significant the Paris Climate Agreement is to our country and the world and to urge you to strongly reconsider and reverse your decision to withdraw from the accord," the senators, led by Foreign Relations ranking member Ben Cardin (D-Md.), wrote to the president.
Joining Cardin on the letter were Democratic Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Tom Udall of New Mexico, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Al Franken of Minnesota, Chris Coons of Delaware, Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Cory Booker of New Jersey.
"As Senators who have invested considerable time and energy to advancing U.S. action on climate change, we respectfully disagree with your decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement," they wrote.
The senators noted that reducing domestic greenhouse gas emissions is critical for maintaining credibility on climate leadership in the international community. They urged the president to prioritize federal tax incentives for renewable energy, energy efficiency and clean transportation technologies.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/07/13/stories/1060057360
-
Official: No New White House Action on Climate Negotiations
Jul 13, 2017 | Politico Pro
By Eric Wolff
Despite comments from President Donald Trump Thursday that "something could happen" on the U.S. negotiating its re-entry into the Paris climate agreement, a White House official said the administration has made no progress on new climate talks.
The official, speaking to reporters on background, said a U.S. return to the climate agreement did not come up at the recently concluded G-20 talks, and that the meeting featured no overtures to or from other countries, nor was there work being conducted on such an effort in the administration, as far as the official knew.
That disinterest in the administration seems to confirm skepticism among international observers and environmentalists about whether Trump was sincere when he said during his speech announcing U.S. withdrawal that he was interested in renegotiating the pact.
"There hasn't been, to my knowledge, any conversations" about reopening the deal, the official told reporters Thursday.
At a meeting Thursday in Paris, French President Emmanuel Macron pressed Trump on the the 194-nation climate deal, a signature achievement of former President Barack Obama. In public remarks, Trump indicated he could be willing to re-enter the deal.
"Something could happen with respect to the Paris accords, let's see what happens," Trump told reporters. "If it happens, that will be wonderful, and if it doesn't, that'll be OK, too."
When asked whether the administration had set any meetings or created any language that could be part of such negotiations, the White House official answered, "No, no, no."
The official also said Trump has not asked for specific changes or provisions the U.S. would need to rejoin the Paris agreement, though the president has a few broad ideas.
"The president identified a couple of big things: It's gotta be a fairer deal. … It can't create legal uncertainty for anything we do," the official said. "The president doesn't want to undermine the sovereignty of the United States."
A White House spokesperson said that a climate deal was important to the president.
"He has tax reform going on, we have health care going on," the person said. "This is a priority, but we haven't gone so far as to start the whole thing over all over again."
The dearth of work so far on a new climate deal stands in stark contract to Trump's statement in his June 1 speech withdrawing from the agreement, in which he said, "But we will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that's fair."
Green groups have always been skeptical that Trump would make an effort to find a new climate deal.
"No one should hold out hope that Trump, who has done everything possible to back the fossil fuel industry and ignore the climate crisis, will reverse his historically irresponsible mistake to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement," Sierra Club Global Climate Policy Director John Coequyt said in a statement. "Trusting Trump's words when his actions prove the opposite is a fool's errand."
Disagreement over the Paris accord was a divisive subject at a meeting of G-20 leaders, with every country except the United States declaring that the Paris climate change agreement is “irreversible” and must be implemented “swiftly.”
The White House official said that the seeming absence of effort to renegotiate the Paris deal might be more a delay than a permanent lack of action. The person said it was staff's job to seek alternate pathways for a climate agreement.
"I would say that's a stay-tuned question," the official said.
In an interview with POLITICO on Wednesday, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt cast doubt on whether the United States would remain part of the climate agreement even if the Trump administration rewrites Obama's aggressive plan to cut U.S. emissions.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/07/official-no-new-white-house-action-on-climate-negotiations-159585
-
Gov. Brown Makes Dire Plea to Save California Climate Law
Jul 14, 2017 | AP (in The Washington Post)
By Jonathan J. Cooper
Gov. Jerry Brown warned of a California ravaged by forest fires, disease and mass migration if lawmakers fail to renew the state’s signature program to fight climate change, which he called “a threat to organized human existence.”
California’s longest-serving governor, who has spent most of his life in and around public service, told lawmakers “this is the most important vote of your life.” Brown, 79, even warned lawmakers and his critics it’s them, not him, who will be around to experience the worst devastation wrought by global warming.
“A lot of you people are going to be alive,” he said Thursday, turning to a room packed with lobbyists and advocates on both sides of the debate. “And you’re going to be alive in a horrible situation that you’re going to see mass migrations, vector diseases, forest fires, Southern California burning up. That’s real, guys.”
The urgency of Brown’s pitch comes as he scrambles to line up support to renew California’s cap and trade program in the face of opposition from conservatives who warn about costs and liberals who say it doesn’t do enough to protect the environment and clean dirty air.
“It does not get us to the real, rapid emission reductions that our planet and our communities desperately need,” said Amy Vanderwarker, executive director of the California Environmental Justice Alliance.
Despite the opposition, Democrats on a key Senate committee passed a package of bills Thursday, one to renew cap and trade and another aimed at improving local air quality. Both are facing a critical hurdle next week: Votes on the floor of the Assembly and Senate. The cap-and-trade plan needs two-thirds to support to pass, and almost every Republican is opposed to it.
The governor is deeply invested in the outcome of those votes, which would bolster his efforts to position California as a global climate leader.
California governors rarely appear at legislative proceedings, but Brown sat through an entire four-hour hearing, taking notes as his critics spoke and occasionally shaking his head or muttering his disagreement.
Cap and trade puts a limit on carbon emissions and requires polluters to obtain permits to release greenhouse gases. The governor touts the program around the world as an effective way to affordably address climate change, but its legal authorization expires in 2020. The current proposal would expand the program until 2030.
State law requires the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2030. Without cap and trade, state regulators will be forced to enact restrictive mandates on polluters that would be burdensome for businesses and significantly more expensive for consumers, Brown said.
“That will be noticed by your constituents,” he said.
He also punched back against critics who suggest he’s pressing the issue for personal gain.
“I’m not here about some cockamamie legacy that some people talk about,” he said. “This isn’t about me. I’m going to be dead.”
But passage of the bill isn’t coming easy. Environmental justice advocates, who work to improve air-quality at the neighborhood level, say concessions Brown made to the oil industry and other polluters will harm the environment. The bill prohibits local air quality management districts from further restricting carbon emissions of stationary sources like oil refineries. It also allows for some pollution permits to be distributed for free.
Brown and legislative leaders looked to address those concerns with the companion legislation that aims to monitor and improve air quality around major sources of pollution, but the bill has not swayed environmental justice advocates.
The bill has highlighted divisions between environmentalists who work nationally, who are focused on reducing global carbon emissions and creating a policy that can be replicated elsewhere, and those who work locally. The latter group says cap and trade allows polluters to continue fouling the air around areas like southern Los Angeles, the eastern Bay Area and the Central Valley.
Brown has been openly courting Republicans, and the legislation includes tax provisions they favor such as a tax exemption for power companies and the repeal of a fire-prevention fee.
But early Thursday, Assembly GOP Leader Chad Mayes said none of his caucus members are currently supporting the legislation as the GOP seeks to sweeten the deal. Republicans want to see more tax cuts and regulatory relief, he said. Eleven of 13 Senate Republicans signed a letter saying they oppose extending cap and trade. Four California Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives also weighed in urging their counterparts in Sacramento to vote no.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/energy-environment/gov-brown-makes-dire-plea-to-save-california-climate-law/2017/07/14/6f4d37de-686d-11e7-94ab-5b1f0ff459df_story.html?utm_term=.afad1196d32d
-
Christie Again Blocks Attempt to Rejoin Environmental Pact
Jul 13, 2017 | AP (in The New York Times)
Republican Gov. Chris Christie on Thursday again blocked Democratic lawmakers' attempt to have the state rejoin a regional environmental pact.
Christie vetoed a measure approved in the Legislature that would require the state to rejoin the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, saying the pact is not effectively reducing greenhouse emissions. Christie pulled out of the initiative in 2011, saying it amounted to a tax on utility customers.
The state will likely rejoin the initiative after Christie leaves office in January. Democratic gubernatorial nominee Phil Murphy and Republican gubernatorial nominee Kim Guadagno both say the state should rejoin.
Nine Mid-Atlantic and New England states have agreed to cap carbon dioxide emissions and trade the excess in auctions.
"This bill is nothing more than an unnecessary, politically motivated tax increase," Christie said in his veto message. "Pure and simple, the Legislature demonstrates its preference for higher taxes and social engineering, ignoring the overwhelming evidence proving (RGGI) to be a failure."
Democratic Assemblyman Tim Eustace said Christie's veto "recklessly undermines the environmentally dangerous and visible effects of pollution and climate change, some of which we have already seen in the powerfully destructive storms like Superstorm Sandy."
States participating in the initiative are Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont.
Christie said the state's power sector generates clean energy in a cost-effective way while also reducing emissions.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/07/13/us/ap-us-xgr-christie-environment.html
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested