Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 28/09/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) North American Chemical Industry United As Nafta Talks Close
Sep 28, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Chemical industry associations in Canada, Mexico and the US have presented a united front following the third round of talks for the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) -
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics’ Carteaux Challenges NY Times Editorial on Plastic Bags
Sep 27, 2017 | Plastics Technology
By Heather Caliendo
A Sept. 14 editorial from the New York Times staff stated that the U.S. should follow Kenya’s lead emulating that country’s plastic bag ban where manufacturers and importers of plastic bags now face fines of $19,000 to $38,000 or four-year jail terms. Retailers will no longer sell plastic bags, and if a shopper has one, it might be taken away. -
(ACC Mentioned) Closer Scrutiny of Chemicals Needed, Groups to Say in Lawsuits
Sep 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Manufacturers could escape new regulations on their products because the EPA process for evaluating hazardous chemicals underestimates the health risks they pose, environmental and health groups challenging the process say. -
(ACC Mentioned) Environmentalists Urge 9th Circuit To Hear All Suits Over EPA TSCA Rules
Sep 27, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Environmentalists are urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to consolidate and hear lawsuits filed in several circuits challenging EPA's initial rules for implementing the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), after avoiding filing any cases in the D.C. Circuit out of concern the court might be more sympathetic to EPA. -
Wal-Mart Steps Up Push to Remove Potentially Harmful Chemicals
Sep 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Lauren Coleman-Lochner
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is expanding its program to clean up the products it sells, setting a 2022 target for reducing potentially harmful substances and widening the list of chemicals it wants to avoid. -
US EPA Round-Up
Sep 28, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has finalised deadline extensions for regulations on formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products. -
Echa's MSC Agrees On Immunotoxicity And Second Generation Eogrts For Melamine
Sep 28, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Dr Emma Davies
Melamine should be tested on a second generation (F2) of rodents, as part of an extended one-generation study (Eogrts), according to Echa's Member State Committee. -
NGOs Call For EU Ban On Use Of BPA In All FCMs
Sep 28, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
A European Commission draft proposal to ban migration of bisphenol A (BPA) from coatings and varnishes in food contact materials (FCMs) intended to be used by infants and babies "does not go far enough" to protect consumers, an NGO has said. -
1 Dead After Explosion At Georgia Chemical Plant
Sep 27, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
A man has died after an explosion at a chemical plant in Georgia. -
(ACC Mentioned) Meet A New Circular Vision To Maximize Value From Waste
Sep 28, 2017 | GreenBiz
By Anya Khalamayzer
How can we reframe the value of waste? The Cascading Materials Vision aims to find out — and plug it into the equation of preserving natural resources while saving companies money. -
(ACC Mentioned) Markey Blasts EPA, SBA Over Suspended Safety Rule
Sep 28, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Maxine Joselow
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) criticized U.S. EPA yesterday for suspending an industrial safety rule before Hurricane Harvey triggered a fire at a chemical plant outside Houston. -
(ACC Mentioned) OSHA, American Chemistry Council Sign Alliance to Protect Workers
Sep 28, 2017 | SprayFoam.com
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the American Chemistry Council (ACC) established a two-year alliance to raise awareness of how workers are exposed to diisocyantes, and promote safe practices for their use in the polyurethane industry. -
Pipeline Safety Agency Nominee Wants New Tech, Faster Hiring
Sep 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
A former CSX official would focus on new technology, first responders’ needs, and faster hiring if confirmed as the next director of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, he told a Senate panel Sept. 27. -
Appellate Court Sets Briefing In Challenge To RMP Delay
Sep 27, 2017 | Inside EPA
A federal appellate court has scheduled briefing in environmentalists and states' lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's delay of the Obama EPA's final rule updating the agency's Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility accident prevention program, setting deadlines that will have the court hold oral arguments in early 2018. -
DHS Chief Gives Energy Protections 'Lowest Grade'
Sep 28, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Blake Sobczak
U.S. energy networks face the biggest hacking risk relative to other industries, acting Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke told lawmakers yesterday. -
Crude Oil By Rail Or Pipeline? New Studies Explore The Question
Sep 28, 2017 | Midwest Energy News
By Kari Lydersen
Recent years have seen massive standoffs over oil pipeline construction and smaller but persistent protests against the transport of oil by train, or what opponents call “bomb trains.” -
Trump Wants to Repeal Obama’s Climate Plan. The Next Fight: Its Replacement.
Sep 28, 2017 | The New York Times
By Lisa Friedman
President Trump failed again this week to fulfill his promise to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama’s signature health plan. Now he is taking aim at Mr. Obama’s central environmental legacy, the Clean Power Plan. -
Practitioner Insights: Fuzzy Math to Assault Environmental Rules
Sep 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By James Goodwin
The Trump administration's relationship with numbers has been rocky from day one when White House officials inexplicably disputed evidence-based estimates of the number of people at the president's inauguration. Of course, the stakes in that kerfuffle—public relations and personal ego—were relatively low. -
Fertilizer-Ingredient Makers Get to 2018 for Air Toxics Rule
Sep 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu
Manufacturers of phosphoric acid, a key ingredient in fertilizer, now have until 2018 to reach two compliance deadlines for hazardous air pollutants, the EPA said in a final rule. -
Maryland Takes EPA to Court Over Interstate Air Pollution
Sep 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas and Adrianne Appel
Maryland is suing the EPA for failing to limit air pollution blowing in from other states, the state announced Sept. 27. -
Democratic AGs Vow Success On Climate Push
Sep 27, 2017 | Inside EPA
Democratic attorneys general (AGs) from New York, Illinois and Maryland are vowing continued pressure on the Trump administration as it seeks to roll back climate policies, while also pledging to support state-led efforts to craft aggressive greenhouse gas reduction measures. -
API Defends EPA's 'Exceptional Events' Air Rule
Sep 27, 2017 | Inside EPA
The American Petroleum Institute (API) is defending EPA's revised rule allowing states to discount emissions associated with some “exceptional events” such as wildfires and dust storms from counting toward Clean Air Act compliance, backing the agency's decision to allow some man-made events to qualify as “natural” events.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) North American Chemical Industry United As Nafta Talks Close
Sep 28, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Chemical industry associations in Canada, Mexico and the US have presented a united front following the third round of talks for the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta)
After the talks ended in Ottawa on 27 September, the Chemical Industry Association of Canada (CIAC), the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the Asociacion Nacional de la Industria Química (ANIQ) issued joint recommendations on regulatory cooperation and rules of origin.
The statement was a signal that Mexico will likely follow the US and Canada in adopting a risk-based chemical management scheme rather than the hazard-based approach used in the EU's REACH.
"We need to create a North American chemical industry, not just a Canadian, American or Mexican industry," said Guillermo Miller of ANIQ during a panel discussion at the sidelines of the negotiations.
"We need regulatory convergence and agreement on rules of origin. Common rules of origin will facilitate trade by reducing barriers."
The associations reiterated a statement in March that "chemical regulations should be science and risk-based, taking both hazard and exposure into consideration."Opportunity
The groups view Nafta 'modernisation' as an opportunity to set a global precedent in favour of risk-based regulation.
"Implementation of these agreed positions will encourage regulatory harmonisation capable of protecting people and the environment in all three countries while also spurring innovation and improving our overall regional position in the highly competitive global chemistry sector," said CIAC's president and CEO Bob Masterson.
"A great amount of effort by our respective associations and the industry in all three countries has gone into landing on these consensus positions," he said. "We are leading the way in demonstrating that there are indeed opportunities to modernise Nafta while delivering benefits to all three partners to the agreement."
Greg Skelton, senior director, global affairs at the ACC said that in Ottawa, the coordination of regulations is critical to maintain tariff-free trade. And, he added, the industry wants to spread TSCA-type rules across the North American system.
The Nafta talks move on to round four in October, but the slow pace of the negotiations have been blamed by many, including Canada's foreign affairs minister, on the US delay in providing specific recommendations. ANIQ's Mr Miller said he is "concerned that Nafta will be rejected by the US before these negotiations are completed".
https://chemicalwatch.com/59586/north-american-chemical-industry-united-as-nafta-talks-close
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics’ Carteaux Challenges NY Times Editorial on Plastic Bags
Sep 27, 2017 | Plastics Technology
By Heather Caliendo
A Sept. 14 editorial from the New York Times staff stated that the U.S. should follow Kenya’s lead emulating that country’s plastic bag ban where manufacturers and importers of plastic bags now face fines of $19,000 to $38,000 or four-year jail terms. Retailers will no longer sell plastic bags, and if a shopper has one, it might be taken away.
In response to this editorial, Plastics Industry Association President and CEO Bill Carteaux wrote a letter to the editor challenging the premise that urged the U.S. to follow Kenya’s lead on plastic bag environmental policy.
In his letter, he points out that instead of banning, there should be more of a focus on recycling:
Instead of following Kenya’s lead, we should build on initiatives that are already working in the United States to promote the recycling and reuse of plastic. Reducing litter is everyone’s responsibility, which is why our members have installed 30,000 recycling drop-off points nationwide and are continuing to grow plastic film recycling.
It’s not just Kenya taking such drastic measures, Costa Rica is looking to become the first country to eliminate single-use plastics. Type in ‘plastic bag ban’ on Google and you get about 1,240,000 results, even HuffPost has a section on its site dedicated to it (featuring both sides of the debate).
It’s an issue that’s not going away anytime soon. However, groups like the American Chemistry Council’s Flexible Film Recycling Group (FFRG) are working to increase the collection and recycling of all flexible films as well as educate the public on recycling. It recently has released two new online tools and an updated website designed to help grow the recycling of plastic wraps, bags and other flexible polyethylene (PE) film packaging. These free tools provide resources to a wide range of audiences—including consumers, recycling coordinators, local and state governments, and businesses—about this material. They aim to help these audiences learn more about what material can be recycled, how to properly recycle it, and how to grow plastic film recycling at a local level. Plastic film is one of the fastest growing areas of recycling with collection increasing nearly 84 percent since just 2005, the group stated.
The “Roadmap to WRAP” tool is an interactive guide with step-by-step instructions to help recycling coordinators, and local and state governments implement plastic film recycling campaigns and programs. The Roadmap contains free educational materials such as downloadable posters, tip cards, and bookmarks to educate residents about plastic film recycling; a work plan, plastic film recycling audit template, and checklists to help recycling coordinators organize and launch a campaign; along with insights, tips and examples from prior campaigns. These resources were designed to help support these campaigns and increase post-consumer and commercial film recycling.
The “Value Chain Case Study” tool provides a visual depiction of PE film recycling to demonstrate the value proposition for recycling this material to attract other stakeholders. It explains the steps in the PE film recycling process—from collection to end use—and profiles businesses that are leaders in plastic film recycling. The profiles recognize these businesses, such as grocers, retailers, recycling businesses, and brand companies for their leadership and serve as examples for other businesses interested in starting or growing plastic film recycling operations.
https://www.ptonline.com/blog/post/plastics-carteaux-challenges-ny-times-editorial-on-plastic-bags
-
(ACC Mentioned) Closer Scrutiny of Chemicals Needed, Groups to Say in Lawsuits
Sep 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Manufacturers could escape new regulations on their products because the EPA process for evaluating hazardous chemicals underestimates the health risks they pose, environmental and health groups challenging the process say.
The Environmental Protection Agency in its assessments is ignoring some of the ways people are exposed to hazardous chemicals, which in turn reduces the potential to identify injuries those chemicals are causing, a finding that could trigger restrictions of them, Andy Igrejas, founder of the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition, told Bloomberg BNA.
Environmental and public health advocates have filed six lawsuits in three different courts challenging the EPA's methodology for reviewing hazardous chemicals under the amended Toxic Substances Control Act, beginning with 10 substances including asbestos.
The groups are challenging two rules intended to implement the 2016 amendments to TSCA, saying the agency unlawfully allows itself to exclude chemical uses from its risk evaluation. New regulations would mean companies as diverse as the Occidental Chemical Corp., Tiffany & Co., and General Motors could face restrictions on their products.
“EPA's position that it can ignore known and foreseeable uses violates the text of the law,” wrote the Environmental Defense Fund in comments it recently submitted to the EPA about the agency's preliminary plans to determine whether 10 chemicals pose risks to people or the environment.
Those 10 chemicals are asbestos, pigment violet 29, seven solvents, and a cluster of three related flame retardants. EPA began the evaluation process in December, but has 3 1/2 years to announce its risk assessment findings on the 10 chemicals.
“Americans are still being exposed to deadly asbestos today. We need the EPA to step up and use the landmark bipartisan 2016 TSCA reform law to implement a meaningful asbestos review, without loopholes or exceptions,” Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) told Bloomberg BNA by email. Durbin was among the senators who worked to overhaul TSCA.
Focusing on ‘Greatest Concern’
The two rules environmental, health and labor groups are challenging describe how the EPA will go about prioritizing chemicals for risk evaluation and the procedures it will use for those reviews. The risk evaluation rule summarizes the agency's rationale for excluding uses.
The EPA may exclude chemical uses “in order to focus its analytical efforts on those exposures that are likely to present the greatest concern, and consequently merit an unreasonable risk determination,” the agency said.
Companies and trade associations supported that rationale in comments and public meetings that proceeded the final rule. No company or trade association would discuss legal arguments to be raised in the upcoming lawsuits, but the American Chemistry Council and more than a dozen other trade associations asked the courts to allow them to intervene in the lawsuits supporting the EPA.
“Some stakeholders claimed that EPA is required to examine all conditions of use, all vulnerable subpopulations, aggregate risks, continuing exposures to legacy contamination, intended and actual uses (even misuses), and incidental and cumulative exposures,” the chemistry council wrote in comments on the agency's plans to evaluate the first 10 chemicals.
The wider evaluations sought by public health and environmental groups are “neither legally required nor practical,” it said.
Asbestos a Particular Worry
The EPA evaluations should look at all exposure risks of a chemical, past and present, while making its evaluation, the American Public Health Association said.
Of particular concern is asbestos, which was once in much wider use than it is today.
“Asbestos is widely prevalent in the environment due largely to legacy uses and risk evaluations that assess only exposures from current uses will fail to characterize the risks these chemicals pose,” wrote Georges Benjamin, a physician and executive director of the health association.
The EPA's preliminary plan to exclude from its risk evaluations so-called “legacy” asbestos exposures resulting from insulation, roof shingles, siding, floor tiles, and other older products has spurred the most opposition.
“EPA doesn't want to look at the legacy issue. We have to look at the legacy uses,” Patrick Morrison, who oversees occupational health, safety and medicine for the International Association of Fire Fighters, told Bloomberg BNA.
Fire fighters are twice as likely to contract malignant mesothelioma, a rare type of cancer caused by asbestos exposure, than the general population, Morrison said, citing a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health study.
Asbestos Still Imported
While past uses of asbestos should be evaluated, Linda Reinstein, president of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, said ongoing imports of asbestos and asbestos-containing products also require review.
Chlor-alkali plants, which use asbestos as part of their process to make chlorine and caustic soda, probably account for 100 percent of asbestos imports, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
The U.S. imported 705 metric tons of the mineral in 2016, Reinstein said, citing data from the U.S. International Trade Commission. The 2016 import volume was about twice as much as the 343 metric tons the USGS said was imported in 2015. The 2016 import volume—much of which came in the year's final quarter—also was much higher than the USGS had estimated it would be based on earlier import figures that year.
The EPA's planned asbestos evaluation doesn't consider exposures that could occur during activities such as loading ships with the mined material, off-loading, transport, and the disposal of asbestos-based diaphragms chlor-alkali plants use, Brent Kynoch, executive director of the Environmental Information Association, told Bloomberg BNA. The association provides information about asbestos, mold, and other indoor air hazards to property owners and the public.
Failed Reforms
The EPA plans to only look at current manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce, he said.
“Since the only current imports of asbestos are for the chlor-alkali industry, if EPA deems that the risk of exposure in that industry is low, then EPA could effectively say there is no need to ban asbestos,” Kynoch said.
Occidental Chemical Corp., which imports asbestos for its chlor-alkali operations, repeatedly has declined to discuss its use of the mineral. The company, however, recently submitted extensive materials and exposure data to the EPA to document its contention that exposures throughout its U.S. supply chain are low.
But advocates of tougher rules are not mollified.
“If you can't restrict asbestos with this law, what the hell can you do?” Igrejas said. “If EPA cannot use the new law to ban asbestos, it will suggest the reform effort failed.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=121437132&vname=dennotallissues&fn=121437132&jd=121437132
-
(ACC Mentioned) Environmentalists Urge 9th Circuit To Hear All Suits Over EPA TSCA Rules
Sep 27, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Environmentalists are urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to consolidate and hear lawsuits filed in several circuits challenging EPA's initial rules for implementing the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), after avoiding filing any cases in the D.C. Circuit out of concern the court might be more sympathetic to EPA.
“[A]ll Petitioners now believe that both sets of petitions should be consolidated in this Court,” environmental groups say in a Sept. 25 filing with the 9th Circuit. “As the aggrieved parties, Petitioners’ choice of forum is the predominant factor in weighing the convenience of the parties in the interests of justice.”
One industry attorney has noted the 9th Circuit has issued favorable rulings for environmentalists in pesticide cases, which could explain their push to have all the TSCA rules cases heard in that court. But the source also said a dearth of recent case law on industrial chemicals complicates any assessment of various circuits' legal landscape.
The TSCA cases involve environmentalists' challenges to two of three Trump EPA rules finalized in June that establish a framework for evaluating risks of existing chemicals.
The contested rules guide how EPA will prioritize and then evaluate existing chemicals as required by the June 2016 update to the federal toxics law. Existing chemicals are those that have been in commerce for decades and were largely grandfathered under the old law. The need to address risks from existing chemicals was a major driver of TSCA reform. In a separate suit filed Sept. 5 environmentalists are also challenging the third initial TSCA rule for existing chemicals in the D.C. Circuit, though that case is on a different track. That rule finalized in August, updates the TSCA Inventory of existing chemicals -- those that were on the market prior to the original TSCA's enactment in 1976, or those chemicals that have since been added to that inventory.
But environmental groups, including Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, the Environment Defense Fund (EDF) and the Natural Resources Defense Council, sidestepped the D.C. Circuit when they filed their Aug. 10 and 11 challenges to the prioritization and risk evaluation rules in the 2nd, 4th, and 9th Circuits.
At the time, industry observers called the D.C. Circuit an obvious choice for challenging implementation of an environmental law, but that the court may be seen as more favorable to EPA. The industry attorney suggested that the 9th Circuit has in the past issued several rulings favorable to environmentalists.
Court Orders
In separate orders this month, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated environmentalist challenges to the prioritization rule in the 9th Circuit and to the risk evaluation rule in the 4th Circuit. The panel sidestepped an EPA request to consolidate challenges to the two rules in a single circuit.
The American Chemistry Council, a chemical manufacturers' trade association has sought to intervene in the cases, an neither EPA or environmental groups have opposed the request.
EPA in a Sept. 14 filing with the 9th Circuit sought to transfer the prioritization rule to the 4th Circuit, arguing that the challenges to the related TSCA framework rules should be heard together and the move would conserve resources. The agency noted that all counsel of record are located in Washington, D.C. or New York.
In the Sept. 25 filing, the environmental groups argue that petitioners generally are allowed to choose venue, and note that TSCA specifically gives petitioners a choice in the matter.
“TSCA’s judicial review provision also expressly gives an aggrieved party a choice between review in his or her home forum and the D.C. Circuit,” the petitioners say. “[W]here, as here, Congress has given [a petitioner] a choice [of forum]” “[t]he interest of justice favors retention of jurisdiction in the forum chosen.”
Although various environmental groups initially filed in three different circuits, petitioners say that all environmental groups now favor the 9th Circuit to hear all the TSCA rule cases. They also note that 11 of 15 total petitioners joined Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families in filing initial lawsuits in the circuits.
The environmentalists contend that EPA's push for challenges to the two rules to proceed in the 4th Circuit favors consolidation in a single circuit, though the motion is not persuasive in favoring the 4th Circuit over the 9th Circuit.
“With its Motion to Transfer, EPA seeks to override the chosen forum of the vast majority of the Petitioners and instead litigate these cases in its preferred forum,” petitioners say. “The reasons EPA gives for hearing both cases in the Fourth Circuit apply with equal force to hearing both cases in this Court, and thus do not weigh in favor of transfer.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/environmentalists-urge-9th-circuit-hear-all-suits-over-epa-tsca-rules
-
Wal-Mart Steps Up Push to Remove Potentially Harmful Chemicals
Sep 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Lauren Coleman-Lochner
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is expanding its program to clean up the products it sells, setting a 2022 target for reducing potentially harmful substances and widening the list of chemicals it wants to avoid.
The world's largest retailer aims to reduce the chemicals in products such as household cleaners, cosmetics, skin care and infant items by 10 percent by then, according to a company statement Sept. 27. It's also added some fragrance allergens to its so-called priority list of substances it wants to remove from goods.
The new goal is the latest in the retailer's efforts to respond to consumers seeking greener products and more information about what's in them. Last year, Wal-Mart named eight high-priority chemicals it wants eliminated from the goods it sells, and it's on schedule to have the chemicals listed on its broader priority list labeled online and on packaging next year.
“We're trying to center around a broader approach that emphasizes three elements: building trust, delivering impact and really staying ahead of regulation,” said Zach Freeze, Wal-Mart's senior director for strategic initiatives for sustainability.
Last month, Wal-Mart also started participating in the Chemical Footprint Project, which helps companies track and eliminate dangerous substances. The program gives Wal-Mart a tool to make further reductions, Freeze said. So far, its suppliers have removed 96 percent of high-priority chemicals by volume weight from consumables products sold in U.S. stores.
Wal-Mart announced in 2013 that it would ask suppliers to find safer alternatives for ingredients in personal care, cleaning and beauty products. Some of its suppliers have recently announced their own initiatives. Unilever and Procter & Gamble Co. both said this year they'll start labeling fragrance ingredients in their products, illuminating an area that's long been opaque.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=121437145&vname=dennotallissues&fn=121437145&jd=121437145
-
Sep 28, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Formaldehyde deadline extensions finalisedThe US EPA has finalised deadline extensions for regulations on formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products.
The federal rule – first proposed in 2013 – extend the California Air Resources Board (CARB) formaldehyde standards nationwide. They are applicable to plywood, fibreboard, particleboard and finished goods containing these products.
The agency proposed a deadline extension on 24 May. But because of critical comments received, it had to withdraw the expedited direct final rule and proceed with a formal rulemaking process.
"After considering the public comments both supportive and non-supportive of extending the compliance dates," the agency said, in publishing the final rule on 25 September, it remains convinced that its original proposal "provides a balanced and reasoned timeline for importers, distributors, and regulated entities to establish compliant supply chains".
The final rule, which is effective from 25 October, extends:the 12 December manufactured by date for emission standards, record-keeping and labelling provisions, to 12 December 2018;the 12 December 2018 date for import certification provisions, to 22 March 2019; andthe 12 December 2023 compliance date for provisions applicable to producers of laminated products, to 22 March 2024.TSCA webinars
The EPA will hold three webinars, designed "to assist the regulated community with reporting under the TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Requirements". Each webinar will include: an overview of reporting requirements; a demo of the electronic reporting application; and time for questions and answers.
They are scheduled for 1 pm Eastern Time on 27 September, 25 October and 29 November. No preregistration is required.
https://chemicalwatch.com/59394/us-epa-round-up
-
Echa's MSC Agrees On Immunotoxicity And Second Generation Eogrts For Melamine
Sep 28, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Dr Emma Davies
Melamine should be tested on a second generation (F2) of rodents, as part of an extended one-generation study (Eogrts), according to Echa's Member State Committee. The committee accepted the testing proposal on the grounds of potential consumer and professional exposure to the chemical.
Although perhaps best known for its use in laminates such as Formica, the substance has a wide array of applications, including pigments, insulation, and fire-retardant additives in plastics, paints and paper.
A basic Eogrts only tests one generation of rodents for reproductive toxicity but there are case-by-case triggers for extending to an F2 generation, according to Echa guidance. One such trigger is significant consumer and/or professional exposure to a chemical, together with toxicity concerns.
Some registrants mistakenly assume that this relates solely to direct intended exposure, said MSC chair Watze de Wolf. However, it also covers indirect or unintended chemical exposure, such as leaching from products.
"Based on the information in the registration dossier, we did have indications of potential consumer/professional uses [of melamine-containing products] where there may be significant exposure," said Dr de Wolf.Developmental immunotoxicity
The MSC also accepted a member state's proposal for amendment (pfa) to include an Eogrts cohort to test melamine for developmental immunotoxicity (DIT). The pfa, supported by the registrant, is based on recent scientific studies suggesting that the substance may be immunotoxic.
Concerns over this first came to light following a milk scandal in China in 2008. Some unscrupulous producers added the substance to powdered milk and baby formula to elevate nitrogen levels, thus providing falsely high protein test levels. Screening of exposed children later revealed that some showed signs of possible immune effects.
In 2016, an Egyptian study by a team from Zagazig University suggested that mice exposed to melamine showed such effects, including a decrease in a subtype of white blood cells called lymphocytes.
In August 2017, US research NGO TEDX (The Endocrine Disruption Exchange) called for research into whether exposure could affect memory and learning. Eogrts for organotin
Meanwhile, during a compliance check, the MSC decided against an Eogrts F2 study for an organotin compound, based on exposure information: 2-ethylhexyl 10-ethyl-4-[[2-ethylhexyl)oxy]-2-oxoethyl]thio]-4]methyl-7-methyl-7-oxo-8-oxa-3,5-dithia-4-stannatetradecanoate.
Organotin compounds are among the chemical groups targeted by NGO Greenpeace's Detox campaign. Signatories to the campaign include retailers Aldi, Coop, Lidl, Marks & Spencer, Primark and Tesco.
https://chemicalwatch.com/59547/echas-msc-agrees-on-immunotoxicity-and-second-generation-eogrts-for-melamine
-
NGOs Call For EU Ban On Use Of BPA In All FCMs
Sep 28, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
A European Commission draft proposal to ban migration of bisphenol A (BPA) from coatings and varnishes in food contact materials (FCMs) intended to be used by infants and babies "does not go far enough" to protect consumers, an NGO has said.
In its response to a Commission consultation on the proposal, British charity CHEM Trust said the EU should impose a ban on all uses of BPA in FCMs, including paper and card.
Young children may be still exposed to BPA through, for example, FCMs "which are not designed for them", it said. And the "mixture effect" from exposure to multiple chemicals "should lead regulators to reduce BPA exposure to a minimum".
In addition to a proposed ban on FCMs for infants and children, the Commission’s draft amending Regulation proposes a tighter migration limit for other consumer groups. For varnishes or coatings applied to materials and articles, this is set at 0.05mg of BPA/kg of food, instead of the existing 0.6mg.
But CHEM Trust said the Commission needs to broaden its scope. "The fact that less is known about BPA levels in paper and card is not a rationale for inaction," it says.
Last year, Members of the European Parliament backed an environment committee (Envi) report calling for a ban on BPA in all FCMs. The report also called for harmonisation for all FCMs and asked for priority to be given to paper and board due to their high market penetration.
The consultation, which ended on 20 September, received seven responses. Comments from the European Community of Consumer Co-operatives (Euro Coop Belgium), whose members are mainly active in the food retail business, echo some of CHEM Trust's views.
The Commission’s final goal should be to come up with a "fully-fledged BPA policy," Euro Coop Belgium said. And it should ultimately phase out not only BPA but also all other bisphenols, given the likelihood for those to have similar hormone disrupting effects, it said.
The Belgian NGO says that of all FCMs, plastics, coatings and varnishes for metal packaging must be addressed first because of their widespread use in the EU market. And when the latter contains baby food, "it should be mandatory" to avoid any contact between BPA and the food.Call for harmonisation
In their joint submission to the consultation, a group of industry associations and a frozen food ingredients provider say the EU should harmonise legislation concerning BPA in FCMs to ensure a high level of protection to consumers. It should also avoid "disproportionate unilateral legislative initiatives by member states".
The group comprises:European paints and inks trade body Cepe;Metal Packaging Europe;FoodDrinkEurope;PlasticsEurope; andfrozen food ingredients provider Frucom.
Industry's "highest priority", they say, is that "the distortion of the single market is resolved by introducing harmonised proportionate risk management measures".
In the draft text, clarification is needed for the "placing on the market" of FCMs, they wrote. Migration limits should apply from the date at which the empty article is placed on the market, and not the date that packaged food or drink is filled or placed on the market - as the latter could be significantly later, they wrote.
In addition, the definition of varnishes and coatings used in the draft Regulation should emphasise that the restrictions apply only to varnishes and coatings "produced using" BPA rather than "composed of substances including" it, they wrote.
https://chemicalwatch.com/59563/ngos-call-for-eu-ban-on-use-of-bpa-in-all-fcms
-
1 Dead After Explosion At Georgia Chemical Plant
Sep 27, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
AUGUSTA, Ga. — A man has died after an explosion at a chemical plant in Georgia.
The Augusta Chronicle reports Richmond County Coroner Mark Bowen identified Wednesday’s victim as 29-year-old Steven Gonsalves, of Beech Island. Bowen says Gonsalves’ body will be sent to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation’s Crime Lab for an autopsy.
Augusta Fire Chief Chris James says the blast happened at the DSM Resins plant and was caused by a welding accident. He says two other workers have been taken to a hospital after undergoing decontamination for chemical exposure.
No evacuation was necessary at the Augusta plant, which produces powder-coat paint resins.
DSM North America President Hugh Welsh says the three men were contractors working on site, not DSM employees.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/1-dead-after-explosion-at-georgia-chemical-plant/2017/09/27/8b91900a-a3cf-11e7-b573-8ec86cdfe1ed_story.html?utm_term=.141f4a17c62a
-
(ACC Mentioned) Meet A New Circular Vision To Maximize Value From Waste
Sep 28, 2017 | GreenBiz
By Anya Khalamayzer
How can we reframe the value of waste? The Cascading Materials Vision aims to find out — and plug it into the equation of preserving natural resources while saving companies money.
It brings together the recycling industry with other stakeholders, including leading brands such as Ball, Coca-Cola and Nestle, along with policymakers and environmental nonprofits to follow a framework of guiding principles that will help businesses source secondary materials.
The World Wildlife Fund launched the program in June in partnership with the American Chemistry Council, the Recycling Partnership, Ball, Keurig Green Mountain, McDonald's, Nestle, the Ocean Conservancy and others.
Participants at our VERGE 17 event last week in Silicon Valley took a look at how to make materials "pay it forward" during a panel which, under Chatham House Rule, brought together stakeholders to collaborate on extracting more value for their organizations.
"The vision acts as a roadmap for companies, supply chain members, waste management providers and NGOs to increase their collective ability to retain the value of secondary materials while remaining flexible to the changes and innovations that may occur in the future," said Erin Simon, director of sustainability research and development at WWF.
The Cascading Materials Vision provides a platform for managing materials effectively. It acts as a complement to the circular economy, which keeps molecules "in play" by keeping resources in use for as long as possible, extracting their maximum value, then recovering and regenerating products and materials at the end of a product's life.
The vision seeks to help organizations that already participate in the circular economy to scale the use of recycled materials by offering a structured access pathway from the curbside bin to the factory floor. The hope: That valuing secondary materials, those which already have been used, can transform the economy while reducing industry's burden on natural systems. Efficient waste management can cut greenhouse gases by 10 to 15 percent, while recycling plastic packaging can save up to $120 billion annually, according to the WWF.
"The recyclability of metal packaging is a big focus for us," said Adam Shalapin, sustainability manager at Ball, in a separate interview. "End-of-life management is essential to saving environmental impact. Recycling aluminum saves 95 percent of energy [compared to virgin aluminum] and essential to saving carbon emissions."
As the price of a material rises with the energy intensity of procuring it, sourcing previously used metals are a business win. For Ball, that means saving money on the aluminum caps of its signature glass jars.
"We are reducing life-cycle carbon emissions of projects, helping us gain a competitive edge to help customers reduce greenhouse gas emissions," said Shalapin. "It protects our supply chains and gives us a competitive edge." Highest utility
The companies and organizations that signed up to the vision agree to a set of decision-making principles for materials management practices, and the platform promotes dialogue around the challenges and helping them build public-private collaborations to address issues.
"The Cascading Materials Vision promotes finding solutions that optimize the value created from resources by ensuring materials are used for the most technically demanding application first and reused, recycled or recovered as is appropriate to extract as much utility as possible," said the WWF's Simon. It also lays out how these materials can be accessed.
The first principle is that organizations should try to minimize waste, but capture the value of high-quality secondary materials as resources.
"The entire value chain has shared responsibility for the end-of-life of their products, but also shared opportunity to benefit from value created to through better materials management and increased access to secondary materials," stated the WWF.
Responsibility extends to the health, safety and welfare of local communities, waste workers and the public, because success depends on the actions of local people and an inclusive planning process. Materials recovery begins on the home front, with more than 22 million tons of unrecovered packaging still in U.S. single-family homes.
The framework also addresses effective policy-making that supports programs for waste recovery.
"When the local governments are engaged in the recycling program and have triggered an 'action' to incentivize recycling is when you see the most success," states WWF.
Other guiding principles of the Cascading Materials Vision rest on measuring the value and effectiveness of waste collection projects; sharing responsibility, accountability and value creation across sectors; creating adaptable solutions that can respond to changes in technology; and connecting product design and waste minimization.
"For established organizations, participating in the circular economy is easier," said Simon. "For other smaller organizations, it's more fragmented."
Laying out a roadmap that links the flow of recycled materials between municipalities, waste management facilities, companies and manufacturers helps each sector maximize the value and life cycle of waste.
"We are not trying to coordinate it, but creating a common framework that other initiatives can form under," said Simon.
The Cascading Materials Vision may be more of a boon for well-developed materials markets, though, said Shalapin.
Ball's work with the program already aligns with its recycling partnerships and internal life cycle assessment.
"The aluminum supply chain is unique in that it is well established," he said. "[The vision] improves the success of the supply chain and shows that there is room for improvement."
It also helps bring together Ball's team and suppliers around one goal: "We want to make sure all members of the value chain are working along guiding principles together, and not a mile wide and an inch deep."
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/meet-new-circular-vision-maximize-value-waste
-
(ACC Mentioned) Markey Blasts EPA, SBA Over Suspended Safety Rule
Sep 28, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Maxine Joselow
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) criticized U.S. EPA yesterday for suspending an industrial safety rule before Hurricane Harvey triggered a fire at a chemical plant outside Houston.
The rule — meant to make people aware of dangerous materials at sites and help companies prepare — would have mitigated the environmental and public health risks of the fire, Markey said at a Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee hearing.
"It is precisely that sort of catastrophic disaster that EPA sought to prevent when it issued its chemical disaster rule," he said.
Markey also directed criticism toward the Small Business Administration, noting that SBA's Office of Advocacy issued comments on the proposed standards "advocating that the rule be significantly weakened."
Witness James Rivera, associate administrator at SBA's Office of Disaster Assistance, responded that he wasn't familiar with the issue.
Markey asked Rivera, "Does your office or the SBA take stock of small businesses in the vicinity of chemical plants? Was your office consulted by the EPA prior to the administrator suspending the chemical disaster rule?"
Rivera responded, "I'd have to get back to you. I'm not familiar with the situation."
EPA proposed the Risk Management Program (RMP) rule under President Obama in March 2016.
The administration then published the final version in the Federal Register on Jan. 13, just a little over a week before President Trump was inaugurated.
In June, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt prevented the rule from taking effect until 2019 to allow the agency time to reconsider industry objections (Greenwire, Aug. 31). One concern is information getting into the wrong hands and creating additional hazards.
Still, EPA's move meant the standards weren't in effect when floodwaters from Harvey knocked out power and cooling systems at the Arkema Inc. chemical plant northeast of Houston (Greenwire, Aug. 31).
Containers of chemicals began to explode at the organic peroxide manufacturing plant, and 15 sheriff's deputies were taken to the hospital after inhaling smoke from the fire. No other injuries were reported.'Really taken some heat'
Regulatory policy advocates have sharply criticized SBA for paying too much attention to industry objections over EPA's RPM guidelines.
Amit Narang, regulatory policy advocate with Public Citizen's Congress Watch, said he thinks SBA catered to the American Chemistry Council's desire to weaken the rule.
When SBA held a review panel on the proposal, ACC was one of the participants, according to an EPA docket. The lobbying group counts Arkema as a member.
"In the past, SBA has really taken some heat from our partner groups for including big business groups in these small business review panels," Narang said. "One of the primary examples was the chemical exposure rule."
Yogin Kothari, Washington representative with the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, expressed similar concerns.
"When EPA had to do a small business panel before it put out the rule, my understanding is that the rule was watered down significantly," Kothari said. "And Arkema and the American Chemistry Council have gone on the record opposing the rule."
He added, "The risk management program is so important because it mandated that certain high-risk chemical facilities consider looking at alternative, safer processes. ... If Arkema had looked at moving to safer processes before the hurricane hit, would that have prevented the explosion? The thing is, we'll never know."
Scott Jensen, a spokesman for ACC, said there was nothing irregular about the lobbying group weighing in on the RPM when it was proposed.
"That was part of the rulemaking process," Jensen said.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/09/28/stories/1060061951
-
(ACC Mentioned) OSHA, American Chemistry Council Sign Alliance to Protect Workers
Sep 28, 2017 | SprayFoam.com
WASHINGTON, DC – September 27, 2017 – The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the American Chemistry Council (ACC) established a two-year alliance to raise awareness of how workers are exposed to diisocyantes, and promote safe practices for their use in the polyurethane industry.
Isocyanates are raw materials used to make polyurethane products, such as insulation, car seats, foam mattresses, shoes, and adhesives. Exposure to isocyanates can cause irritation of the skin and mucous membranes, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing. More serious health effects include asthma and other lung problems.
The alliance calls for the creation of a web-based training program on the safe use of chemicals and the potential routes of exposure to users. It will also develop guidance on medical surveillance and clinical evaluation techniques for employers and workers using the chemicals. The agreement also calls for best practices seminars on health and safety procedures for OSHA, On-Site Consultation, and State Plan staff.
“OSHA’s new alliance with ACC will help ensure that employers and employees who work with the identified chemicals better understand the health hazards associated with these potentially hazardous chemicals, and the methods to control employee exposures,” said Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Loren Sweatt.
The ACC comprises the Center for the Polyurethanes Industry (CPI), and the Diisocyanates and Aliphatic Diisocyanates panels. Members of these groups include manufacturers and distributors of chemicals and equipment used to make polyurethane. CPI serves as the voice of the polyurethanes industry, covering more than 220,000 workers nationwide.
Through its Alliance Program, OSHA works with unions, consulates, trade and professional organizations, faith- and community-based organizations, businesses and educational institutions to prevent workplace fatalities, injuries, and illnesses. The purpose of each alliance is to develop compliance assistance tools and resources and to educate workers and employers about their rights and responsibilities.
Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA’s role is to ensure these conditions for America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance.
http://sprayfoam.com/foam-news/osha-american-chemistry-council-sign-alliance-to-protect-workers/3093
-
Pipeline Safety Agency Nominee Wants New Tech, Faster Hiring
Sep 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
A former CSX official would focus on new technology, first responders’ needs, and faster hiring if confirmed as the next director of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, he told a Senate panel Sept. 27.
Howard “Skip” Elliott, who has spent four decades in the rail industry, told the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation that he has “seen how much technology has really improved safety and efficiency in that industry.”
“I am interested in exploring how technology can be deployed in other ways to enhance safety on pipelines and other forms of transportation,” Elliot said in his opening statement for the hearing on his nomination.
He also advocated transparency with first responders to improve safety. “I've had a long, strong belief that we can never do enough to help improve and enhance the capability of our emergency first responders,” he told the committee.
Elliott served as vice president of public safety, health, and environment at CSX from 2004 until he retired earlier this year. He said he helped develop technology for state emergency management and homeland security officials to help them track CSX trains and quickly identify whether their cargo was hazardous.
“I don't think that anyone can have a better background than you have,” Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) told Elliot.
Committee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) said he hoped to vote “soon” on Elliott's nomination, although a vote has not been scheduled.
If confirmed, Elliott would take over from acting administrator Drue Pearce, who joined PHMSA in August. Pearce would retain her position as deputy administrator.
Hiring Process, Limiting Rules
In response to a question from Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Elliott said he would seek to shorten the hiring process that some federal job candidates have complained is too slow. He wants to aggressively recruit and fill PHMSA's open positions, he said.
Elliot also said he would address Fischer's concern that PHMSA's “mega-rules,” which incorporate multiple related changes in one rule, are leaving stakeholders out of the rulemaking process and don't foster transparency or fairness.
Prioritizing individual rules could be a solution, he said.
“We have to basically peel back each individual regulation and find those that deliver the greatest safety measures to the public and to the transporting folks in the United States, and work hard to get those regulations in place,” he said.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) asked Elliott what he would do about leaking natural gas distribution pipelines. The Protecting Our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 2016, also known as the PIPES Act, requires PHMSA to submit a report to Congress on how better to track and report natural gas that is lost or unaccounted for.
“That natural gas never is received by consumers and yet they're paying for it,” Markey said.
Markey asked Elliott to commit to resolving the issue, but Elliott said he'd need to know more about it. The nominee said he would “look into this with great haste.”
Industry-Approved
Industry associations strongly back Elliott's nomination.
“Elliott's distinguished history in the railroad industry combined with his experience with hazardous materials will benefit all propane stakeholders,” a spokesperson for the National Propane Gas Association told Bloomberg BNA in a statement.
Michael Tadeo, spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute, said Elliott's experience with rail “is an asset to the agency and its mission.” The institute represents companies such as ConocoPhillips, Hess Corp., and Statoil.
The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America also advocated for Elliott's swift confirmation. The association represents companies such as Enbridge Inc., Piedmont Natural Gas, and Con Edison.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=121437137&vname=dennotallissues&fn=121437137&jd=121437137
-
Appellate Court Sets Briefing In Challenge To RMP Delay
Sep 27, 2017 | Inside EPA
A federal appellate court has scheduled briefing in environmentalists and states' lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's delay of the Obama EPA's final rule updating the agency's Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility accident prevention program, setting deadlines that will have the court hold oral arguments in early 2018.
In a Sept. 26 order, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit grants parties' jointly-filed proposed briefing schedule. Petitioners will open briefing Oct. 25 and it will extend through Jan. 31, 2018.
The order also grants the litigants' request for oral argument very early in 2018, instructing the court clerk to set a hearing in the case soon after the briefing is complete.
The case, Air Alliance Houston, et al., v. EPA and E. Scott Pruitt, brought by environmentalists, United Steelworkers and 11 Democratic state attorneys general (AGs), is expected to test EPA's authority to delay rules under the Clean Air Act.
“Petitioners will raise statutory claims under the Clean Air Act, which require significant discussion of statutory interpretation including 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B) and various parts of § 7412(r),” environmentalists said in a Sept. 13 filing proposing a briefing schedule for the case.
Advocates also said they will argue the delay is “arbitrary and capricious” because “EPA’s Delay Rule represents a change in course, and so a thorough discussion of the facts and rationale underlying the original course is required.”
The litigation is also likely to renew environmentalists calls, first issued after flooding from Hurricane Harvey caused a fire at a Texas chemical facility, to reinstate the rule.
The Obama EPA's Jan. 13 final RMP update rule brought new auditing and hazard analysis requirements, as well as provisions bolstering release of facility data to emergency planners and the public.
The rule drew strong opposition from industry groups as well as GOP state AGs, including Pruitt, who served as Oklahoma's AG prior to his selection to lead EPA.
The Trump EPA earlier this year issued a rule that postpones by 20 months the effective date of the Obama update rule -- from June 19 to Feb. 19, 2019, to allow time to revise the measure.
In delaying the rule, the Trump EPA has claimed broad authority under section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act to set effective dates through notice-and-comment rulemaking.
The agency also has suggested significant changes to the rule are possible, saying the RMP rule is based on “policy preferences” that could vary between administrations, and that the agency intends to raise concerns with the rule not cited in industry petitions.
In the joint filing proposing a briefing schedule, environmentalist attorneys say filings in the case will delve into Clean Air Act section 112(r), which has less court precedent than other aspects of the air law and will require significant explanation. Environmentalist and labor petitioners say they will also argue that EPA failed to follow proper procedure in delaying the Obama-era regulation.
Environmental and labor groups will file a single opening brief Oct. 25 and Democratic states will file their separate opening challenge the same day.
EPA is scheduled to respond to opening briefs Dec. 8. And GOP states and chemical manufacturers intervening on EPA's behalf will file briefs Dec. 22. The petitioners will file response briefs Jan. 19.
Final briefs are due Jan. 31 with oral arguments coming shortly thereafter.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/appellate-court-sets-briefing-challenge-rmp-delay
-
DHS Chief Gives Energy Protections 'Lowest Grade'
Sep 28, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Blake Sobczak
U.S. energy networks face the biggest hacking risk relative to other industries, acting Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke told lawmakers yesterday.
Online attacks on critical energy infrastructure pose "probably our highest threat right now," Duke said at a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing.
"Because of its importance and the focus on [energy], I would give that the lowest grade" in terms of its current vulnerability, she added in response to questions from Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.).
Heitkamp had asked the acting Department of Homeland Security chief to grade the country's cyberdefenses and government coordination, "A being impenetrable, F being we're in big trouble."
Duke offered high marks for the level of government collaboration, which she suggested had improved in recent years. "I would probably give it a B, because I never think we're done," she said.
Yesterday's hearing on "threats to the homeland" marked Duke's first appearance before the Homeland Security panel, where senators covered everything from domestic terrorism to the devastation wrought by Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico and other natural disasters.
Duke took the helm at DHS in July after President Trump tapped then-DHS Secretary John Kelly to be chief of staff at the White House (Energywire, July 31).
The rising cyberthreat to crucial U.S. systems caught the attention of several leading lawmakers, including committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.).
He warned in an opening statement of "how critical infrastructure sectors, including our electric grid, remain vulnerable to attack in ways that could disrupt our way of life for extended periods of time."
A series of attempted cyber intrusions at U.S. energy utilities, including several nuclear power plant operators, underscore the risk, Duke said in her own prepared testimony. She also highlighted cyberattacks that briefly knocked out power to parts of Ukraine's power grid in 2015 and 2016.
In written remarks, Duke spoke of a "turning point in the cyber domain" this year. She cited the recent data breach at credit reporting firm Equifax Inc. that claimed 143 million U.S. victims.
"Significantly, nation-state capabilities are falling into non-state hands," she said. "With access to tools that were previously beyond their reach, non-state actors now have the ability to cause widespread disruptions and possibly, destructive attacks."
The steady drumbeat of cyber incidents has drawn heightened scrutiny from Congress, where lawmakers have introduced bills to streamline DHS's cybersecurity missions and protect the fast-growing "internet of things," among other proposals (Energywire, Aug. 2).
"I'm deeply concerned that we don't really have a handle on what we're doing in cybersecurity," said Heitkamp, "and at the end of the day, we'll spend all of our time and our resources looking at all these other threats and completely miss one of the more serious threats that could be pursuing this country."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/09/28/stories/1060061953
-
Crude Oil By Rail Or Pipeline? New Studies Explore The Question
Sep 28, 2017 | Midwest Energy News
By Kari Lydersen
Recent years have seen massive standoffs over oil pipeline construction and smaller but persistent protests against the transport of oil by train, or what opponents call “bomb trains.”
Protesters often highlight the catastrophic risks if pipelines rupture near aquifers or sacred lands, or if trains derail in cities. And many argue that oil should not be extracted at all, especially through fracking tight shale deposits or mining viscous tar sands.
But if one assumes oil will be extracted and refined for the foreseeable future, two new studies offer insight into the economics, health impacts and risks of pipelines versus crude oil by rail, or CBR.
Transporting oil by rail is often viewed as a stopgap measure until more pipelines are built. But in a paper published this month, public policy professor Ryan Kellogg and business professor Thomas Covert at the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago found that CBR actually plays a crucial role in the oil economy, similar to the role that peaker plants play in our country’s electric system.
That is, CBR is a flexible way to get oil to and from different locations on relatively short notice, responding to market demands.
Pipelines are regulated by the federal government in a way similar to utilities in regulated states, Kellogg notes, meaning that the government oversees their pricing structure and they cannot earn more than a certain rate of return. Oil shippers also enter into long-term contracts with pipeline companies, meaning they have to speculate about future oil prices and demand.
Shipping oil by rail can be more financially attractive for everyone involved since it does not require long-term contracts, there is no regulated rate of return for railroad companies and rail offers more options for where oil is picked up and delivered.
“Putting aside the environmental issues, pipeline and rail work well when paired together,” Kellogg said. “Think of pipelines — once you have the upfront investment done, they are a very low-cost, very reliable way of moving oil from point A to point B. What rail is very good at is responding to conditions as the oil market changes. When the oil market says, ‘Hey there’s a bunch of oil coming out of location C,’ rail is relatively easy to ramp up and get going, or ramp down if there’s a market downturn.”Hidden health impacts
But shipping oil by rail has serious public health impacts, according to a study by Karen Clay, professor of economics and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University. And she’s not talking about the risk of derailments.
In a paper released this month, Clay quantified the air pollution and greenhouse gas cost of diesel emissions from oil trains going from North Dakota in 2014, when production was high and about half of Bakken oil was shipped by rail. She found that the air emission costs of CBR were twice the cost of oil train accidents. While accidents like the Lac Megantic tragedy generate massive attention and fear, they are relatively rare, whereas the emissions from oil trains impact scores of people who live in urban areas like Chicago and Clay’s home, Pittsburgh.
“The relative magnitudes are really different,” Clay said. “Certainly if a crude oil train blew up in Chicago, it could do billions worth of damage. Air pollution happens every day, it seems kind of invisible, people think it’s not that important, but it is important. It’s about the difference between actual risk and perception of risk — humans are very bad at assessing risk.”
Clay found that the environmental and health costs of transporting oil by rail are double the cost by pipeline. And the air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions driven by pipelines also have a greater cost than pipeline spills and accidents — eight times greater.
She quantified the emissions from power plants needed to power the pumping stations along pipelines, calculating the health and other costs based on the fact that these power plants are typically located in sparsely populated areas, as opposed to the trains which pass through dense urban areas often including minority and low-income communities with environmental justice issues.Economic levers
Kellogg wrote that the Dakota Access Pipeline would have likely been built to carry 29,000 to 74,000 more barrels of oil a day beyond its capacity of about 450,000, if CBR had not been available. In a pipeline with a fixed diameter, more oil can be shipped by adding more pumping stations along the route, or by “twinning” — adding parallel pipelines within the same right-of-way.
“When rail traffic was getting quite large, you saw the cost of shipping by rail go up,” Kellogg said. “The cost of logistics, renting out rail cars to hold the actual crude oil, those costs noticeably go up.”
Since pipelines deliver oil through long-term contracts, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) caps the maximum rate a pipeline can charge, a pipeline can’t raise its rates when demand for its service is high.
“A pipeline can get congested during peak times so you can’t get any more oil through it, but the rate still can’t increase above that maximum regulated rate,” said Kellogg. “So the fact that pipelines can become congested creates the opening for rail to come in and help move the extra oil.”
Both Clay and Kellogg said that if the true cost of oil-by-rail was calculated into the fees that oil shippers are charged, the economics of oil transport might change. Kellogg’s paper predicted that baking the cost of railroad air emissions into shipping prices would raise CBR costs by $2 a barrel.
If shipping by rail got more expensive, there might be more demand for pipelines, and also alternate ways of moving oil. For example, shipping it by rail or pipeline to the Gulf of Mexico then by ship to the U.S.’s East Coast, rather than by rail cutting through the heartland.
Railroads are currently required to install cleaner diesel engines on new locomotives. Meanwhile, advocates have called for replacing older locomotives more rapidly and using electric locomotives in populated areas. Kellogg noted that railroad safety measures in the wake of Lac Megantic could also raise CBR shipping prices, and might shift more business to pipelines.The future of crude-by-rail
Kellogg’s paper notes that between 2010 and 2014, oil shipments by rail grew from virtually nothing to 750,000 barrels a day, representing a tenth of total domestic oil production. This was largely because of spiking production in the Bakken shale.
Oil shipments by both pipeline and train have declined precipitously since oil prices starting dropping in 2014. But Clay said people should not stop thinking about the risks and economics of CBR even though they aren’t seeing as many oil trains. If oil prices rise and production ramps up, oil trains could proliferate once again.
Given that pipelines result in far fewer public health impacts than rail, Clay also advocates the possibility of shipping other petroleum-related compounds like butane, propane and ethanol by pipeline, rather than train.
“It’s just trying to get people engaged with the idea that this other stuff also has air pollution risk and accident risk,” Clay said. “Maybe the spill and accident risks are lower, but the air pollution risks are the same on a per ton basis over similar routes. This is a broader issue about anything that could be shipped by pipeline instead of rail.”
http://midwestenergynews.com/2017/09/28/crude-oil-by-rail-or-pipeline-new-studies-explore-the-question/
-
Trump Wants to Repeal Obama’s Climate Plan. The Next Fight: Its Replacement.
Sep 28, 2017 | The New York Times
By Lisa Friedman
WASHINGTON — President Trump failed again this week to fulfill his promise to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama’s signature health plan. Now he is taking aim at Mr. Obama’s central environmental legacy, the Clean Power Plan.
The administration has made clear its desire to repeal the Obama energy plan. But what would take its place it remains a mystery.
The Environmental Protection Agency is expected in the coming days to reveal its strategy for reversing the Clean Power Plan, which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants across the country. Yet while Mr. Trump has declared the Obama-era plan dead — “Did you see what I did to that? Boom, gone,” he told a cheering crowd in Alabama recently — industry executives say they expect that utilities could still be subject to some restrictions on carbon emissions.
“I would be surprised if repeal did not lead to replacement,” said Paul Bailey, president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.Continue reading the main storyRELATED COVERAGEWhat to Know About Trump’s Order to Dismantle the Clean Power PlanMARCH 27, 2017graphicTrump’s Executive Order Pushes the U.S. Climate Pledge Further Out of ReachMARCH 28, 2017Scott Pruitt Is Carrying Out His E.P.A. Agenda in Secret, Critics Say AUG. 11, 2017Court Gives Trump Small Victory in Push Against Clean Power Plan APRIL 28, 2017
If the E.P.A. does open the door to a new, weaker set of rules that utilities and others favor, it will likely touch off a legal battle with environmental groups and pose a bureaucratic challenge to an agency where critical senior positions remain vacant. It could also force the agency’s administrator, Scott Pruitt, who has rejected the scientific consensus that human emissions cause climate change, to implicitly acknowledge that greenhouse gases harm human health and that the E.P.A. has an obligation to regulate them.
“There’s an internal debate over what the overall approach toward greenhouse gases should be, and it’s hard to formulate policy if you haven’t come to terms with the outcome of the debate,” said David M. Konisky, a professor of public and environmental affairs at Indiana University.
The parallels between the Clean Power Plan and the Affordable Care Act go only so far. The health care law, which was passed by Congress, offered a tangible benefit to many Americans and was firmly in place when Mr. Trump entered office. The Clean Power Plan, a regulation, not legislation, has not taken effect and is tied up in federal appeals court.
But environmental activists and conservative opponents alike say both cases show that demanding a policy be repealed is easier than making it happen. Finding a replacement is even harder.
“From the perspective of advocacy and political strategy, I think there’s a lot of similarities. Members of Congress campaigned for six or seven years to fully repeal Obamacare, and there were no conversations about replace, or nothing of substance,” said Christine Harbin, vice president of external affairs at Americans for Prosperity, a conservative advocacy group. Of the Clean Power Plan, she said, “It may be difficult to fully repeal.”
The Clean Power Plan aimed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants 32 percent below 2005 levels and required each state to develop carbon-cutting plans. Enacting the regulation was considered vital to helping the United States reach its commitment to reduce emissions under the Paris Agreement. Mr. Trump has said he intends to withdraw from that accord.
The United States Chamber of Commerce, coal companies and most Republican lawmakers strongly opposed the regulation. Mr. Trump signed an executive order in March to eliminate it, fulfilling a campaign promise to end what he denounced as a job-killing regulation.
Over the past several months, though, some of the very people who advocated killing Mr. Obama’s climate policy have told Mr. Pruitt that his agency should devise a new, albeit weaker, rule to regulate carbon emissions in its place. Leading industry groups — including the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, and utility lobbies like the Edison Electric Institute — have pressed the administration for a replacement.
“We didn’t always see eye-to-eye with the last administration on how to deal with climate in the regulatory space,” said Ross Eisenberg, vice president of energy policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, which joined 28 states to challenge the Clean Power Plan in federal court. “But we’re comfortable with having a policy, even a regulation, that addresses climate change. It’s about getting the regulation right.”
In public, industry leaders say their companies already are on a greener trajectory. Behind the scenes, they also worry that simply killing the climate rule would not hold up in court, and would invite even tougher regulations under a future Democratic president. They are advocating a narrow regulation that allows utilities to reduce pollution at individual plants, like substituting fuel or improving the efficiency of furnaces.
Dan Byers, the senior director for policy at the Chamber of Commerce’s Global Energy Institute, said it’s important the E.P.A.’s repeal opens the door to such a replacement. Without one, he said, the agency would be vulnerable to lawsuits for not regulating carbon dioxide.
“The uncertainty that would be associated with that is far more risky than having a rule in place which is reasonable, achievable and cost-effective,” he said.
The E.P.A. declined to answer questions about the repeal process.
“We don’t comment on rules undergoing interagency review,” Amy Graham, an agency spokeswoman, said in a statement.
If Mr. Pruitt moves to replace the Clean Power Plan, it could signal that he intends to abandon a larger fight to challenge the essential underpinning of federal climate policy.
The so-called endangerment finding, adopted after the Supreme Court found in 2007 that greenhouse gases are a pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act, declares that such emissions may “reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” Mr. Pruitt has been under pressure from people who reject established climate science to challenge the determination, but a chorus of more pragmatic voices inside the administration and industry have insisted that doing so would be a legal morass with an uncertain outcome.
Myron Ebell, a climate denier who led the E.P.A. transition team for the Trump administration, said he still hoped to see Mr. Pruitt challenge the endangerment finding in the future. That could happen through a series of debates on climate science that Mr. Pruitt has described as a “red team, blue team” exercise.
In the meantime, Mr. Ebell said he was confident the Clean Power Plan would crumble and said the failure of Republicans to upend the Affordable Health Care was a lesson for Democrats: Pass legislation.
“If you want to make something durable, you better get a law passed by Congress,” he said. “What one president can do by pen and by phone another president can undo by pen and by phone.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/28/climate/clean-power-plan.html
-
Practitioner Insights: Fuzzy Math to Assault Environmental Rules
Sep 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By James Goodwin
The Trump administration's relationship with numbers has been rocky from day one when White House officials inexplicably disputed evidence-based estimates of the number of people at the president's inauguration. Of course, the stakes in that kerfuffle—public relations and personal ego—were relatively low.
Telling as that incident was, it was largely a branding exercise for President Donald Trump. A mathematical exercise of more lasting and greater import is the assault that the administration is now waging against our system of regulatory safeguards—the legal measures that are critical to ensuring that the air we breathe is safe, the water that comes out of our taps at home is free of toxic contaminants, and the food we share with our families won't make us sick.
Both on the campaign trail and now in office, Trump has reiterated his promise to bring about the “deconstruction of the administrative state,” as former White House strategist Steve Bannon ominously described it. Making good on this promise, however, will require the Trump administration to confront its old nemesis: arithmetic. The early indications are that the administration will resort to Enron-esque book-cooking to advance its rollback of critical safeguards.
The WOTUS Repeal: Bye, the Numbers
Starting with the Reagan administration, federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency have been subject to a series of executive orders requiring them to ensure that their pending rulemakings pass a strict “cost-benefit analysis” test.
This means that an agency must demonstrate for each of its rules that the benefits “outweigh” or “justify” its costs, depending on how the test was formulated. The rationale for this analytical requirement was that it would improve regulatory decision making by pushing agencies to develop regulations that made society better off on balance.
The Trump administration has brought a much different philosophy to regulation: Its concern is not the quality of regulations, but the quantity. To that end, Trump has issued a series of executive orders directing agencies to focus on removing existing regulatory safeguards from the books.
Under prevailing administrative law, the process for eliminating an existing regulation is identical to the one that agencies must follow when they develop a new one. Accordingly, one of the big questions facing the Trump administration was whether regulatory actions to eliminate existing rules would also be subject to a cost-benefit analysis test.
In an April 5 memorandum, then-acting Administrator of the Office of Information Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) Dominic Mancini resolved this question, confirming that the cost-benefit analysis test would apply to agency actions to eliminate existing rules just as it does for new regulations. OIRA is the White House office charged with supervising agency compliance with regulatory cost-benefit analysis requirements.
For those Trump administration agencies eager to repeal Obama-era rules—including, most notably, the EPA—the Mancini memo appears to have painted them into a sticky analytical corner. When agencies attempt to demonstrate that repealing an existing rule passes a cost-benefit analysis test, they are in effect seeking to show that the continued implementation of that rule would impose greater costs than benefits. That task can be especially difficult for rules that were only recently issued, since it requires agencies to show that a rule that passed a cost-benefit analysis test just a few months or years ago no longer passes that same test now.
This is the conundrum that Trump's EPA recently faced in developing its proposal to repeal the Obama-era Waters of the U.S. rule (WOTUS). One of the more controversial regulatory actions undertaken during the Obama administration, WOTUS sought to clarify the reach of the Clean Water Act's protections as they applied to waterbodies like wetlands and headstreams that, while small or even ephemeral, still had an impact on the integrity of other, larger waters that clearly fall within the law's scope.
When it finalized the rule in 2015, the EPA concluded that its projected annual benefits of between $347.0 million and $586.0 million significantly outweighed its projected costs of between $162.2 million and $476.2 million. (The EPA's original analysis was reported in 2014 dollars; numbers used here have been updated to 2016 dollars to account for inflation.)
The benefits stemmed from the fact that the increased clarity would lead to more marginal waterbodies being protected under relevant Clean Water Act programs, such as those aimed at oil spill prevention and stormwater permitting. The protections achieved through the effective and efficient implementation of the Clean Water Act programs would in turn result in better public health and environmental outcomes, such as safer drinking water, more waters available for swimming or other recreational uses, and healthier ecosystems capable of supporting a variety of aquatic animal and plant life. The cost estimates reflected the additional expenditures that would result from administering and complying with the Clean Water Act programs to cover the additional protected waterbodies.
One of the problems with cost-benefit analysis is that it relies on reducing all costs and benefits to dollar figures. In the case of WOTUS, as with many regulatory cost-benefit analyses for environmental safeguards, the EPA was unable to put a dollar figure on many of the benefits categories that the rule produced.
Few environmental benefits—such as a waterbody's recreational value or ecological health—can be fairly “quantified” or reduced to numbers, and fewer still can be “monetized” or translated into dollars-and-cents terms. So, for example, the EPA's WOTUS cost-benefit analysis does not include monetary values that would flow from such important programs as those that protect waters against oil spills or toxic pesticides. Instead, it describes these benefits in qualitative terms. In the end, those qualitative descriptions cannot be and are not included in the estimated ranges of monetary benefits and thus, end up being excluded from the policy debate altogether. As a result, some of the most significant benefits literally do not count.
The largest benefits category for WOTUS that could be quantified and monetized came from a Clean Water Act program to protect against wetlands loss that results when wetlands are dredged or filled as part of permitted development activities. This category accounted for about 88 to 90 percent of the rule's total monetary benefits.
To calculate this benefit, the EPA first estimated the number of additional acres of wetlands that would be protected as a result of the rule. The agency then determined the monetary value of this outcome by incorporating the results of several economic studies that estimated what individual households were “willing to pay” to protect a hypothetical acre of wetland.
Flipping the Numbers
For Trump's EPA, repealing WOTUS meant flipping the numbers on this cost-benefit analysis: the benefits of the original rule, now forgone, became the “costs” of the repeal, while the costs of the original rule, now avoided, became the repeal's “benefits.” As noted above, though, taking this step alone would place the WOTUS repeal in violation of the Mancini memo, since the benefits of the original rule were substantially higher than the costs.
To solve this “problem”—that is, to manufacture the appearance that repealing WOTUS would make society better off (or, conversely, that the continued implementation of WOTUS would make society worse off)—Trump's EPA had to overhaul the original cost-benefit analysis. Its options for doing so were to increase the original cost estimates, reduce the original benefit estimates, or some combination of the two.
Ultimately, the agency elected to take a hatchet to the rule's benefits estimate, wiping out the entire category of wetlands loss protection, which comprised the vast majority of the rule's quantified and monetized benefits. Particularly striking was the facile and almost cynical manner in which they went about obliterating all of those benefits. Over the course of a single paragraph, Trump's EPA casually dismissed these benefits on the grounds that the willingness-to-pay studies from which they were derived were too old. The analysis concluded that the age of these studies, which were published between 1986 and 2000, made them unreliable because “public attitudes toward nature could have changed” and because economists might have developed better techniques for measuring the public's willingness to pay for environmental protections in the intervening years.
No Attempt to Update Studies
Despite its professed concerns about the age of these studies, though, it is noteworthy that Trump's EPA appears to have made no effort to obtain more updated studies, or to make any other accommodation to the likelihood that people value the environment even if the president does not. Instead, the agency simply capitulated and erased hundreds of millions of dollars of benefits with a few keystrokes.
The agency's rationale for discounting the benefits of protecting against wetlands loss fails to pass the sniff test, and it completely collapses under scrutiny. If anything, the public's attitude toward nature in general, and wetlands in particular, has almost certainly improved since the studies were published. For example, Hurricanes Katrina, Sandy, and now Harvey have shined an intense spotlight on the value of wetlands in mitigating natural disaster-related damages, while the public's appreciation for these resources as habitat for endangered species among other ecosystem services has also likely grown. In fact, the willingness-to-pay studies likely reflect underestimates as well, since the respondents are necessarily and inevitably constrained by their ability to pay. Consequently, any ensuing advances in economic surveying methodologies would likely serve to correct for the systematic underestimates these studies tend to produce.
The bottom line is that if the original estimate of the benefits of protecting against wetland loss was inaccurate, it was because that estimate was far too low. Short of obtaining more updated willingness-to-pay studies, the most sensible response for the EPA would have been to retain the original estimate as a placeholder representing a conservative, low-end value for those benefits, not to throw it out completely.
In what seems like a parting shot, the Trump EPA concludes this part of the analysis by conceding that it was “confident that the forgone benefits of wetlands protection are greater than zero.” This caveat does not undo the damage, however. The practical effect of converting this benefits category from monetized benefits into “unquantified” ones is to treat their monetary value as the equivalent of zero dollars.
The controversy over the WOTUS repeal cost-benefit analysis continues to grow. Following press accounts that political appointees at the EPA specifically directed career staff to manipulate the cost-benefit analysis for the rule so that it would appear to generate net benefits, Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, launched his own investigation. He recently sent a letter to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt requesting various documents related to the agency's development of the cost-benefit analysis for the WOTUS repeal rule. The letter instructs Pruitt to respond by the end of September.
Fake Numbers
The EPA's approach to cooking the books on the cost-benefit analysis for its WOTUS repeal is likely to serve as a blueprint for future deregulatory actions by the Trump administration. In similar fashion, Trump's agencies will need to devise ways to exaggerate the costs or to minimize the benefits of the existing rules that it is seeking to eliminate so that these deregulatory actions are able to pass a cost-benefit analysis test.
On the benefits side of ledger, the WOTUS repeal effort illustrates how opponents of regulatory safeguards can readily eliminate entire benefits categories for individual rules.
Another rule from the Obama administration, which sought to limit toxic air pollution emissions from fossil-fueled power plants, provides a different, but still extreme, example. There, the EPA quantified and monetized one of the rule's many benefits categories: protecting children against lost IQ points caused by exposure to mercury, as measured by their lost lifetime earning potential.
That's hardly the standard a parent would use in gauging the “cost” of a child's cognitive impairment, failing as it does to account for the full panoply of negative consequences that a child might suffer from such impairment. Nor does it account for the numerous other public health harms that mercury pollution causes, such as heart disease and kidney damage in adults. Nor, for that matter, does it account for the environmental harms that mercury pollution causes to plants, animals, and the healthy functioning of their ecosystems. Or for all the public health and environmental damage caused by other non-mercury toxic air pollutants that the rule would address, including acid gases and dioxin. In short, just a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the rule's direct benefits is captured in monetary terms.
Bye Bye to Cross-Cutting Benefits
More broadly, the Trump administration has signaled that it intends to eliminate or reduce more “cross-cutting” types of benefits, as well. For example, agencies may stop considering what are known as “co-benefits,” or those benefits that result from the implementation of a rule even though they are not the direct purpose of the rule.
The Obama administration's air toxics rules for fossil-fueled power plants delivered significant co-benefits in the form of reduced emissions of ozone precursors and particulate matter. In fact, one of the bonuses of the rule is that by complying with the air toxics rule, power plants would inevitably reduce their emissions of these other types of air pollutants, as well, adding to its public health and environmental benefits.
The fossil fuel industry and their conservative allies in Congress heavily criticized the Obama administration for incorporating these co-benefits into the rule's analysis, even though the George W. Bush administration had included these very same co-benefits in the analysis for its version of the power plant air toxics rule. (That rule was eventually struck down in court for unrelated reasons). In contrast to both Obama and Bush, the Trump administration plans simply to ignore such benefits.
Another type of cross-cutting benefit that the Trump administration has targeted is the “social cost of carbon,” which purports to assign a value to reducing emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.
In particular, the Trump administration has ordered the EPA and other agencies to severely reduce the value of the social cost of carbon by using an artificially high discount rate (many of the harms of climate change will not occur until several decades in the future, and thus would be worth almost nothing in present day dollars if too high a discount rate is applied) and by arbitrarily restricting its scope to just damages that occur in the United States (by definition, climate change is a worldwide phenomenon with global causes and consequences that cannot be restricted to human-defined national borders).
Mythical Costs
On the cost side of the ledger, Trump's agencies may follow the lead of industry-funded economic consultants in using outrageous data inputs to construct absurd compliance cost predictions.
To take one particularly egregious example, an economic consultant manufactured an extreme overestimate of the costs of the EPA's then-pending rule to tighten the national ozone air pollution standard by extrapolating from a deliberately misleading source: the Department of Transportation's (DOT) 2009 “Cash for Clunkers” program.
This was analogous to using the menu for the fanciest steakhouse in town to project the costs of a program to feed the poor. That's because the DOT program was designed as an economic stimulus program targeted at jumpstarting U.S. auto sales in the wake of the 2008 economic crash, and such stimulus programs by their nature carry hefty price tags.
While Cash for Clunkers had some incidental environmental benefits by encouraging car owners to replace their older, more polluting cars, no one would ever seriously defend such an expensive and inefficient approach for controlling air pollution.
More to the point, the DOT program provided no realistic basis for predicting the costs of complying with the EPA's pending ozone rule, especially given the decades of experience showing how private sector actors continuously found innovative ways to control air pollution that were cheaper and more efficient.
Nevertheless, the economic consultant's goal was to generate a large cost estimate that could be used to attack the EPA's ozone rule; the misuse of the Cash for Clunkers program made it possible to conjure such an extreme overestimate.
Controversial Methodology Use
Finally, Trump's agencies might deploy a controversial cost-benefit analysis methodology known as “whole economy modeling” or “economy-wide modeling.”
Opponents of protective safeguards have long sought to use whole economy modeling, which purports to measure how the effects of a particular regulation reverberate throughout the economy as a means for systematically exaggerating regulatory cost estimates by, among other things, incorporating specious estimates of the indirect job losses a particular regulation might purportedly cause.
As the name suggests, whole economy modeling relies on human-constructed models, rather than empirical observation, to measure regulatory impacts. Its results are highly sensitive to the design choices and assumptions made by the model maker, which renders the technique susceptible to manipulation and misuse.
If whole economy modeling becomes widely used, it would provide the Trump administration with another powerful tool for fabricating regulatory cost-benefit analyses to support its assault on protective safeguards. For example, opponents of the EPA's Clean Power Plan frequently cite a coal industry-funded study that purports to use whole economy modeling to estimate the rule's economic costs. Among the study's outlandish findings are that the Clean Power Plan will cost the economy tens of millions of dollars and lead to double digit increases in electricity costs.
The WOTUS repeal is likely just the first of many episodes in which regulatory cost-benefit analyses are twisted and contorted to justify rollbacks of regulatory safeguards. These efforts will show the disingenuous lengths to which the Trump administration will go to advance its deregulatory agenda. They also will confirm what critics of regulatory cost-benefit analysis have long been saying—that the methodology is far too subjective and susceptible to politicized manipulation to warrant the highly influential role it plays in regulatory decision-making.
James Goodwin is a senior policy analyst with the Center for Progressive Reform. Since joining the center in 2008, his work has focused on a wide variety of administrative law and regulatory policy issues, including the rulemaking process, regulatory design, and cost-benefit analysis.
The opinions in this article do not represent the views of Bloomberg BNA, which welcomes other points of view.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=121437157&vname=dennotallissues&fn=121437157&jd=121437157
-
Fertilizer-Ingredient Makers Get to 2018 for Air Toxics Rule
Sep 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu
Manufacturers of phosphoric acid, a key ingredient in fertilizer, now have until 2018 to reach two compliance deadlines for hazardous air pollutants, the EPA said in a final rule.
Previously, the Environmental Protection Agency had set an August 2016 deadline for phosphoric acid producers to include emissions of hydrogen fluoride and other fluorides from a process that turns raw phosphorus into phosphoric acid in their calculations of how much of the fluorides they emit. Hydrogen fluoride is extremely acidic, according to the EPA.
The EPA also extended (RIN:2060-AT14) the deadline to meet monitoring requirements for low-energy absorbers from August 2017 to 2018, allowing phosphoric acid manufacturers to use alternative air pollution monitoring methods to show compliance until the new deadline. The air toxics standards apply to 13 facilities that make phosphoric acid.
The extensions, proposed in December 2016, came in response to petitions from The Fertilizer Institute and the Phosphate Corporation of Saskatchewan, both of which had supported the extension in the comments on the proposal.
The EPA said it expected the additional compliance time “will have an insignificant effect on a phosphoric acid manufacturing plant's overall emissions” and would save the industry $1.1 million.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=121437139&vname=dennotallissues&fn=121437139&jd=121437139
-
Maryland Takes EPA to Court Over Interstate Air Pollution
Sep 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas and Adrianne Appel
Maryland is suing the EPA for failing to limit air pollution blowing in from other states, the state announced Sept. 27.
Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) directed state Attorney General Brian Frosh to file a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency for failing to act on a November 2016 petition that seeks new pollution controls on 19 coal-fired power plants in five upwind states (Maryland v. Pruitt, D. Md., No. 1:17-cv-02865, 9/27/17).
“The EPA has acknowledged that Maryland's ozone attainment problems are due in large part to transported pollution from other states,” says the complaint, filed Sept. 27 in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
Pollution from Indiana, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia impedes Maryland's ability to meet federal air quality standards, the state said. About 70 percent of Maryland's pollution problems come from emissions from those states, it said.
Approval of the petition would ease the burden on Maryland's business community, which has had to find ways to cut emissions to make up for smog from other states, the state said. Another benefit, it said, would be helping with the cleanup of Chesapeake Bay, because up to one-third of the bay's nitrogen pollution comes from air pollution.
“Maryland has made significant progress in improving our air quality in recent years, and that progress is in jeopardy due to a lack of action by the EPA that dates back to the previous administration,” Hogan said in a statement. “We strongly urge the EPA to approve the petition and enforce the air pollution controls.”
The EPA failed to hold a public hearing on Maryland's Clean Air Act Section 126 petition and instead gave itself six months to consider it, the complaint says. More than 280 days have passed since the EPA received Maryland's petition, the complaint says. Maryland urged the court to order the EPA to hold a public hearing within 30 days and to make a finding or deny the petition within 60 days of the hearing.
Delaware and Connecticut
Delaware and Connecticut also filed petitions with the EPA in 2016, targeting plants such as NRG Energy's Cheswick plant outside of Pittsburgh and Duke Energy's East Bend Generating Station in Kentucky.
Delaware is “evaluating the situation” and “evaluating our options,” Michael Globetti, spokesman for Delaware's Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 27 in response to a question about whether the state also planned to sue. He did not elaborate.
Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen sued the EPA in May in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut to require the federal agency to act on a Section 126 petition that the state filed with the EPA June 1, 2016.
Connecticut asked the EPA to take action to stop pollution from Pennsylvania's Brunner Island Steam Electric Station, a coal-fired plant, from blowing into the state, which Jepsen said caused Connecticut's ozone levels to increase. The emissions from the plant “contribute significantly” to Connecticut's inability to keep its ozone levels below required federal levels, Jepsen said in a news release announcing the lawsuit. Connecticut had warned the EPA on March 9, 2017, that it would sue in 60 days if the EPA didn't respond to its 2016 petition, Jepsen said.
“We filed this suit because EPA's lack of action to control emissions from this facility continues to expose our citizens to unhealthy air—even though it is clear that this plant significantly contributes to our pollution in our state and needs to be controlled,” Dennis Schain, Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection spokesman, told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 27 in an email.
Chesapeake Bay
Maryland's petition is more extensive, covering 36 electric generating units at 19 power plants.
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, an environmental group that focuses on the health of the bay, supported the lawsuit.
“For years, Maryland has taken steps to reduce air pollution from power plants and vehicles operating within the state. But about 70 percent of the Baltimore area ozone problem comes from upwind sources of air pollution,” Jon Mueller, vice president for litigation at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said in a statement.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=121437133&vname=dennotallissues&fn=121437133&jd=121437133
-
Democratic AGs Vow Success On Climate Push
Sep 27, 2017 | Inside EPA
Democratic attorneys general (AGs) from New York, Illinois and Maryland are vowing continued pressure on the Trump administration as it seeks to roll back climate policies, while also pledging to support state-led efforts to craft aggressive greenhouse gas reduction measures.
New York AG Eric Schneiderman, Illinois AG Lisa Madigan, and Maryland AG Brian Frosh discussed their efforts at a Sept. 26 event hosted by the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University (NYU), where they also praised the formation of the State Energy & Environmental Impact Center at NYU, funded with a $6 million grant from Bloomberg Philanthropies to boost their legal battles against the administration's climate deregulatory efforts.
Former deputy Interior Secretary David Hayes, who directs the center, said the administration's attempt to “push a one-sided agenda” focused on deregulation prompted a need for a center to help coordinate the AGs' work in a nonpartisan but progressive manner.
Schneiderman said the “collapse of [federal] agencies” and the “unwillingness of Congress” has forced states to exercise their critically important federalism roles. “I don't think it's worth beating around the bush in this situation. We have a lot of work to do,” he said, claiming that federal agencies dedicated to public health and a clean environment are now led by people working to ensure “dirtier air, dirtier water and a less hospitable planet.”
And while the AGs have come together on other issues already -- including to fight Trump's executive orders imposing travel bans -- Scheiderman said there is “no area more important than fighting for our environment and planet.”
He cited as a victory their prior push for the Obama administration to develop the Clean Power Plan. Under Trump, he said states have “established under existing law [EPA is] under an obligation to have regulations for greenhouse gases,” referring to expectations that the Trump EPA intends to replace the power plant GHG rule rather than simply repeal it.
However, he said the AGs will not just play defense but will “fight forward and show what is possible and the best policy” at the state level.
Frosh criticized the Trump administration as not only rejecting the rule of law but also science, and he said that in a difficult time he is “glad there are folks who are optimistic, and I admire them for that. I'm worried and yet determined.”
Later in the event, Madigan stressed her concern about efforts by U.S. AG Jeff Sessions to ban legal settlements that include payments to third parties, which could affect popular EPA supplemental environmental projects (SEPs). She said it was “very disconcerting to hear what Attorney General Sessions has to say” about such payments that often directly remedy communities that have been harmed by an environmental law violation.
Schneiderman said Sessions might say a federal agency can't enter into such agreements, “but it doesn't mean we're going to give up at our end.”
Earlier in the day, Ellen Peter, chief counsel for the California Air Resources Board, criticized the Trump administration and automakers for seeking to weaken joint federal and California light-duty vehicle GHG rules.
She said the Golden State would continue to enforce its own current standards as it looks to set tighter limits for model year 2026 and beyond, and that California will submit comments early next month to EPA arguing that current rules through MY25 should not be changed.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/democratic-ags-vow-success-climate-push
-
API Defends EPA's 'Exceptional Events' Air Rule
Sep 27, 2017 | Inside EPA
The American Petroleum Institute (API) is defending EPA's revised rule allowing states to discount emissions associated with some “exceptional events” such as wildfires and dust storms from counting toward Clean Air Act compliance, backing the agency's decision to allow some man-made events to qualify as “natural” events.
In a Sept. 22 intervenor brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. EPA, et al., API rejects environmentalists' claim that the revised rule changed EPA's definition of “natural” events.
Under EPA's October 2016 rule, state air regulators may apply for permission to exclude air data gathered during “exceptional” circumstances, including “natural events” such as windstorms, from determinations of compliance with federal air quality standards. This applies even where some of the emissions stem indirectly from human activity.
For example, wind-born dust from road building qualifies for a “natural event” exemption so long as reasonable steps are taken to control the road dust. But environmentalists say this exempts emissions that are not truly natural.
API in its brief argues that the 2016 rule merely codifies the agency's understanding of “natural event” from the preamble of EPA's original 2007 exceptional events rule. The preamble stated that, EPA considered “human activity to have played little or no direct role in causing an event-related exceedance or violation if anthropogenic emission sources that contribute to the exceedance are reasonably controlled at the time of the event.”
API says, “The 2016 Rule did not make any substantive revisions to these policies” so “EPA cannot be said to have reopened the definition of natural event for litigation. Any challenge to that definition should have been brought in 2007 and is untimely now,” because the case was filed long after the air law's 60-day window to sue over an air rule.
But if the court does not view environmentalists' challenge as time-barred, it should uphold EPA's definition of “natural event” as reasonable, given that the air law does not define natural event, “and its structure and context provide no clear direction from Congress as to how EPA must interpret that term,” API says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/api-defends-epas-exceptional-events-air-rule
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested