Preview Newsletter
ACC PM Clips Report 10/4/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) Senate to Weigh Key EPA Nominees with Close ties to Chemical, Fossil Fuels Industries
Oct 4, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Brady Dennis
On Wednesday, Senate lawmakers will weigh whether to confirm as the chemical industry’s top regulator a scientist who over the past two decades has helped companies argue against stricter government regulation of potentially harmful compounds in everyday products. -
(ACC Mentioned) Scott Pruitt's EPA is Letting Industry Lobbyists Roll Back Environmental Protections
Oct 4, 2017 | Newsweek
By Alexander Nazaryan
Scott Pruitt, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, is a public official uncommonly close to private industry. -
(ACC Mentioned) Sen. Carper Has Up to $685,000 in Energy Stocks, Objects to Trump’s EPA Nominee Over ‘Industry Ties’
Oct 4, 2017 | Free Beacon
By Elizabeth Harrington
Senator Tom Carper (D., Del.) has significant stock holdings in energy companies that fall under the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee, where he is ranking member. -
(ACC Mentioned) Agency Hosts Industry for 'Mutual Admiration' Talk
Oct 4, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Robin Bravender and Niina Heikkinen
Representatives from a wide range of industries met at U.S. EPA headquarters with Administrator Scott Pruitt's staff yesterday to discuss the Trump administration's regulatory agenda. -
(ACC Mentioned) Renewlogy Joins Plastics-To-Fuel and Petrochemistry Alliance
Oct 4, 2017 | Recycling Today
By Staff
The American Chemistry Council’s (ACC’s) Plastics-to-Fuel and Petrochemistry Alliance (PFPA) has announced that Renewlogy, formerly PK Clean, will become its newest member. Renewlogy, based in Salt Lake City, joins technology providers Agilyx, RES Polyflow and Vadxx Energy in PFPA membership. -
(ACC Mentioned) $150M Pledged to Fight SE Asia Ocean Plastics Problem
Oct 4, 2017 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Jared Paben
Major brands, non-profit organizations and industry groups will raise $150 million to boost the collection and recycling of plastics that may otherwise become marine debris. -
Downstream Users Express concern at TSCA Inventory Requirements
Oct 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
Participants in a US EPA webinar on the chemical substance inventory reset required under TSCA, have expressed alarm at the prospect of being caught between federal rules and uncooperative suppliers. -
Congress and Americans Should Reject Corporate Insider Michael Dourson
Oct 4, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By CJ Frogozo
The Center for Environmental Health (CEH) and the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition vehemently oppose the nomination of Michael Dourson to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). -
(ACC Mentioned) Flame Retardant Ban Becomes Law Over Industry Opposition
Oct 4, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
A Rhode Island proposal to prohibit sales of bedding and furniture treated with a type of flame retardant became law early this morning despite strong opposition from the chemicals industry and without the signature of the governor. -
Dems Lambaste Trump’s ‘Outrageous’ EPA Chemical Safety Pick
Oct 4, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Senate Democrats repeatedly slammed President Trump’s pick to be the nation’s top chemical regulator at a Wednesday hearing, painting him as a hired gun for the industries he would regulate. -
US EPA Finalises Snur on Carbon Nanotubes
Oct 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The US EPA has finalised a significant new use rule (Snur) for a carbon nanotube substance that was the subject of a pre-manufacture notice. -
European Parliament Rejects EDC Criteria
Oct 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
The European Parliament has vetoed the European Commission's proposal for criteria to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in biocides and pesticides, asking it to come up with a new proposal "without delay". -
(ACC Mentioned) Daily on Energy: Ryan Zinke Shifting Interior Department into an Energy Agency
Oct 4, 2017 | Washington Examiner
By John Siciliano and Josh Seigel
The Interior Department’s energy focus “has been a sleepy portfolio,” but that is changing, said Vincent DeVito, energy counselor to Secretary Ryan Zinke, at the first meeting of the new Royalty Policy Committee Wednesday morning. -
Pruitt is Poised to Kill the Climate Rule. What's Next?
Oct 4, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Zack Colman
When Scott Pruitt moves to repeal the regulation governing power plant emissions that he's spent years trying to defeat, his advocates and detractors alike know it may well be the finishing touch on his first act as U.S. EPA administrator. -
BLM Proposes Suspending, Delaying Parts of NatGas Venting/Flaring Rules Until 2019
Oct 4, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The Trump administration said Wednesday it plans to temporarily suspend or delay parts of an Obama-era rule governing associated natural gas flaring and venting on public and tribal lands until January 2019. -
Industry Study Sees Limited Downside to Growing LNG Shipments
Oct 4, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
The U.S. can export more liquefied natural gas with fewer negative consequences for domestic consumers than was envisioned under a federal analysis carried out in 2013, according to new research funded by the American Petroleum Institute. -
States to Court: Keep BLM Out of Climate Change Policy
Oct 4, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Bureau of Land Management has no business fighting climate change, Western states told a federal court this week. -
California Grid Operator Seeks NatGas Storage Rule Changes at FERC
Oct 4, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) has asked FERC to approve two tariff changes designed to overcome current limitations that have been caused by the limited operations at the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility north of Los Angeles. -
Rail Regulation Highlights Need for Required Economic Analysis
Oct 4, 2017 | The Hill - Opinion
By Patrick A. McLaughlin
Federal regulatory reform remains a key priority for both the Trump administration and Congress. One reform that enjoys some bipartisan support is a requirement that independent regulatory agencies conduct a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) before issuing major regulations. -
Rail Supplier News from Wabtec, Herzog, Greenbrier, Quintiq and Outfront Media
Oct 4, 2017 | Progressive Railroading
By Wabtec Corp.
Wabtec Corp. has acquired AM General Contractor, a manufacturer of safety systems for passenger-rail cars. AM primarily builds fire protection and extinguishing systems, including patented infrared technology. -
Groups Threaten Suit Over EPA Delay of Ozone Designations
Oct 4, 2017 | Inside EPA
A coalition of more than 10 environmental and public health groups is threatening to sue EPA for failing to meet an Oct. 1 Clean Air Act deadline to designate areas' attainment with the 2015 ozone standard, saying litigation might be necessary to force issuance of the designations.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Oct 4, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Brady Dennis
On Wednesday, Senate lawmakers will weigh whether to confirm as the chemical industry’s top regulator a scientist who over the past two decades has helped companies argue against stricter government regulation of potentially harmful compounds in everyday products.
Critics say Michael Dourson, a University of Cincinnati professor and longtime toxicologist, is too closely tied to the chemical industry, and has too many conflicts of interest, to be considered for such a post. They point specifically to the nonprofit consulting group he founded in 1995, which over the years has produced research for chemical companies that showed little or no human health risks for their products.
If Dourson, who worked at the EPA from 1980 through 1994, is confirmed to head the agency’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, he potentially could oversee the review of chemicals produced by companies that he has represented in the past.
“In my view, EPA needs someone who at least will entertain the notion that it has not been protective enough [in safeguarding against risks],” said Adam Finkel, an environmental law expert who once worked on a project with Dourson. “His views are the opposite, and I think they are ill-informed.”
The Environmental Defense Fund, an advocacy group, has described Dourson as a “hired gun” for the chemical industry who has “made a career downplaying concerns about chemicals, from harmful pesticides to cancer-causing solvents, paid for that work by the same companies that make or use those chemicals.”
Dourson could not be reached for comment. But the EPA has stood firmly behind his nomination, touting his experience with the agency and his hefty track record of research. In announcing his selection this summer, the agency included recommendation letters from an array of outside supporters, including the director of a Christian family camp in Michigan and a University of Minnesota professor who called Dourson a “wealthy resource of scientific information.”
Some industry representatives also have embraced his nomination. CropLife America, which represents pesticide companies, called Dourson “a perfect fit” for the job. A long list of other organizations, from the American Chemistry Council to Plastics Industry Association, recently urged lawmakers to confirm Dourson and a handful of other EPA nominees.
Dourson is not the only EPA nominee likely to face some opposition this week. A Senate committee on Wednesday also will consider the nomination of Bill Wehrum to head the agency’s Air and Radiation Office. Wehrum spent years at the EPA during the George W. Bush administration and became the acting head of the air office in 2005. President Bush nominated him to lead the office in 2006 but eventually withdrew the nomination after it became clear the Senate did not intend to confirm him.
Wehrum, an expert in Clean Air Act issues, currently is a partner the law firm of Hunton & Williams, where he has represented a variety of oil, gas, coal and chemical companies.
“Bill is committed to the Clean Air Act and to the rule of law,” Jeff Holmstead, the head of the EPA’s air and radiation office in the mid-2000s, wrote in a recent letter to lawmakers. “He is also a person of the highest integrity.”
But Wehrum is almost certain to face opposition from Senate Democrats over his industry ties.
“I don’t think his record of weakening air pollution standards and deferring to industry on public health protections makes his nomination any more acceptable in 2017 [than in 2006],” said Sen Thomas R. Carper (Del.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/10/04/senate-to-weigh-key-epa-nominees-with-close-ties-to-chemical-fossil-fuels-industries/?utm_term=.d878ae0b5c99
-
(ACC Mentioned) Scott Pruitt's EPA is Letting Industry Lobbyists Roll Back Environmental Protections
Oct 4, 2017 | Newsweek
By Alexander Nazaryan
Scott Pruitt, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, is a public official uncommonly close to private industry. Goodwill toward corporations features prominently in his vision for the nation’s natural resources. That attitude—apparently present at least from his time as Oklahoma’s attorney general, when he was seen as doing the bidding of energy concerns—only became more clear with Tuesday’s announcement of the EPA's “Smart Sectors Program,” which will allow regulated industries to have a greater say in how they are regulated.
In contrast to most environmental initiatives, Smart Sectors does not aim to protect the American public, the nation’s waterways, or its national parks. Instead, its purpose is to “reduce unnecessary regulatory burden,” according to a listing in the Federal Register published in late September. As such, it represents something of a departure from what many see as the EPA’s mission.
The EPA would likely counter that Smart Sectors is based on sound precedent. The program bills itself as a reinvention of Sector Strategies, an agency-industry partnership created by President George W. Bush in 2003. The Bush program was itself a reinvention of an arrangement fostered by President Bill Clinton, the Common Sense Initiative. Sector Strategies was canceled by President Barack Obama in 2009.
In a Tuesday press release, the EPA depicted Smart Sectors as the agency “partnering with trade associations that represent the engine of the American economy and significant opportunities for environmental improvement.”
A trade association is a lobbying group, often named in a way to disguise its nakedly political aims. The American Iron & Steel Institute, for example, spent $709,975 on lobbying in 2016, according to publicly available records. Earlier this year, it joined other trade associations in pushing for a loosening of regulations regarding methane waste prevention. On Tuesday, the AISI sent several approving tweets about the EPA's plan “to develop a more sensible regulatory framework.”
The sectors that will collaborate with the EPA on regulatory matters include mining, energy extraction, aerospace, agriculture, concrete production, chemical manufacturing and power generation, among others. The goals of the partnership will include “decreased operating costs” and “lower costs for the American taxpayer.” The final of six goals listed in the EPA press release is “better environmental protection.”
EPA officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment sent early Wednesday morning. The agency’s main spokesperson, Liz Snyder Bowman, comes to the EPA from the American Chemistry Council, a lobbying group for chemical manufacturers. One press release she appears to have authored for that organization in 2015 argues against the removal of phthalates from vinyl flooring. Research points to a causal relationship between phthalate exposure and incidence of breast cancer.
The new EPA initiative seems to only further the narrative that Pruitt is intent on canceling regulations that serve as a hindrance to business interests. Doing so would render the EPA as powerless as it has ever been since its creation by President Richard M. Nixon in 1970.
A recent New York Times review of his daily schedules found that Pruitt “has held back-to-back meetings, briefing sessions and speaking engagements almost daily with top corporate executives and lobbyists from all the major economic sectors that he regulates—and almost no meetings with environmental groups or consumer or public health advocates.” Days earlier, The Washington Post reported that Pruitt has installed a $25,000 communications booth, presumably so his conversations could not be monitored. “No previous EPA administrators had such a setup,” the Post drily noted.
Smart Sectors will be headed by five EPA liaisons to industry who will, according to the press release, work closely with the trade associations. The press release does not plainly say that enforcing regulations, or enacting new ones, will be within the purview of the liaisons. Those do not appear to be primary Smart Sectors goals.
Among the Smart Sectors managers is Daisy C. Letendre, who until this summer was the communications director for Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, Pruitt’s home state. Inhofe is among the staunchest deniers of human-caused climate change in Congress. “The claim that global warming is caused by manmade emissions is simply untrue and not based on sound science,” he said in 2003.
Nena Shaw, who will also be one of the program’s overseers, is a former lawyer with the firm Hunton & Williams, where, according to her EPA profile, she “represented corporate clients, including utilities, home builders, big-box retailers, and chemical manufacturers on environmental law issues primarily under the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.”
Shaw has been with the EPA since 2007, according to her LinkedIn page, meaning she was hired by the Bush administration. She continued to serve under Obama, but in 2015 was strongly criticized by federal judge for slow-walking a Freedom of Information Act request by a conservative watchdog group. The judge said Shaw was “‘surely negligent,’ ‘at best….demonstrated utter indifference to EPA’s FOIA obligations’ and ‘at worst…is lying,’” according to a Politico report on the ruling.
The other three administrators are Elizabeth Corona, Robert Sachs and Kristinn L. Sharpe. They are all longtime EPA employees.
http://www.newsweek.com/epa-scott-pruitt-industry-lobbyists-environmental-protections-677174
-
Oct 4, 2017 | Free Beacon
By Elizabeth Harrington
Senator Tom Carper (D., Del.) has significant stock holdings in energy companies that fall under the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee, where he is ranking member.
Carper has said he will oppose the nomination of Michael Dourson to the Environmental Protection Agency over his ties to industry, though Carper holds up to $685,000 in energy stock and received over $30,000 in campaign contributions so far this cycle from companies his committee has authority over.
Dourson, who was nominated by President Donald Trump to be assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention at the EPA, is a professor in the Risk Science Center at the University of Cincinnati. He worked for the EPA for 15 years starting as a toxicologist before founding the Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA) nonprofit corporation.
TERA, which joined the University of Cincinnati in 2015, has been the subject of attacks against Dourson because the nonprofit provided chemical risk assessments for for-profit companies. One-third of TERA's risk assessments in 2015 were for corporations, such as Coca Cola and the American Chemistry Council, but the majority were conducted on behalf of government and nonprofit groups.
During a confirmation hearing before the Environment and Public Works Committee Wednesday, Carper questioned that Dourson could be an "impartial regulator," holding up a poster that described Dourson as conducting "Science for Sale."
"Dr. Dourson's consistent endorsement of chemical safety standards that not only match industry's views, but are also significantly less protective than EPA and other regulators have recommended, raises serious doubts about his ability to lead those efforts," Carper said last month. "This is the first time anyone with such clear and extensive ties to the chemical industry has been picked to regulate that industry."
Carper has his own ties to companies that his committee has jurisdiction over, according to his most recent financial disclosure. He and his wife own up to $100,000 in Dupont Energy stock, and up to $50,000 in stock with Icahn Enterprises, Duke Energy Corporation, Spectra Energy Corporation, General Electric, First Trust Energy Infrastructure, Dominion Resources, Inc., Marathon Petroleum Corporation, Energen Corporation, and the Chemours Company.
A spokesperson for Carper said pointing out Carper's financial ties to companies that fall under his committee's jurisdiction was a distraction.
"Over his 41 years of public service, Senator Carper has complied fully with all financial disclosure requirements," the spokesperson said. "Efforts to cast a shadow of impropriety over his finances is nothing more than a cheap shot and a diversionary tactic to draw attention away from the Trump administration's troublesome effort to staff the Environmental Protection Agency with people whose entire careers have focused on promoting the interests of industry over the protection of the environment and our public health."
Additionally, Carper and his wife hold up to $15,000 in stock with Chevron, Halliburton, BP, Royal Dutch Petroleum Class B, Anadarko Petroleum, Transocean Ltd., TransAlta Renewables Inc., Pembina Pipeline Corporation, and ClearBridge Energy.
For the 2018 election cycle, Carper has received $32,700 in campaign contributions from the energy political action committees, according to the Federal Election Commission. Carper has received contributions between $1,000 and the maximum $2,500 from the BP Corporation North America PAC, the Dominion Energy PAC, the Energy Corporation PAC, Caterpillar Inc. Employee Political Action Committee, and others.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/sen-carper-685000-energy-stocks-objects-trumps-epa-nominee-industry-ties/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Agency Hosts Industry for 'Mutual Admiration' Talk
Oct 4, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Robin Bravender and Niina Heikkinen
Representatives from a wide range of industries met at U.S. EPA headquarters with Administrator Scott Pruitt's staff yesterday to discuss the Trump administration's regulatory agenda.
The event in the Green Room was headed by Samantha Dravis, Pruitt's top policy aide, as part of EPA's "Smart Sectors" initiative. The agency is touting the new program as a way to get better input from the industries it regulates. Heavy-hitting trade groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Farm Bureau Federation, American Petroleum Institute and National Mining Association were on hand, according to people who attended the meeting.
Pruitt was expected to attend yesterday's meeting, but he traveled to Puerto Rico with President Trump. Dravis led the meeting with EPA's chief of operations, Henry Darwin, according to participants. Several dozen industry representatives attended.
The huddle came as EPA is expected to roll out its plans for repealing the Obama-era Clean Power Plan as early as this week. But climate change rules didn't come up at the meeting, according to those present.
The roughly 90-minute meeting offered few policy details, but industry representatives said afterward that they welcomed the opportunity to tell the administration how EPA regulations impact their sectors.
"It was refreshing," said John McKnight, vice president of government affairs for the National Marine Manufacturers Association.
One industry representative leaving the meeting yesterday called it a "mutual admiration society" between EPA officials and industry that was "loose on details."
EPA billed its new program as a revival of the George W. Bush administration's "Sector Strategies Program." That program came after the Clinton administration launched a "Common Sense Initiative" program in the 1990s. Those programs were aimed at boosting communication between EPA and industry. "Despite [their] successes, Sector Strategies was discontinued in 2009," EPA said in a handout given to industry groups yesterday.
Trade associations welcomed the return of the sector programs, said Paul Noe, vice president of the American Forest & Paper Association. "It was really a kind of informal session, listening and sharing ideas," he said.
One part of the program will involve each industry sector having an "ombudsman" within EPA to serve as a point person with the agency. The program contacts, according to the fact sheet handed out, are EPA employees Daisy Letendre, Nena Shaw, Bob Sachs, Kristinn Sharpe and Elizabeth Corona.
Much of the discussion focused on streamlining the permitting process and creating a more open line of communication with the agency, said Paul Balserak, vice president for environment at the American Iron and Steel Institute.
"We are excited to have someone from EPA who will get to know how steel production works," he said.
Other groups at the meeting included the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, National Association of Minority Contractors, National Association of Manufacturers and American Chemistry Council.
EPA did not provide a timeline for future meetings but assured attendees that the agency would work to get the program going as soon as possible, according to Doreen Littlejohn, program director at the National Association of Minority Contractors.
While industry leaders say this forum provides a welcome opportunity to engage in dialogue with regulators, critics of the administration have accused Pruitt of meeting extensively with industry leaders but spending little time with environmental or health-focused groups.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/stories/1060062497/search?keyword=%22American+Chemistry+Council%22
-
(ACC Mentioned) Renewlogy Joins Plastics-To-Fuel and Petrochemistry Alliance
Oct 4, 2017 | Recycling Today
By Staff
The American Chemistry Council’s (ACC’s) Plastics-to-Fuel and Petrochemistry Alliance (PFPA) has announced that Renewlogy, formerly PK Clean, will become its newest member. Renewlogy, based in Salt Lake City, joins technology providers Agilyx, RES Polyflow and Vadxx Energy in PFPA membership.
“Renewlogy is excited to join PFPA in educating policymakers, communities and others about the important benefits of pyrolysis technologies,” says Renewlogy CEO and founder Priyanka Bakaya. “In addition to creating valuable products from postuse plastics, these technologies can help us reduce the amount of plastics in our waterways.”
Earlier this year, Renewlogy announced plans to open a second facility in Canada that will be operational by early 2018.
The Washington-based ACC says adding Renewlogy to its membership is the latest milestone in PFPA’s forward momentum. In May, the Florida State House and Senate unanimously passed legislation that will help Florida meet its recycling goal and create new manufacturing jobs. The legislation classifies specified postuse plastics as “recovered materials,” so facilities that use technologies such as pyrolysis to convert those plastics into fuels, chemicals and other feedstocks are classified as manufacturing facilities, not as waste management facilities.
In April, Argonne National Laboratory, part of the U.S. Department of Energy, concluded that using pyrolysis to convert postuse nonrecycled plastics into ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel results in significant energy and environmental benefits. The peer-reviewed analysis found that this process can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 14 percent, water consumption by up to 58 percent and traditional energy use by up to 96 percent when compared to ULSD produced from conventional crude oil.
“More governments, communities and businesses are looking for innovative solutions to better manage our postuse resources,” says Craig Cookson, ACC senior director, recycling and energy recovery. “Plastics-to-fuel technologies can help us recover more post-use plastics, generate useful products, create jobs and lower our environmental footprint. We are thrilled to have Renewlogy join our efforts.”
http://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/acc-plastics-to-fuel-and-petrochemistry-alliance-adds-member/
-
(ACC Mentioned) $150M Pledged to Fight SE Asia Ocean Plastics Problem
Oct 4, 2017 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Jared Paben
Major brands, non-profit organizations and industry groups will raise $150 million to boost the collection and recycling of plastics that may otherwise become marine debris.
Announced today, the new initiative will raise money to fund waste management and recycling solutions in Southeast Asia, a region that contributes greatly to the global ocean plastics problem. Supporting the effort are the Ocean Conservancy, Trash Free Seas Alliance and Closed Loop Partners.
Closed Loop Partners, which has invested in recycling infrastructure across the U.S. to boost materials recovery, will manage the funding for the ocean plastics prevention effort.
“Through this initiative, we will invest in and support the municipalities, entrepreneurs, investors and NGOs working to reduce ocean plastics and improve waste management in Southeast Asia,” Rob Kaplan of Closed Loop Partners stated in a press release.
The initiative will focus on investments to improve collection, sorting and recycling markets for Southeast Asia. Nearly half of the plastic that flows into the ocean every year comes from waste streams in five countries: China, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam.
“This is a major breakthrough in the fight for trash free seas,” Susan Ruffo, managing director of international initiatives at Ocean Conservancy, stated in the release. “Our research has found that by improving waste management in Southeast Asian countries, we can cut the flow of plastic going in the ocean by half by 2025. A funding mechanism will take this goal from dream to reality, and support efforts by governments and local groups on the ground to improve their livelihoods and well-being while also improving ocean health.”
Some major names are behind the dollar commitment. The Trash Free Seas Alliance is made up of 28 nonprofit and for-profit organizations. Five members of the group have already pledged enough money to fully fund the design phase of the effort: PepsiCo, 3M, Procter & Gamble, the American Chemistry Council and the World Plastics Council.
The goal is to share the results of the initial phase of work within the next year, according to the release. That will help attract more investors.
The initiative was announced in conjunction with the Our Ocean 2017 conference, an Oct. 5-6 gathering of world leaders in Malta.
https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2017/10/04/150m-pledged-fight-se-asia-ocean-plastics-problem/
-
Downstream Users Express concern at TSCA Inventory Requirements
Oct 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
Participants in a US EPA webinar on the chemical substance inventory reset required under TSCA, have expressed alarm at the prospect of being caught between federal rules and uncooperative suppliers.
"This rule is going to require suppliers and purchasers to work together at an unprecedented level, lest chemicals become inactive," one participant typed during a presentation by Tracy Williamson, chief of the industrial chemical branch in the EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
Ms Williamson walked participants through an online submission but did not answer many questions as the webinar went over the allotted time. Some questions typed by participants are answered by the TSCA statute and regulations, but many concerned what downstream users should do if they don't receive enough information from suppliers.
"If you imported a chemical and the supplier does not answer the joint submission request, "what do you have to do to continue using the chemical?" one participant asked.
"Can you offer guidance on what a manufacturer should do if a supplier will not release constituent information of a mixture?" asked another.
Several of those taking part were dismayed to learn that substances they do not have to report under chemical data reporting (CDR) requirements because they qualify for a low volume exemption, will still have to be reported to the TSCA inventory.
"If we are operating mostly under low volume exceptions (LVEs), and are not aware whether the chemicals are on the inventory, are we required to search for our LVE materials on there?" one attendee asked. "This is Herculean in scope."
Timeline
Ms Williamson said the EPA expects to finalise its reset TSCA inventory by December 2018.
The inventory notification rule requires manufacturers and importers to report by 7 February 2018 all substances covered that they have used in the ten-year 'lookback period' ending 21 June 2016. The EPA will publish a draft inventory "one to two months" later, she said.
"It's going to depend on how many submissions come in close to that 7 February deadline for manufacturers."
Processors (downstream users) have until 5 October 2018. They are not required to report but must do so to avoid having a chemical labelled 'inactive'. They can look at the draft inventory before making the decision, Ms Williamson said.
She said the EPA will publish a final inventory within two months of the October deadline.
"We don't expect to get as many additional chemicals reported during the second phase for processors," Ms Williamson said.
She noted that the final inventory reset rule added a transitional period, so that a substance that has not been reported as active will not be declared 'inactive' until 90 days after the EPA publishes its final inventory. This will allow companies to correct an oversight without having to stop using the substance.
This should also help companies that decide in the autumn of 2018 that they want to reintroduce into commerce a chemical that hadn't been reported, Ms Williamson said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/59627/downstream-users-express-concern-at-tsca-inventory-requirements
-
Congress and Americans Should Reject Corporate Insider Michael Dourson
Oct 4, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By CJ Frogozo
The Center for Environmental Health (CEH) and the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition vehemently oppose the nomination of Michael Dourson to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In today’s hearing, we urge the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to reject Dourson’s nomination as unsafe for the American public. Moving forward with a nominee like Dourson, a clear friend to the tobacco and chemical industries, would discredit the EPA and any process the agency implements for chemical review. American families deserve better leaders than someone like Dourson, who has made a career of weakening toxics regulations.
Dourson has a history of serving the interests of big business and industry, including working for a tobacco front group, the Center for Indoor Air Research, to downplay the effects of secondhand smoke; working for DuPont to recommend safety levels for a chemical that was 150 times higher that DuPont’s own scientists and thousands of time less protective than a later EPA assessment; and working for a Koch Industries subsidiary to show no adverse health impacts to residents from a neighboring petroleum coke facility, when research by the city of Chicago found the opposite.
“What’s so insidious about this newest Trump nominee, is his false appearance of impartiality. When the likes of DuPont tout him as the best person for helping greenlight their toxic chemicals, we’ve got a serious conflict of interest issue. Not just in overseeing certain chemicals, but in overseeing anything at the EPA,” said Ansje Miller, Policy Director at CEH.
“In 2016, Congress gave EPA stronger tools to protect public health from the hazards of toxic chemicals. The person who runs that program has to put public health first. Unfortunately, this controversial nominee has a record of putting the chemical industry first. Michael Dourson is the wrong person for the job of running EPA’s toxics program,” said Liz Hitchcock, Government Affairs Director, Safer Chemicals Healthy Families
Coming right after the appointment of Nancy Beck, a former chemical industry lobbyist, this decision casts yet another shadow over the EPA’s ability to implement the updated Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA) and ensure that the chemicals in our products and environment are safe. Rather than draining the swamp, the Trump Administration is creating a ripe environment for toxic chemicals to flood the marketplace and endanger the nation’s health.
Over 100 groups across the country have petitioned the Committee to reject Michael Dourson’s nominations. Download a copy of the letter, signatories and quotes here.
http://saferchemicals.org/newsroom/congress-and-americans-should-reject-corporate-insider-michael-dourson/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Flame Retardant Ban Becomes Law Over Industry Opposition
Oct 4, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
A Rhode Island proposal to prohibit sales of bedding and furniture treated with a type of flame retardant became law early this morning despite strong opposition from the chemicals industry and without the signature of the governor.
Gov. Gina Raimondo (D) opted not to sign the law, though she did not veto the legislation.
The law, which will take effect in 2019, outlaws the sale of bedding or furniture that contains more than trace amounts of chemicals known as organohalogens.
The American Chemical Council launched a strong opposition campaign.
"This law will remove a critical layer of fire protection and could increase the vulnerability of the citizens of Rhode Island when fires occur," said Bryan Goodman, a spokesman for the chemistry council's North American Flame Retardant Alliance.
Supporters of the law say that the chemicals do little to prevent fires and that when they burn, they release potentially carcinogenic toxins.
Rhode Island is the second state to ban the chemicals, behind Maine, and it already has laws on the books curbing the use of other types of flame retardants.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/10/04/stories/1060062561
-
Dems Lambaste Trump’s ‘Outrageous’ EPA Chemical Safety Pick
Oct 4, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Senate Democrats repeatedly slammed President Trump’s pick to be the nation’s top chemical regulator at a Wednesday hearing, painting him as a hired gun for the industries he would regulate.
Michael Dourson, tapped to lead the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) chemical safety and pollution prevention office, has worked for the last two decades to conduct chemical risk research on behalf of clients including industry groups, companies and governments.
Democrats in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee repeatedly brought up instances when Dourson’s organization, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, made far more industry-friendly findings on chemical exposure risks than the EPA, a state or other authorities.
“Never in the history of the EPA has a nominee to lead the chemical safety office had such deep ties to industry,” Sen. Tom Carper (Del.), the panel’s top Democrat, said of Dourson.
“Never has a nominee had such a long record of recommending chemical safety standards that are as much as thousands of times less protective than those recommended by regulators. Never, to my mind, has a nominee so consistently underestimated the risks of chemical exposures to the most vulnerable among us.”
“You’re not just an outlier on this science, you’re outrageous in how far from the mainstream of science you actually are,” opined Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.).
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) started to cry as she spoke about residents of Hoosick Falls, N.Y., who had come to the hearing. They’ve suffered numerous illnesses, including cancer, due to drinking water contamination perfluorooctanoic acid, linked to a Saint Gobain's Performance Plastics plant.
Dourson was on a panel in 2002 that settled on a far higher safe exposure level of PFOA than the EPA has since concluded.
“I can’t imagine what it would be like to live and not know if the water that your children are being bathed in is safe, if they’re going to get cancer when they’re 25, if they’re going to be able to have kids,” Gillibrand said. “Their lives are so affected by the decisions that you have made.”
“Over the years, you seem to have become quite good and quite comfortable at producing this time of pseudoscience for the highest bidders,” said Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.). “But manipulating science to achieve a predetermined outcome is not what the EPA’s office of chemical safety and pollution prevention should be about.”
While Dourson received the most scorn for the Democrats, they also took on William Wehrum, Trump’s choice to lead the EPA’s air and radiation office. He is an attorney with Hunton & Williams representing numerous industry groups and companies challenging EPA air rules, and he was the air office’s acting head for years under former President George W. Bush.
Carper said that Wehrum, who lives in Delaware, asked the senator to introduce him at the hearing, but he declined, citing his opposition to the nomination.
“I think he’s a good person,” Carper said. “But he’s not, in my judgment, a good choice for this particular job.”
Carper cited 27 times that federal courts have overturned regulations on which Wehrum worked during his previous time at EPA.
Dourson defended himself, saying he would commit to the law and the EPA chemical office’s mission to protect the public and the environment from chemicals.
“If confirmed … I will dedicate my mind, body and spirit to the work of this office, to working with its dedicated staff, to the protection of the American public, including its most vulnerable and its environment from exposure to pesticides and otherwise unregulated chemicals,” he told senators.
“I will not deviate in my decisions from the scientific principles of toxicology and risk assessment that have been taught to me by my mentors and coworkers, nor deviate from the code of ethics of the society of toxicology or my society for risk analysis, nor ever stop listening to my colleagues whose expertise I do not have, but otherwise cherish.”
Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), who came to the committee to introduced Dourson, said his “expertise in his field of expertise has been recognized time and time again.”
The committee also heard from Matthew Leopold, Trump’s nominee to be the EPA’s general counsel; and David Ross, his pick to lead the water office.
Some of the committee’s Republicans criticized the renomination of Jeffrey Baran for a new term at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
“Mr. Baran’s nomination is a big ask,” Committee Chairman John Barrasso(R-Wyo.) said, citing “deeply troubling” votes Baran took on licensing issues at the nuclear regulator.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/353855-dems-lambaste-trumps-outrageous-epa-chemical-safety-pick
-
US EPA Finalises Snur on Carbon Nanotubes
Oct 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The US EPA has finalised a significant new use rule (Snur) for a carbon nanotube substance that was the subject of a pre-manufacture notice.
The substance – bimodal mixture consisting of multi-walled carbon nanotubes and other classes of carbon nanotubes (generic) – is intended to be used as a speciality additive, according to its PMN.
The EPA identified concerns for pulmonary toxicity and oncogenicity and imposed a consent order detailing protective requirements.
To apply these to future users of the substance, the agency issued a proposed Snur as a direct final rule in November 2016. This designated as significant new uses the absence of the protective measures.
The proposal was withdrawn when a commenter noted a discrepancy between the direct final Snur and the consent order. The agency resolved this in the current version, first published in June.
The agency received no comments by the 10 July deadline and published the Snur as final on 3 October. It will be effective from 2 November.
https://chemicalwatch.com/59704/us-epa-finalises-snur-on-carbon-nanotubes
-
European Parliament Rejects EDC Criteria
Oct 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
The European Parliament has vetoed the European Commission's proposal for criteria to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in biocides and pesticides, asking it to come up with a new proposal "without delay".
MEPs approved the objection to the draft criteria that was put forward last month by two MEPs, Jytte Guteland and Bas Eickhout, by 389 votes to 235. There were 70 abstentions.
Agreeing with Ms Guteland and Mr Eickhout's objection, MEPs say the Commission exceeded its mandate by proposing to exempt some substances, designed to attack an organism's endocrine system, from the criteria, even when they cause harm to non-target organisms of the same group of species.
This, they say, was unlawful because it would change an essential element of the plant protection products (PPP) legislation. The regulation specifically calls not to approve substances that have endocrine disrupting properties on other species than the ones targeted.
The European Commission will have to draft a new version of the text, taking into account Parliament’s input. It will be expected to remove the paragraph of the draft criteria proposal that introduced the exemption.
Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis said he regrets the vote and "strongly believes that in this case no deal is a bad deal for EU citizens".
"The Parliament decided to stop the adoption of scientific criteria, which would have ensured better protection of human health and the environment as well as served as a stepping stone to a wider strategy on endocrine disruptors," he said in a statement, adding that the Commission will need to reflect on next steps to take.
Reactions
Both NGOs and industry representatives had fiercely criticised the Commission's proposal. Reaction to the parliamentary veto has been positive.
The Center for International Environmental Law (Ciel) applauded MEPs for "refusing to be complicit in the Commission's attempt to break the law" and standing up "in defiance of a powerful pesticide industry lobby".
"Hopefully, the Commission will finally get the message and present legally sound scientific criteria to identify EDCs," said Giulia Carlini, Ciel staff attorney.
"It is also an opportunity for the Commission to present criteria applicable across sectors of EU law, such as cosmetics, toys and food contact materials, as mandated in the 7th Environment Action Program."
The European Crop Protection Association (Ecpa), which has opposed the criteria since the outset, says they would have been "unworkable, impractical and would have impacted negatively on the competitiveness of European farming".
The veto means, however, that the interim criteria for EDCs will remain in place indefinitely: an undesirable solution, the association says.
The Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) called the veto "a huge opportunity to get the criteria right in order to (...) protect future generations from the long-term effects of endocrine disruptors."
Angeliki Lysimachou of PAN Europe congratulated "all MEPs that have opposed to Commission’s attempt to bend the rules and voted to object the controversial ED criteria proposal that would only prevent removing potentially harmful pesticides from the market".
And ClientEarth lawyer Dr Apolline Roger said the vote had sent a strong signal to the Commission. The European Parliament, she said, had "rightly acted as the guardian of the rule of law and democracy".
https://chemicalwatch.com/59701/european-parliament-rejects-edc-criteria
-
(ACC Mentioned) Daily on Energy: Ryan Zinke Shifting Interior Department into an Energy Agency
Oct 4, 2017 | Washington Examiner
By John Siciliano and Josh Seigel
ZINKE SHIFTS INTERIOR INTO ENERGY AGENCY: The Interior Department’s energy focus “has been a sleepy portfolio,” but that is changing, said Vincent DeVito, energy counselor to Secretary Ryan Zinke, at the first meeting of the new Royalty Policy Committee Wednesday morning.
DeVito said the creation of the committee marks the beginning of energy becoming a “heightened prioritization,” as President Trump’s “energy dominance” agenda now “permeates every part” of the agency’s focus.
“Our focus on energy policy is a new thing” and “this committee has a job unlike any other in the past,” DeVito said. “No other committee … has an agenda and authorization to pursue” the goal of energy development, he said.
Not just royalties: The committee will not be focused solely on royalties, DeVito said. The panel will examine “every financial aspect — the broad spectrum” of issues affecting energy development on public lands and seek to “improve it.”
A force to reckoned with: The committee looks to be “a force under the energy-dominant strategy,” DeVito said. Improving the energy economy will improve the economy for all Americans, he added. Not only will the committee be making recommendations, but it will handle implementation on policy, much like a company would. And that could occur very quickly, he noted.
Running government like a business: “This is a business committee, this is our board, our shareholders are the American people,” DeVito said. He said the panel could implement policy as soon as “tomorrow,” if need be, noting the recent opening of the Berwind Coal Mine that straddles both Virginia and West Virginia as the kind of action the panel would oversee.
TRUMP’S EPA NOMINEES FACE CONFIRMATION HEARING: The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held confirmation hearings Wednesday morning for four of Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency nominees.
The nominees are: Michael Dourson to run the agency's chemical office; Matt Leopold to be general counsel; David Ross to run the water office; and William Wehrum's contentious bid to be the EPA's top air official. The committee also will consider Jeffery Baran's renomination to another five-year term on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Wehrum under fire: Democrats have targeted Wehrum, an energy industry lawyer and former EPA official who would oversee a portfolio dealing with climate change regulations. It’s widely considered the second most important EPA job, and Democrats say Wehrum’s industry ties would complicate his ability to re-evaluate carbon emissions regulations that Pruitt has tapped for review.
‘Not a good choice’: Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware, the top Democrat on the committee, refused to introduce Wehrum, who is a Delaware native, at the hearing.
“He is a good person, but he is not a good choice for this job,” Carper said in his opening remarks.
Who’s who of clients: Wehrum’s clients have included the American Petroleum Institute, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the American Chemistry Council and the National Association of Manufacturers.
Follow the leader: Wehrum in his opening statement suggested he would be faithful to the Trump administration’s deregulatory agenda.
“President Trump and Administrator Pruitt have set a clear agenda that I intend to implement if confirmed to this position,” Wehrum said. “The president has issued executive orders that will eliminate needless and burdensome regulations, simplify and streamline compliance obligations, and strike a better balance between the twin goals of protecting human health and the environment and promoting the economic vitality of the nation.”
Dourson also targeted: Dourson has faced scrutiny for his ties to the chemical industry, which he would be expected to regulate. The New York Times reported Dourson founded a consulting group that represented companies that produced chemicals now under EPA review for their public health risks.
Industry ties, science skeptic: Carper said he was “troubled” by Dourson’s record. “Never before has a nominee [for this role] had such deep ties to industry, and recommended industry standards thousands of times less protective than those recommended by regulators,” Carper said.
The Delaware senator invited people who have suffered from exposure to hazardous chemicals to the hearing.
Vow to protect public: Dourson tried to assure critics. “I will dedicate my mind, body and spirit to the work of this office, to working with its staff, to the protection of the American public and its environment from overexposure to pesticides and chemicals,” he said in his opening statement.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/daily-on-energy-ryan-zinke-shifting-interior-department-into-an-energy-agency/article/2176889
-
Pruitt is Poised to Kill the Climate Rule. What's Next?
Oct 4, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Zack Colman
When Scott Pruitt moves to repeal the regulation governing power plant emissions that he's spent years trying to defeat, his advocates and detractors alike know it may well be the finishing touch on his first act as U.S. EPA administrator.
What comes next is where the drama begins. The forthcoming regulation could be a warmup for the finale — an airing of climate science that either by design or inadvertently shakes public confidence in what scientists understand about how we're heating the planet.
"There's the reality, and then there's what they might attempt to do," said Rachel Cleetus, lead economist and climate policy manager with the Union of Concerned Scientists. "There's no question that he's trying to make mischief here and looking for any avenue possible to try to undermine those authorities EPA has."
This much is known: As soon as this week, Pruitt will order his agency to begin working on a regulation to replace the Clean Power Plan, the carbon rule issued by President Obama that aims to cut electricity-sector emissions 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 (Climatewire, Sept. 27).
Some in conservative circles — including fringe players whom President Trump's insurgent presidency has elevated to new prominence — are dismayed that traditional power players like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce appear poised to get their way in asking for a carbon rule to ensure regulatory certainty.
Those on the far right want the rule decimated, not replaced with a weaker one. They want Pruitt to load the harpoon to take down their white whale — the endangerment finding. That finding, which says human-caused greenhouse gas emissions imperil public health, underpins climate regulation.
That Pruitt, who has openly questioned whether EPA has the right "tools" to address greenhouse gas emissions, might offer a scaled-back carbon regulation doesn't mean he's dropping loftier pursuits on climate science and deregulation, observers said.
"Moving forward with a [Clean Power Plan] rewrite does not necessarily mean the administration intends to abandon a review of the endangerment finding. The CPP is an active regulation that must be dealt with now and largely, unfortunately, through the framework established by the previous administration," Tom Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, said in an email. "It will take time for the Trump administration to change the way the federal government handles greenhouse gas regulation. In the interim, they can't just put everything on hold."
But Pruitt has never publicly said he'd take the endangerment finding to task, which many on the political right and left agree would be almost impossible to overturn given the body of scientific evidence supporting it.
Pruitt has, however, flirted with challenging climate science through a "red team, blue team" exercise to test its assumptions. It's a card he may play even as his agency devotes resources to writing new power plant carbon regulations.
With EPA homing in on a power plant regulation, some are increasingly wondering what shape a red team, blue team exercise will take and what purpose it will ultimately serve. But even some of the concept's supporters are openly questioning how aggressively the administration will pursue the suggestion.
"My answer is a question: why have we heard so little about the red team/blue team issue from the Administration recently?" Pat Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, said in an email.
It's not necessarily a debate that industry or some Republicans want. One industry lawyer called it a distraction designed to let skeptical ideologues feel they've won a battle without actually resulting in substantive policy change.
Pruitt, a former attorney general of Oklahoma, understands that the preservation of the endangerment finding means EPA needs to take some sort of action, Pyle said. But that doesn't preclude Pruitt from challenging the climate regulatory system in the future, he said.
The red team, blue team debate is one way of addressing the climate architecture, Pyle said. He noted it could go beyond the endangerment finding by investigating things like the social cost of carbon, an economic tool used to assign a monetary value to the benefits of reducing carbon emissions.
"It may help build a case to take up the endangerment finding and reframe the social cost of carbon calculations or it may turn out to increase public support for federal greenhouse gas regulations," Pyle said. "We will have to see how it turns out."
Joseph Majkut, climate science director at the libertarian Niskanen Center, said he believes a red team debate could sharpen assumptions and challenge observations that the scientific community might take for granted. And since the scientific body of evidence will show humans are indeed driving emissions that warm the planet, those who expect a red team to upend the climate science debate are engaging in a losing battle.
"What you can get is a careful reconsideration of previously held views because everyone buys into the process, and when you turn the crank, whatever comes out the other side is trustful," Majkut said.
That is, of course, if Pruitt is interested in having an objective discussion.
"When Pruitt says he wants to 'red team and blue team' the climate science, that's a great example of trying to shift the understanding of the science," Jody Freeman, a White House official under President Obama who now teaches at Harvard Law School, said in a recent interview. "That's very hard to come back from."
Pruitt has taken steps to reshape some of the scientific input EPA receives, Cleetus noted. He's exploring a different composition to the agency's Science Advisory Board. He's also solicited advice from the climate skeptic organization the Heartland Institute on whom to add to an eventual climate red team on climate science (Climatewire, Sept. 21).
That he's tapped the Heartland Institute rather than, say, the National Academy of Sciences for the red team, blue team exercise is troubling, Cleetus said. It's similar, she added, to the numerous meetings Pruitt has had with industry officials he regulates compared with almost no environmental groups, his history of suing EPA, and his questioning of whether humans and carbon dioxide are major contributors to climate change.
"So far, we haven't heard anything that this is truly about scientific inquiry," Cleetus said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/10/04/stories/1060062491
-
BLM Proposes Suspending, Delaying Parts of NatGas Venting/Flaring Rules Until 2019
Oct 4, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The Trump administration said Wednesday it plans to temporarily suspend or delay parts of an Obama-era rule governing associated natural gas flaring and venting on public and tribal lands until January 2019.
A proposed rule by the Department of Interior's (DOI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is scheduled to be published in Thursday's Federal Register. The BLM said it was currently reviewing its Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation Rule -- aka the venting and flaring rule -- and "wants to avoid imposing temporary or permanent compliance costs on operators for requirements that may be rescinded or significantly revised in the near future."
Under the proposed rule, the implementation dates for certain parts of the venting and flaring rule that have not yet taken effect would be postponed until Jan. 17, 2019. The BLM said it would accept public comments on the proposed rule until Nov. 6.
"As we strengthen America's energy independence, we intend to evaluate regulations to determine if they unnecessarily encumber energy production, constrain economic growth, or prevent job creation," said Acting BLM Director Michael Nedd. "Our proposal would give the BLM sufficient time to review the 2016 final rule and consider revising or rescinding its requirements."
After conducting a regulatory impact analysis (RIA), the BLM estimated that the venting and flaring rule would impose compliance costs of $114-279 million a year on the oil and natural gas industry, excluding potential cost savings for product recovery.
The Independent Petroleum Association of America and the Western Energy Alliance filed a lawsuit against the rule last November. Montana and Wyoming filed a separate lawsuit, and North Dakota and Texas subsequently joined as petitioners. The two lawsuits were combined at the end of November.
In the proposed rule, the BLM said petitioners opposed to the rule had argued that the bureau had underestimated the compliance costs in the RIA, adding that the costs "would drive the industry away from federal and [tribal] lands, thereby reducing royalties and harming state and tribal economies." The BLM said it was "concerned" it may have underestimated the costs and overestimated the benefits of the venting and flaring rule, hence the need for the delay.
Environmental groups voiced outrage over the BLM's decision.
Earthjustice Vice President Abigail Dillen said, "This latest delay of the BLM methane rule simply reaffirms what we've known all along: when the oil and gas industry says 'jump,' the Trump administration asks 'how high?' Under the Trump administration, the DOI has essentially become an arm of the oil and gas industry, bending over backwards to do the bidding of corporate polluters at the expense of public health and safety."
Sierra Club spokeswoman Lena Moffitt said the rule "would help fight climate change and protect our public lands and communities. Undermining these protections is a slap in the face to the majority of Americans who support them, and to the many people who will breathe polluted air as a result."
Last March, President Trump signed an executive order that called for, among other things, the DOI to review, rescind or revise the venting and flaring rule. The administration in June outlined its plans over the rule in federal court.
Although lawmakers in the GOP-controlled Senate narrowly failed to pass a bill to repeal the rule in May, their counterparts in the House successfully added an amendment to a $1.2 trillion package of appropriations bills last month. The amendment calls for blocking the BLM from enacting the venting and flaring rule.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/111959-blm-proposes-suspending-delaying-parts-of-natgas-ventingflaring-rules-until-2019
-
Industry Study Sees Limited Downside to Growing LNG Shipments
Oct 4, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
The U.S. can export more liquefied natural gas with fewer negative consequences for domestic consumers than was envisioned under a federal analysis carried out in 2013, according to new research funded by the American Petroleum Institute.
API commissioned the study to offer an update to a 2013 analysis ordered by the Energy Department to assess the potential effects of exporting large amounts of LNG.
Over the past four years, changes in natural gas production and market conditions have shown that the resource can be developed at lower cost and in larger volumes than previously expected, the new study says. The result is that LNG exports would lead to about half the domestic price increase than was previously envisioned, the new study says.
The new industry-backed report was carried out by the same consulting firm that studied the issue for DOE, ICF International Inc.
"The U.S. is the world's leader in producing clean and abundant natural gas, and today's study demonstrates that the U.S. can export additional supplies of U.S. natural gas without sacrificing our competitive advantage here at home," said API Chief Strategy Officer Marty Durbin in releasing the new study.
The new analysis estimates the global market for LNG at 32 trillion cubic feet per year by 2040, which is bigger than the 22 trillion cubic feet per year envisioned in 2013.
Two of the study's biggest takeaways weigh on opposite sides of the ledger for LNG export backers. The study finds that domestic natural gas production is more price-responsive than previously estimated, leading to smaller domestic price increases for residential and industrial consumers from a given volume of exports.
"The lower price increases reduce adverse consumer impacts and associate reduction in the purchases of non-energy consumer goods, and reduce demand destruction in the industrial sector," the authors write.
On the other hand, the study suggests that technology advances in natural gas production mean that job creation stemming from higher overall natural gas production "will not be as high as previously estimated."
The report comes at a time of intensifying competition between the natural gas and coal industries. Last week, the Energy Department proposed a rulemaking to favor fuels that offer resilience through on-site fuel storage — namely coal and nuclear — over fuels like natural gas that could be vulnerable to supply interruptions. Kevin Book, an analyst with Clearview Energy Partners LLC, noted at an industry event this week that a "fuel fight" between gas and coal could renew the interest of natural gas producers in expanding in non-power markets like LNG exports (Energywire, Oct. 3).
Click here to read the API study: https://www.eenews.net/assets/2017/10/04/document_ew_02.pdf
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/10/04/stories/1060062505
-
States to Court: Keep BLM Out of Climate Change Policy
Oct 4, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Bureau of Land Management has no business fighting climate change, Western states told a federal court this week.
In briefs to the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, attorneys for Wyoming and Montana argued that the Obama administration's BLM overstepped its authority when it crafted a rule to reduce methane emissions on public and tribal lands.
They say the rule strays far afield from BLM's traditional oversight of public lands.
"Congress has not assigned the burden of solving the problem of global climate change to the Bureau of Land Management, and yet that is transparently what the Bureau sought to do when it promulgated the rule at issue here," the states wrote.
Several states and industry groups have been challenging the Methane and Waste Prevention Rule in court since the Obama administration finalized it last year. Though Trump officials postponed key provisions in June, that delay may soon be overturned by a California court — potentially leaving the rule's short-term fate in the hands of the Wyoming district court.
Separately, the Trump administration is working on a broader freeze of the entire rule and an eventual rescission. The proposed freeze appeared in the Federal Register this morning, and the final rollback of the rule is expected next year.
The Wyoming litigation has been chugging along in the meantime. The petitioner-states say BLM has taken a Mineral Leasing Act duty to "prevent waste" of oil and natural gas and stretched it into broader power to regulate air quality issues. States and industry say that authority rests with U.S. EPA, states and tribes.
The states argue that the MLA and other statutes were never designed to address greenhouse gas emissions. They note that the only reference to air quality standards in the laws setting out BLM's responsibilities is a brief mention in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which directs BLM to require compliance with pollution control measures set by other state and federal agencies.
BLM's methane rule requires oil and gas companies to reduce methane venting and flaring, upgrade equipment, measure flared gas, and control leaks. The Obama administration performed a cost-benefit analysis, finding that the regulation would set industry back $110 million to $279 million per year in operational costs but would include benefits that save operators $20 million to $157 million a year. The rule's environmental benefits, meanwhile, were valued at $189 million to $247 million a year, using a global social cost of methane calculation.
Rule challengers say it was inappropriate for BLM to justify the rule based on environmental benefits when its authority for the regulation stems from the MLA's waste-reduction mandate.
"It is only when the ancillary benefits associated with greenhouse gas reductions are added to the calculus that the Bureau can assert that this rule results in a net benefit," the states told the court. "However, ancillary benefits irrelevant to the problem the Bureau purports to address cannot justify this agency action.
"It may be that the emission of methane into the atmosphere during oil and gas production causes 'negative externalities' and 'market inefficiencies,' but these are not the Bureau's concern," they added later.
Federal methane regulation, the states say, is squarely in EPA's jurisdiction. They note that EPA just last year crafted its own standards for methane emissions from new oil and gas operations. Oddly, the brief repeatedly asserts that EPA successfully stayed the rule, despite a July court decision that rejected the stay.
'Politically driven'
The Independent Petroleum Association of America and the Western Energy Alliance piled on with similar critiques of the Obama methane rule, arguing that the Obama administration crafted the rule because it wanted to meet goals set out in the White House's 2013 Climate Action Plan but wanted to act more quickly than the Clean Air Act's process for regulating existing sources would allow.
BLM's methane rule for existing sources on federal lands was finalized a few months after EPA unveiled its standard for methane emissions from new sources located on and off federal lands. Obama's EPA was gathering information for eventual restrictions on emissions from existing sources, too, though the Trump administration scuttled that effort.
"Ultimately, the Rule's development and timing reveals a politically driven purpose of addressing climate change, not preventing waste," industry lawyers told the court.
In a separate brief, lawyers for North Dakota and Texas argued that BLM's methane rule also treads on states' regulatory turf because it applies to private and state oil and gas interests that are lumped into development pools with federal oil and gas.
"BLM's Final Rule would displace North Dakota and Texas from their role as the primary regulator over state, private, and (by agreement) tribal mineral interests that are pooled with any federal mineral interests, and instead place that authority in the hands of the BLM. Preventing the 'waste' of the state's oil and gas resources is a central purpose of North Dakota's and Texas's oil and gas laws," they wrote.
In a preliminary injunction decision in January, Judge Scott Skavdahl was sympathetic to the challengers' claims. He declined to freeze the rule at the time but agreed that BLM may have "hijacked EPA's authority under the guise of waste management."
Responses to this week's briefs are due Nov. 6 from the Trump administration and environmental groups that support the Obama BLM rule. Government lawyers will likely move to freeze court proceedings before then.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/10/04/stories/1060062507
-
California Grid Operator Seeks NatGas Storage Rule Changes at FERC
Oct 4, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) has asked FERC to approve two tariff changes designed to overcome current limitations that have been caused by the limited operations at the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility north of Los Angeles.
CAISO has asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to make the change effective Nov. 30, the start of the traditional winter season for gas storage.
The loss of the 86 Bcf capacity Southern California Gas Co. (SoCalGas) storage facility is "expected to continue to stress the gas system in Southern California," said CAISO’s Keith Casey, vice president, market/infrastructure development. "In addition, physical gas limitations can exist throughout the CAISO and western energy imbalance market (EIM) balancing areas."
As a result, CAISO said in a filing to FERC last week that it is seeking to make the maximum natural gas burn constraint permanent throughout the balancing areas in the western EIM.
As of Sunday (Oct. 1), Portland General Electric began full participation in CAISO's real-time EIM.
Last July, the 3,600-acre Aliso Canyon facility was cleared by the California Public Utilities Commission and Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) to reopen at limited capacity following months of rigorous inspections and well analysis by state engineering and safety enforcement experts. The limited reopening was designed to “protect public safety and prevent an energy shortage in Southern California,” officials said at the time.
In the FERC filing, CAISO said its experience over the past 12 months has shown that the use of the maximum gas burn limits have proven to be both "prudent and particularly effective." Also based on an interagency task force study completed earlier this year, limitations resulting from the loss of Aliso Canyon's full operations are expected to "continue to stress" the gas system in Southern California.
One set of the tariff revisions sought by CAISO would extend indefinitely three existing temporary measures -- day-ahead market gas index, adjustments to commitment cost caps and default energy bids, and after-the-fact fuel cost recovery measures.
The second set of proposed changes would be made permanent and apply western-wide: maximum gas constraint, employing market power mitigation tools in constrained areas, virtual bidding, and pre-pay day-ahead information.
On an ongoing basis, gas cost estimates would be increased to calculate the CAISO real-time market commitment costs bid cap and default energy bids for generators on the SoCalGas and San Diego Gas and Electric Co. gas systems.
"This allows generators' real-time bid prices to better reflect gas system limitations and gas prices," Casey told FERC.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/111955-california-grid-operator-seeks-natgas-storage-rule-changes-at-ferc
-
Rail Regulation Highlights Need for Required Economic Analysis
Oct 4, 2017 | The Hill - Opinion
By Patrick A. McLaughlin
Federal regulatory reform remains a key priority for both the Trump administration and Congress. One reform that enjoys some bipartisan support is a requirement that independent regulatory agencies conduct a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) before issuing major regulations.
Independent agencies would incorporate a few basic economic principles into their decisionmaking process, helping them focus on actions that are more likely to create positive economic outcomes while avoiding misguided actions that could cause more harm than good.
But regulatory reform isn’t a priority for the mere sake of “draining the swamp.” Instead, policymakers increasingly recognize that the accumulation of red tape over the past several decades has created a substantial drag on economic growth and poses substantial barriers to another campaign promise — upgrading America’s infrastructure.
Wednesday’s House Transportation Committee hearing will focus on the challenges of delivering a 21st-century infrastructure. One of those challenges is a recent rulemaking from the Surface Transportation Board (STB) on so-called “competitive switching” for rail shippers, a textbook case for why an RIA requirement is essential for sensible decisionmaking.
An RIA provides crucial information necessary to make decisions about whether and how to regulate. A complete RIA includes evidence about the nature and cause of the problem regulators seek to solve, alternative possible solutions and the benefits and costs of these alternatives.
However, the executive order that requires executive branch agencies to perform RIAs for significant rulemakings does not apply to the independent regulatory agencies, including the STB (although legal scholar C. Boyden Gray argues that the RIA requirements could and should be extended by executive order to independent agencies).
The STB regulates freight railroads and is a quintessential independent regulatory agency. It took over the regulatory responsibilities of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), the first independent federal regulatory commission, which was created in 1887 and abolished in 1996.
In January, the STB finished taking public comments on a proposed regulation defining when a shipper can require a railroad to switch the cars carrying the shipper’s freight to another, competing railroad without physical access to the shipper.
This “competitive switching” sounds complicated, but think of it as sending a package via UPS and then requiring that they hand the package off to FedEx at the city limits.
Under current policy, regulators require competitive switching only if the shipper can show that switching is necessary to prevent or remedy some anticompetitive abuse committed by the railroad serving its facilities.
The proposed changes would adopt expansive and open-ended criteria that give the STB wide discretion to decide when to impose competitive switching in response to a shipper’s request.
The board could impose competitive shipping if it is “practicable and in the public interest” — allowing it to consider virtually any factors — or “necessary to provide competitive rail service” — even if the railroad’s rates are reasonable and no anticompetitive abuse has occurred.
Board member Ann Begeman noted in dissenting from much of the proposal that the STB was essentially in the dark about the likely effects: “I firmly believe that what we do here, ultimately, could cause greater harm than good. Or, it may result in nothing more than an empty promise to prospective applicants.”
That kind of uncertainty should alarm both shippers and railroads. A high-quality RIA would have addressed those concerns and examined alternatives that could be more effective or less burdensome.
Again, a thorough RIA starts by defining and identifying the cause of the problem that regulators seek to solve. In this case, current policy defines the problem as anticompetitive abuse and requires shippers to furnish evidence of this abuse to qualify for competitive switching.
The new STB proposal defines the problem differently; it simply claims that proving anticompetitive abuse is too difficult. Its sole evidence is that there have been very few competitive switching cases brought before regulators since the current policy was adopted in 1985, and shippers have never won a case. But these facts are not sufficient proof.
Perhaps it is too difficult to prove anticompetitive abuse under current policy — or perhaps little anticompetitive abuse has occurred. A thorough RIA would have systematically examined that question to determine whether there is a major problem.
But for the sake of argument, assume that the current policy is so cumbersome that it allows some anticompetitive abuse to occur. The STB appears to have ignored workable alternative solutions that a thorough RIA would have considered.
The most direct and obvious solution would be to provide more specific and direct guidance on what constitutes evidence of anticompetitive abuse. This would give shippers a clearer idea of the kind of evidence needed to win a case.
It could also help deter anticompetitive conduct by warning railroads about the kinds of behavior regulators believe is questionable.
Another solution was proposed in 2015 by a Transportation Research Board committee (on which my colleague Jerry Ellig served). The committee suggested that the STB develop a screening model to identify whether a shipper appears to be paying unusually high rates, and then allow a shipper paying unusually high rates to take its case to an arbitrator. The shipper could ask for competitive switching as a remedy.
More information is needed before moving forward with either of these alternative solutions. All too often, independent regulators fail to undertake this kind of comparison. For this reason, regulatory impact analysis is not just a good idea; it should be the law.
Patrick A. McLaughlin is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/353794-rail-regulation-highlights-need-for-required-economic-analysis
-
Rail Supplier News from Wabtec, Herzog, Greenbrier, Quintiq and Outfront Media
Oct 4, 2017 | Progressive Railroading
By Wabtec Corp.
Wabtec Corp. has acquired AM General Contractor, a manufacturer of safety systems for passenger-rail cars. AM primarily builds fire protection and extinguishing systems, including patented infrared technology. The company also provides aftermarket services and components for both rail and industrial markets. The acquisition will open up growth opportunities in an expanding retrofit market over the next five years, said Wabtec President and Chief Executive Officer Raymond Betler in a press release. Financial details of the transaction weren't disclosed.
Fort Worth & Western Railroad (FWRR) has selected Herzog Technologies Inc. to provide positive train control (PTC) hosting services, which are designed to simplify and accelerate PTC implementation. Herzog's hosting services also will help make the short line interoperable with its host railroads, company officials said in a press release. FWRR is implementing PTC on a number of locomotives as required by federal legislation. The railroad operates 276 miles of track through eight counties in North Central Texas.
The Greenbrier Cos. Inc. has received orders for 3,900 rail cars during its fourth fiscal quarter ended Aug. 31. Valued at $320 million total, the orders are for a range of rail-car types, including double-stack intermodal units, covered hoppers, automotive-carrying units and tank cars. The activity demonstrates the "benefit of focusing on core North American business" as the company continues to gain traction in the international markets, said Greenbrier Chairman and Chief Executive Officer William Furman in a press release. The company also expects its diluted earnings per share guidance has grown from $3.45 to $3.65 for the fiscal-year ended Aug. 31.
Quintiq's workforce planning software has gone live at New Zealand's KiwiRail after a nine weeks of implementation. Quintiq's software is designed to improve workforce planning and rostering at KiwiRail, which has 3,400 staff members in multiple locations across New Zealand. In addition, the software will support KiwiRail's workforce optimization goals by equipping planners with tools to make informed decisions about scheduling, Quintiq officials said in a press release.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority's (MTA) board has chosen Outfront Media Inc. to provide advertising and digital communications platform across the agency's subway, commuter-rail and bus systems. The agreements will continue Outfront Media's long-term public-private partnership with the MTA and present new opportunities for the agency to provide real-time updates for riders, company officials said in a press release. Working with the MTA, Outfront Media will deploy more than 50,000 digital displays across the agency's systems. After the execution of definitive agreements, Outfront's "Liveboard" digital displays will be installed on a rolling basis beginning in 2018.
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/supplier_spotlight/news/Rail-supplier-news-from-Wabtec-Herzog-Greenbrier-Quintiq-and-Outfront-Media-Oct-4--52954
-
Groups Threaten Suit Over EPA Delay of Ozone Designations
Oct 4, 2017 | Inside EPA
A coalition of more than 10 environmental and public health groups is threatening to sue EPA for failing to meet an Oct. 1 Clean Air Act deadline to designate areas' attainment with the 2015 ozone standard, saying litigation might be necessary to force issuance of the designations.
The groups in an Oct. 3 notice of intent (NOI) tell EPA they will file a civil suit 60 days from the date of their NOI to force EPA to issue the designations unless it does so before that time.
“EPA has a legal and moral duty to protect Americans from the dangers of smog. Ignoring the legal deadlines set by the Clean Air Act is unacceptable,” said Peter Zalzal, lead attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund -- one of the environmental groups that signed the NOI. “Moving forward with these protections will provide life-saving benefits to our families and communities, and make sure we all have cleaner, safer air to breathe.”
The threatened suit could pose a test for EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt who had pledged to meet the deadlines and avoid litigation. “Under previous Administrations, EPA would often fail to meet designation deadlines, and then wait to be sued by activist groups and others, agreeing in a settlement to set schedules for designation,” Pruitt said in an Aug. 3 statement. “We do not believe in regulation through litigation, and we take deadlines seriously.”
But the groups argue in their NOI that the agency is violating section 107(d)(1)(A) of the air law that requires EPA to issue attainment and nonattainment designations within no more than two years after finalization of a new national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The Obama EPA on Oct. 1, 2015, tightened the ozone standard from 75 parts per billion (ppb) down to 70 ppb, making Oct. 1 this year the two-year mark for issuing the findings.
An agency spokeswoman told Inside EPA on Oct. 2 that there is “no further information” on when EPA might issue the designations, which states need to start their NAAQS compliance planning.
Issuance of a designation as either in attainment or in one of the several rankings of nonattainment -- such as “moderate” or “severe” -- guides states on the extent of the ozone emissions-reduction measures they will have to include in their state implementation plans they write for meeting the standard.
State air regulators at a recent conference said that the lack of final designations has thrown a “wrench” into their process for crafting plans to comply with the 2015 ozone standard.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt -- who in his prior role as Oklahoma's GOP attorney general opposed the 2015 rule tightening the NAAQS -- this summer tried to postpone the designations until Oct. 1, 2018, citing a lack of data to make the findings. Environmentalists and several Democratic states then sued, and the agency soon reversed the decision.
But the agency's designations website shows no updates since Aug. 2 when EPA announced the withdrawal of the delay.
Environmentalists and public health groups in their NOI now say that unless the agency releases the designations within 60 days, they will sue to force issuance of the findings.
The groups that signed the NOI are: EDF, Earthjustice, the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, the American Thoracic Society, the Appalachian Mountain Club, the Environmental Law & Policy Center, the National Parks Conservation Association, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club and West Harlem Environmental Action.
https://insideepa.com/the-daily-feed
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested