Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 11/7/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) Controversial Overhaul To EPA Advisory Board Includes Former DEQ Chief
Nov 6, 2017 | WRAL.com
By Donald van der Vaart
A former head of North Carolina's environmental agency has been appointed to an advisory panel at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in a controversial overhaul of the panel by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. -
Lack of Union Complicates Personnel Issues at Chemical Board
Nov 7, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
Employees of the U.S. Chemical Safety Board were subject to an “abusive, toxic and hostile” work culture, according to a congressional committee's report, and as a result, companies were waiting longer and longer for the agency's investigations to conclude. -
EPA, Pruitt May Face Lawsuits Over Advisory Board Changes
Nov 7, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt may face legal challenges over his decision to block grant recipients from serving on advisory committees. -
EPA's ORD Prioritizes PFAS Research Amid Growing Exposure Concerns
Nov 6, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Leaders in EPA's research office are prioritizing work on assessing risks of perflouroalkyl substances, which they see as a major challenge for the agency in the short term as they face monitoring results that show an ever-widening spread of contamination from the substances, though EPA's water office is worried they will be harder to address under Trump administration toxics office rule changes. -
European Commission Requests Opinion On Hair Dye
Nov 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The EU directorate general responsible for industry, DG Growth, has requested an opinion from the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety on hair dye hydroxypropyl p-phenylenediamine and its dihydrochloride salt. -
The Bipartisan Opportunity of Energy Efficiency
Nov 7, 2017 | The New York Times
By Terry Sobolewski and Ralph Cavanagh
Partisan fights in Washington can leave the impression that we’re hopelessly divided. The truth is there are plenty of bipartisan solutions to the energy and environmental challenges we face, and energy efficiency is near the top of the list. -
Lawmakers Tell Regulators To Oppose Perry Energy Plan
Nov 6, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Several House lawmakers, including a Republican, are urging regulators to ignore Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s plan to overhaul the electricity sector. -
Company Returns Illinois' First Fracking Permit, Citing 'Burdensome' Rules, Commodity Prices
Nov 6, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Two months after regulators in Illinois issued the state's first permit for high-volume hydraulic fracturing (fracking), the Kansas-based company that received the permit has returned it, citing "burdensome, time consuming and costly" regulations, but also commodity prices. -
FERC Approval Guidelines Need Update — Report
Nov 6, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Sam Mintz,
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's policy guidelines for permitting natural gas pipelines are almost 20 years old and may need revising, according to a new report from an analyst and former Department of Energy official. -
(ACC Mentioned) At The UN Climate Talks, U.S. Leadership Comes From An Unexpected Place
Nov 6, 2017 | ThinkProgress
By Natasha Geiling
When nearly 200 countries came together in Paris in December of 2015 — to hash out the details for what would become the historic Paris climate agreement — the presence of the United States was unmistakable: then-President Barack Obama attended the conferences opening ceremonies, and then-Secretary of State John Kerry was on site for the duration of the two-week negotiations. -
Climate Advocates Hoping For 'Quiet' U.S. In Global Talks
Nov 7, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Emily Holden
President Donald Trump’s quest to put “America first” in international affairs will undergo a major stress test this week and next as U.S. officials meet with climate change negotiators from around the world. -
Rich Nations Fail to Help Developing World Fight Climate Change
Nov 7, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joe Ryan
Wealthy nations are falling short on promises to help the developing world reduce greenhouse gases by investing in clean energy, jeopardizing the global fight against climate change. -
EPA Punts Decisions on Regions Violating Ozone Air Standards
Nov 7, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu
The EPA announced which counties in the U.S. have clean air but left out the most important part: which areas do not meet updated ozone standards. -
EPA Issues Ozone NAAQS Designations While Reconsidering Air Standard
Nov 6, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Anthony Lacey
EPA has issued its delayed designations for which areas are attaining the Obama-era stricter ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) and finds that 2,646 of more than 3,100 counties meet the NAAQS, meaning they will not have to impose strict new ozone reduction measures for the standard that the Trump EPA is reconsidering. -
Trump EPA Sets Stricter Test For 'Co-Benefits' Of Air Rules Than Obama
Nov 6, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA appears to be using a much stricter test than the Obama administration for when it will count the “co-benefits” of Clean Air Act rules also reducing other pollutants than those targeted in the regulations, sources say, based on the Clean Power Plan (CPP) repeal proposal that significantly downplays the policy's predicted co-benefits. -
Environmentalists, States Wary Of Trump EPA's 'Cooperative Federalism'
Nov 6, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Environmentalists and some state regulators are wary of the Trump EPA's push to bolster “cooperative federalism” by giving states more authority on environmental protection, with environmentalists saying it is a “misleading” plan that will weaken safeguards while states say similar agency commitments in the past have failed to materialize. -
ExxonMobil Agrees To Install Pollution Controls
Nov 6, 2017 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
Settlement with US government compels firm to improve emissions control and monitoring at eight chemical plants -
Ewire: The Significance Of EPA's Exxon Settlement
Nov 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
Top Trump administration officials last week touted their settlement with ExxonMobil that will require the oil and gas giant to install pollution controls at a host of its refineries and other facilities. -
Texas Power Plants Praise Once-Loathed Pollution Trading Plan
Nov 7, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
The air pollution trading program Texas fought so hard to leave is the blueprint for a new plan to clear the air in the state's wilderness areas.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Controversial Overhaul To EPA Advisory Board Includes Former DEQ Chief
Nov 6, 2017 | WRAL.com
By Donald van der Vaart
A former head of North Carolina's environmental agency has been appointed to an advisory panel at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in a controversial overhaul of the panel by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.
EPA administrator Scott Pruitt announced appointments to the Science Advisory Board on Friday in the wake of new guidelines that prohibit scientists who receive EPA grants from serving on advisory panels that provide critical expertise and oversight for federal policymaking.
"To ensure that EPA is receiving the best independent scientific advice, I am appointing highly-qualified experts and scientists to these important committees," Pruitt said in a statement.
The agency noted that all board members have "committed to remaining financially independent from EPA grants during their tenures."
Among the new appointees is Donald van der Vaart, who served as secretary of the Department of Environmental Quality under former Republican Gov. Pat McCrory. Under van der Vaart, North Carolina sued the federal government over the Clean Power Plan, which sought to limit pollution from power plants, and an expansion of the Clean Water Act. He also backed restrictions on solar farms and pushed more incentives to expand nuclear energy in the state.
The new chairman of the Science Advisory Board is Michael Honeycutt, a toxicologist at the Texas Board of Environmental Quality who has fought against stricter ozone standards and helped relax chemical regulations in Texas. Other new members include Larry Monroe, a former executive at Southern Company, an Alabama gas and electric firm; Merlin Lindstrom of Phillips 66, a Texas fuel company; Robert Merritt, a retired executive from petrochemical firm Total; and Kimberly White of the American Chemistry Council, the most prominent trade association for chemical manufacturers.
Pruitt purged six university researchers from the board, and critics say the moves will make the board less independent and will undermine policymaking based on evidence-based science, as EPA grants are a major source of funding for independent academic researchers.
"The move to remove scientists with EPA funding is, simply put, scientific censorship," said University of Minnesota professor Deborah Swackhamer, a former chairwoman of the Science Advisory Board and a current member of the EPA’s Board of Scientific Counselors.
Congress established the Science Advisory Board to provide expert advice and oversight of the EPA. Last year, the panel issued a report criticizing the EPA’s conclusion that hydraulic fracturing had no "widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources," saying the agency had failed to provide enough evidence to support such findings.
When McCrory lost his re-election bid last fall, van der Vaart took a position in the state Division of Air Quality to avoid being fired by Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper's incoming administration.
http://www.wral.com/controversial-overhaul-to-epa-advisory-board-includes-former-deq-chief/17095468/
-
Lack of Union Complicates Personnel Issues at Chemical Board
Nov 7, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
Employees of the U.S. Chemical Safety Board were subject to an “abusive, toxic and hostile” work culture, according to a congressional committee's report, and as a result, companies were waiting longer and longer for the agency's investigations to conclude.
Congress’ findings that the CSB was mismanaged led to the resignation of former CSB chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso in 2015, and while surveys have shown morale increasing at CSB since then, recent personnel actions threaten to complicate the picture.
In several personnel issues in recent months—accusations that the board's leadership pressured staff to report higher morale on a federal survey and the proposed reclassification of some investigator positions—employees at the CSB have also not had a union representative to help resolve disputes.
The board's employees haven't formed a union, unlike other federal workers at agencies that CSB staff interact with, including the Environmental Protection Agency, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and National Transportation Safety Board. The board, however, is scheduled to discuss the personnel issues at its next public meeting Nov. 14.
Small-Agency Unions
Unions represent hundreds of thousands of federal employees, but their presence is few and far between at agencies with fewer than 100 employees, such as CSB, with its 41 employees. Only four small agencies have unions, Sandy Day, a spokesman for the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), told Bloomberg Environment.
Union membership overall among government workers is growing in the first year of the Trump administration. In a statement to Bloomberg Environment, Jacque Simon, policy director of the American Federation of Government Employees, said the union has added more than 7,500 members in the past year. And a Government Executive report described a spike last year after the election.
“Employees are free to unionize and management has no opinion on it,” CSB spokeswoman Hillary Cohen said in a statement to Bloomberg Environment that. “It is an employee-led decision.”
How these issues are resolved, and how employee views are considered, could affect companies in the refining, chemical production and manufacturing sectors if it changes how the board produces reports or what the reports contain, or makes the board take longer to complete them.
Positions Targeted
The most recent personnel dispute came to light at a public meeting Oct. 16, when Sutherland took the unusual step of raising what had been an internal issue.
Sutherland said in 2014, before she was confirmed to lead CSB, OPM evaluated the agency's adherence to federal hiring practices and management of human resources programs and systems. Sutherland said she later commissioned a third-party audit, completed in 2016.
The report found, among other things, that board staff serving as “attorney-investigators” may have been hired improperly and the positions may not meet the government's requirements for professional legal work. Attorney-investigators perform a combination of investigative and legal work.
When an internal review team could not agree what to do, Sutherland said the agency asked OPM for its views and was told the four attorney-investigators, hired in 2012 and 2014, were performing duties that ran counter to federal rules for employing attorneys. She said the board had taken no action yet in regard to the employees.
At least one CSB employee also raised concerns the agency pressured workers to rate it higher in the annual viewpoint survey. While board employee satisfaction has increased since Sutherland took over in August 2015, Sutherland has said the agency is still trying to fix what she described as management failures.
A report in Government Executive last month said an employee filed an anonymous complaint with the inspector general claiming board leadership told staff higher survey results were needed to stave off the Trump administration's budget proposal to close the agency.
Sutherland said, according to the report, the agency's leadership hadn't intended to influence the survey results. The board is slated to discuss “important financial and organizational matters” as well as the viewpoint survey results at its next public meeting Nov. 14, according to a notice in the Federal Register.
Why No Union?
It's not that no one has tried to set up a union at CSB, but organizing never worked out, Jordan Barab, who served as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's deputy director from 2009 to 2017, said.
Barab, who worked at the CSB from 2002 to 2007, told Bloomberg Environment he tried to form a union to address disputes over overtime and compensatory time but the effort stalled when staff became preoccupied with responding to the 2005 BP PLC explosion in Texas City, Texas, that killed 15 workers.
“Half the staff went out to Texas for months, and we basically lost all the momentum for any kind of organizing campaign there,” Barab said.
While Barab wasn't involved in recent personnel issues at the CSB, he said a union could have benefits for the staff, and not just when employees are unhappy with workplace policies. In dealing with workplace disputes, the board's staff has taken complaints to both the EPA's inspector general and the House Oversight Committee, in lieu of representation, Barab said.
Barab said IG investigations are less desirable because they can stray into unrelated issues, while congressional involvement brings political concerns into play—something he said union involvement avoids.
Some news reports in the past year have accused CSB of excessive ties to labor unions. But holding off because of fears of conflict of interest was “not really a reason,” Barab said, since unionized inspectors from other federal agencies already perform these roles.
Still, major labor unions may not actively seek to organize a local chapter at a tiny agency like CSB because the low number of staff there is less likely to offset the initial costs, Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which represents public-sector workers in workplace disputes, said in an email to Bloomberg Environment.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=123390142&vname=dennotallissues&fn=123390142&jd=123390142
-
EPA, Pruitt May Face Lawsuits Over Advisory Board Changes
Nov 7, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt may face legal challenges over his decision to block grant recipients from serving on advisory committees.
Environmentalists, Democrats and scientific societies have slammed Pruitt over the new policy, saying it unnecessarily blocks the best experts in their fields from giving the agency advice, while allowing industry officials to continue to have influence through the panels.
Legal experts say the dispute is certain to end up in federal court, where the EPA could face an uphill battle to prove that blocking certain scientists from its boards serves legitimate government interests.
Michael Burger, executive director of Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, allowed that it was possible a specific scientist might have a specific conflict on a specific policy because of federal funding.
But he said the broad policy outlined by Pruitt made little sense.
“The idea that just holding a grant at all from EPA disqualifies you in all instances from working on the committees just does not make sense, and has no real basis in conflict-of interest precedent,” he said.
Sidney Shapiro, a Wake Forest School of Law professor and Center for Progressive Reform scholar, said the fact that Pruitt would allow industry scientists to continue serving on advisory boards is a major problem.
“He didn’t get rid of people from industry who have the same potential conflicts. So unless you justify that adequately, that only adds to the argument that it’s arbitrary and capricious,” Shapiro said.
The policy, rolled out Oct. 31 at a major EPA event, comes in response to complaints lodged for years by Republicans and industry players. They say previous administrations stacked advisory committees with academics who rely on EPA grants, and therefore favor policies that would get them more grants.
“We want to ensure that there’s integrity in the process, and that the scientists who are advising us are doing so with not any type of appearance of conflict. And when you receive that much money … there’s a question that arises about independence,” Pruitt said at the time.
The EPA has said that members of the three most high-profile advisory committees — the Science Advisory Board, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and the Board of Scientific Counselors — had received $77 million in grants in the last three years.
The EPA did not respond to requests for comments on the legality of the new policy.
The Federal Advisory Committee Act gives agencies wide discretion to pick whom they want to be their advisers. It requires that the advisers avoid specific conflicts of interest and the boards must be balanced and transparent, but prescribes few specific requirements beyond that.
Steve Milloy, a lawyer who is an outspoken skeptic of past scientific conclusions by the EPA on matters like climate change and air pollution, said he’s confident the new standards can withstand legal scrutiny.
“I think that he’s on firm ground,” Milloy said of Pruitt. “Administrators have discretion to construct their panels, and the panels have to be independent and unbiased.”
Milloy had long pushed to kick EPA grantees off boards. He worked with the conservative Energy and Environmental Legal Institute last year to sue the EPA, arguing that grantees were too conflicted to legally be allowed to serve.
The group dropped the lawsuit due to fears that it did not have the standing to sue, Milloy said. Additionally, a 1999 decision by the Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit found that receiving an agency grant, by itself, does not disqualify advisory board members.
No current or former advisory committee member or environmental group has announced their intent to sue over Pruitt’s new standards.
But six House Democrats representing various committees warned Pruitt in a Nov. 3 letter to drop the policy, saying it “appears to potentially violate statutory requirements for agency advisory committees.”
Robert Johnston, a professor of environmental economics at Clark University and former Scientific Advisory Board member, said he has no plans to challenge the new policy, but did challenge Pruitt’s perceptions of the conflicts of interest at hand.
Johnston served on the board for about five years up until last week, when an EPA representative told him he was booted off unless he gave up his ongoing grant to study economic benefits of water quality.
“We filled out, each time, for each separate issue we discussed, a form which ensured that we had no conflict of interest. And so if that issue had anything to do with a grant we had or might apply for, or any other conflict of interest, we were immediately recused, and had to bow out of that issue,” Johnston said.
“So the idea that simply receiving a grant leads to conflict of interest, I just don’t see any support for that argument whatsoever.”
-
EPA's ORD Prioritizes PFAS Research Amid Growing Exposure Concerns
Nov 6, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Leaders in EPA's research office are prioritizing work on assessing risks of perflouroalkyl substances, which they see as a major challenge for the agency in the short term as they face monitoring results that show an ever-widening spread of contamination from the substances, though EPA's water office is worried they will be harder to address under Trump administration toxics office rule changes.
EPA's acting research chief, Bob Kavlock, named per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as “likely the most dominant human health issue of the next 5-10 years” in his recent email to research office staff announcing his Nov. 3 retirement. Kavlock said that EPA's research staff are “positioning ourselves to be the leaders in looking at the hazards and exposures of the PFAS class of chemicals."
One such action is an effort within the research office's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) to broaden its existing assessments of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) to other PFAS chemicals, IRIS chief Tina Bahadori told a recent meeting of EPA science advisors. These assessments are considered agency gold-standard, and are often the basis for agency decision-making.
Such efforts come as political pressure is growing for the agency to do far more to combat the persistent chemicals' presence in the environment. The environmental organization Environmental Working Group (EWG) points in a Nov. 2 blog post to one testing lab that is re-analyzing samples it collected for the most recent Safe Drinking Water Act unregulated contaminant monitoring rule, known as UCMR3, and finding contamination from one of the earliest and best known PFAS, PFOA, at rates much greater than the official UCMR3 testing results, largely due to lowering the detection limit than what EPA required labs to report.
In the blog post, EWG explains that the lab, “Eurofins Eaton Analytical re-analyzed more than 10,000 samples taken from 2013 to 2015, including ones that were so low they were not reported to EPA, and found that more than one in five were contaminated with PFOA. They did not analyze how many additional systems were contaminated, so it's not possible to say how many Americans are drinking PFOA contaminated water. But it's certainly many more than the 7 million people served by utilities in the EPA's count.”
EWG explains that the lab used EPA's health advisory level of 70 nanograms per litre of water for PFOA and PFOS, two of the earliest and best known PFAS chemicals, as the testing level -- despite the fact that labs can detect the chemicals at levels 10 times lower. PFOA and PFOS belong to the subset of PFAS chemicals commonly referred to as PFCs.
Re-running the tests at lower detection limits resulted in “Reporting limits in the UCMR3 program ranged from 10 to 90 [nanograms per liter (ng/L)], depending on the compound, with PFOS and PFOA at 40 and 20 ng/L respectively. At these reporting levels nearly 200 systems had detections of PFCs, and over 150 had detections of PFOS and/or PFOA. Although this is a very small fraction of the total number of systems tested in UCMR3 (~3%), detections were found in 20 states, and the high reporting limits in UCMR3 relative to the [health advisories] makes it likely that the actual occurrence of PFCs in water supplies may be significantly higher. A review of Eurofins Eaton Analytical’s UCMR3 data set, representing ~40% of the national UCMR3 database, shows more than 10% of samples with detectable PFCs, versus only about 1-2% of samples if the data are screened at the UCMR3 [minimum reporting level].”
“In the face of this new evidence, it is scandalous that the EPA has not set a legal limit for PFOA and related chemicals. The PFC contamination crisis is not going away, but the agency has shown no sign that it is even considering enforceable regulations. Other states should follow the lead of New Jersey and Vermont, and take action to protect their drinking water from PFCs,” EWG says.
Water Office Concerns
EWG's posting follows the New York Times' release of internal memos between EPA offices, with officials raising concerns about changes that President Donald Trump's appointee to the toxics office was making to the new framework rules implementing Congress' reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The officials feared it would make it difficult for EPA to address chemicals like the PFCs under TSCA -- compared to the draft TSCA implementation rules issued by the Obama administration shortly before leaving office.
For example, Michael Shapiro, the career EPA staffer who is now the acting chief of the Office of Water (OW), warned in a May 30 memo that narrowing consideration of substances' uses would make it difficult to address risks posed by some substances, calling out PFCs as a particular example. Shapiro's concern centers around language in the new TSCA requiring EPA to evaluate chemicals based on their conditions of use -- and Trump EPA changes to reduce the uses that will usually be considered in those evaluations.
The memo raises “particular concern” over language in the final rule that excludes certain chemical uses from the definition of conditions of use, such as legacy uses or disposal. The OW memo notes that these excluded uses are “important chemical exposure pathways [but they] may not be included as part of the chemical prioritization or risk evaluation process, which would result in underestimation of the potential risks to human health and the environment.”
As an example, Shapiro described how the approach would undermine the agency's ability to address PFOA. He pointed to PFOA as a chemical that “[u]nder the revised prioritization and risk evaluation processes, some important conditions of use, legacy use, disposal, groundwater contamination) may not be considered, as determined by the Administrator.”
Shapiro described PFOA as an “industrial chemical that has drawn attention recently,” noting that it has “contaminated surface water and groundwater from manufacturing sites, industrial use, crash training areas, and industrial or municipal waste sites where products are disposed of or applied."
He acknowledged the success of EPA's voluntary phaseout agreement with PFOA manufacturers, known as the 2010/2015 PFOA Stewardship Program. But Shapiro said that while the voluntary approach “has worked toward eliminating PFOA emissions and product content, there are still some ongoing uses of this highly persistent and bioaccumulative chemical. There is also potential PFOA exposure from use on products that are recycled (carpets)."
EPA is also facing pressure from Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), that state's senior senator, who in a recent letter asks Administrator Scott Pruitt to review the Clean Water Act discharge permit into the Cape Fear River for Chemours' Fayetteville Works, NC, facility and also for EPA to select a new PFAS, GenX, and similar PFASs in the next set of chemicals that EPA selects for evaluation through its new TSCA authorities. Burr's spokespersons did not respond to requests seeking a copy of the letter, which is described in North Carolina's Star News.
The newspaper says Burr's letter “requested that the EPA 'quickly complete' its review of the 2009 consent order allowing Chemours to manufacture GenX and hold the company accountable for violating any portion of the agreement.”
“'This review should not only include actions taken by (the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality [DEQ]) and Chemours, but also EPA’s participation in the review of these permits,' Burr wrote. 'It is imperative that there is an understanding of the conditions that led to the discharge and what knowledge, if any, DEQ or EPA had about the GenX release.'”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epas-ord-prioritizes-pfas-research-amid-growing-exposure-concerns
-
European Commission Requests Opinion On Hair Dye
Nov 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The EU directorate general responsible for industry, DG Growth, has requested an opinion from the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety on hair dye hydroxypropyl p-phenylenediamine and its dihydrochloride salt.
Cosmetics Europe made a submission on the hair dye in July 2016. The ingredients are intended to be used in oxidative hair colouring products, up to a maximum on-head concentration of 2%.
The terms of reference for the SCCS opinion are:in light of the data provided, does the committee consider the subtance safe when used in oxidative hair colouring products, up to a maximum on-head concentration of 2%?; anddoes it have any further scientific concerns with regard to its use in cosmetic products?
The deadline is March 2018.
The SCCS approved the mandate on 24 October.Further Information:
https://chemicalwatch.com/60892/european-commission-requests-opinion-on-hair-dye
-
The Bipartisan Opportunity of Energy Efficiency
Nov 7, 2017 | The New York Times
By Terry Sobolewski and Ralph Cavanagh
Partisan fights in Washington can leave the impression that we’re hopelessly divided. The truth is there are plenty of bipartisan solutions to the energy and environmental challenges we face, and energy efficiency is near the top of the list.
America fails to capture some two-thirds of the power it generates, much of it through simple waste, according to federal data. In a recent survey, the United States was ranked eighth among 23 of the world’s top energy-consuming countries in efficiency, behind several European nations, China and Japan.
We shouldn’t accept that.
Energy efficiency is one of the most powerful resources we have for meeting our energy and environmental goals. It is also an enormous economic opportunity.
Setting aside the significant environmental impact, this energy waste costs American businesses and households billions of dollars every year. In commercial buildings alone, where annual electricity costs are roughly $190 billion, about 30 percent of this energy goes to waste.
We’re making progress. Federal programs like Energy Star (which identifies and clearly labels the most efficient products on the market) are saving American consumers and businesses billions of dollars per year while reducing power plant pollution. Also, America’s utilities are doing their part, investing $7.5 billion annually in cost-effective electricity and natural gas efficiency programs.Continue reading the main story
Yet many of the federal efficiency programs stimulating this progress are under threat in Washington. The Trump administration has proposed killing Energy Star and all but eliminating other efficiency programs, with cuts averaging nearly 80 percent. Congress wisely rejected these proposals initially for the short term, but legislation recently passed by the House isn’t much better, proposing to cut many of these money-saving and job-creating programs nearly in half.
A House subcommittee was scheduled to meet on Tuesday to discuss altering Energy Star in ways that could compromise the program, which supporters call one of America’s most successful public-private partnerships. The government-backed effort estimates it has savedconsumers and businesses $430 billion on their utility bills since its launch in 1992, and it has grown to 16,000 partners (including a wide range of manufacturers, retailers, builders and utilities).
Eliminating or weakening Energy Star and other efficiency programs is absolutely going in the wrong direction.
Energy efficiency is not new — it was our grandparents’ energy policy: Don’t waste. Save as much as you can for later when you, or future generations, might need it.
We need energy efficiency to accommodate emerging technologies and population growth, which are putting demands on our electricity grids that our grandparents never imagined. We can do so much more than shutting off our lights or keeping a close eye on the thermostat.
That’s where smart policy and programs come into play.
Our federal agencies run some of the most innovative efficiency programs in the world. They work with American manufacturers on the latest efficiency technologies to improve productivity and competitiveness. They develop efficiency standards for household appliances, saving families an average of $500 per year. They provide testing and expertise to local and state governments trying to adopt the most effective building-efficiency codes for homes and commercial buildings.
This is not federal bureaucracy run amok. It’s good government that will save taxpayers money and drive our economy. To critics who say that “government intervention isn’t needed to save energy” or “efficiency standards are intrusive federal mandates,” the best response is simply to invoke a decades-long record of economic and environmental success across the nation, dating back at least 30 years, when the first legislation authorizing federal efficiency standards was signed by President Ronald Reagan.
Today, according to the Energy Department, energy efficiency supports 2.2 million American jobs — from contractors weatherizing houses to workers manufacturing more efficient appliances and equipment. Imagine how many more jobs could be created if we were to turn our waste into opportunity.
Evidence shows that Americans of all stripes want reasonable energy efficiency policies. Shortly after the November 2016 election, a poll released by the Conservative Energy Network found that 94 percent of respondents said policies supporting energy efficiency were important.
Among those who supported Donald Trump, the number was 90 percent.
It’s hard to beat those numbers. Congress should come together and deliver strong funding for federal efficiency programs. Energy efficiency presents both Republicans and Democrats with an opportunity to reach consensus on an issue that is good for their constituents and the environment. Taxpayers and customers win. It’s a nonpartisan solution to a nonpartisan challenge.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/opinion/bipartisan-energy-efficiency.html
-
Lawmakers Tell Regulators To Oppose Perry Energy Plan
Nov 6, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Several House lawmakers, including a Republican, are urging regulators to ignore Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s plan to overhaul the electricity sector.
In comments published by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on Monday, the House members came out against Perry’s proposal to prop up coal and nuclear plants through higher payments for the power they generate. The proposal is designed to boost the reliability and resilience of the electric grid by supporting traditional sources of large amounts of electricity.
In one comment, Reps. Pete Olson (R-Texas) and Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) told the FERC the 60-day timeline they have for ruling on the proposal is too short for an issue as “remarkably complex” as electricity sector payments.
“We do believe that a renewed focus is needed on this issue, and we have been heartened by your outspoken interest in the matter,” the pair — the vice chair and ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee's energy subpanel — wrote.
“We ask you to continue addressing this matter through existing proceedings at the federal and regional level rather than quickly moving to make a sweeping, top-down decision in the near-term.”
In a second letter, 14 Democrats said Perry’s proposal dismisses the role renewable power plays in supporting the reliability of the electric grid.
“Actions to reduce carbon emissions are intimately linked with actions to increase resilience because reducing carbon emissions in the near-term can prevent the worst impacts of climate change change in the future,” they wrote.
Perry’s plan has support from the coal sector and some in the nuclear industry, both of whom say the proposal would compensate power plants that they argue should paid more for their electricity. But lawmakers slammed the proposal when Perry testified on the issue before the Energy and Commerce Committee last month.
Comments on the proposal are due to FERC this week and the commission is scheduled to take action on the issue in early December.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/358938-lawmakers-tell-regulators-to-oppose-perry-energy-plan
-
Company Returns Illinois' First Fracking Permit, Citing 'Burdensome' Rules, Commodity Prices
Nov 6, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Two months after regulators in Illinois issued the state's first permit for high-volume hydraulic fracturing (fracking), the Kansas-based company that received the permit has returned it, citing "burdensome, time consuming and costly" regulations, but also commodity prices.
Last September, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources' (DNR) Office of Oil and Gas Resource Management (OOGRM) awarded a permit to Woolsey Operating Co. LLC to conduct fracking operations at the Woodrow 1H-310408-193 well in White County. The well targeted the Grassy Creek Shale, a member formation of the New Albany Shale in the Illinois Basin.
But in an Oct. 30 letter to the OOGRM, the Wichita, KS-based company requested that the fracking permit be immediately released, and that an injection well permit be withdrawn.
"Woolsey understands and agrees that if in the future it determines it is economical to pursue the projects contemplated by either, or both, the permits and the injection well permit application, it will be required to begin the permit process in accordance with all applicable statutes and rules and regulations in effect at that time," Woolsey President Scott Fraizer wrote.
Illinois enacted the Hydraulic Fracturing Regulatory Act (HFRA) in 2013, and DNR oversees the fracking rules.
Mark Sooter, vice president for business development, told NGI's Shale Daily that Woolsey will focus its near-term efforts on existing operations in Kansas.
"The process we have gone through to receive a permit was burdensome, time consuming and costly due to the current rules and regulations of the State of Illinois, and it appears that this process would continue for future permit applications," Sooter said Monday. "Also, the drilling and completion requirements under the HFRA are stringent, which will make future development costs of the New Albany Shale excessive and the obligations for compliance on our staff demanding.
"We are still of the opinion that the New Albany Shale has potential and are disappointed to come to this conclusion. It is a difficult business decision, as the resources we committed were substantial. However, in consideration of the current price of oil and gas, the difficult regulatory environment in Illinois and exploration opportunities in other states, it is in our best interest to discontinue with high-volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing operations in Illinois."
Lawmakers in Illinois began considering ways to regulate fracking five years ago, with the state Senate passing a law in April 2012. To avoid a drilling moratorium, environmental groups and representatives of the oil and gas industry backed a bipartisan bill establishing the HFRA in February 2013. The bill, at the time dubbed the nation's most stringent on fracking, was signed by then-Gov. Pat Quinn. The DNR then published an initial version of proposed rules on fracking and scheduled a series of public hearings on the matter.
But in August 2014, supporters and opponents of shale gas development in Illinois were unhappy with DNR's proposed 150 pages of revised rules to the HFRA. Two months later, a legislative panel delayed a vote on the revised rules until after that year's election. The rules were unanimously approved by the panel two days after Bruce Rauner, a Republican, was elected governor.
In 2012, the Illinois Chamber of Commerce reported that shale formations in the southern part of the state could potentially create $9.5 billion of investment and 45,000 jobs. The New Albany Shale formation underlies a substantial portion of southern Illinois.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/112354-company-returns-illinois-first-fracking-permit-citing-burdensome-rules-commodity-prices
-
FERC Approval Guidelines Need Update — Report
Nov 6, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Sam Mintz,
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's policy guidelines for permitting natural gas pipelines are almost 20 years old and may need revising, according to a new report from an analyst and former Department of Energy official.
FERC's approval of around 400 pipelines since 1999 has been guided by a policy statement written that year, said Susan Tierney, an assistant Energy secretary during the Clinton administration and now a consultant at the Analysis Group.
Both natural gas production and demand have increased significantly since the late '90s, and there has been an "acceleration" of challenges to pipeline projects by landowners, municipalities, environmentalists and others, said Tierney. Climate science has also developed.
"Changing industry conditions, combined with the principles espoused by FERC at the time of the last Policy Statement, support the conclusion that circumstances are now ripe for FERC to undertake a new and careful review of its policy guidance regarding pipeline certification," she wrote.
The report recommends opening a new rulemaking docket at the agency to solicit comments about what changes might make sense.
"Given the important roles that natural gas resources now play in the U.S. economy, the many changes underway in the energy systems that will likely affect future natural gas production, delivery, and use in the future, and the importance of FERC administering its responsibilities under the Natural Gas Policy Act in a judicious manner, the time is right for a fresh look at the 1999 Policy Statement," Tierney wrote.
The Natural Resources Defense Council backed the report.LaFleur's concerns
Tierney's report marks the second time in recent weeks the 1999 policy statement has come into the spotlight.
In October, Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur voted against approving two natural gas pipelines — Atlantic Coast and Mountain Valley — leading to a rare 2-1 split vote by the commission (Energywire, Oct. 16).
In her dissent, LaFleur placed a focus on the 1999 document, which directs FERC to look at factors like fuel costs and environmental effects when considering whether to issue a pipeline certificate.
She said FERC's analysis of whether a project is in the public interest has become too focused on precedent agreements, or customer commitments secured ahead of time.
"I believe that careful consideration of a fuller record could help the Commission better balance environmental issues, including downstream impacts, with the project need and its benefits," she said.
Whether FERC leadership would sign on to such a review is a doubt, however. Chairman Neil Chatterjee voted to approve the two pipelines and has since said he strongly disagrees with LaFleur's dissenting opinion.
"I respect her greatly, I just think she's straight up wrong on this," he said in a recent interview with E&E News. "I think that the market can determine need far better than Washington."
Chatterjee said that even if LaFleur continues to ask questions about how FERC determines whether to approve pipelines, "I don't think it's going to change the course of the outcome of how the commission evaluates these proposals."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/11/06/stories/1060065775
-
(ACC Mentioned) At The UN Climate Talks, U.S. Leadership Comes From An Unexpected Place
Nov 6, 2017 | ThinkProgress
By Natasha Geiling
But that doesn't mean that the United States won't have a voice in Bonn.
When nearly 200 countries came together in Paris in December of 2015 — to hash out the details for what would become the historic Paris climate agreement — the presence of the United States was unmistakable: then-President Barack Obama attended the conferences opening ceremonies, and then-Secretary of State John Kerry was on site for the duration of the two-week negotiations.
But two years makes a world of difference, as the 23rd United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change kicks off this week in Bonn, Germany. The two-week conference — where participating nations hope to hammer out the details of exactly how to implement the Paris agreement — takes place as the United States has ceded the world stage on climate action, an attitude typified by the Trump administration’s decision to officially announce its intent to withdraw from the agreement in June.
This time, neither President Donald Trump nor the Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will attend the event. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt will be stateside, speaking at an American Chemistry Council board retreat. The highest-ranking United States representative in Bonn will be longtime career diplomat Thomas Shannon, whose presence — rather than a political appointee or administration official — suggests that the United States is hoping to keep a relatively low-profile at the talks this year.
“We’re expecting, and frankly hoping, that the U.S. is quiet,” Jake Schmidt, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s international program, said on a press call last week. “That will, by itself be a huge shift from years past where the U.S. was, if not the center, one of the key central figures in delivering climate action.”
For many climate and environmental activists, a sidelined United States would be a best-case scenario for the conference. Far more worrying would be a Trump administration actively engaged in the talks, which activists worry could derail attempts to push nations to adopt deeper emissions cuts. But the Trump administration has signaled at least a minor interest in potentially playing spoiler to the UNFCCC’s focus on renewable energy as the path forward towards implementing and achieving the kinds of emissions reductions set forth in the Paris agreement: according to the New York Times, the administration is planning to promote coal, natural gas, and nuclear power “as an answer to climate change” at a presentation scheduled for November 13.
“This discussion is a follow-up to the Administration’s success at the G20, where the United States expressed its support for helping countries meet their climate objectives through the use of cleaner and more efficient fossil fuels and other clean energy sources and technologies,” White House spokesman Raj Shah said in a statement. “It is undeniable that fossil fuels will be used for the foreseeable future, and it is in everyone’s interest that they be efficient and clean. Through innovation, the United States continues to be a global leader in cutting carbon emissions.”
But if the Trump administration’s role will be limited to sideline diplomatic negotiations and a single presentation on fossil fuels, a bevy of city and state leaders are hoping to send a louder message to the international leaders assembled in Bonn — one that reasserts the United States as a climate leader, just without the help of the federal government.
“U.S. businesses, cities, will be attending COP 23 in a unified delegation and working together to accelerate climate action back home,” Lou Leonard, senior vice president of the World Wildlife Fund’s Climate and Energy Program, said on a press call last week. “These U.S. subnational leaders are going to pick up the torch and the responsibility that would normally fall to the federal government, and they will organize and hold a pavilion and tell their stories and show the world that the U.S. can still be counted on as a trusted partner to reduce emissions.”
Subnational leaders aren’t allowed to negotiate on behalf of the United States; the Paris agreement is made up of nationally determined contributions, or NDCs, which are pledges that individual countries have made with respect to cutting their emissions and transitioning to renewable energy. But city, state, and business leaders can still exert influence at the talks, akin to a kind of soft diplomatic power. Showing how American cities and states are pressing forward with climate action could inspire national leaders — especially major players like India and China — to step up their own commitments to climate action in spite of the Trump administration’s backsliding.
“As drivers of the economy in the United States and around the world, businesses, cities, and other subnational governments have a crucial role in accelerating our transformation towards renewable energy and zeroing out fossil fuels,” Leonard said. “It will be powerful to have those leaders from the United States there to speak for themselves at the talks.”
Since June, when Trump officially announced his intention to formally withdraw the United States from the Paris agreement, local leaders like former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) have worked to form a designated coalition of cities, states, and businesses committed to reducing their emissions in line with the United States’ commitments under the Paris agreement (26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025).
The big news out of Bonn, from the subnational perspective, will likely come this weekend, when Bloomberg and Brown are set to unveil the first analysis of how close subnational commitments could come to bridging the gap between the United States’ Paris commitments and current action. A previous report, released in September, found that current commitments from cities, states, and businesses could bring the United States halfway to fulfilling its Paris goal, but the analysis to be released on Saturday will be the first to track, in real-time, the impact these pledges are having on U.S. national carbon emissions. Bloomberg and Brown will present the analysis to UNFCCC Executive Secretary Patricia Espinosa.
“While the White House declares war on climate science and retreats from the Paris Agreement, California is doing the opposite and taking action,” Brown said in a press statement released Monday. “We are joining with our partners from every part of the world to do what needs to be done to prevent irreversible climate change.”
https://thinkprogress.org/us-backseat-climate-talks-108c7f9f0140/
-
Climate Advocates Hoping For 'Quiet' U.S. In Global Talks
Nov 7, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Emily Holden
President Donald Trump’s quest to put “America first” in international affairs will undergo a major stress test this week and next as U.S. officials meet with climate change negotiators from around the world.
Despite planning to pull out of a historic deal to slow man-made global warming, which Trump dismisses as a hoax, the State Department will send a small delegation of career diplomats to a conference that began Monday in Bonn, Germany, to discuss how countries will show they are fulfilling their pledges. The U.S. and Syria are the only countries on Earth not participating in the 2015 Paris agreement, and climate advocates are watching closely for signs that Trump’s stance might derail decades of slowly building progress toward a global effort to try to stall increasing emissions that are already exacerbating droughts, wildfires, sea-level rise and flooding.
“We’re expecting, and I guess frankly kind of hoping, the U.S. is quite quiet,” said Jake Schmidt, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s international program.
Outside of the official negotiating process, White House aides will be joined by industry executives to promote coal, natural gas and nuclear power. But EPA chief Scott Pruitt, who has questioned climate science is reversing U.S. anti-carbon rules, will not attend the meetings, allaying concerns that he might try to distract from states, cities and businesses aiming to take up the U.S. climate banner in place of the White House.
"It is undeniable that fossil fuels will be used for the foreseeable future, and it is in everyone’s interest that they be efficient and clean," White House spokesman Raj Shah said in a statement, comparing the plan to the Trump administration's promotion of fossil fuels at this year's G-20 summit. "Through innovation, the United States continues to be a global leader in cutting carbon emissions."
The talks in Bonn are mostly technical and normally would not draw much attention, but they have taken on outsized significance with Trump putting other nations on edge about the United States’ future in climate negotiations and what it will mean for the deal’s overall success.
“The benchmark for success in Bonn is you arrive, you make progress on some mechanical items, and nobody leaves in a complete huff,” said David Victor, professor of international relations at the University of California, San Diego, and author of the book “Global Warming Gridlock.” “People are going to be watching very closely what the U.S. delegation does — whether they’re constructive, whether they’re silent, whether they’re mean.”
Fiji’s chief negotiator, Nazhat Shameem Khan, said the U.S. had been constructive leading up to the meetings, and she is confident the U.S. won't be "disruptive or unhelpful."
The U.S. has added more planet-warming carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than any other nation, so its promises to curb emissions were key to the Paris agreement. But Trump said the deal was unfair because the U.S. pledged to cut its carbon output at least 26 percent by 2025 compared to 2005 levels, while rapidly growing economies like China and India would be able to keep increasing their emissions for several more years/decades before agreeing to level off. So far, China, India and other big emitters have shown no signs of backing down from their commitments.
Keya Chatterjee, executive director of the U.S. Climate Action Network, called Trump's move to withdraw a "geopolitical disaster," that would make it difficult for him to negotiate with word leaders on other matters.
But Chrissy Harbin, vice president for external affairs for the conservative group Americans for Prosperity, which applauded his decision earlier this year, said Trump's position "doesn't seem to be one of isolationism."
“Instead his position on international energy policy is finding an agreement that doesn’t give U.S. interests and American families the short end of the stick,” she said, noting the country's trillions of dollars of wealth in fossil fuels.
The international community has been discussing climate change since at least 1992. America’s support for climate action has wavered many times before, including under the George W. Bush administration and when a cap-and-trade billed failed to clear Congress in 2010. U.S. courts say the law requires efforts to curb emissions from the federal government, but Pruitt has taken an ax to Obama-era climate regulations.
In the run-up to the conference in Bonn, an alliance of governors of 14 states and Puerto Rico have been making a pre-emptory case that the Paris agreement will live on in wide swaths of America. The governors, 12 Democrats and two Republicans, pledged to meet their states’ share of the United States’ commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Paris. Other groups that include cities and businesses are making efforts to quantify what they can contribute.
California Gov. Jerry Brown, one of the alliance's leaders, said he will treat Bonn as “an active checking-in” with other states and local governments from around the world.
“We’re just trying to make it work,” said Brown, who was appointed by the leader of this year's talks as a special adviser for states and regions to the conference in Bonn. “The problem is not Trump or myself. It’s … how is the world going to be for your kids, how is it going to be for you — and even me, depending upon how long I’m still around.”
On Saturday, Brown will join former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, now a U.N. special envoy for cities and climate change, to present a report showing the steps U.S. states, cities and businesses are taking to shrink their carbon footprints. At a summit Brown plans to host in San Francisco next year, they hope to translate those steps into a more detailed pledge quantifying how far emissions would fall despite the lack of federal policy.
Todd Stern, who was a leading architect of the Obama administration’s international climate strategy said the federal government "checking out" will cause “tons of damage,” but state leaders could help fill the void.
“If you have nothing more than a bunch of state and local people taking the megaphone and yelling about Trump, I think that that’s got some utility, but limited,” he said. “To the extent that people around the world can see, wow, so there’s this group of 15 governors and they represent 36 percent of our population and 41 percent of our GDP and 25 percent of our emissions, and they’re all cranking — they’re doing real policy … that’s a good thing.”
Meanwhile, the Trump administration's rollback of climate rules and promotion of fossil fuel development could cause U.S. emissions reductions to stall, according to a report from the analysis firm Rhodium Group. Green states “could do a lot more and that would certainly be helpful to meeting U.S. goals,” said John Larsen, an author of the research and director at Rhodium Group. “But there’s still a large chunk of emissions outside those states that matters.”
The Paris deal alone is not enough to keep temperatures from reaching a dangerous threshold of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial levels, and negotiators hoped to build on it in the next few years.
Worldwide, the gap between planned and needed carbon dioxide emissions reductions remains “alarmingly high,” the United Nations said in a paper last week.
The longer countries wait to reach peak emissions, the harder it will be to avoid dangerous temperatures, according to a new report from the World Resources Institute. Unless global emissions are in decline by 2020, slowing climate change will take “unprecedented rates of decarbonization and reliance on unproven technologies at scale,” the report said.
“Progress is being made, but it simply is not happening at the pace desired,” said Andrew Steer, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute. “In a way, this COP is more important than most people think. It’s terribly important to go to Bonn and really step up the level of ambition.”
Sara Stefanini contributed to this report.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/article/2017/11/climate-advocates-hoping-for-quiet-us-in-global-talks-164475
-
Rich Nations Fail to Help Developing World Fight Climate Change
Nov 7, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joe Ryan
Wealthy nations are falling short on promises to help the developing world reduce greenhouse gases by investing in clean energy, jeopardizing the global fight against climate change.
Clean energy investments in China, sub-Saharan African and other emerging markets fell 27 percent in 2016, to $111.4 billion, Bloomberg New Energy Finance said in a study Nov. 6. Less than 10 percent of that spending came from rich countries.
While emissions decline in the U.S., U.K. and other wealthy nations, they are rising across the developing world as cities expand and nations build power plants and other infrastructure to lift people from poverty. Wealthy nations pledged in 2009 to spend $100 billion annually to help poorer countries make that transition without increasing greenhouse gases. But investment from the richest nations totaled just $10 billion in 2016, BNEF found.
“The figures highlight the gap between talk and action when it comes to addressing climate and supporting clean energy,” BNEF analyst Ethan Zindler said.
Global carbon dioxide emissions increased by less than 1 percent last year, with the growth stemming primarily from developing nations. A rapid expansion of wind and solar energy is crucial to changing that. BNEF estimates that $8.7 trillion will be invested in clean energy through 2040. Meeting goals set under the Paris Agreement will require an additional $5.4 trillion, BNEF said.
The problem isn't just wealthy nations, the members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development. In many instances, developing countries have not put policies in place to give investors confidence to finance projects, Zindler said.
Nonetheless, capital from developed countries is critical to cut emissions in less-developed regions. At the landmark 2015 United Nations climate summit in Paris, some poorer nations pledged to meet emissions targets only if they received financial and technical assistance. Nineteen said they would cancel their commitments if help didn't materialize.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=123390148&vname=dennotallissues&fn=123390148&jd=123390148
-
EPA Punts Decisions on Regions Violating Ozone Air Standards
Nov 7, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu
The EPA announced which counties in the U.S. have clean air but left out the most important part: which areas do not meet updated ozone standards.
Until the Environmental Protection Agency formally announces which regions violate the ozone standards set in 2015, states don't need to start planning how to reduce pollution levels in problem areas.
“They've done the least meaningful part of the task,” Paul Billings, senior vice president of advocacy at the American Lung Association, told Bloomberg Environment.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said in a Nov. 6 statement that the process of designating which areas attain the ozone standards is a complex one that will require “ongoing and extensive” conversations with state and local officials. State representatives could not be reached for immediate comment.
“As we move forward, the Agency will be able to prioritize, be more responsive to local needs, and move forward on a case-by-case basis,” Pruitt said.
While it's unclear when the EPA will follow its announcement with non-attainment designations, Billings said, “They've still failed to comply with the law and failed to complete a non-discretionary duty.”
The EPA's Nov. 6 partial announcement comes more than one month behind schedule: The updated ozone area designations were due Oct. 1.
According to the notice, 85 percent of the counties in the U.S. have ozone levels below the updated federal standard of 70 parts per billion. This leaves 15 percent of the counties in limbo.
Lawsuit Threat Stands
The EPA tried to formally delay its ozone attainment designations over the summer, before reversing its decision. The EPA then missed its official designation deadline of October 1, prompting the American Lung Association to announce its intent to sue the agency.
“EPA still hasn't done its job so the notice still stands,” Seth Johnson, the Earthjustice attorney representing the association, told Bloomberg Environment. “It's great that many parts of the country get to breath clean air, but there are many people who don't.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=123390128&vname=dennotallissues&fn=123390128&jd=123390128
-
EPA Issues Ozone NAAQS Designations While Reconsidering Air Standard
Nov 6, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Anthony Lacey
EPA has issued its delayed designations for which areas are attaining the Obama-era stricter ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) and finds that 2,646 of more than 3,100 counties meet the NAAQS, meaning they will not have to impose strict new ozone reduction measures for the standard that the Trump EPA is reconsidering.
In a Nov. 6 press release, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt touted the agency's work with states on issuing the designations for areas meeting the NAAQS, while working to issue findings for other areas with insufficient air data or other limitations that prevented officials from making a designation. Issuance of the findings triggers a Clean Air Act clock for states to craft emissions control plans for either staying in or achieving attainment.
“The ozone designation process is complex and requires ongoing and extensive conversations with state and local agencies. As we move forward, the Agency will be able to prioritize, be more responsive to local needs, and move forward on a case-by-case basis,” Pruitt said about the designations.
Under the air law, EPA was originally required to issue the designations by Oct. 1 -- but Pruitt this summer suddenly announced he was delaying by one year the deadline for releasing the findings. Environmentalists and several states then sued EPA, claiming the move was unlawful. Soon after, the administrator rescinded the delay, which reinstated the original Oct. 1 deadline, though the agency then missed that date.
Now, EPA is saying that it is able to conclude that 2,646 of the more than 3,100 counties in the United States are in attainment with the 2015 ozone standard. “These areas do not have any increased compliance burdens,” EPA notes, because their state implementation plans will not have to include stringent ozone-reduction measures to get into attainment.
EPA is not yet issuing designations for the remaining 450-plus areas, citing data limits or other problems, but will work with affected states to address those findings in a future rulemaking.
“In the spirit of cooperative federalism, EPA will continue to work with states and the public to help areas with underlying technical issues, disputed designations, and/or insufficient information. Additionally, EPA modeling, state agency comments, and peer-reviewed science indicate international emissions and background ozone can contribute significantly to areas meeting attainment thresholds,” the agency says.
Cooperative federalism refers to Pruitt's push to increase states' authority on environmental protection, although environmentalists warn it could lead to weakening of air standards and other rules.
Pruitt has also said that EPA is actively reviewing and could potentially reconsider the Obama administration's decision in October 2015 to tighten the ozone NAAQS down to 70 parts per billion (ppb) from the prior, weaker standard of 75 ppb set in 2008.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-issues-ozone-naaqs-designations-while-reconsidering-air-standard
-
Trump EPA Sets Stricter Test For 'Co-Benefits' Of Air Rules Than Obama
Nov 6, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA appears to be using a much stricter test than the Obama administration for when it will count the “co-benefits” of Clean Air Act rules also reducing other pollutants than those targeted in the regulations, sources say, based on the Clean Power Plan (CPP) repeal proposal that significantly downplays the policy's predicted co-benefits.
“I definitely see it as a signal about how they are thinking about those issues,” said Obama EPA air chief Janet McCabe when asked by Inside EPA about the cost-benefit analysis for the CPP repeal and what it signals for future air rules. As assistant administrator for the Office of Air & Radiation, McCabe played a major role in development of major Obama EPA air rules such as the CPP and the mercury and toxics air standards (MATS) for utilities.
The Trump EPA alongside the Oct. 10 proposed CPP repeal issued a revised cost-benefit analysis aimed at making the case for repeal by significantly downgrading the benefits and co-benefits of the original rule, which would have required existing power plants to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The agency offers an alternative analysis of the co-benefits of the CPP that discounts many of the monetized benefits counted by the Obama EPA.
In the new regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for the repeal, the agency sets two threshold levels of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air pollution below which it assumes no health co-benefits occur. That contrasts with the CPP, which did not set any such thresholds and therefore counted all possible benefits -- including the co-benefit of reducing harmful PM2.5 emissions even though the GHG rule did not directly regulate that criteria pollutant.
The result is that the repeal RIA significantly reduces the estimated health benefits of the CPP by ignoring benefits that are either at levels below EPA's PM2.5 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), or below a new, lower threshold level.
Asked by Inside EPA whether the new cost-benefit method could find its way into a reconsideration of MATS or the underlying cost finding justifying that rule, McCabe said “I certainly think it could."
EPA is currently reconsidering provisions of the MATS and the associated finding that the Obama administration issued that the rule is appropriate and necessary under the Clean Air Act, after a review of the costs and benefits of the regulation. In “the rulemakings like MATS and any other more industry-specific rulemakings where co-benefits are present, I could see that happening,” McCabe said of the Trump EPA's new method.
She warned that the new approach bucks the scientific consensus that there is no safe threshold for PM2.5 -- or for some other pollutants regulated through a NAAQS, such as ozone. The change in policy would not be justified because, “If you have co-benefits, you are in fact having health improvements.”
Also, the change in methodology would have to withstand judicial review, she noted. “If you are going to make changes to that, you are going to have to articulate a reasonable, rational basis” for why the previous method “is no longer appropriate.” Further, “the rational should be made available for the public to comment on."
McCabe said that the Obama EPA worked closely with the White House Office of Management and Budget on its cost and benefit estimates for air rules, and received approval for its methods.
One environmentalist attorney who has followed the development of MATS from the beginning agrees that the RIA for the CPP repeal indicates the direction in which EPA wants to go with cost-benefit analysis and co-benefits. “This is far from the last time we will see it,” the attorney says. But an industry attorney disagrees that the RIA document necessarily points to firm conclusions about the future direction of EPA cost-benefit analysis, saying “I don't think the RIA provides a clear signal one way or the other. It leaves all options on the table.”
Cost-Benefit Review
The Obama EPA in its CPP RIA counted the benefits of avoided deaths and illness caused by air pollution in its rules without a lower threshold at which benefits are assumed not to accrue. But the Trump administration in the CPP repeal RIA offers two alternatives with respect to fine particulate matter (PM2.5).
The first threshold below which no health benefits are assumed to occur is the lowest measured level (LML) at which exposures were linked to mortality in a 2009 long-term epidemiological study on mortality caused by PM2.5 authored by researcher Daniel Krewski and colleagues. The LML is 5.8 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3). The study by Krewski et al, “Evaluating the Effects of Ambient Air Pollution on Life Expectancy,” appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine in January 2009.
The second threshold below which EPA now says it does not estimate any health benefits to occur is the current NAAQS for PM2.5, set by the Obama EPA at 12 ug/m3.
EPA in the RIA notes that the agency has previously employed an LML-type approach when calculating benefits. However, for PM2.5 in particular many public health experts say there is no safe level of exposure.
Industry and states opposed to EPA air rules have long argued in litigation that EPA cannot count PM2.5 benefits in rules such as the CPP or MATS that do not target PM2.5, because the separate NAAQS program exists to regulate PM2.5.
Further, EPA's critics have argued that where such co-benefits are counted, they cannot be counted where exposures occur at pollutant concentrations below the level of the NAAQS, because under the Clean Air Act EPA must set NAAQS at a level requisite to protect public health with an “adequate margin of safety."
Discounting the PM2.5 benefits below the level of the NAAQS has a huge impact on the estimated impact of air rules, because the vast majority of the country is attaining the standard already and most exposures occur at lower concentrations than the NAAQS. This is critical for MATS in particular, where the great majority of the benefits the Obama EPA estimated stemmed from co-benefits.
Numbers presented in the CPP repeal RIA vary widely depending on a range of assumptions, but show the co-benefits of PM2.5 from that rule substantially reduced when levels below the NAAQS are discounted, and reduced somewhat less when the LML approach is taken.
Litigation is now on hold in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit over EPA’s revised cost finding that it is “appropriate and necessary” to regulate air toxics from power plants, in Murray Energy Corporation v. EPA, et al. The Trump EPA has indicated it intends to review and possibly revise that finding, which is a legal prerequisite to issuance of the MATS rule itself.
The Supreme Court in a 5-4 opinion authored by the late Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015 in Michigan v. EPA faulted the initial finding for failure to consider costs. The revised version relies in part on the original cost-benefit analysis developed for MATS.
But under that analysis, the benefits estimated from $37 billion to $90 billion are derived overwhelmingly from PM2.5 exposures, most of those occurring below the level of the NAAQS. If those benefits are discounted, EPA’s estimate of monetized benefits from air toxics reductions remains no higher than $6 million, a figure dwarfed by the Obama EPA’s own estimate of implementation costs of around $9.6 billion.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/trump-epa-sets-stricter-test-co-benefits-air-rules-obama
-
Environmentalists, States Wary Of Trump EPA's 'Cooperative Federalism'
Nov 6, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Environmentalists and some state regulators are wary of the Trump EPA's push to bolster “cooperative federalism” by giving states more authority on environmental protection, with environmentalists saying it is a “misleading” plan that will weaken safeguards while states say similar agency commitments in the past have failed to materialize.
The comments are among the feedback EPA received on its draft strategic plan for fiscal years 2018 through 2022, in which the agency made one of its main goals to “rebalance the power between Washington and the states to create tangible environmental results” -- without offering specific metrics for what those results are. That lack of specificity has already prompted criticism from former EPA officials who call it a “meaningless” plan.
In recent comments, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) warns that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's focus on cooperative federalism will serve as cover for weakening federal and state environmental standards.
“Administrator Pruitt’s appeal to cooperative federalism is one-sided, aiming to provide cover for states and industries that seek weaker or no safeguards -- while also undermining states that aim to provide more protective environmental and health programs for their citizens,” EDF says.
EDF argues that the Trump EPA's brand of cooperative federalism shortchanges the federal agency's role in ensuring environmental protections and says the plan's renewed commitment to cooperative is “misleading,” given that EPA and state regulators have long cooperated. “[T]he Plan’s intention to 'restore' state power and to 'rebalance' the federal-state relationship ignores EPA’s established history of cooperation with states,” the comments say.
Officials with the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), which represents many state environmental agencies, have said that state officials are holding ongoing meetings with EPA to craft metrics for reducing agency reviews of state programs, which will allow states' greater flexibility in meeting shared goals of reducing pollution.
State regulators are more supportive of the general concept of cooperative federalism, but several state groups in their comments on the FY18-22 draft plan note that past EPA vows to give states more power have failed. And they note that the Trump EPA's proposed budget cuts will leave states with inadequate funding to achieve their environmental protection priorities.
“[C]ooperative federalism has often been interpreted differently by EPA Headquarters, the EPA Regional Offices, and the states,” the Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) says in Oct. 31 comments. ACWA, which represents state water regulators, says it “has found that in practice states are often treated as a lesser partner, if a partner at all, in federal decision making.”
The Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO), representing state waste officials, argues in comments that the Trump administration's budget proposals have floated drastic cuts to EPA, which supports states' environmental programs through grants, failing to back the administration's commitment to cooperative federalism.
'Significant Cuts'
“The Strategic Plan seeks to increase accomplishments and State outputs, yet the budget forecasts significant cuts across all programs, including grants to States to implement delegated programs or other EPA initiatives,” ASTSWMO says. “EPA must reconcile this inconsistency in the budget proposal, ensuring that sufficient funds are available to achieve the stated goals and objectives.
ASTSWMO also says the Trump's proposed budget potentially undermines EPA's chemical risk assessment programs that states rely on for toxicity data to support cleanup decisions.
“States also appropriately rely on EPA as a centralized and consistent clearinghouse for technical expertise that States cannot and should not maintain individually, including the development of toxicity and risk information, evaluation of cleanup technologies and analytical methods, and research and information on new threats from, and strategies for addressing, contaminants of emerging concern,” ASTSWMO says. “The budget proposal all but eliminates many of these critical activities upon which States depend for the most current and accurate, science-based decision-making.”
The Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies (AAPCA), representing air regulators in several states and localities, in its comments backs Pruitt's efforts to increase state officials' participation in EPA advisory boards, including the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, Science Advisory Board, and the Board of Scientific Counselors, and urges the agency to identify ways of encouraging early state and local participation in those committees.
The mixed reaction to Pruitt's brand of cooperative federalism as outlined in the draft strategic plan comes as ECOS and EPA officials are seeking to advance their shared goal of greater state autonomy, but as former EPA staff are arguing that the Trump administration lacks evidence that its new approach will increase environmental protections.
The Environmental Protection Network and Save EPA, groups of former agency officials that are critical of the Trump administration, have faulted the strategic plan in recent comments, calling it an “almost meaningless” document.
The groups argue in separate comments that cooperative federalism and other priorities in the strategic plan are not goals, but rather “process or political based strategies” that fail to adequately address problems such as interstate pollution or “when there are powerful industries that are difficult or impossible for states to take on alone.”
EDF backs those assertions, arguing in its recent comments that “Pruitt’s vision of cooperative federalism shortchanges any role for the federal government in protecting human health and the environment,” and that Pruitt has failed to back states that have sought stronger protections or act on requests to curb interstate pollution.
As Oklahoma's attorney general, EDF argues, Pruitt opposed EPA's 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, arguing in litigation that the rule was contrary to law even after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the program in a 6-2 vote.
And EDF says EPA now faces lawsuits as a result of Pruitt's failure to act on the agency's statutory responsibility to answer petitions that Delaware, Connecticut and Maryland filed under section 126 of the Clean Air Act, where they asked EPA to protect downwind states that cannot address pollution floating in from other jurisdictions.
'Troubling Ambivalence'
Despite Pruitt's pledge to support cooperative federalism, EDF says the administrator has not supported states seeking stronger protections, citing “troubling ambivalence” toward California's authority to set more protective vehicle emissions standards.
“As part of his confirmation process, when Administrator Pruitt was asked if he would continue to grant California’s waiver to protect its citizens from greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, he did not answer affirmatively but instead stated that he would review the waiver on a 'case-by-case basis,'” EDF says.
The group also argues that the strategic plan's purportedly new focus on cooperative federalism is misleading, saying that numerous EPA programs -- including its national ambient air quality standards and the Obama-era Clean Power Plan greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan for existing utilities that the agency is now moving to repeal -- rely on cooperative approaches where EPA sets standards or goals but allow states flexibility in attaining the targets.
“The Strategic Plan should abandon its misleading rhetoric and instead re-commit to EPA’s long history of shared federal and state partnerships, as well as EPA’s mandate to protect the environment and public health,” EDF says.
In Oct. 31 comments, ECOS again hails EPA's support for cooperative federalism and says that as part of the effort, EPA should bolster the draft strategic plan with a commitment to continue efforts with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to craft a unified federal approach to assisting states that wish to assume the authority to issue dredge-and-fill permits under section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Only Michigan and New Jersey have received permission to issue 404 permits, though other states have expressed interest in assuming the program but facing a variety of administrative hurdles.
As a result of state lobbying during the Obama administration, the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology earlier this year finalized recommendations on how EPA and the Corps can help more states take on 404 permitting.
But the recommendations were not unanimous, with the Corps' representative holding distinct views from the rest of the panel on which waters states would have complete permitting control over and which would remain under the Corps' authority.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/environmentalists-states-wary-trump-epas-cooperative-federalism
-
ExxonMobil Agrees To Install Pollution Controls
Nov 6, 2017 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
Settlement with US government compels firm to improve emissions control and monitoring at eight chemical plants
Oil giant ExxonMobil will spend approximately $300 million (£226 million) to eliminate thousands of tons of air pollution from eight of its petrochemical manufacturing facilities in Texas and Louisiana, US, under a settlement with the US Department of Justice(DOJ).
The agreement – reached between ExxonMobil, DOJ, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the Louisiana department of environmental quality – resolves allegations that the corporation violated the Clean Air Act by failing to properly operate and monitor industrial flares at its chemical plants. This resulted in excessive and unlawful emissions of chemicals linked to cancer and smog at the ExxonMobil facilities.
Now, the company has agreed to install and operate air pollution control and monitoring technology to cut harmful air pollution from 26 industrial flares at the eight plants. These flares are used to burn waste gases that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere during operations. It is estimated that the controls, once fully implemented, will reduce air emissions of volatile organic compounds by more than 7000 tons/year. The settlement is also expected to reduce toxic air pollutants, including benzene, by more than 1500 tons annually. Its overall aim is to improve Exxon’s flaring practices by requiring the company to curtail how much waste gas is sent to the flares, and to improve their combustion efficiency.
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/exxonmobil-agrees-to-install-pollution-controls/3008235.article
-
Ewire: The Significance Of EPA's Exxon Settlement
Nov 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
Top Trump administration officials last week touted their settlement with ExxonMobil that will require the oil and gas giant to install pollution controls at a host of its refineries and other facilities.
But as Inside EPA's Dawn Reeves reported late Friday, the deal is also significant for what was not included: supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) that had been under discussion but were dropped because they may have run afoul of Attorney General Jeff Sessions' recent order barring Justice Department (DOJ) lawyers from entering into settlements that provide payments to non-governmental third parties.
Industry sources say this raises concerns that Sessions' policy is already derailing the popular projects -- which help offset penalties and speed settlements -- despite assurances that the projects can proceed if they comply with EPA policy.
There is “probably some scrutiny being applied” by political appointees as to what SEPs qualify due to the Sessions third-party payment ban,” one industry source says, but says the real effort appears to be blocking funding for environmental groups.
One top DOJ official said recently that the department will soon issue guidance to further clarify that projects in compliance with EPA's SEP policy would not be impacted.
But that is doing little to address industry concerns -- especially since EPA and DOJ are also seeking to impose similar conditions on some citizen suit settlements brought by environmentalists as part of a 45-day review process they conduct prior to such settlements being entered in court.
Another industry source says the fact that the administration is weighing in on SEPs in settlements it is not even a part of is highly unusual, since DOJ has not generally commented on such settlement details in the past except under rare circumstances where it may send a letter to a court.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-significance-epas-exxon-settlement
-
Texas Power Plants Praise Once-Loathed Pollution Trading Plan
Nov 7, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
The air pollution trading program Texas fought so hard to leave is the blueprint for a new plan to clear the air in the state's wilderness areas.
The Environmental Protection Agency's trading program for sulfur dioxide emissions from Texas power plants—three of which are are already slated to close—is preferable to installing expensive new pollution controls on the state's fleet of coal-fired power plants, industry representatives said.
Texas sued the EPA to be excluded from a cross-state pollution trading program that also would have satisfied requirements of the regional haze program, which aims to improve visibility at national parks and other federally protected areas.
Luminant Generation Co. LLC, Xcel Energy, and Dynegy are all familar with that program, however, which should make for a smooth transition to the new intrastate trading scheme the EPA is establishing to meet those visibility goals, Derek McDonald, a partner in Baker Botts LLP's Austin office, told Bloomberg Environment.
The EPA issued a federal plan to reduce haze in wilderness areas after Texas failed to submit a satisfactory plan of its own. While the Obama administration had proposed a rule requiring eight coal-fired power plants to install new pollution controls, known as best available retrofit technology, the Trump administration opted for a trading system.
That was a welcome change for the power industry.
“The mass-based [sulfur dioxide] emission cap guarantees environmental results while the [sulfur dioxide] trading provision will incentivize cost-effective compliance,” a Dynegy spokesman told Bloomberg Environment via email.
The trading plan “allows Xcel Energy to continue to provide low cost energy to its customers while protecting the environment and increasing diversity in our generation portfolio,” Wes Reeves, a company spokesman, told Bloomberg Environment.
Current low prices in the Texas market make it difficult for companies to justify spending millions of dollars on scrubbers for coal plants, according to McDonald, who represents one of the plants targeted by the haze rule but was not speaking on behalf of the plant owners.
Retirements Could Hamper Trading
But it's still unknown how a trading program established will function when three of the largest and dirtiest are expected to retire by 2018. Though the trading program will cost the companies much less than retrofitting old coal power plants with new pollution controls, Vistra Energy has still announced the retirement of three coal-fired plants, citing their poor economics.
It's not clear whether Vistra will still be allocated credits for the three retiring plants under the trading program, which it could then sell to the other participants The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality referred questions on the trading program to the EPA, which did not respond to requests for comment. Vistra also did not respond to a request for comment.
Awarding emissions credits to Vistra for closed power plants could flood the market, hampering its effectiveness, Chrissy Mann, campaign manager for Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign, told Bloomberg Environment.
The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, founder of Bloomberg L.P. Bloomberg BNA is an affiliate of Bloomberg L.P.
The environmental group had supported the Obama administration's proposal that power plants install updated pollution controls instead and will likely challenge the trading program in court.
“We still need to see a final rule that actually makes sense based on the proposal and the record,” Mann said.
The EPA and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality have signed an agreement to collaborate on a state-written plan that would eventually replace the federal plan and also include an emissions trading program.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=123390135&vname=dennotallissues&fn=123390135&jd=123390135
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested