Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 10/18/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) I Recorded The Fatphobic Things People Said For 3 Weeks, & They Need To Keep My Daughter Out Of It
Oct 17, 2017 | Romper
By Marie Southard Ospina
I've crafted a kind of bubble for myself to exist in feminist, body-positive corners of the internet and real world surrounded by kind, feminist people. There, I can create a fat-positive world for my daughter free of fat shaming, of diet talk, of calorie-counting, or of body critiquing. -
(ACC Mentioned) Controversial Chemicals Nominee Already At Agency
Oct 18, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Kevin Bogardus
Michael Dourson, President Trump's pick to lead the U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, is already working at the agency, E&E News has confirmed. -
More Than 50 Public Health Scientists Sign Letter Opposing Dourson’s Nomination For EPA's Toxics Office
Oct 17, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Today a letter was submitted to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee signed by more than 50 public health scientists from dozens of universities voicing their strong opposition to the nomination of Michael Dourson to lead the EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP). -
Pruitt's Plan To End 'Sue-And-Settle' Fails To Address Pending Suits
Oct 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is pledging to prospectively end the practice of “sue-and-settle” -- where the agency enters into a legal agreement with select groups to take an action by a date certain -- but his plan is doing little to help parties in pending suits seeking to participate in such settlements as agency lawyers continue to argue they lack standing. -
US EPA Releases Draft Strategic Plan
Oct 18, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The chemicals management section of the US EPA's draft strategic plan for fiscal years 2018-2022 – the first under President Trump – largely restates statutory requirements and deadlines imposed by the 2016 TSCA amendments. -
CDC Sounds Alarm on Chemical Contamination in Drinking Water
Oct 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto, David Schultz and Sylvia Carignan
A top environmental official at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the scientific community is just beginning to grasp the scope of how much drinking water could be contaminated with a potentially toxic class of industrial chemicals. -
California Enacts Cleaning Product Law
Oct 18, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
Makers of cleaning products sold in California will have to reveal ingredients online and on product labels, under a first-of-its-kind law signed by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) on Oct. 15. New York is expected soon to finalize a regulation requiring similar disclosure of cleaning product ingredients. -
US CPSC Proposes Exempting Engineered Wood Products From Testing
Oct 18, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The US Consumer Product Safety Commission has proposed exempting certain wood products from requirements to conduct independent testing that demonstrates compliance with prohibitions on phthalates, lead and other chemicals. -
CPSC Poised to Ban Toxic Phthalates in Toys, Kid’s Products
Oct 17, 2017 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Daniel Rosenberg
Tomorrow, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) will vote to ban the use of several toxic chemicals—that are part of a category of chemicals known as phthalates (“thal-ates”)—from toys and child care articles such as teethers, pacifiers and sippy cups. -
Industry Urges Ontario To Eliminate Chemicals Reporting Law
Oct 18, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
Representatives from Canadian industry have urged the province of Ontario to eliminate or amend its Toxics Reduction Act (TRA). They argue it duplicates federal reporting requirements and forces businesses to develop expensive chemical management plans they are not even required to implement. -
(ACC Mentioned) Exxon Mobil Fires Up Huge New Texas Plant Just Two Months After Harvey Hit The Gulf Coast
Oct 18, 2017 | CNBC
By Tom DiChristopher
Exxon Mobil on Tuesday began production at a new petrochemical facility in Mont Belvieu, Texas, just two months after Hurricane Harvey pummeled the U.S. Gulf Coast and hobbled the U.S. refining and specialty chemicals hub. -
(ACC Mentioned) The CAB And Why It’s Significant To The US Industrial Gases Industry
Oct 17, 2017 | GasWorld
By James Barr
The American Chemical Council (ACC), the founders of the Chemical Activity Barometer (CAB), note that the chemical industry produces materials that are used very early in the US supply chain, so by monitoring various indicators in the chemical industry, it is possible to identify more general economic events months in advance. -
Energy Regulator Wants Faster Review of Gas Pipelines
Oct 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission wants to speed up federal review needed to build natural gas pipeline, but said he disagrees with another commissioner's suggestion to rely less on existing pipeline contracts. -
NatGas Playing Major Role in Renewable Energy Growth Across Western States, Say Experts
Oct 18, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Kinder Morgan Inc.’s (KMI) Will Brown, vice president of business management for the western region gas pipeline business, likes to tell customers his company is focused not just on transporting natural gas, but making sure it’s delivered reliably. -
Next Wave of US LNG Export Facilities Could Face Credit Risk: S&P
Oct 17, 2017 | Platts
By Harry Weber
Cheap, abundant US supplies of natural gas combined with forecasts of growing global LNG demand early next decade are not enough to ease the uncertainty facing the next wave of LNG export projects, S&P Global Ratings said Tuesday, citing high construction costs and the challenges in securing long-term supply contracts. -
Under EPA Pressure, Industry Withdraws Guide For RMP Rule Compliance
Oct 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
The chlorine industry has dropped a controversial guidance based on a novel dispersion modeling approach for assessing risks from toxic gas releases in response to an EPA directive to withdraw it because it “significantly under-predicts” off-site consequences of releases and to advise facilities not to use the method for complying with its Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility safety rules. -
Safety Board Makes Case for ExxonMobil Refinery Blast Records
Oct 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Should the U.S. Chemical Safety Board have access to ExxonMobil Corp. records related to a risky near-miss incident at the company's one-time Torrance, Calif., refinery? -
Colorado Tightens Pipeline Testing Rules After Fatal Explosion
Oct 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
A fatal explosion caused by a severed Anadarko Petroleum Co. natural gas flow line is driving tighter requirements to test oil and gas pipelines in Colorado. -
Senate Republicans Seek to Offer Input on Infrastructure Package
Oct 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Shaun Courtney
Senate Commerce Committee Republicans hope an Oct. 18 meeting with the White House infrastructure team will provide clarity and allow senators to offer input on a funding package, the committee chairman told Bloomberg Government Oct. 17. -
Most Companies’ Financial Reports Don't Mention Climate Risks
Oct 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrea Vittorio
Almost three-quarters of companies worldwide don't include in annual financial reports the risks that climate change could pose to their business, according to new research from KPMG International. -
CPP Backers Seek Ruling, Charging Repeal Leaves GHG Duty 'Unfulfilled'
Oct 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan and Dawn Reeves
In a potential threat to Trump administration efforts to roll back the Clean Power Plan (CPP), state and environmentalist supporters of the rule are urging an appellate court to issue a long-delayed ruling in litigation over the rule's merits, charging that EPA efforts to repeal it without firm plans for a replacement would leave its obligation to regulate power sector greenhouse gases “unfulfilled.”
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Oct 17, 2017 | Romper
By Marie Southard Ospina
I've crafted a kind of bubble for myself to exist in feminist, body-positive corners of the internet and real world surrounded by kind, feminist people. There, I can create a fat-positive world for my daughter free of fat shaming, of diet talk, of calorie-counting, or of body critiquing.
If I choose to do so, I can go days — sometimes weeks — hearing only affirming, complimentary language about all types of figures. I can start to forget that this world of mine isn't the real world. Sooner or later, however, the bubble bursts. Maybe I have to go to the grocery store. Maybe I decide to visit friends in the city. Maybe I catch up on my Instagram comments. Maybe I go to the beach in a bikini. Then, it's only a matter of time before fatphobic language or blatant insults come my way.
The truth of my body is that it is large and wobbly. My shoulders are broad and soft. My belly hangs and my ass is not unlike the moon, with dimpled craters across its surface. When I step on the scale, I am typically greeted by a number anywhere between 250 and 280 pounds. I occupy a lot of space and for this reason alone, there are very few places IRL that I can move through without risking some kind of heckling.
For three weeks, I thought I'd record some of the fatphobic remarks directed at me. Some were irrevocably malicious. Others weren't intended to be hurtful, but stung nonetheless. Others still were a reminder that even otherwise progressive, open-minded, feminist people can harbor a lot of antagonism towards bodies like mine. All of them made me more certain than ever that I want to do better by my own daughter; that I want her to know — beyond a semblance of a doubt — that the variations in our bodies aren't problems to be solved."I don't think that dress was made for you, honey."
I hear some variation of this comment almost every time I dress in something assumed to be off-limits to fatties. Whether I don shorts, a tight-fitting skirt, a two-piece swimsuit, a bold color, a horizontal stripe, or (as in this case) a short dress with sheer tights, I almost always hear a snicker, a jab, or spot a point-and-laugh.
On this occasion, the "advice" came from a slender older woman in a public bathroom. I'm certain that she didn't mean any harm. It was implied by the tone of her voice that she believed she was being helpful. She was giving me sartorial advice that, in her eyes, would make me look more "presentable." She probably thought women my size should be sticking to A-line cuts and black hues.
I responded with something like, "Well, m'am, it's a plus-size dress specifically made for plus size people. I also really like it, so it actually was made for me."
She didn't seem pleased. Muttering something like, "You have to be mindful. People don't want to see big girls in those things," she walked away quickly. I was reminded of how often women, in particular, are expected to make decisions based on what will appease the masses rather than appease themselves. My body does not exist to cater to the prejudices of others, though. My wardrobe needn't do so, either. After all, I'm 99 percent sure that a dress like this wouldn't have registered as "offensive" if worn by a thin person. Why should it be offensive on me?"She's got your chins, doesn't she? Maybe she'll grow out of that."
Before having my daughter, a couple of friends of mine who had their own kids had cautioned me about "mean parents": Parents who seemingly love to put down kids who haven't hit their milestones, or moms and dads with particularly unruly toddlers, or babies who they don't find especially cute. At two baby groups, I've encountered such parents. On both occasions, they thought it wise to fat shame both my daughter Luna and me.
Most recently, a mom couldn't wait to poke fun at my infant's double chin, which she figured I must've passed down given the roundness of my own face. It was clear that she felt double chins were some kind of problem. As if — at only nine months old — they signaled some kind of failure on Luna's part. I guess she should be steering clear of all that baby mush, right?
The most troubling thing about moments like these is the realization that not even a baby — someone who cannot yet speak, walk, or truly conceptualize much of what is happening around them — can escape fat shaming. We start them young, don't we?"
Fat c*nt."
So original, right?
I cannot tell you how many times I have been called a fat c*nt, b*tch, or slob simply for taking up some space on the sidewalk. Last week, this one was delivered by a teen girl in a school uniform. I'm pretty sure her exact words were, "Look at that fat c*unt," as she grabbed her friend so that they could watch the ~spectacle~.
That's the thing, isn't it? Once people reach a certain size, we begin to treat them as objects of public consumption. Fatness becomes a source of entertainment. It becomes a thing to laugh at, to ruminate over, to mock, to scold, or sometimes to physically shove or push against. Fat people are regularly treated as epidemics, after all, and this clinical language does nothing but to further de-humanize us. As a result, people can get away with failing to perceive us as fellow people. They can get away with treating us like things with which to do as they please."Ever considered donating some of that food you're eating?"
This is one of my favorite forms of fatphobia, by which I mean that it's one of my favorite remarks to dissect and tear apart.
For starters, it assumes that all fat people have gained weight because of their diets. In actuality, there are myriad reasons a person could be fat. They include, but are not limited to, personal preference, health conditions such as Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome, or household income. People shouldn't be expected to offer reasons or justifications for their bodies, though. They should just be allowed to live.
If someone wants to talk about my failure to donate enough food, however, I'm more than happy to have that conversation. I'm happy to talk about how Americans lead the world in food waste, discarding approximately 60 million tons of produce (or $160 billion worth) a year. According to the American Chemistry Council, the average family in the U.S. also throws away about $640 worth of food per annum. I'm happy to ask them how often they discard their leftovers or let all that fresh fruit they bought grow moldy and rotten.
Personally, I'm grateful for the food I'm lucky enough to have. I'm so grateful that, yes, I'd rather eat it than throw it in a trash bin.
https://www.romper.com/p/i-recorded-the-fatphobic-things-people-said-for-3-weeks-they-need-to-keep-my-daughter-out-of-it-2303017
-
(ACC Mentioned) Controversial Chemicals Nominee Already At Agency
Oct 18, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Kevin Bogardus
Michael Dourson, President Trump's pick to lead the U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, is already working at the agency, E&E News has confirmed.
"Dr. Dourson's title is adviser to the administrator," an EPA spokesman said yesterday evening.
Shortly after EPA acknowledged the former environmental health professor's role, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee announced it was indefinitely postponing votes scheduled for this morning on Dourson and other nominees.
A spokesman for Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) declined to comment on the reason for the delay. But there were concerns about whether at least one of the candidates would get enough votes (see related story).
Dourson's previously unannounced position at the agency is troubling to watchdogs. "Until he is confirmed, he shouldn't be working there," said Meredith McGehee, chief of policy, programs and strategy at Issue One, an ethics advocacy group.
McGehee said the ethics pledges Dourson agreed to abide by as assistant administrator of chemical safety and pollution prevention don't apply until, and unless, he gets that job.
One promise Dourson made is to not participate in "any particular matter" involving the North American Flame Retardant Alliance, a component of the chemical industry's top lobby group, the American Chemistry Council, which paid him $10,000 last year (E&E News PM, Sept. 15).
"With political appointees, there is an oath to take or a paper to sign," McGehee said. "And until that moment, they do not have the same obligations and they should not have the same responsibilities."
Dourson isn't the first Trump EPA nominee to advise Administrator Scott Pruitt without full Senate approval. Susan Bodine, his choice for assistant administrator of enforcement and compliance assurance, began working at the agency last month as special counsel to the administrator on compliance.
But unlike Dourson, who has encountered fierce opposition from Democrats and environmental groups for his ties to industry, Bodine had already been cleared by the committee and was widely expected to be confirmed (Greenwire, Sept. 14).
The reason Bodine's enforcement chief bid is stalled is largely because Senate Democrats have refused to back any EPA nominees until Pruitt is more responsive to the minority party's oversight requests. Republicans, led by Barrasso, have slammed that reasoning as an excuse for short-staffing the agency's leadership ranks (Greenwire, Oct. 4).
EPA said Dourson was advising Pruitt after E&E News began raising questions about his role at the University of Cincinnati. An email sent Monday to Dourson's university email address produced a "delivery failure" notice.
Then yesterday — after the university received a records request from E&E News about Dourson's employment status — his staff biography on the College of Medicine website disappeared.
It previously noted that Dourson "is a board-certified toxicologist with an international reputation for excellence in environmental risk assessment."
In brief phone calls, two of Dourson's former university colleagues said he had left the school. They declined, however, to offer further details and referred questions to the university press office.
Other administrations, including President Obama's, have hired nominees as advisers as they wait for Senate confirmation, a process that can take months or years.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/10/18/stories/1060063925
-
Oct 17, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Today a letter was submitted to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee signed by more than 50 public health scientists from dozens of universities voicing their strong opposition to the nomination of Michael Dourson to lead the EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP).
The scientists' letter states, in part:
Granting Dr. Dourson the responsibility of overseeing EPA OCSPP would threaten the agency’s ability to credibly and effectively address harmful chemical exposures. Dr. Dourson has built a career of abusing science to mischaracterize real-world chemical risks and in doing so has jeopardized public health, including the health of those most vulnerable among us like pregnant women and children.
The letter comes in advance of a vote on his nomination by the Senate Committee, currently scheduled for this Wednesday at 10am EDT. If he is voted out of committee, a majority vote of the full Senate would then be required for his nomination to be confirmed.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/10/17/more-than-50-public-health-scientists-sign-letter-opposing-doursons-nomination-for-epas-toxics-office/
-
Pruitt's Plan To End 'Sue-And-Settle' Fails To Address Pending Suits
Oct 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is pledging to prospectively end the practice of “sue-and-settle” -- where the agency enters into a legal agreement with select groups to take an action by a date certain -- but his plan is doing little to help parties in pending suits seeking to participate in such settlements as agency lawyers continue to argue they lack standing.
One industry source says it is “a bit unusual” for EPA to change course while continuing to oppose intervention in existing cases. “It seems if they take the position to allow [states and industry to participate in new settlements], they should be allowing that across the board.”
Pruitt issued an Oct. 16 directive that sought to end the practice of “sue-and-settle,” a term that he and other critics have long used to describe litigation routinely brought by environmentalists during the Obama administration to win what they blast as “sweetheart deals” that require EPA and other agencies to issue regulations.
But environmentalists reject the term, saying such suits are brought most often to force EPA to comply with missed statutory deadlines. Moreover, settlement of the suits usually does not result in the agency agreeing to issue a rule but to set dates to propose and take “final action,” which could include a decision to reject a regulatory determination.
Much of the criticism from those opposed to the practice resulted from court findings that state and industry third parties lack standing to intervene because setting a schedule does not necessarily harm their interests.
In the directive, Pruitt sought to address this, saying EPA may have sought to resolve lawsuits through consent decrees and settlement agreements with outside groups “that appeared to be the result of collusion,” and that when negotiating these agreements, “EPA excluded intervenors, interested stakeholders, and affected states from those discussions. The days of this regulation through litigation, or 'sue and settle,' are terminated. EPA will not resolve litigation through backroom deals with any type of special interest group.”
One of the steps Pruitt imposes on the agency with the new policy is to “directly notify any affected states and/or regulated entities” within 15 days of receiving a complaint and “to take any and all appropriate steps to achieve the participation” of those affected “in the consent decree and settlement agreement negotiation process.” He goes even further, saying EPA “shall seek to receive the concurrence of any affected states and/or regulated entities before entering into a consent decree or settlement agreement.”
But even as he takes such steps, agency lawyers continue to argue that third parties lack standing to participate in such suits.
For example, EPA is arguing in a lawsuit to be heard Nov. 7 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that North Dakota lacks the right to intervene in a case brought by environmentalists seeking to compel EPA to review and revise solid waste management regulations under subtitle D of the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act.
North Dakota says in an Aug. 18 reply brief in Environmental Integrity Project, et al. v. Scott Pruitt, et al., that it wants to intervene in the matter “because the subject of this lawsuit is the federal statute and regulations under which North Dakota operates its oil and gas solid waste program and because the changes sought by plaintiffs would limit North Dakota's autonomy and authority to structure its program in a manner that it believes best serves to protect its citizens and environment.”
Court Ruling
The state is appealing an adverse ruling from the U.S. District Court from the District of Columbia but EPA is backing the ruling, with the Justice Department filing a July 21 brief on EPA's behalf that appears to endorse the deadline settlement practice that the sue and settle directive addresses.
“Often in these contexts, the agency is left with few defenses, if any, and a frequent outcome is a settlement agreement or a consent decree between the agency and the plaintiff that resolves the lawsuit and establishes specific timeframes under which the agency agrees to take the procedural action. In many of these cases, the 'successful' plaintiff is entitled by a separate statute to recover attorneys’ fees.”
The filing also appears to downplay the “sue-and-settle” practice, noting that here, the environmentalists sought to establish a schedule under which EPA would decide whether to proceed with a rulemaking. The brief argued that the settlement “does not bind EPA to any particular rule or outcome, and EPA remains free to conclude that no new rule is necessary.”
It adds that under Supreme Court precedent, North Dakota lacks standing [to intervene] before a substantive agency decision actually occurs. . . . Accordingly, the district court properly denied the state of North Dakota's motion to intervene.”
One observer points out the irony of Pruitt moving forward with such a strong statement for prospective cases while refusing to do so for existing ones. The North Dakota argument is squarely on point, yet EPA is not expected to change its position so late in the process.
However, the source also cautions that in the North Dakota case at issue, it is DOJ that will argue on EPA's behalf and it was likely that department, in negotiations with EPA, that decided to oppose the state's standing. The source does concede the timing is “interesting.”
A former EPA general counsel says whether intervenors should now be allowed to participate in the settlement negotiations, rather than comment on a proposed settlement, is a question for Pruitt and the Office of General Counsel staff.
Murray Energy
EPA is also arguing in Murray Energy, et al. v. EPA, a case the Supreme Court is being asked to consider, that the citizen suit provision of the Clean Air Act limits plaintiffs' right to pursue broad remedies from the agency.
The coal companies pursuing the suit earlier this month asked the Supreme Court to reverse a June 29 ruling from the 4th Circuit that held that EPA's duty under the air law to evaluate jobs impacts from its policies is too broad to be enforced through a citizen suit.
Murray in its recent high court petition say the judges' reading of the air law unfairly narrows courts' authority to enforce statutory mandates -- such as an air law provision saying EPA “shall” conduct the jobs review they are seeking.
Though the litigation spans both the Obama and Trump administrations, EPA has maintained its position that Murray lacks standing to bring such a suit and that allowing it to do so would open the door to programmatic suits rather than challenges to individual rules or rollbacks. And both EPA and Murray argued that environmentalists lacked standing to intervene when groups sought to do so during the transition, concerned that the Trump EPA would give the coal companies what they wanted.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/pruitts-plan-end-sue-and-settle-fails-address-pending-suits
-
US EPA Releases Draft Strategic Plan
Oct 18, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The chemicals management section of the US EPA's draft strategic plan for fiscal years 2018-2022 – the first under President Trump – largely restates statutory requirements and deadlines imposed by the 2016 TSCA amendments.
The previous 2014-2018 plan discussed risk assessments that were underway at the time under the old TSCA, one of the agency's priority goals in financial year 2014.
The research section of the new plan calls for the agency to:use ToxCast/Tox21 data to develop high-throughput risk assessments, particularly for chemicals for which adequate risk assessment information has been historically unavailable;develop online software tools to provide information on thousands of chemicals and integrate health, environmental and exposure data; anddevelop tools to reduce the use of animal testing.
The plan was published on 5 October, and the agency will accept public comment until 31 October.
https://chemicalwatch.com/60131/us-epa-releases-draft-strategic-plan
-
CDC Sounds Alarm on Chemical Contamination in Drinking Water
Oct 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto, David Schultz and Sylvia Carignan
A top environmental official at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the scientific community is just beginning to grasp the scope of how much drinking water could be contaminated with a potentially toxic class of industrial chemicals.
The presence and concentrations of perfluorinated chemicals in U.S. drinking water is “one of the most seminal public health challenges for the next decades,” Patrick Breysse, a senior official at the CDC, said at an Oct. 17 conference in North Carolina.
Breysse estimated that up to 10 million Americans could be drinking water with concentrations of perfluorinated chemicals above the Environmental Protection Agency's health recommendation.
The compounds are used to give heat-, water- and stain-resistant properties to products including carpets, clothing, fast-food wrappers, water-proofing sprays and cookware.
Given the decades-long use of perfluorinated chemicals and their propensity to reach groundwater and surface waters, it won't be too long before “we think hundreds of millions of Americans will be drinking water with levels of these chemicals above levels of concern,” Breysse said.
“We know a little bit about two of them,” Breysse said referring to the compounds PFOA and PFOS. “We know precious little about most” he said, referencing related substitutes like GenX and other fluorinated compounds.
Fighting Fire With Foam
Perfluorinated chemicals such as PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) and PFOS (perfluorooctanesulfonic acid) were widely used as flame retardants, especially in foams used on military base air fields for training to put out fires.
The main factor that makes these chemicals so troublesome is that they degrade into the environment very slowly, allowing them to seep out of underground storage tanks that were buried decades earlier.
There are at least 65 sites in the U.S. where exposure to PFOA, PFOS, or the two substances combined, is above the EPA's health advisory of 70 parts per trillion, Breysse said. Some states have set enforceable drinking water limits at concentrations much lower than the EPA's, he said.
Exposure to perfluorinated chemicals at high levels can cause a host of health problems, including decreased fertility, increased cholesterol, increased rates of kidney, bladder, testicular and prostate cancers, and depressed immune systems, Breysse said.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), where Breysse works, is preparing a toxicological profile for PFOA and PFOS that it anticipates completing in 2018, he said.
Scared People Lose Trust
Meanwhile, communities across the U.S. want to know if the perfluorinated chemicals in their drinking water and breast milk are harming them and their children, and “we have to tell them we don't know,” Breysse said.
When people are scared about their water supply, they lose trust in their government, he said. “We've seen that over and over again across the country.”
States nearly always bring up their concerns about these chemicals when ATSDR's scientists and health officers meet with them, he said.
Paul Locke, director of the Division of Response and Remediation at the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, said: “As a citizen, I would be a little bit worried, because we don't know as much as we should. Or, we don't know as much as we need to.”
As a regulator, Locke said Oct. 16 at the Association for Environmental Health and Sciences Foundation conference in Amherst, Mass., one of his responsibilities is to ensure that remediation professionals who are conducting assessments and cleanups at contaminated sites know to look for perfluorinated chemicals.
Although PFOS and PFOA have been classified as emerging contaminants, Locke noted that they've existed for decades. “Frankly, we haven't been looking for them in the environment,” he said.
Budget Buster
The Pentagon will be footing the bill for much of the cleanup because perfluorinated chemicals were used so heavily on military bases. Military officials have estimated that remediating contaminated soil and water will ultimately cost upwards of $2 billion. By comparison, the Pentagon estimates that it will cost $25 billion to address all other environmental contaminants on military bases.
Additionally, communities near manufacturing plants that produced these chemicals have also experienced contamination problems with their water. This has triggered several class-action lawsuits against the manufacturers, which include the chemical companies Chemours and Saint-Gobain.
Paul Ponturo, who previously ran the public water authority in Suffolk County, N.Y., said that while many people are focusing on perfluorinated chemicals in drinking water, it's important to remember that people can be exposed through other means. He told Bloomberg Environment that the scientific community has a long way to go before it can put together a full picture of how people are exposed to these chemicals, in what amounts, and how they ultimately affect health.
In the meantime, he said, water utilities will likely have to invest much more to beef up their capacity for detecting and treating perfluorinated chemicals, even at very low amounts.
“It's definitely still an evolving issue,” Ponturo, who is now a water resources engineer with the consulting firm H2M, said. “You're going to find more sources.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=122658409&vname=dennotallissues&fn=122658409&jd=122658409
-
California Enacts Cleaning Product Law
Oct 18, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
Makers of cleaning products sold in California will have to reveal ingredients online and on product labels, under a first-of-its-kind law signed by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) on Oct. 15. New York is expected soon to finalize a regulation requiring similar disclosure of cleaning product ingredients.
“People around the country and especially Californians are demanding more disclosure about the chemicals in products we use,” says California state Sen. Ricardo Lara (D), who sponsored the legislation.
The California law applies to ingredients in general cleaning, air care, automobile care, and floor maintenance products. Fragrance compounds that are listed as allergens by the European Union must be disclosed. The chemical identities of other fragrance compounds, ingredients that are trade secrets, and colorants are exempt from disclosure.
Manufacturers will have to provide information about ingredients on product websites as of 2020. The law requires ingredients be listed on labels of cleaning product sold in the state starting in 2021.
The Consumer Specialty Products Association, an organization of companies that formulate affected products, backs the California measure. CSPA says the new law balances consumer and worker demands for information with businesses’ needs to protect proprietary data.
Companies supporting the bill include cleaning product makers Procter & Gamble, Reckitt Benckiser, SC Johnson, Seventh Generation, Unilever, and WD40, and fragrance maker Givaudan.
https://cen.acs.org/content/cen/articles/95/i42/California-enacts-cleaning-product-law.html
-
US CPSC Proposes Exempting Engineered Wood Products From Testing
Oct 18, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The US Consumer Product Safety Commission has proposed exempting certain wood products from requirements to conduct independent testing that demonstrates compliance with prohibitions on phthalates, lead and other chemicals.
The new rule would apply to children's products that incorporate untreated and unfinished engineered wood products (EWPs), such as particleboard, plywood and fibreboard.
The rationale is that research contracted by the agency found that these products do not contain prohibited amounts of lead, six phthalates regulated by the CPSC, or eight substances known as ASTM F963 elements, namely:antimony;arsenic;barium;cadmium;chromium;lead;mercury; andselenium.
The testing exemption would apply to toys, childcare articles and children's products containing virgin wood or pre-consumer waste wood.
EWPs with added finishes would not be exempt, nor would those containing wood waste recycled from consumer products.Current protocols
While manufacturers have an incentive to avoid using such recycled material because it can damage equipment or "impact the uniformity of the product", the CPSC staff concluded that current processing protocols do not assure that contaminants are not present in post-consumer wood.
The proposal was published on 13 October and the CPSC will accept comments until 27 December.
The commission specifically requested:any evidence that the EWPs proposed for exemption include noncompliant levels of lead, ASTM F963 elements, or prohibited phthalates;information supporting or refuting the contractor’s conclusion that the use of ASTM F963 elements as catalysts in adhesive formulations will not result in noncompliant products;information on current or historic use of phthalates in plywood adhesives and methods for determining if adhesive systems contain phthalates;evidence on any "post-consumer recycled EWPs that consistently comply with the limits for lead, ASTM F963 elements, or prohibited phthalates";information on methods used to determine whether post-consumer recycled material is used in the manufacture of EWPs; andinput on whether EWPs other than particleboard, hardwood plywood, and medium-density fibreboard are widely used in children's products, and should be considered for the testing exemption.
It recently finalised a similar rule exempting products containing seven plastics from phthalates testing. This went into effect on 29 September.
https://chemicalwatch.com/60147/us-cpsc-proposes-exempting-engineered-wood-products-from-testing
-
CPSC Poised to Ban Toxic Phthalates in Toys, Kid’s Products
Oct 17, 2017 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Daniel Rosenberg
Tomorrow, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) will vote to ban the use of several toxic chemicals—that are part of a category of chemicals known as phthalates (“thal-ates”)—from toys and child care articles such as teethers, pacifiers and sippy cups.
When the CPSC votes, as I believe it will, to finalize the proposed ban on a handful of phthalates from toys and child care articles, it will be an important advance in efforts to protect children from toxic chemicals in their homes, as well as the broader effort to shift the marketplace away from acceptance of toxic chemicals in products, our homes, our schools, our workplaces and our communities. If the Commission votes to support the final rule, it will deserve credit and appreciation for fulfilling the mandate of Congress to protect children from toxic phthalates.
But that may not be the end of this story. Exxon and other chemical manufacturers may sue to overturn the final rule, and Exxon is doubtless already running to its allies in Congress to reverse the CPSC’s action, despite the Commission’s having done exactly what Congress itself mandated in the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA). In 2008, the vote for the law restricting phthalates in children’s products was 424-1 in the House, and 89-3 in the Senate. Congress voted almost unanimously to remove toxic chemicals like lead and phthalates—developmental and reproductive toxins—from children’s products. Whether our current Congress is prepared to resist Exxon and other chemical manufacturers to protect children from toxic chemicals in toys and teething rings remains to be seen.Background: The law’s requirements, the painstaking case for regulation, and industry’s delay game
The CPSC’s vote this week—formally on whether to finalize a rule proposed in December 2014—is the culmination of a nearly decade-long process. That process began in 2008, when Congress overwhelmingly passed (and President George W. Bush signed) the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, to, among other things, strengthen the authority of the CPSC to address threats to consumers from both lead and phthalates. The law permanently banned the use of three phthalates in toys and children’s products (DEHP, DBP, BBP). In addition, it temporarily banned three additional phthalates pending investigation of an expert panel to be appointed by the CPSC (the panel is known as a Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel, or CHAP). Finally, Congress mandated that the expert panel 1) consider the potential health effects of phthalates and phthalate alternatives, both as individual chemicals and in combination with the other chemicals in the phthalates category (cumulative risk), and 2) recommend to the Commission whether to ban additional phthalates (or phthalate alternatives) from toys and children’s products.
The CPSC’s expert panel and those who reviewed the panel’s work were nominated by the National Academy of Sciences and were screened for conflicts of interest. The panel followed a transparent and objective process; it held seven public meetings and eight public teleconferences, as well as multiple rounds of public comment. In response, the panel received a truckload of input from the chemical manufacturers defending its toxic chemicals and some information from public interest groups like ours that outlined the public health impacts. The expert panel finally issued its peer-reviewed report in July 2014, recommending that CPSC ban five phthalates—one of the phthalates that had been banned on an interim basis by Congress (DINP) and four others (DIBP, DPENP, DHEXP and DCHP).
The expert panel focused its cumulative risk analysis on the potential effects of phthalates on male reproductive development and their potential to cause “phthalate syndrome” which includes several different adverse effects identified in lab animals including: reduced testosterone synthesis, undescended testes, testicular atrophy, and genital malformation. The proposed rule states that “the CHAP found that certain phthalates…cause adverse effects on the developing male reproductive tract. The CHAP determined that these phthalates act in a cumulative fashion.” As CPSC staff noted in its summary of the expert panel’s report: “Although the male fetus is considered the most sensitive life stage to [male reproductive developmental effects], phthalates also cause effects at all life stages, including adulthood.” While the panel found the strongest evidence of harm for male reproductive health effects, the expert panel also found that some phthalates affect critical organs and systems including liver, kidney, immune, and thyroid function.
After reviewing the CHAP’s recommendations, the CPSC’s staff then made a recommendation to the five CPSC Commissioners, agreeing with the expert panel’s recommendations. This recommendation was put forward as a proposed rule issued for public comment in December 2014. Although the law required the CPSC to issue a final rule within 180 days of receiving the final report from the expert panel, the process of issuing a final rule stretched well-past the legal deadline. Finally, in December 2016, NRDC, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, and Environmental Justice Health Alliance sued to compel the CPSC to finalize a phthalates rule. The case was settled with the CPSC agreeing to take a final vote on a phthalates rule by October 18, 2017, (and to send the rule to the Federal Register for publication within a week of the vote). The settlement did not address the content of the final CPSC rule, only that a rule would be finalized by this date.
The CPSC’s staff recently made a final recommendation to the Commissioners to finalize the rule, largely as proposed, but with a slight expansion of the scope of the ban proposed for DINP to include all children’s toys and child care articles, and not just toys that can be placed in a child’s mouth. Last week, the CPSC staff briefed the Commissioners on their recommendation. The briefing, and the materials that the CPSC staff issued in support of their recommendation to the Commissioners demonstrate how difficult it is to restrict or ban toxic chemicals—even those that are reproductive toxins found in toys and other children’s products. The chemical manufacturing industry is ready, willing and able to spend whatever it takes to deploy lawyers, consultants and scientists-for-hire to pressure regulators not to take action to protect the public. In the case of phthalates, the major industry player has been Exxon, the largest manufacturer of phthalates.
The CPSC staff briefing and accompanying materials also demonstrate how well prepared the staff are; they addressed every single issue and objection raised by the chemical industry. In particular, the 150+ page document responding to public comments (most of which were from the chemical industry) is a study of an overworked and under-resourced staff working to painstakingly address every bogus argument that creative industry lawyers and consultants could come up with. The chemical industry loves to attack government scientists and chemical assessment programs of “cherry-picking studies” and ignoring the “weight of the evidence” regarding potential harm of a chemical, when in reality those are the preferred methods of the industry itself, as is illustrated in the CPSC staff’s response to industry comments. As just one example, industry commenters pointed to two or three small studies of marmosets to argue that primates (and therefore humans) are not harmed by phthalates; staff responded that the marmoset study was publicly reviewed by the expert panel and both the panel and the study author himself agreed that the marmoset study was preliminary and statistically underpowered (too few animals) and shouldn’t be used for risk assessment. The same applied to several fetal transplant (xenograft) studies that industry was pushing—CPSC staff reminded the readers that both the expert panel and the study authors agreed that the study results were too limited and premature to be used to support public health decisions and, “especially to dismiss the considerable body of data in rodent species and the growing number of epidemiological studies showing [male reproductive effects] in humans that parallel the effects in animals.” (CPSC staff response to public comments, page 13).
Other industry-supported studies were shown to be similarly limited, weak, uninformative, or preliminary. The staff report should be read by all risk assessors, regulators, and policy makers, as a textbook example of the playbook the chemical uses, and will continue to use in other fora where chemicals are being assessed—under the revised Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA) for example—to obfuscate, delay, and build a phony case for how a government agency is failing to rely on “sound science.”
The CPSC staff patiently answered nearly four hours of questions from the CPSC Commissioners at the briefing last week (which you can watch here and here). It was yet another example of government scientists at a regulatory agency working for years to nail down credible assessments and regulations of toxic chemicals in the face of massive industry pressure (including industry-sparked political pressure). You can read about similar examples in The Delay Game.
Does the story have a happy ending? It could. But only if:Congress rejects the chemical industry’s inevitable attempts to overturn the CPSC rule (or punish the Commission for having finalized it);Federal and state regulatory agencies (and legislatures!) get serious about confronting and rejecting the chemical industry’s shoddy science and tired tactics and focus on fulfilling their missions to protect public health and the environment;Product manufacturers and retailers take the CPSC’s recent actions on phthalates (and also flame retardants) as a signal to adopt their own chemical management policies that shift markets away from using chemicals of concern in products they manufacture or sell to the public.
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/daniel-rosenberg/cpsc-poised-ban-toxic-phthalates-toys-kids-products
-
Industry Urges Ontario To Eliminate Chemicals Reporting Law
Oct 18, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
Representatives from Canadian industry have urged the province of Ontario to eliminate or amend its Toxics Reduction Act (TRA). They argue it duplicates federal reporting requirements and forces businesses to develop expensive chemical management plans they are not even required to implement.
The province accepted suggestions from the chemical manufacturing sector until 30 September as part of its 'red tape initiative', which aims to result in a plan to "improve or reduce" regulations.
The TRA – enacted in 2009 – requires businesses that employ at least ten people and use at least 10,000kg of specific hazardous substances to report and track them and develop pollution prevention plans. Implementation of these is voluntary.
But, in comments echoed by business owners, the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada said Ontario should eliminate the TRA because "firms already report the same information into the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI)".
The NPRI is Canada's inventory of pollutant release and disposal, used to inform assessment and risk management of chemicals as well as anti-pollution regulation.
Several companies suggested that the requirements be limited to only the most toxic substances and the obligation to develop a "reduction plan" be amended.
Developing a plan "is not easy to do nor cheap", said a supervisor of an affected company. "The loss of trained staff, who should be focused on real business activities, hurts.
"Additionally, the government has required a certified planner to rubber stamp that our plan was adequate. That creates a whole new layer of bureaucracy and costs for the business and taxpayers. Certified planners have to be trained so the costs of training, the costs of setting up certification processes are just that .... costs to the taxpayers.
"This is how you chase manufacturing out of the province," the supervisor concluded.
Commenters also criticised pesticide regulations, which they contend have caused difficulties for businesses by spurring consumers to buy the same chemicals in other provinces or the US.
Ontario has committed to producing a final report by March 2018.
The province previously collected recommendations on:automotive parts manufacturing;food processing;financial services; andmining.
Consultations on forestry and tourism are to follow.
https://chemicalwatch.com/60132/industry-urges-ontario-to-eliminate-chemicals-reporting-law
-
Oct 18, 2017 | CNBC
By Tom DiChristopher
· Exxon Mobil began production at a new petrochemical facility in Mont Belvieu, Texas.
· The facility positions Exxon to better compete in the growing global market for plastics.
· Operations began just two months after Hurricane Harvey pummeled the area, knocking out much of the country's petrochemical processing capacity.
Exxon Mobil on Tuesday began production at a new petrochemical facility in Mont Belvieu, Texas, just two months after Hurricane Harvey pummeled the U.S. Gulf Coast and hobbled the U.S. refining and specialty chemicals hub.
The new first of two lines turning out polyethylene — the most common plastic used in manufacturing — will increase the plant's output by 650,000 tons per year. The next line at Mont Belvieu will match that addition and bring total production at the plant to 2.5 million tons per year, making it one of the biggest polyethylene plants in the world.
The facility positions Exxon Mobil to take advantage of the growing market at home and abroad for plastics as emerging markets buy more packaged food and consumer products. Demand for ethylene, the base chemical, is poised to grow by 5.5 million to 6 million tons a year, assuming 2.5 to 3 percent GDP growth, according to IHS Markit.
Exxon will ship a "significant portion" of its polyethylene production from the Mont Belvieu plant from the port of Houston.
"The expansion of our Mont Belvieu facility further enhances our ability to meet growing global demand for high-performance polyethylene products around the world," Neil Chapman, president of Exxon Mobil Chemical Co., said in a statement.
Earnings in Chevron's chemicals business grew by nearly $200 million in 2016 to reach $4.6 billion. Chemical earnings ticked down in the first half of 2017.
Since 2010, 301 chemical industry projects worth $181 billion have been announced in the United States, according to the American Chemistry Council, a trade group representing U.S. chemical companies.
The wave of investment is being driven by a boom in U.S. oil and natural gas production, which produces byproducts used in the petrochemical industry. Most of that money is committed to the Gulf Coast.
Exxon Mobil has announced it will invest $20 billion in Gulf Coast chemical, refining, lubricant and liquefied natural gas facilities over the next 10 years. The company aims to create 12,000 permanent jobs.
The Gulf Coast is home to 90 percent of the nation's capacity to turn out basic plastics. The high concentration of petrochemical plants in the area came under scrutiny after Hurricane Harvey knocked out about 60 percent of ethylene and propylene capacity. The two chemicals are the most widely used inputs in the industry.
Blasts at the Houston-area Arkema chemical plant due to flooding from Harvey and reports of pollution from other facilities in the wake of the storm also thrust the industry into the spotlight.
Chevron Phillips Chemical expects to open a new ethane cracker, the final part of a $6 billion petrochemicals project, in Baytown, Texas, by the end of this quarter.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/17/exxon-mobil-fires-up-huge-new-gulf-coast-plant-despite-harvey-impact.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) The CAB And Why It’s Significant To The US Industrial Gases Industry
Oct 17, 2017 | GasWorld
By James Barr
gasworld Business Intelligence investigates how the Chemical Activity Barometer relates to the US industrial gases business.What is the Chemical Activity Barometer?
The American Chemical Council (ACC), the founders of the Chemical Activity Barometer (CAB), note that the chemical industry produces materials that are used very early in the US supply chain, so by monitoring various indicators in the chemical industry, it is possible to identify more general economic events months in advance. The CAB has an average lead of 8 months, meaning that any significant peak or trough in the index, will likely be replicated but the US economy around 8 months after.
The CAB is generated by compiling various indicators such as production and prices for selected chemicals, such as chlorine, pigments and plastic resins, in addition to other indicators such as hours worked in the chemicals sector, chemical company stock data, end-user industry sales-to-inventories, and building permits.Current performance
The CAB surpassed pre-recessionary levels for the first time mid-way through 2016. Between January and February 2017, the CAB has posted year-on-year monthly growth of between 4% and 5.8%. However, since August, year-on year growth has been slowing, coming in at 2.3% in September.
The ACC noted that in September, production indices faltered chiefly due to the effects of Hurricane Harvey. The US gulf coast is home to much of the country’s chemical production, and the Hurricane did cause some plants to temporarily shut down. Despite this, there were strong increases in product prices, chemical related share prices and also inventories.How does the CAB relate to the US industrial gases business?
Whereas industrial gas companies are themselves chemical companies, they are also a major supplier to the general chemical sector. In the US, roughly 11%, or $2.2bn, of the total industrial gases business ($20bn) is generated through the sale of hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon monoxide and other gases to the US chemical sector.
Chemical clients often require substantial volumes of gases, so it is normally more efficient to produce these gases at a facility located at the customers site, or alternatively nearby, then delivered via pipeline. All the major industrial gases companies supply the chemicals sector in the US via onsite plants. Air Products, Air Liquide and Praxair also operate vast pipeline networks around the US Gulf Coast that supplies the chemicals industry with hydrogen, carbon monoxide, oxygen and nitrogen.
Industrial gases are not only used in the manufacture of chemicals, they are indeed used throughout the US supply chain. Therefore, the industrial gases business generally follows the same trends as industrial production and GDP. Consequently, the CAB can be used as a relatively accurate short-term forecasting tool for the US gases business.
https://www.gasworld.com/the-cab-and-why-its-significant-to-the-us-industrial-gases-industry/2013635.article
-
Energy Regulator Wants Faster Review of Gas Pipelines
Oct 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission wants to speed up federal review needed to build natural gas pipeline, but said he disagrees with another commissioner's suggestion to rely less on existing pipeline contracts.
“The regulatory uncertainty created by burdensome delays in the project review process are problematic for numerous reasons,” FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee (R) said Oct. 17 at a Energy Bar Association event in Washington.
He said he wants to work with states and other federal agencies to help prevent delays in FERC certificate reviews—which now take about 18 months—and provide “transparent, predictable decision-making” on natural gas pipeline certificates. “Ultimately, I would like to see FERC significantly reduce its review timelines for major natural gas pipeline certificates and other projects.”
However, Chatterjee said he “strongly disagrees” with a dissent by FERC Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur (D) to Oct. 13 FERC approvals of the Dominion Energy's Atlantic Coast Pipeline and EQT Midstream Partners’ Mountain Valley Pipeline.
LaFleur had called on the agency to reconsider its policy statement in favor of relying less on contracts, known as precedent agreements, between pipeline developers and customers in its reviews. She argued that factors including environmental concerns raised by pipeline opponents aren't being weighed as heavily as they should be in the certificate review process.
LaFleur's dissent suggested that “FERC should depart from its long-standing policy of relying on precedent agreement with shippers” to “demonstrate economic need in favor of weighing a broad range of economic, social and aesthetic” desires, said Chatterjee.
FERC has historically prioritized the contracts between the shippers and customers in its analysis “because those are clear, unequivocal statements of economic need by the market itself,” he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=122658413&vname=dennotallissues&fn=122658413&jd=122658413
-
NatGas Playing Major Role in Renewable Energy Growth Across Western States, Say Experts
Oct 18, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Kinder Morgan Inc.’s (KMI) Will Brown, vice president of business management for the western region gas pipeline business, likes to tell customers his company is focused not just on transporting natural gas, but making sure it’s delivered reliably.
It’s a tall order anywhere in the country, but in the West it can sometimes take days for natural gas traveling over long distances at 25 mph to reach its destination. Places like California and Arizona, where solar and wind power are being added to the grid rapidly, have threatened gas demand, but they’ve also made the fuel that much more important.
“We believe that when pipeline capacity is properly contracted, properly nominated and properly balanced on the day, natural gas is a resilient fuel and a clean fuel with exceptional reliability for power generation,” Brown told an audience on Tuesday at the LDC Gas Forum Rockies & West in Broomfield, CO.
Gas demand in KMI’s western region was about 12.2 Bcf/d last year, of which the company supplied about 55%, Brown said. KMI pipelines are connected to roughly 24 GW of gas-fired power generation in a part of the country that hosts about half of all U.S. installed renewable capacity.
With large solar arrays and wind farms come intermittent drops in power and cycle frequency. Gas-fired turbines can power up faster to meet peak demand or fill the void of variable output renewables.
Wind and solar generating capacity in the West currently stands at 48 GW, Brown said, adding that it’s poised to nearly double in the next decade. Brown and other speakers seemed uneasy about what that means for the gas industry in the Rockies and the Southwest. He echoed ConocoPhillips’ Jim Duncan, director of market research, in estimating that renewable energy growth is on average likely to erode gas demand by roughly 2.5 Bcf/d over the next decade or so.
While that could be made up with growing liquefied natural gas exports, industrial demand, Mexican exports, which are largely been driven by power markets, and other sources, gas is poised to play an important role in the West as more renewables are added.
“As the sun sets and the load continues to grow, we have to have a fast ramp-up of natural gas-fired generation to meet this peak and maintain reliable power,” Brown said. “We call this peak deliverability; it is gas that is stored in the pipeline in line pack or it’s sitting in our storage fields to be able to come on at the required location, at the required time, at the required pressure and in the required quantity.”
KMI delivered about 1.2 Bcf/d of natural gas to power plants in 2016, mostly on its El Paso Natural Gas (EPNG) pipeline system in the Desert Southwest, but also on the Colorado Interstate Gas Pipeline.
As more gas-fired power generation has come online across the country in recent years, it’s put stress on pipeline infrastructure and raised questions about gas-power coordination. Brown said EPNG’s south mainline is currently sold out, partially as a result of power demand. He said “power generation in the area is going to need additional line pack assistance and we believe that natural gas and natural gas storage is the most economic way to go.”
But he added that coordination issues are simpler than people think. “Our delivery point operators must contract for their daily quantities and their peak hour services, schedule their transport, reserve the capacity appropriately and make sure they’re balanced for the day,” he said. “We don’t need hourly scheduling.”
The evolving power grid dynamics could finally necessitate more of the underground gas storage that places like Arizona have called for over the years. Brown said KMI is currently gauging market interest for four storage caverns that would have 1 Bcf/d each of working gas capacity at a location between Phoenix and Tucson.
Duncan said the western states are unequivocally going to continue adding more renewable capacity, if only for the space that exists in the region compared to the more densely populated East Coast. But 100% renewables, whether it’s in California as the state is aiming for by 2045, or across the country, is a long way off.
Consumers, Duncan said, don’t like interruptible power. Barring some kind of renewable energy storage breakthrough or better methods to control the loss of electricity when it’s transmitted over long distances, natural gas is poised to continue providing short-term reliability or even long-term baseload.
Gas-fired power generation is still expected to increase 7.7 Bcf/d over the next decade to match coal and nuclear retirements, even at a time when solar and wind are also forecasted to grow significantly.
Duncan offered a simple example. The average smartphone user consumes about 388 kWh/year. An energy efficient refrigerator uses 322 kWh/year, he said. “What does that say? It says the big growth area is power because the rest of the world has discovered the internet, refrigerators, televisions, and we’ve only just scratched that surface.” He said more than 1,500 gas-fired power projects are in the works globally. “There’s where my signpost should be” for prices and demand.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/112126-natgas-playing-major-role-in-renewable-energy-growth-across-western-states-say-experts
-
Next Wave of US LNG Export Facilities Could Face Credit Risk: S&P
Oct 17, 2017 | Platts
By Harry Weber
Cheap, abundant US supplies of natural gas combined with forecasts of growing global LNG demand early next decade are not enough to ease the uncertainty facing the next wave of LNG export projects, S&P Global Ratings said Tuesday, citing high construction costs and the challenges in securing long-term supply contracts.
The ratings agency is part of the same company that owns S&P Global Platts.
The main fear is that as developers along the US Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic and Pacific coasts seek creative ways to finance liquefaction units, they will be open to shorter agreements with smaller quantities and more flexible terms, raising concerns about their ability to repay debt as contracts come up for renewal more often, S&P Global Ratings noted in a report.
There are more than a dozen LNG export projects currently being proposed to US regulators, though across the industry almost no final investment decisions have been announced over the last 18 months and some developers have delayed their decisions into 2018 or beyond. Few firm supply purchase agreements have been announced for the projects that have yet to commit to moving forward.
"The repayment of project finance debt is from cash flow generated by long-term LNG offtake agreements with investment-grade companies; however, for a variety of reasons, these contracts are increasingly difficult to procure," it said.
"The credit quality of new facilities could suffer if project finance structures are used but backed by shorter-term agreements (which introduce re-contracting risk) and/or merchant sales (and associated market risk) or include revenue counterparties that we rate below investment grade."
Cheniere Energy's Sabine Pass terminal in Louisiana is the only US facility currently exporting LNG produced from shale gas. The four liquefaction units that it is currently operating there were financed with 20-year take-or-pay contracts with credit-worthy buyers, setting a standard for the industry.
Dominion Energy's Cove Point export terminal in Maryland, which is expected to start shipping LNG later this year, has similar deals in place, as do the several other projects that are currently being built, including facilities in Freeport, Texas, and Corpus Christi, Texas.
But for projects still going through the regulatory approval process, the tap has been running dry of late. Bank decisions also are in the mix, S&P Global Ratings said. Earlier this month, French bank BNP Paribas decided to stop doing business with companies that are primarily involved in oil and gas production from shale, a potential impediment to other projects' ability to pay for construction if more banks follow suit.
"This isn't to say that liquefaction facilities will no longer be built in the US," S&P Global Ratings said. "However, the nature of these facilities could change. For example, we expect to see a greater number of smaller, more modular units, and potentially shorter-term contracts up to five years in length, with gas procurement arrangements changing as well."
"We think these changes will likely introduce a host of new credit issues such as market and recontracting risk, while possibly eliminating others such as counterparty risk," it added.
Cheniere recently told regulators it has decided to change the design of a later stage of its LNG export facility in Corpus Christi to incorporate mid-scale LNG trains, instead of large-scale units. The Houston-based company has been considering new mid-scale liquefaction opportunities as a way of reducing per-train construction costs and making it easier to find offtakers to buy the capacity.https://www.platts.com/latest-news/natural-gas/houston/next-wave-of-us-lng-export-facilities-could-face-21279592
-
Under EPA Pressure, Industry Withdraws Guide For RMP Rule Compliance
Oct 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
The chlorine industry has dropped a controversial guidance based on a novel dispersion modeling approach for assessing risks from toxic gas releases in response to an EPA directive to withdraw it because it “significantly under-predicts” off-site consequences of releases and to advise facilities not to use the method for complying with its Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility safety rules.
In a recent email obtained by Inside EPA, Kim Jennings, acting director of the Regulations Implementation Division of EPA's Office of Land and Emergency Management, says that EPA and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) urged the Chlorine Institute (CI) to withdraw its assessment guide after recent tests showed the method underestimates risks.
“As a result of the great discrepancy between the Chlorine Institute guidance and the actual results of DHS’ most recent release tests, EPA and DHS met with the Chlorine Institute on Monday, September 11, 2017 to request that the Institute withdraw the current edition of Pamphlet 74 (Edition 6), and advise their members that it should not be used for RMP Offsite Consequence Analysis modeling,” Jennings says.
The chlorine industry group complied with the federal request with a Sept. 12 letter to industry contacts, saying it is “suspending publication” of its Pamphlet 74 guidance for conducting off-site consequence analysis of chlorine releases while research on the dispersion modeling approach continues and until industry fully understands releases' potential impacts.
“We are in agreement that the current version of Pamphlet 74 must be used with caution,” CI says, noting recent discussions with EPA and DHS. “We do not recommend that current version of Pamphlet 74 be used for RMP purposes.”
Industry's withdrawal of the guide comes after emergency response officials urged several senators to compel EPA to scrap use of the assessment method for compliance with the RMP program and other federal rules, and EPA acknowledged that recent testing suggests the method may not be appropriate.
First responders charged that chemical and railroad industries are pushing the new assessment approach -- developed in conjunction with the DHS and the Defense Department -- that downplays risks from potential disasters by dramatically reducing the distance toxic gases are projected to travel.
Later that month, EPA acknowledged in an email to Inside EPA that recent DHS testing appears to confirm that the new industry method -- adopted in CI's Pamphlet 74 guidance -- may underestimate risks. “The more recent and larger-scale chlorine release tests conducted by DHS in 2015 and 2016 appear to demonstrate that the revised Chlorine Institute guidance may significantly under-predict the consequences of large chlorine releases,” the agency said in a statement.
The agency added that it has made “no recent changes to its requirements or guidance for conducting offsite consequence analyses” under the RMP regulations.
CI updated its Pamphlet 74 to include the new method after 2010 tests conducted under a DHS project. In a 2014 fact sheet, DHS says that it is leading a collaborative project with government, industry and academia that will use large-scale outdoor chlorine release trials to fill data gaps on toxic inhalation hazards from chemical releases.
The fact sheet says the new modeling method seeks to incorporate real-world variables, such as gases' reactions with soil and vegetation, into dispersion estimates. It also says the project seeks to fill information gaps for toxic inhalation hazards that have never been tested or validated at scales representative of releases from rail cars or storage tanks.
Additional Facilities
In her email to EPA regional officials, Jennings says that an initial 2010 test conducted under the DHS project resulted in unexpectedly short dispersion distances, but that much larger chlorine release tests conducted in 2015 and 2016 showed much longer dispersion distances.
She also notes that at least two RMP facilities have used CI's updated Pamphlet 74 to revise their off-site consequence analysis, and that CI has notified those facilities that use of the guide is inappropriate.
“If you become aware of any facilities that have used Edition 6 or Edition 6, Revision 1 of Chlorine Institute Pamphlet 74 to conduct their offsite consequence analysis for purposes of complying with the RMP regulation, please inform them that EPA does not consider these versions of Pamphlet 74 to be an acceptable modeling method for purposes of complying with the OCA provisions of 40 CFR part 68 and that the Chlorine Institute has suspended the Pamphlet,” Jennings says.
“Please also request that any such facility re-do their analysis using a different model, and correct or update their RMP as appropriate.”
The risks posed by potential release of toxic chemicals were the driving force behind the Obama EPA's Jan. 12 final rule overhauling the agency's RMP facility accident prevention rule with new requirements for certain facilities to conduct third-party audits, hazard analysis, and streamline disclosure of toxic chemical holdings.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, while Oklahoma's state attorney general, opposed the proposed rule, faulting disclosure provisions as worsening terror threats.
Now leading EPA, Pruitt has delayed the update rule nearly two years and is weighing significant revisions, despite opposition from environmental, labor and first-responder groups. If facilities are allowed to use the new toxic release assessment method it would further ease RMP and other requirements on industry.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/under-epa-pressure-industry-withdraws-guide-rmp-rule-compliance
-
Safety Board Makes Case for ExxonMobil Refinery Blast Records
Oct 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Should the U.S. Chemical Safety Board have access to ExxonMobil Corp. records related to a risky near-miss incident at the company's one-time Torrance, Calif., refinery?
That's a question now in the hands of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
At a hearing in Los Angeles Oct. 17, Justice Department attorneys defended subpoenas issued by CSB as part of an investigation into a 2015 blast at the refinery. The subpoenas seek documents on the company's use of safeguards for preventing and mitigating a potential release of hazardous hydrofluoric acid.
ExxonMobil has said the board lacks authority to request such information, and a decision in its favor could embolden other companies to limit responses to investigations (United States v. ExxonMobil Corp., C.D. Cal., No. 2:17-mc-00066 CBM-PSW, 10/17/17).
Steven J. Olson, an attorney at O'Melveny & Myers LLP representing ExxonMobil, told Judge Consuelo Marshall that the documents CSB requested aren't relevant to the actual February 2015 blast. The agency requested records for a hazard study, not records related to its investigation of the accident, so the request goes beyond its statutory authority, he said.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Garrett Coyle said Congress gave the CSB clear authority to access information about circumstances surrounding incidents targeted for investigation.
Judge Marshall said the court would review submitted documents, then make a decision. Coyle told Bloomberg Environment a decision date hasn't been set.
Documents Protected
The CSB is seeking documents related to incidents at its Torrance facility involving hydrofluoric acid tanks in 2015 and records dating back to 2000 related to maintenance of the refinery's fluid catalytic cracking unit, equipment that converts crude into gasoline and other products, Coyle said. The agency said it needs the information to complete its investigation.
ExxonMobil has fought the subpoenas for two years, particularly requests for information involving its use and storage of modified hydroflouoric acid. In addition to challenging the subpoenas, ExxonMobil wants an order that would prevent public release of all the documents.
In its May 3 report,the CSB blamed the blast on lapses in a safety management system that allowed workers to operate the fluid catalytic cracking unit below a safe level, the use of outdated safeguards, and the failure of a valve that had eroded.
Heavy debris from the explosion came within five feet of rupturing a tank holding thousands of gallons of modified hydrofluoric acid. The near-miss release of the potentially lethal acid, which could have formed a vapor cloud over the region, prompted CSB's request for additional documents on the refinery's safety measures.
The explosion, which injured four workers and sent flames into the air, forced the shut down of a large processing unit at the facility for over a year. ExxonMobil reopened the refinery in April 2016, shortly before it sold the facility to PBF Energy Inc.
The Torrance Refinery is one of two refineries in the Los Angeles area still using modified hydrofluoric acid in oil refining. Exxon and the Valero Energy's Wilmington, Calif., refinery switched to the modified form of the hazardous chemical several years ago.
Lawsuits thwarted efforts by local air quality regulators to ban the chemical in the 1990s. The South Coast Air Quality Management District launched a rulemaking in January to force the refineries to the alternative process.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=122658419&vname=dennotallissues&fn=122658419&jd=122658419
-
Colorado Tightens Pipeline Testing Rules After Fatal Explosion
Oct 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
A fatal explosion caused by a severed Anadarko Petroleum Co. natural gas flow line is driving tighter requirements to test oil and gas pipelines in Colorado.
The proposed amendments to Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission rules bring more specificity to requirements that pipeline owners pressure test all new flow lines prior to and after being put into service. Repaired flow lines would be covered by the changes, which would now be dedicated to an entire rule on pipeline integrity management, Todd Hartman, spokesman for the state Department of Natural Resources, told Bloomberg Environment Oct. 17.
The proposal, published Oct. 15, clarifies requirements for the testing of flow lines—pipelines that connect wells to production facilities—on a periodic basis. Previously, the commission required an operator to show a flowline doesn't leak through pressure testing only. With the proposed rules, the commission would allow integrity testing methods that have been developed since it adopted pressure testing requirements.
Anadarko declined to comment on Colorado's proposal, referring Bloomberg Environment to written comments, which asked regulators to consider different standards for various types of flowlines.
Explosion Brings New Regulations
In addition to strengthening the state's existing flow line regulations, the proposed rule changes aim at improving the uniformity of operator participation in the “call before you dig” program, the commission said. They address two of the seven policy initiatives Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) announced in August in response to the April 17 home explosion in Firestone, Colo., that killed two people and injured a third.
Hearings on the proposal are scheduled for Dec. 11 and 12.
The Frederick-Firestone Fire Protection District said the explosion was caused by a severed, abandoned natural gas line connecting an abandoned Anadarko natural gas well to a production facility. It is unknown how the line, which ran within two feet of the home that exploded, was cut.
The homeowner and his brother were installing a hot water heater when a volatile mix of methane and propan eentered the house and ignited. Both were killed, and the homeowner's wife was critically injured in the fire that ensued.
Oil and gas companies need clarity so they understand how the pipelines must be tested, Dan Haley, president and CEO of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, told Bloomberg Environment.
“The speed at which technology is changing, and the additional tools that are becoming available, present us with an opportunity to enhance flowline testing requirements and bolster public confidence when it comes to the safety of our industry,” he said.
Cut Risers
Hickenlooper issued a May 2 Notice to Operators directing them to identify, mark, lock out and tag risers for flow lines not in active use and to make sure they have been properly abandoned, including cutting the risers to three feet below grade, as required by commission Rule 1103.
In addition, the notice required operators to document the location of all existing active flow lines located within 1,000 feet of an occupied building such as a home, hospital, church or school, and ensure the lines have integrity.
Broader Rules Sought
Environmental groups and municipalities submitted comments urging the commission to broaden the rules.
Boulder County said the rules should require a publicly available database of flow line maps. “Such a mapping requirement has been discussed repeatedly since Firestone but is glaringly absent from this proposed scope,” it said. The county also called for the rules to require operator to monitor methane leaks from flow lines and other pipelines.
The League of Oil and Gas Impacted Coloradans said the rules should include more provisions addressing public health and safety concerns, such as requiring wellheads to be set farther away from schools than the current statewide setback of 500 feet.
Addressing flow lines alone, “while important, is not sufficient to address the issues raised by the tragic events of this past summer,” the groups said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=122658427&vname=dennotallissues&fn=122658427&jd=122658427
-
Senate Republicans Seek to Offer Input on Infrastructure Package
Oct 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Shaun Courtney
Senate Commerce Committee Republicans hope an Oct. 18 meeting with the White House infrastructure team will provide clarity and allow senators to offer input on a funding package, the committee chairman told Bloomberg Government Oct. 17.
“I think we're kind of going to try and figure out exactly where the administration is, where they are coming from,” Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, said. “We want to get our members kind of engaged, too, about what they want to see in the bill.”
Thune said the ongoing conversations with the White House have been largely informal. Senators have been working from the statement of principles document, which the administration released with the draft budget in May, Thune said.
“So far we've only seen this statement which I think was several months ago, a one-pager,” he said.
As the Senate sets its agenda for the remainder of 2017, Thune and his committee members want to work with the White House to tee up infrastructure for the beginning of 2018.
Tell Me More
“Obviously just big picture we want to know what type and size of package we're looking at,” Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), a Commerce Committee member who also serves in the Senate leadership, told Bloomberg Government.
The infrastructure package needs to modernize, update and expand the nation's infrastructure, like in his home state of Colorado, Gardner said.
Several Senate Democrats on the committee said they were unaware of the meeting, including the ranking member, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.).
“Thune clearly knows what I want on infrastructure. I mean we need roads, bridges, sewer, water plants, airports, seaports, expansion of broadband, all of these kind of things,” Nelson told reporters Oct. 17.
The president's budget and infrastructure proposal calls for $200 billion over 10 years, which congressional Democrats have panned as insufficient, calling for a greater direct federal investment.
“I'm looking for a direct federal appropriation,” Nelson told reporters.
What about Republicans?
“That's something that we all have to figure out: whether it's funding through tax reform, repatriation, bonding infrastructure banks, what we're going to do to better utilize dollars from energy revenues, those kinds of things are all possibilities,” Gardner said.
Timing
The legislative push on infrastructure will likely come next year, Gardner said.
The Senate agenda for the balance of the year will include a tax overhaul, a budget, judicial confirmations, Thune told reporters, adding he hoped they could “set up a debate about infrastructure—perhaps for next year.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=122658418&vname=dennotallissues&fn=122658418&jd=122658418
-
Most Companies’ Financial Reports Don't Mention Climate Risks
Oct 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrea Vittorio
Almost three-quarters of companies worldwide don't include in annual financial reports the risks that climate change could pose to their business, according to new research from KPMG International.
Of those that do recognize climate-related financial risks, most companies describe potential impacts. But very few of the 4,900 companies studied quantify those impacts in financial terms or model them using scenario analysis.
Some of the world's largest investors have lately thrown their weight behind efforts to get companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp., Occidental Petroleum Corp., and PPL Corp. to publish a detailed analysis of how carbon curbs could affect them financially.
Companies are also under pressure to boost their financial reporting on climate change based on recent recommendations from a panel formed by the Financial Stability Board, which advises the group of 20 nations. The panel of climate data users, data preparers, and others was led by Michael Bloomberg, founder and majority owner of Bloomberg L.P., of which Bloomberg BNA is an affiliate.
Change in Approach
Most companies are disclosing efforts to lessen their climate impact by cutting carbon emissions, the KPMG study found. It said changing companies’ approach to focus more on how climate change could impact them requires a shift in who's responsible for such reporting.
“Traditionally, thinking about climate change has been the function of corporate responsibility or sustainability teams,” Wim Bartels, a partner at KPMG in the Netherlands and a member of the FSB panel, said in the report. “But now the responsibility needs to sit with the executive who has the best understanding of a company's financial risks and opportunities—namely the CFO.”
The audit, tax, and advisory firm's study showed that climate reporting rates differ by country. A majority of the biggest 250 companies by revenue in France, Germany, and the U.K. disclose climate change as a financial risk. Just under half of those based in the U.S. and Japan do so.
Climate risk reporting also differs by sector. Companies involved in forestry, chemicals, and mining more often disclose climate risk in financial reports than those in other sectors such as financial services and retail.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=122658424&vname=dennotallissues&fn=122658424&jd=122658424
-
CPP Backers Seek Ruling, Charging Repeal Leaves GHG Duty 'Unfulfilled'
Oct 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan and Dawn Reeves
In a potential threat to Trump administration efforts to roll back the Clean Power Plan (CPP), state and environmentalist supporters of the rule are urging an appellate court to issue a long-delayed ruling in litigation over the rule's merits, charging that EPA efforts to repeal it without firm plans for a replacement would leave its obligation to regulate power sector greenhouse gases “unfulfilled.”
“In effect, EPA is asking the Court to refrain from ruling on the merits of Clean Power Plan -- which the agency promulgated to fulfill its statutory duty to regulate carbon dioxide from existing power plants -- so that it can eliminate that rule, with no concrete plans [for] when it will act or how it will subsequently satisfy that legal duty,” says an Oct. 17 filing in West Virginia, et al. v. EPA, et al. from a coalition of 17 states and several municipalities that back the CPP.
Similarly, environmental groups in a separate Oct. 17 filing note that EPA's recent proposal to repeal the CPP said that the agency in the near future will seek input on whether and how to regulate power sector GHGs.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt “has not decided whether he will replace the [CPP] with any regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from power plants,” they write, adding that he “has provided no estimate of when he expects to complete either the repeal rulemaking or any possible future rulemaking addressing whether and how to replace the Clean Power Plan.”
Further, they say that if EPA finalizes its CPP repeal plan, “it will leave the EPA's statutory duty completely unfulfilled.”
The states and environmentalists' arguments respond to an Oct. 10 EPA request, filed the same day that the agency released its proposed repeal plan, that asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to further extend its abeyance in West Virginia until the conclusion of the new rulemaking.
The court had issued two prior 60-day abeyance periods, with the latter expiring Oct. 10.
Ultimately, the states and environmental groups renew their longstanding call for the D.C. Circuit to issue a merits ruling, after the court held en banc oral argument in the litigation more than a year ago, in September 2016.
Alternatively, they say that any new abeyance should be “limited” to no more than 120 days, with EPA required to submit periodic status reports on its rulemaking process.
But if they are successful in their calls for the court to rule, it could result in a decision upholding key parts of the CPP, which would significantly undercut administration efforts to roll it back, a major campaign promise for President Donald Trump.
However, even if the court agrees to continue to delay issuing its ruling, concerns that EPA is failing to comply with its legal obligations to regulate GHGs from the power sector might still cloud agency efforts to repeal the CPP and become a major factor in litigation over the repeal rule.
Industry Concerns
A scenarios in which the court issues its long-delayed ruling underscores concerns being raised by former agency officials and industry sources who warn that EPA's plan to repeal the CPP without formally offering a replacement could pose a legal risk for EPA if the D.C. Circuit interprets it as dilatory given its mandate to regulate GHGs.
“At what point do they say, 'Enough is enough?'” asks a former agency official.
Although the court has been reluctant to issue a ruling while the agency reviews the rule and changes it, the former agency official says the possibility that the court loses patience “needs to be considered a threat. The D.C. Circuit has been very careful to keep control over this case. They haven't given EPA a long leash.”
As part of the court's most recent abeyance extension, two of the court's judges -- David Tatel and Patricia Millett -- acknowledged environmentalists' concern that leaving the Supreme Court's February 2016 stay in place indefinitely would render EPA's “obligation” to regulate essentially moot.
However, the judges at the time also suggested that proponents of the rule consider approaching the high court to lift the stay, a step that the rule's backers have been reluctant to take.
Regardless of the suit's procedural posture, the outlines of a future legal challenge to EPA's repeal plan are already coming into focus. For example, the agency's plan rests on the claim that the CPP's GHG targets are unlawfully based on actions taken “beyond the fenceline” of regulated power plants, such as fuel switching to natural gas or renewables.
But environmentalists and states are urging the court to ignore EPA's new stance, saying in their filing that the “beyond the fenceline” argument is “a central issue that was fully briefed and argued in the pending litigation,” and therefore the court should rule on it.
The state coalition adds in its filing that a merits ruling by the D.C. Circuit “will avoid requiring the parties to re-litigate the same issues” that would be almost certain to arise if EPA finalizes its repeal proposal.
In addition, Bob Sussman, a senior Obama EPA adviser who is now an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center, says EPA's “beyond the fencline” argument is “embarrassingly weak."
In an Oct. 12 blog post for the Climate Reality Project, he notes that the repeal proposal “contains no discussion of climate change, the very concern that motivated the CPP in the first place.”
Sussman writes that it would be expected that the administration “would address these issues head-on when dismantling a major pillar of U.S. climate change policy in order to convince the public that they are doing the right thing. But the sole basis provided for repealing the CPP is a legal one,” that the rule exceeded the agency's statutory authority.
In an Oct. 16 interview, Sussman says the proposal also ignores the fact that there are different ways to interpret the Clean Air Act, and that Pruitt's interpretation is not the only one. “That's where this proposal just leaves you cold, because it completely ignores the large context” of the rule's intent to address climate change.
“So that is the justification for doing what they're doing? Where the statute is ambiguous and they are reversing course, you would think they would make a policy case or a scientific case or an economic case. . . . To get the benefit of the doubt from a reviewing court, they need to explain why they are shifting gears. It's not enough to say we like our [interpretation] better than theirs.”
'Danger Point'
And an industry source says that while there could be a credible argument for floating an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) -- EPA's plan in lieu of floating a proposed replacement rule -- that approach could nonetheless tax the D.C. Circuit's patience.
“The agency has been saying . . . we are working on it. The danger point” is a situation where you are seen as “not working on it,” the source says.
Along those lines, the state coalition in its latest filing says that EPA in 2008 already issued an ANPR seeking input on how to regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act, and received voluminous comments on that notice and on the subsequent CPP.
The ANPR approach “is, at best, a woefully inadequate response to 'the Nation's most important and urgent environmental challenge,'” the states say.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/cpp-backers-seek-ruling-charging-repeal-leaves-ghg-duty-unfulfilled
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested