Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 1/8/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) 3 Steps Forward, 1 Step Back?
Aug 1, 2017 | Packaging World
By Pat Reynolds
Four notable brands are all making news in the sustainable packaging space. And, except for the McDonald’s initiative, it’s all good news we’re talking about here. -
Senator Calls for US FDA Investigation of Phthalates in FCMs
Aug 1, 2017 | Chemical Watch
A New York senator is calling on the US Food and Drug Administration to investigate and "take immediate action" on the use of phthalates in fast food and food packaging materials. -
EU Notifies WTO of CMR Substances Added to Annex VII of REACH
Aug 1, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Union has notified the WTO of a draft Commission Regulation to include substances recently classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic and reproductive (CMR) category 1A and 1B under CLP within the scope of entries 28 to 30 of Annex XVII of REACH. -
European Court Dismisses PFOA Case against Norway
Aug 1, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Celia Oziel
Norway did not infringe on the European Economic Area law by maintaining a national restriction on perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) for four years before a Europe-wide restriction was agreed under REACH, a free trade court has concluded. -
UK Notifies WTO of Microbeads in Cosmetics Ban
Aug 1, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The UK has notified the World Trade Organization (WTO) of its draft Regulations banning the use of microbeads as an ingredient in the manufacture of rinse-off personal care products, and the sale of items containing them. -
API's Gerard Talks 'Energy Dominance,' Administration's Oil and Gas Strategy
Aug 1, 2017 | E&E TV
What does the Trump administration's "energy dominance" rhetoric mean for the oil and gas industry? During today's OnPoint, Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, explains how his organization is engaging the Trump administration on oil and gas issues. -
Greens Fight Distributed Energy Plan That Allows Natural Gas
Aug 1, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Debra Kahn
Environmental groups are seeking court intervention over California's pursuit of decentralized energy generation, saying that regulators are illegally allowing fossil-fueled plants to contribute. -
Natural Gas Industry Defends Cybersecurity Readiness
Aug 1, 2017 | E&E Energywatch
By Peter Behr
U.S. natural gas cybersecurity safeguards are being reviewed by Congress, the Energy Department and an electric grid monitor. Yesterday, the industry issued a briefing paper declaring that its vast pipeline network is not at risk of widespread outages in the event of a major cyberattack. -
Court Orders EPA to Enforce Methane Standards
Aug 1, 2017 | E&E Energywatch
By Ellen M. Gillmer
The Trump administration must enforce Obama-era restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas industry — at least for now. -
Rep. Dingell Floats Bill to Prohibit Closure of EPA Offices
Aug 1, 2017 | Inside EPA
Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) has introduced legislation that would prohibit the closure, consolidation or elimination of EPA offices, signaling Democrats will continue pressing for assurances that Administrator Scott Pruitt is not planning to shutter agency regional or program offices in tandem with proposed budget cuts. -
EPA Won't Be Able to Do the 'Right Thing' under Trump, Says Latest Protesting Official
Aug 1, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Joe Davidson
lizabeth “Betsy” Southerland loved her work at the Environmental Protection Agency. Then Donald Trump and Scott Pruitt came along.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) 3 Steps Forward, 1 Step Back?
Aug 1, 2017 | Packaging World
By Pat Reynolds
Four notable brands are all making news in the sustainable packaging space. And, except for the McDonald’s initiative, it’s all good news we’re talking about here.
Kroger, for example, is in the process of lightweighting 1-gal HDPE milk jugs that contain Kroger’s Our Brand milks. Using molds made by Mid-America Machining, the extrusion blow molders making the new bottles need 56 g of HDPE per bottle compared to 62 g for the old bottle. When all 15 dairy plants used by Kroger have made the switch to the new container, Kroger expects it will save 5 million pounds of plastic annually.
Meanwhile, across the pond, Coca-Cola European Partners has announced an ambitious strategy for its Great Britain business unit to work with local and national partners to see that more of its packaging is recycled. It plans to double the amount of recycled plastic in its PET bottles over the next three years. That means going from an average of 25% to 50% rPET by 2020. CCEP views this initiative as a boost to the circular economy now being talked about so much in Great Britain, and it says recycled bottles could return to store shelves as part of new containers in as few as six weeks. Also on tap: a multi-million dollar communications campaign to encourage more people to recycle. Watch for a new on-bottle recycling message in Great Britain this year.
That brings us to Dow Chemical, which announced July 11 that it has teamed up with national nonprofit Keep America Beautiful to award two $50,000 grants for organizations to establish a Hefty® Energy Bag™ program in their communities. This program is an innovative approach to diverting traditionally non-recycled plastics from landfills—think snack bags, multilayer juice pouches, and other flexible packaging. Instead, the material is converted into valuable energy resources. The grant application is open to municipalities, non-profits, materials recovery facilities, and other qualifying organizations through September 1 of this year.
And how, you ask, are these materials turned into “valuable energy sources?” By way of gasification, cement kiln facilities, or pyrolysis. I find pyrolysis the most intriguing. It’s a PTF (plastics-to-fuel) technology where plastics are converted into liquid fuels and chemical feedstocks by heating them in the absence of oxygen. It’s a relative newcomer on the recycling scene, but an Argonne National Labs analysis published April 17 gave it a thumbs up. That brought this comment from Craig Cookson, Director of Recycling and Energy Recovery for the American Chemistry Council: “Argonne’s analysis clearly determines that PTF technology is a viable and beneficial materials management option. Not only does PTF reduce waste going to landfills, but these technologies can help reduce GHG emissions while conserving both water and energy.”
Now for the one step back. For large drinks, some Chicago-area McDonald’s restaurants this summer are bringing back beverage cups made of expanded polystyrene. According to a July 5 story in the Chicago Tribune, these foam cups previously were only used for iced tea by the world’s largest burger chain. McDonald’s spokesperson Becca Hary, said the Tribune, declined to say why the foam cups were brought back to Chicago or if they were brought back in other cities.
Elsewhere in the Tribune, business columnist Robert Reed in a July 7 piece wondered what McDonald’s is thinking. “By reintroducing foam cups, McDonald’s appears to be backsliding on its long-held assurance to use more environmentally friendly packaging. It’s also out of sync with a growing band of huge brand-name corporations vowing to get rid of foam plastic products.” The corporations he refers to include Coca-Cola, Danone, L’Oreal, Marks & Spencer, Mars, PepsiCo, Procter & Gamble, Unilever, and Dow, all of whom have endorsed a report by the British-based Ellen MacArthur Foundation recommending the replacement of polystyrene and related plastic substances in favor of more ecologically sensitive materials.
Reed figures the smart thing would be for McDonald’s to discontinue all polystyrene packaging. “I’m willing to give up those big foamy cups,” he concludes, “in return for a cleaner world.”
https://www.packworld.com/article/sustainability/source-reduction/3-steps-forward-1-step-back
-
Senator Calls for US FDA Investigation of Phthalates in FCMs
Aug 1, 2017 | Chemical Watch
A New York senator is calling on the US Food and Drug Administration to investigate and "take immediate action" on the use of phthalates in fast food and food packaging materials.
Charles Schumer (D–New York) cites a George Washington University 2016 study that found associations between recent fast food intake and urinary metabolites of the phthalates DEHP and DINP, among other research linking the substances to reproductive and developmental risks.
"To think that we have all this data on phthalate chemicals from doctors, scientists, health experts and other industries just sitting around … begging for the FDA to take it to the next appropriate level of scrutiny, is worrisome for the consumer," said Mr Schumer. "That is why I am asking the FDA to launch a formal investigation."
The senator’s request comes amid increased focus on the use of phthalates in food contact materials, following a highly publicised NGO study identifying the presence of the substances in a variety of macaroni and cheese mixes and processed cheeses.
The FDA has been petitioned to revoke the authorisations for the use of 30 ortho-phthalates in FCMs, but has yet to act on the request. Industry groups have strongly opposed the petition, arguing that the NGOs overestimated and incorrectly calculated exposure and acceptable intake levels.
The agency told Chemical Watch last week that it continues to monitor literature and research on these substances as it becomes available.
In recent years, Mr Schumer has requested agency activity on several substances of potential concern. Earlier this year, he asked the EPA to expedite its review of 1,4-dioxane under TSCA, and petitioned the FDA to ban its use in cosmetics.
And in 2014, he introduced a bill to ban ten flame retardants from use in children’s products and upholstered furniture, and to require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to review the safety of all such substances.
https://chemicalwatch.com/58005/senator-calls-for-us-fda-investigation-of-phthalates-in-fcms
-
EU Notifies WTO of CMR Substances Added to Annex VII of REACH
Aug 1, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Union has notified the WTO of a draft Commission Regulation to include substances recently classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic and reproductive (CMR) category 1A and 1B under CLP within the scope of entries 28 to 30 of Annex XVII of REACH.
The substances make up more than 20 entries, including cadmium compounds and formaldehyde reaction products.
The action has the effect of restricting their placement on the market, or use for supply to the general public as substances on their own, as constituents of other substances, or in mixtures. It also imposes the requirement of marking packaging with the label "restricted to professional users".
The proposed date of adoption is the first quarter of 2018. The proposed date of entry into force is 20 days from publication in the Official Journal of the EU.
In accordance with Article 2(2) of the Act, the restriction will apply to formaldehyde from the date of entry into force of the Regulation and to the other substances from 1 December 2018.
The final date for comments is 60 days from the 28 July notification.
https://chemicalwatch.com/58003/eu-notifies-wto-of-cmr-substances-added-to-annex-vii-of-reach
-
European Court Dismisses PFOA Case against Norway
Aug 1, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Celia Oziel
Norway did not infringe on the European Economic Area law by maintaining a national restriction on perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) for four years before a Europe-wide restriction was agreed under REACH, a free trade court has concluded.
The country introduced a restriction on the substance in 2013, using Article 128(2) of REACH that allows EEA states to adopt national rules to protect human health and the environment in cases "where REACH does not harmonise the requirements on manufacture, placing on the market or use".
This preceded European action; the Commission published an amending Regulation to restrict PFOAonly in June this year, following a 2014 proposal by Norway and Germany.
The application of the European restriction has been deferred for at least three years.
As a member of the European Free Trade Association (Efta), Norway is part of the EEA internal market and therefore governed by the same basic rules as EU member states. The Efta Surveillance Authority (ESA) opened proceedings against them, saying that restrictions on substances raising EEA-wide concerns can only be adopted through a REACH process. The ESA argued that REACH entails a harmonisation of all substances falling within its scope, and national restrictions are prohibited except in urgent cases.
Norway, however, stated that it was entitled to introduce a national prohibition, since the requirements on PFOA were not harmonised.Court judgment
The Efta court said in its judgement on 14 July that Norway "did not breach its obligations under the REACH Regulation by invoking Article 128(2)", since PFOA had not been subject to a final decision under REACH at the end of the period set in ESA's opinion.
The requirements mentioned in Article 128(2) "are harmonised only when a substance has been subject to a final decision under the REACH restrictions procedure", the court said.
Moreover, a substance "may give rise to sufficiently serious concern for an EEA State" if the requirements have not yet been harmonised, and Article 128(2) will accommodate such concerns, it noted.
It also said that a national measure pending a final decision is not disruptive of the overall REACH system, while such a step "will be provisional and cannot be maintained in contravention of the final outcome of the REACH restrictions procedure".PFOA restriction
NGOs have criticised the Commission's decision on PFOA, saying that the agreed concentration limits render the restriction meaningless because they will not reduce global consumption or emissions.
The restriction will apply to the use of PFOA, its salts and related substances at concentrations above 25 parts per billion (ppb) of PFOA; or 1,000ppb of one, or a combination of, PFOA-related substances. The original proposal from Germany and Norway had suggested a 2ppb limit for PFOA.
It is classified as a substance of very high concern (SVHC) under REACH. Due to their special properties, such as high friction and heat resistance, as well as water, grease, oil, and dirt repellence, PFOA and related substances have widespread uses. These include fire-fighting foams, grease-resistant food packaging, leather protectants and stain-resistant carpeting and textiles.
https://chemicalwatch.com/58004/european-court-dismisses-pfoa-case-against-norway
-
UK Notifies WTO of Microbeads in Cosmetics Ban
Aug 1, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The UK has notified the World Trade Organization (WTO) of its draft Regulations banning the use of microbeads as an ingredient in the manufacture of rinse-off personal care products, and the sale of items containing them.
The notification says the move comes on the grounds that they cause harm to living species in the marine environment.
It points out that up to 680 tonnes of plastic microbeads are used in cosmetic products sold in the UK every year. But, it adds, there are feasible alternatives and their use in cosmetics is therefore an "avoidable source of marine pollution".
The proposed manufacturing ban will begin on 1 January 2018, with the prohibition on marketing following on 30 June.
However, more than 72% of major UK cosmetics companies expect to have stopped selling products with microbeads in them by 2017, the notification says.
The WTO is accepting comments for 90 days.
https://chemicalwatch.com/58000/uk-notifies-wto-of-microbeads-in-cosmetics-ban
-
API's Gerard Talks 'Energy Dominance,' Administration's Oil and Gas Strategy
Aug 1, 2017 | E&E TV
What does the Trump administration's "energy dominance" rhetoric mean for the oil and gas industry? During today's OnPoint, Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, explains how his organization is engaging the Trump administration on oil and gas issues.
Monica Trauzzi: Hello and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute. Jack, nice to see you. Thanks for coming on the show.
Jack Gerard: Great to see you. Thanks for having me on your program.
Monica Trauzzi: So, Jack, last week the D.C. Circuit rejected EPA's justification for reducing renewable fuel requirements in 2016. It's a win for the biofuels industry. What impact do you think this has on the ongoing debate over biofuels and the role that they should play in the U.S.'s fuel mix?
Jack Gerard: Well, I think it has some impact but it's probably limited impact, and what I mean by that is what the court basically said is there are other means to look at the need to waive down those requirements or the volumes associated with the ethanol fuels. And so I think in the short term once the EPA looks at it again, hopefully they'll continue to use and we believe should focus on the economic harm to the consumers as really the justification or the articulation of what they should say to then justify, if you will, waiving those volumes down. But fundamentally the problem is the renewable fuel standard is — needs to be reformed. And so we think the court decision in and of itself reminds us of the need for reform. So hopefully we're going to get the Congress to take action, we're going to step back and say, "You know, we wouldn't be litigating these matters if we fixed the policy in the first place." So that's our hope and our expectation moving ahead.
Monica Trauzzi: And a tough hill to climb to get Congress to act on that.
Jack Gerard: Well, there's strong bipartisan support for this right now, and we believe a combination of this, the efforts to expand to E15, and others are really making the fundamental point that when this was originally conceived and put together, there were certain assumptions about our energy policy in this country, that we're relying more and more on outside sources. Well, the reality is we've met all the concerns that were being considered in the 2007 time frame, but it wasn't the renewable fuel standard that fixed those concerns. It was the expansion of our energy policy, specifically production of oil and gas, that's not weaned us off our imports. Since 2007 we dropped from 58 percent to 27 percent of imports. So the policy is moving in the right direction, but it's not the result of the renewable fuel standard.
Monica Trauzzi: Taking the 2018 numbers into account where we see conventional biofuels remaining the same, advanced seeing a slight dip according to what EPA is proposing, do you think that that proposal is a sign that the Trump administration supports the biofuel industry?
Jack Gerard: Well, my sense is I think they support all aspect of the energy industry, but we've got to get the energy policy right. And it's inappropriate we believe for the government to always be in there putting their finger on the scale for and on behalf of different forms of energy. That's why we think the renewable fuel standard should be reformed in the light of our current reality, which is the United States is the leader in energy production on a global scale. Today, as you know, we're the leaders in oil and natural gas production, and what that's done is allows us to become more self-sufficient, more energy secure as a nation. So when you look at the various justifications for different policies and you look at this administration, we're pleased with the direction they're going because they recognize energy — they often use the word "dominance." They recognize the role energy plays —
Monica Trauzzi: Yeah, what do you think of that phrase, "energy dominance"?
Jack Gerard: Well, I think it's a commitment on the part of this administration to say, "You know, we've overlooked energy in the past. We've been picking away at little small pieces here and there. Let's take this great economic engine we have called energy in the United States and let's enhance our role as a nation, creating well-paying jobs, making us more energy sufficient." And now the potential to actually export our energy to those nations where we'd like to have even better relationships, to allow them to wean themselves off other sources that are less reliable than us.
Monica Trauzzi: But how does that phrase help us build relationships, dominance? I mean, it —
Jack Gerard: Well, I think it depends on how you want to interpret that phrase. The way we interpret that phrase is that we're just going to enhance the role of energy from the United States' perspective. Before as a major importer of product — now we're able to export finished products. We're able to export the raw crude material, LNG. That to me is a moving, if you will, in that direction of really enhancing the energy opportunity in the United States. I believe that's what's the intent of the Trump administration.
Monica Trauzzi: So on the whole do you think the oil and gas industry has a friend in the White House right now?
Jack Gerard: Well, I think we've got a lot of friends in this town, in Washington, D.C., both Democrats and Republicans. As we move forward I'm hopeful that more of those friends will come together and coalesce around a comprehensive policy. In our business we often say, "We don't have candidates that are Republicans and Democrats and socialists and liberals or whatever. Our candidate's energy." And when we focus on energy, we're trying to encourage everyone to come together and develop a comprehensive policy that addresses the associated issues and therefore benefits the American public, the American consumer.
Monica Trauzzi: This administration is very supportive of the coal industry. Do you think that hurts your member organizations in turn?
Jack Gerard: No, not at all. In fact I think what this administration is going to do hopefully is reset the broader balance so that all energy forms are given the opportunity to compete. We don't believe you should put the finger on the scales for any one energy source. In fact, our view is we should get the government out of the business of picking winners and losers and allowing all to compete equally. We welcome the coal industry. We welcome the nuclear industry — wind, solar, energy efficiency. It should all be part of that equation where we compete equally for the chance to provide the energy the public needs. And the biggest beneficiaries of that type of approach: the American consumer. Today their costs are less. If you look at our product, AAA estimates the average consumer now saves over $500 a year at the gas pump just because we produce more oil that's been translated into natural gas — excuse me, not natural gas but gasoline, and thus consumers get the benefit at the pump. So there's opportunity up and down that value chain. We're for all forms of energy, and we'd sit here with all of our colleagues and say, "Let's work together on a unified energy front."
Monica Trauzzi: And the devil is of course in the details. [Laughter]
Jack Gerard: It is. We'll work those out as we get to them.
Monica Trauzzi: We'll end it there. Thank you so much. Nice to see you.
Jack Gerard: Thank you, Monica.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
[End of Audio]
https://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2243/transcript
-
Greens Fight Distributed Energy Plan That Allows Natural Gas
Aug 1, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Debra Kahn
Environmental groups are seeking court intervention over California's pursuit of decentralized energy generation, saying that regulators are illegally allowing fossil-fueled plants to contribute.
Earthjustice filed an appeal in state court yesterday over the California Public Utilities Commission's decision last year to allow fossil-fueled resources to compete in a pilot program for utilities to buy distributed energy.
The group is arguing that the CPUC misinterpreted a 2013 law, A.B. 327, that set up the program with the aim of spurring lower-cost alternatives to traditional large power plants and transmission infrastructure. The law mandates that utilities deploy "distributed resources," and the state's three large investor-owned utilities are putting together plans to pay for energy efficiency, demand response and other types of decentralized, grid-connected energy.
Earthjustice attorney Matt Vespa argues that the law defined distributed resources as including only distributed renewable generation, energy efficiency, energy storage, electric vehicles and demand-response technologies. Fuel cells and other generators that run on natural gas should not be permitted, he said in the filing.
The text of A.B. 327 is "unambiguous and the PUC's misguided effort at expanding its meaning to include fossil-fueled generation exceeds its authority," he wrote in the appeal, filed yesterday in the state's 1st District Court of Appeal.
The case could affect two rulemakings at the CPUC: the Distribution Resources Plan and the Integrated Distributed Energy Resources proceedings, each of which seeks to determine ways of valuing distributed energy and figuring out how much of it is needed. The utilities plan to begin seeking bids in November and to sign contracts by the spring of 2018. San Diego Gas & Electric, in particular, has already proposed soliciting natural gas-fueled generation.
It's relatively uncommon for disputes within a state agency to spill over to the court system, due to the deference that courts generally give to agency rulemakings. Earthjustice had asked the CPUC for a rehearing last year but was denied in June.
"I can't believe we're actually at this point," Vespa said. "It's just such a shameful capitulation to ... fossil fuel interests."
Earthjustice is pointing to a filing made by CPUC President Michael Picker as the origin of the dispute. Picker had said in February 2015 that utilities should consider fuel cells, combined heat and power plants and stationary internal-combustion engines, because they have the potential to be renewably fueled. That filing served as the basis for the CPUC's decision to include them in the distributed resources category.
The CPUC, Southern California Gas Co. and fuel-cell manufacturer Bloom Energy did not respond to requests for comment.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/08/01/stories/1060058200
-
Natural Gas Industry Defends Cybersecurity Readiness
Aug 1, 2017 | E&E Energywatch
By Peter Behr
U.S. natural gas cybersecurity safeguards are being reviewed by Congress, the Energy Department and an electric grid monitor. Yesterday, the industry issued a briefing paper declaring that its vast pipeline network is not at risk of widespread outages in the event of a major cyberattack.
While the position paper defended the industry's security posture, gas industry executives have begun behind-the-scenes discussions with federal officials and security experts about possible new steps to strengthen the sector's cyberdefenses.
In one example, Dave McCurdy, president and CEO of the American Gas Association, and AGA's cyber staff, met recently with cybersecurity experts at the Energy Department's Idaho National Laboratory. They reviewed voluntary pipeline security guidelines set by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and opportunities for control-system cybersecurity training, an AGA spokesperson confirmed.
Industry leaders with the Oil and Natural Gas Subsector Coordinating Council, the downstream gas industry's cyberthreat-sharing organization, have conferred with DOE staff on pipeline cybersecurity, one industry source said. The overture is a change from the industry's previous pushbacks against a DOE role in pipeline cyber policy.
The statement yesterday by the Natural Gas Council, "Natural Gas Systems: Reliable and Resilient," was issued in advance of four reports that will focus on the gas sector's security.
DOE officials are completing a detailed examination requested by Secretary Rick Perry of power grid vulnerabilities that has stirred the competitive anxieties of coal, nuclear, natural gas and renewable power generation industries. The project began with a premise that retirements of "baseload" coal and nuclear reactors threaten the ability of grid operators to keep the lights on.
A leaked draft of the report questioned whether wholesale electricity markets were adequately paying generators to reflect the value of "on-site fuel supply." That could be read as implying coal and nuclear generators, with their ready fuel resources, were more secure than gas-fired power plants dependent on long pipeline supply links.
The North American Electricity Reliability Corp., with oversight of grid security, is preparing a study on "Single Point of Disruption Special Assessment" that will examine the impacts on electric power supply from the loss of a major natural gas facility, including key pipeline segments, storage systems and liquefied natural gas terminals.
The Trump administration is completing a third report — a review of cyberthreats to critical infrastructure that reportedly will include the risk that pipeline controls could be taken over by hackers.
The gas industry is also making its case prior to a forthcoming report by the Government Accountability Office on the cyber and physical security of gas and oil pipeline networks. The GAO study was requested by Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington and Rep. Frank Pallone of New Jersey, top Democrats on the Senate and House energy panels respectively, who cited the increasing threats of cyberattacks on critical infrastructure.
A series of articles published by E&E News centered on concerns about the voluntary oversight of pipeline cybersecurity standards by TSA (Energywire,May 23, 2017.
The industry paper said the U.S. pipeline network's many redundant connections and operators' ability to run the system with manual controls in emergencies protect it from widespread failures from "single point" attacks or natural disasters. The council is made up of the AGA, American Petroleum Institute, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, Independent Petroleum Association of America and Natural Gas Supply Association.
"The physical characteristics of both the natural gas resource and the pipeline delivery infrastructures make our nation's natural gas system uniquely reliable," said INGAA President Don Santa in a statement.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/08/01/stories/1060058197
-
Court Orders EPA to Enforce Methane Standards
Aug 1, 2017 | E&E Energywatch
By Ellen M. Gillmer
The Trump administration must enforce Obama-era restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas industry — at least for now.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit last night issued a mandate striking down U.S. EPA's attempt to pause methane restrictions for the sector. The agency's 90-day stay of key provisions of New Source Performance Standards is now formally vacated, and the rule is in effect.
According to the D.C. Circuit, EPA exceeded its authority when it paused the rule to consider industry concerns (Greenwire, July 3). The three-judge panel reached that conclusion in early July but had given EPA extra time to weigh its legal options before enforcing the regulation — which the Trump administration ultimately plans to reconsider through a public process.
States and industry intervenors that oppose the Obama administration rule last week asked all the court's active judges to rethink the decision. To the surprise of many court watchers, EPA has not made its own request.
Nine of the court's 11 active judges last night decided to issue the panel's mandate and unfreeze the methane rule. But the court is still weighing intervenors' request for rehearing and asked environmental groups and a coalition of states to file a response by tomorrow afternoon. The order notes that Judges Janice Rogers Brown and Brett Kavanaugh, both George W. Bush appointees, would not have issued the mandate.
The legal back-and-forth means continued uncertainty for the oil and gas industry, which for months has aggressively lobbied EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to scrap the standards, which are designed to reduce methane leaks from wells and other infrastructure. The American Petroleum Institute and other critics have argued that Obama's EPA ignored voluntary efforts oil and gas operators were taking to slash emissions.
"API continues to support an extension of the compliance deadlines, as a stay or extension is appropriate to allow EPA time to review and, as necessary, revise the 2016 EPA final rulemaking," Howard Feldman, API's senior director for regulatory and scientific affairs, said in a statement last night.
Feldman added that EPA's separate, ongoing consideration of a two-year stay of the methane standards will avoid "subject[ing] businesses to on-again, off-again, requirements until EPA can reconsider the rule."
Environmental groups, meanwhile, celebrated the news as a win for climate and clean air protections.
"Today's issuance of the mandate by the full D.C. Circuit protects families and communities across America under clean air safeguards that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt sought to unlawfully tear down," Environmental Defense Fund attorney Peter Zalzal said in a statement.
EPA did not respond to a request for comment.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/08/01/stories/1060058196
-
Rep. Dingell Floats Bill to Prohibit Closure of EPA Offices
Aug 1, 2017 | Inside EPA
Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) has introduced legislation that would prohibit the closure, consolidation or elimination of EPA offices, signaling Democrats will continue pressing for assurances that Administrator Scott Pruitt is not planning to shutter agency regional or program offices in tandem with proposed budget cuts.
The introduction of the legislation, H.R. 3582, to protect EPA offices comes after the House appropriations committee rejected similar language for inclusion in EPA's spending bill, and after Pruitt called reports the agency might close its Region 5 office “pure legend.”
Republicans could need Democrats to get spending bills over the finish line, and Dingell's legislation highlights efforts by Democrats to either codify further protections for EPA in law or put Republicans with EPA facilities in their districts on the political hot seat for budgetary rollbacks at the agency.
“No office of the Environmental Protection Agency, including any region, regional office, or program office, shall be closed, consolidated, or eliminated using funds made available in any appropriations Act for any fiscal year,” states Dingell's bill, dubbed the Recognizing the Environmental Gains In Overcoming Negligence Act, or REGION Act.
The bill has four Democratic cosponsors: Reps. Marcy Kaptur (OH), Mike Quigley (IL), Betty McCollum (MN) and Rep Bobby Rush (IL).
It follows efforts by Dingell to resist cutbacks or closure of Ann Arbor's vehicle and fuels laboratory, as well as after the House Appropriations panel at a July 19 markup rejected along party lines similar language, offered as an amendment by Quigley, that would have codified protections for EPA regions.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/rep-dingell-floats-bill-prohibit-closure-epa-offices
-
EPA Won't Be Able to Do the 'Right Thing' under Trump, Says Latest Protesting Official
Aug 1, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Joe Davidson
Elizabeth “Betsy” Southerland loved her work at the Environmental Protection Agency.
Then Donald Trump and Scott Pruitt came along.
Now Southerland, who was director of science and technology in the agency’s Office of Water, said she is “heartbroken about the impact of the new administration on environmental protection in this country.”
After 30 years at EPA, her last day was Monday.
Southerland becomes the latest in a series of protesting federal scientists. She denounced the destructive environmental policies of President Trump and EPA Administrator Pruitt. Family concerns played an important role in her decision to leave, but she also can’t stomach the current direction of an agency that answers to a White House wallowing in disarray and disgrace.
In a statement planned for release Tuesday by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and during email and phone interviews with The Washington Post, she talked about how “EPA has been the guiding light to make the ‘right thing’ happen for the greater good, including public health and safety.”
But with Trump and Pruitt in charge, “that will not be possible under the current administration.”
Their attack on environmental protections marks the “abandonment of the polluter pays principle that underlies all environmental statutes and regulations,” she said. “The best case for our children and grandchildren is that they will pay the polluters bills through increased state taxes, new user fees, and higher water and sewer bills. The worst case is that they will have to live with increased public health and safety risks and a degraded environment.” Furthermore, she warned that Trump’s planned 31 percent EPA budget cut would lead to the loss of thousands of public- and private-sector jobs.
“There is no question,” she said, “the administration is seriously weakening EPA’s mission by vigorously pursuing an industry deregulation approach and defunding implementation of environmental programs.”
Southerland went public with her opposition to Trump’s environmental program, because she said “I felt it was my civic duty to explain the impact of this administration’s policies on public health and safety.”
A PhD in environmental science and engineering, Southerland called her more than four decades of environmental work, including three with EPA, “the most wonderful 40 years.” Two years ago she was honored with the Distinguished Presidential Rank Award, given to just 1 percent of Senior Executive Service members for “sustained extraordinary accomplishment.” In Southerland’s case, she was recognized for her work in lowering swimming health risks by developing new national bacteria water quality standards.
Raised in Alexandria and residing in Fairfax Station, Southerland, 68, is married, has two sons and enjoys hiking. She will volunteer with the Environmental Protection Network, a group of former EPA staffers.
Southerland’s resignation comes during the same month a Union of Concerned Scientists report said Trump is creating a “hostile environment for scientific staff.”
That report was released the day after Interior Department scientist Joel Clement wrote a Washington Post opinion article saying Trump’s crowd retaliated against him “for speaking out publicly about the dangers that climate change poses to Alaska Native communities.”
In March, Mike Cox also cited the dangers Alaska Natives face from climate change when he quit EPA. In a letter to Pruitt, Cox said administration policies “are contrary” to those Americans want “to ensure the air their children breath is safe; the land they live, play, and hunt on to be free of toxic chemicals; and the water they drink, the lakes they swim in, and the rivers they fish in to be clean.”
Reacting to Southerland’s remarks, EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox said that “it’s hard to believe that Elizabeth Southerland is retiring because of a budget proposal and not because she’s eligible for her government pension. We wish Elizabeth Southerland the best in her retirement and the EPA will continue to re-focus on our core mission of protecting our air, land and water.”
Kyla Bennett, PEER’s New England director, placed Southerland’s departure in a broader context: “Increasingly principled professionals, who have proudly served administrations from both parties, are under orders to betray, rather than serve, the public interest by remaining at EPA.”
But don’t get the impression these examples of dissent are proof of revolt among federal employees. That is not the case.
“Everyone is focused on presenting all the facts to the new political team in hopes the facts will change their minds about defunding existing environmental programs and repealing existing rules,” Southerland said by email. “I do not know even one EPA employee who is doing anything to sabotage the existing political team. They are all doing their absolute best to give the politicals all the facts so they can make the right decision if they are open-minded. I personally do not know anyone who is planning to resign in protest, but I can confirm that staff involved in the [regulatory] repeal efforts already underway are heartbroken.”
She closed her written farewell to colleagues with a message that mixed rebuttals to Trump and Pruitt with the hope others in government will save us from them.
EPA suffers “from the temporary triumph of myth over truth. The truth is there is NO war on coal, there is NO economic crisis caused by environmental protection, and climate change IS caused by man’s activities,” she wrote using capital letters for emphasis.
“It may take a few years and even an environmental disaster, but I am confident that Congress and the courts will eventually restore all the environmental protections repealed by this administration because the majority of the American people recognize that this protection of public health and safety is right and it is just.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/08/01/epa-doing-the-right-thing-is-not-possible-under-trump-says-resigning-official/?utm_term=.528de27228d4
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested