Preview Newsletter

ACC AM 11/10/2017

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Industry on Solid Footing: Stocks Worth a Look
Nov 9, 2017 | Zacks (In Nasdaq)

The chemical industry is finding traction again after staying down for a while. The industry's upturn is expected to continue on sustained momentum across major end-markets.
(ACC Mentioned) Helping Bodies Communicate
Nov 9, 2017 | Arizona Daily Wildcat
By Olivia Jones

Wearable “Band-Aid” like organic polymers, made in the Ratcliff lab at the University of Arizona, may be able to help identify and visualize particular qualities and characteristics of the underlying body parts to help aid doctors in diagnostics and prognosis.
(ACC Mentioned) A Behind-the-Scenes Look at Scott Pruitt's Dysfunctional EPA
Nov 10, 2017 | EcoWatch
By Rachel Leven

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt doesn't hide his contempt for how the agency has been run, but does profess to care about one of its key programs: Superfund, which oversees the cleanup of the nation's worst toxic-waste sites. In April, he toured a site in East Chicago, Indiana, contaminated with lead and arsenic, and told residents, "We are going to get this right."
(ACC Mentioned) Senate Confirms Trump EPA Nominee With Oil Industry Ties
Nov 10, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Michael Biesecker

The Senate narrowly confirmed a lawyer for the petrochemical industry on Thursday to a key post at the Environmental Protection Agency to oversee air pollution regulations affecting his former clients.
(ACC Mentioned) Trump EPA Nominee Confirmed Even Though He Sued Agency 31 Times In The Past Decade
Nov 10, 2017 | Newsweek
By Sydney Pereira

The Senate confirmed a man who has represented oil, gas, and chemical companies for the past decade to the Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday.
(ACC Mentioned) 10 Senators Call for Investigation into EPA Pushing Scientists Off Advisory Boards
Nov 10, 2017 | Inside Climate News
By Georgina Gustin

A group of Senate Democrats is calling for an expanded investigation into efforts by the Trump Environmental Protection Agency to effectively push independent scientists off key EPA advisory boards and replace them with scientists from the fossil fuel and chemical industries.
Dems Ask GAO To Consider New Advisory Panel Policy In Probe
Nov 9, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly

A group of 10 senators is asking the Government Accountability Office to expand a probe of U.S. EPA's advisory panels to include a new policy that bars membership to anyone currently receiving grants from the agency.
Senate Sends EPA an Air Chief in Largely Party Line Vote
Nov 10, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith

The Senate is sending the EPA an air chief—adding to the agency's team its second confirmed political appointee.

LCSA News

EDF Outlines Issues For TSCA Inventory Rule Suit
Nov 9, 2017 | Inside EPA

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) is signaling how its lawsuit will challenge the Trump EPA's rule for determining the universe of existing chemicals subject to review under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), arguing the rule fails to provide for sufficient vetting of secrecy claims and will delay required reporting.
How The Trump Administration In Putting Its Stamp On TSCA
Nov 9, 2017 | Law 360
By Juan Carlos Rodriguez

The Trump administration has pleased industry players and frustrated environmental groups with its approach to implementing amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act, weighing in on key issues ranging from how the government handles applications for new chemicals to enter the marketplace, to how it evaluates the risk posed by substances already in use.

Chemical Management News

Ford Cleared of Asbestos Claims From 1970s Brake Repair
Nov 10, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes

Ford Motor Co. won dismissal of lung cancer claims by the widow of a man allegedly exposed to asbestos while working on car brakes.
No Link Between Roundup and Cancer, Study Finds
Nov 10, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker

A long-term survey of tens of thousands of U.S. farmers found no significant link between cancer and exposure to glyphosate, best known as the main ingredient in Monsanto Co.'s Roundup herbicide.
Special Report: The Decisions Behind Monsanto's Weed-Killer Crisis
Nov 9, 2017 | Reuters
By Emily Flitter

In early 2016, agri-business giant Monsanto faced a decision that would prove pivotal in what since has become a sprawling herbicide crisis, with millions of acres of crops damaged.
Monsanto, DowDuPont Left Hanging as EU Deadlocks on Glyphosate
Nov 10, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner

Monsanto, DowDuPont, and other companies that use glyphosate in their pesticide formulations were left frustrated Nov. 9 as the European Union once again failed to make a decision on reauthorizing the chemical.

Energy News

(ACC Mentioned) WVU Energy Institute Pushes For Regional Liquid Natural Gas Hub
Nov 9, 2017 | The Exponent Telegram
By Conor Griffith

West Virginia University Energy Institute Director Brian Anderson said the recently signed memorandum of understanding between West Virginia and China Energy Investment Corp.
(ACC Mentioned) UPDATE: $83.7 Billion Announcement Is ‘A Game Changer’ $83.7 Billion Investment Announced In W.Va.
Nov 9, 2017 | WSAZ-TV

The $83.7 billion investment is an agreement with China Energy. It is a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that promises to bring that amount to West Virginia over the next 20 years.
West Virginia Gets China Energy Deal That Dwarfs State's GDP
Nov 10, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jim Polson

West Virginia was the biggest recipient of the $250 billion of investments signed during President Donald Trump's visit to China.
China Energy’s $83.7B MOU Sets Sights on West Virginia Shale, PetChem Projects
Nov 9, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut

During President Trump's first state visit to China, officials from West Virginia and state-owned China Energy Investment Corp., the world's largest power company, signed an $83.7 billion memorandum of understanding (MOU) to develop shale gas and chemical manufacturing projects in the Mountain State.
Alaska LNG Draws Major Support from China as Sinopec, Financiers Step Forward
Nov 9, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis

Three Chinese companies tentatively have stepped forward to help finance Alaska’s costly and long-stalled natural gas export dreams.
China's Appetite for U.S. Energy Falls Short of Binding Deals
Nov 10, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dan Murtaugh, Aibing Guo and Ryan Collins

China showed its appetite for big ticket investments in U.S. energy production and exports during President Donald Trump's visit, but left the event with almost no binding deals.
Williams Cleared to Resume Work on $3 Billion Gas Pipeline
Nov 10, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Lynn Doan and Tim Loh

Williams Partners LP was cleared by a federal court to resume construction on a $3 billion pipeline that will help shuttle shale gas across the eastern U.S.

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

Wehrum's Confirmation Likely To Expedite Pruitt's EPA Air Policy Overhaul
Nov 9, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey

The Senate's 49-47 vote to confirm William Wehrum to head EPA's Office of Air & Radiation (OAR) is likely to boost agency Administrator Scott Pruitt in his plan to overhaul Clean Air Act policies, which includes rollbacks of climate and other air rules, and changes to new source review (NSR) permitting to ease industry burdens.
Los Angeles Emissions Trading Plan Changes Snuffed Out by Court
Nov 10, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel

Southern California air quality officials will have to revisit changes to a regional pollution credit trading program approved in 2015, a state court said.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Industry on Solid Footing: Stocks Worth a Look

Nov 9, 2017 | Zacks (In Nasdaq)

The chemical industry is finding traction again after staying down for a while. The industry's upturn is expected to continue on sustained momentum across major end-markets.
Notwithstanding a few industry-related headwinds, weak demand in agricultural markets and sluggishness in China, there are a number of reasons to be optimistic about the broader chemical industry for both the short and long haul. Let's find out what's supporting the bullish case for chemical stocks.
Shale Boom: Driving Force for Chemical investment
The shale gas revolution in the United States has been a huge driving force behind chemical investment on plants and equipment in the country. According to the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the United States has emerged as an attractive investment location and petrochemical makers are now significantly expanding capacity in the country leveraging new supplies of natural gas. New methods of extraction such as horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (or fracking) are boosting shale production, bringing down prices of ethane (derived from shale gas) in the process.
The shale boom has incentivized a number of chemical companies to pump in billions of dollars for setting up facilities (crackers) in the United States to produce ethylene and propylene in a cost-effective way. Per the ACC, 310 new chemical projects have been already announced by chemical makers worth around $185 billion that are under construction or planned. Such investments -- many backed by Federal government support -- are expected to boost capacity and export over the next several years.
Rebound in Construction
A recovery across housing and commercial construction -- major chemical end-markets -- has been another supporting factor for the chemical industry recovery. After being hit hard in the recession, the construction sector has bounced back on the back of strong housing fundamentals.
Demand in the U.S. homebuilding industry remains strong and is expected to continue in the rest of 2017 and next year. Strong employment, rising income, increasing interest from first-time homebuyers, low inventory of new and existing homes and post-hurricane rebuilding efforts are among the factors that should support continued growth in housing demand.
The renewal of long-stalled construction projects and long-awaited access to credit from lending institutions has also helped invigorate the commercial construction sector. The U.S. Architecture Billings Index (ABI), an economic indicator that provides a roughly nine to 12-month glimpse into the future of non-residential construction spending activity, has been above 50 (a reading above 50 indicates an increase in billings) for most part of this year, indicating growth in architectural activity. The American Institute of Architects (AIA) expects non-residential construction spending to go up 3.8% in 2017 and 3.6% in 2018.
Positives such as an improving economy, low interest rates, positive consumer confidence and a tight supply situation raise optimism about the construction sector's performance.
A Resilient Automotive Sector
Chemical makers continue to see healthy demand from the automotive sector -- a major end-use market. The last two years have been exceptional for the auto sector. Sales in the United States saw record highs in both years, while sales in China and Europe also gained strength.
According to IHS Markit, global light vehicle sales are expected to increase 1.5% year over year to 93.5 million units in 2017. Moreover, IHS Markit sees U.S. light vehicle sales to reach 17.4 million units in 2017 -- a slight moderation from the 2016 level of 17.5 million units, but still looks poised for another strong year.
Low interest rates, favorable financing and cheap oil have also backed a recovery in the European auto market. The auto industry in Asian countries, especially China, is also expected to thrive over the next several years. This augurs well for chemical demand in this important end-market.
A Resurgent European Economy
Eurozone's economic recovery continues apace, as evident from recent upbeat economic data. The region's recovery is backed by declining unemployment and strengthening business and consumer confidence. The European chemical industry has also swung back to life on the back of a rebounding Eurozone economy.
The Eurozone GDP rose 0.6% in the third quarter of 2017 (according to Eurostat data) on a quarter-over-quarter basis, coming above the consensus estimate of 0.5%. The euro area unemployment rate also fell to its lowest level in almost nine years. Notably, the French economy (the bloc's second-largest economy) grew at an annual rate of 2.2%, the strongest pace since 2011, on the back of consumer spending and business investment.
While political risks may still remain a drag, the Eurozone economy is poised for a strong 2017. The European Commission, in its spring 2017 forecast, said that it expects the Eurozone to grow 1.7% in 2017 (up from previous estimate of 1.6%), followed by 1.8% in 2018.
Recovery in Energy Space
A rebound in crude oil prices has led to a recovery in demand for chemicals in the energy space, an important end-use market. Oil prices have been steadily recovering from their historic lows, currently trading above the important psychological level of $50 a barrel. The commodity has risen roughly 30% since sinking to a ten-month low of $42 a barrel in late June 2017 in the face of a surging U.S. oil output. Oil prices also recently soared to their highest level in more than two years.
The rebound in crude prices is backed by the OPEC cartel's compliance with its production cut agreement, slowing production in the United States as well as the prospects of extended oil production cuts by OPEC and other major global producers.
Improving fundamentals in the energy space is expected to support chemical demand moving ahead. Rising crude prices also augur well for chemical prices as they essentially move in tandem with oil prices.
Chemical M&A Wave Continues
Chemical makers remain actively focused on mergers and acquisitions to diversify and shore up growth. These companies are increasingly looking for cost synergy opportunities and enhanced operational scale through consolidations. The $130 billion mega-merger of The Dow Chemical Company and E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company (DuPont) to create DowDuPont Inc. (DWDP) -- the biggest chemical deal ever -- is a huge testimony to these strategic moves.
Other major deals that have taken place in the chemical space in the recent past include China National Chemical Corporation's $43 billion acquisition of Syngenta AG, Albemarle Corporation's (ALB) $6.2 billion buyout of Rockwood Holdings, Inc., Merck KGaA's $17 billion acquisition of Sigma-Aldrich Corp., and the $66 billion proposed mega-merger between Monsanto Company (MON) and Bayer AG.
Strategic Measures to Yield Margin Benefits
Chemical companies continue to shift their focus on high-growth markets (driven by megatrends) in an effort to whittle down their exposure on other businesses that are struggling with weak demand and input costs pressure. Moreover, cost-cutting measures and productivity improvement actions by chemical companies are expected to yield industry-wide margin improvements. Some chemical makers are also disposing non-core assets as they shift their focus on high-margin businesses.
Moreover, a number of chemical makers are taking pricing actions (reflected by hikes in chemical prices in the recent past) in the wake of a sharp rise in raw materials costs. This is also expected to reap margin benefits moving ahead.
Stocks to Bet on Right Now
As you can see from the above-mentioned factors, there are many reasons to be optimistic about the chemical industry. Chemical stocks that are well placed in the current operating backdrop include Westlake Chemical Corp. (WLK) and Kraton Corp. (KRA), both sporting a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy), as well as Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (APD), Celanese Corp. (CE), Albemarle Corp. and FMC Corp. (FMC), all carrying a Zacks Rank #2 (Buy). You can see the complete list of today's Zacks #1 Rank stocks here .
Westlake has gained around 78% over a year. The stock has a long-term expected earnings per share (EPS) growth rate of roughly 8.4%. Earnings estimates for the current year have been revised 3.6% upward over the last 60 days.
Kraton has gained roughly 89% over the past year. Earnings estimates for the current year have been revised 17% upward over the last 60 days. The stock has an expected earnings growth of 25.4% for the current year.
Air Products has a long-term expected EPS growth rate of 12.1%. The stock's earnings estimates for the current year have been revised 3.1% upward over the last 60 days. It has an expected earnings growth of 10.9% for the current year. The stock has also gained around 17% over a year.
Celanese has gained around 47% over the past year. The stock has an expected earnings growth of 11.5% for the current year. It also has a long-term expected EPS growth rate of 9%.
Albemarle has gained roughly 73% over a year. The stock has an expected earnings growth of 22.1% for the current year. It also has a long-term expected EPS growth rate of 14.8%.
FMC has gained around 75.3% over a year. The stock has a long-term expected EPS growth rate of 11.3%.
(Check out our latest Chemical Industry Outlook for a more detailed discussion on the fundamental trends.)
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/chemical-industry-on-solid-footing-stocks-worth-a-look-cm875209

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Helping Bodies Communicate

Nov 9, 2017 | Arizona Daily Wildcat

By Olivia Jones

Wearable “Band-Aid” like organic polymers, made in the Ratcliff lab at the University of Arizona, may be able to help identify and visualize particular qualities and characteristics of the underlying body parts to help aid doctors in diagnostics and prognosis.
According to Melanie Rudolph, a postdoctoral researcher in the Ratcliff lab, people that have certain types of cancers have elevated levels of particular molecules. If you could easily measure them, it could help detect that type of cancer much earlier.
According to the American Chemistry Council website, a polymer is a chain made of many repeating chemicals. Polymers occur naturally and can be made to serve certain purpose. One well-known natural polymer is DNA.
The Ratcliff lab used polymer P3HT. One of the most important factors about this polymer is its biosensing capability, which allows it to detect certain biomarkers in the body, whether it's in sweat or blood.
The Ratcliff lab researchers' goal is to create a flexible and inexpensive polymer to analyze cell activity of certain biomarkers.
“We’re observing processes in the body system … in these non-invasive sensors,” Rudolph said. “We are only detecting certain biomarkers, we're not detecting any other sort of biomarkers that would interfere with measurements.”
Erin Ratcliff, head of the Ratcliff lab and assistant professor in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering, said there are certain challenges that come with this work.
“The challenge is that some of the molecules you are not interested in detecting can give us false results," Ratcliff. "But really, we haven’t detected that molecule of interest.”
According to the National Center for Biotechnology Information website, biomarkers are indications and symptoms of a medical state observed from outside the patient that can be measured more accurately.
“Our biological fluids — blood, sweat, tears — are complex fluids with hundreds of different molecules present in a wide range of concentrations, from one molecule in a drop to millions of molecules in the same drop,” Ratcliff said.
According to Rudolph, the measurement signal would be an electric current from the chosen test molecules to the polymer. If the current flowed through, it would mean there must have been electron transfer through the molecule. A number from the electrical current output would tell researchers how much of the molecule is present.
Rudolph said the device could be designed to provide the concentration of the biomarkers, which correlates with that electron current.
"To observe cell activity for a certain biomarker sample, we can actually go into the molecular structure, change that a little bit," Rudolph said. "Then change the selectivity of that material toward certain biomarkers."
Synthetic chemists in the Ratcliff lab change the polymer's chain to alter the molecular structure, according to Ruldolph.
“You would use [the polymer] as a switch to detect a certain disease when on the skin and in the case of detecting within sweat, dopamine,” Rudolph said. “An electron transfer between the dopamine for the biomarkers and the polymer film.”
According to Rudolph, the selected biomarkers picked are paired with exactly the right polymer, but if the polymer doesn’t exist, they use synthesis to create exactly the right polymer that would be selective and sensitive to this biomarker.
“A lot of the previous work had been trial and error, [so] we’ve been trying to go at it from more of a fundamental understanding,” Rudolph said. “Our research helps to understand why certain polymers work better than others in these applications; will help us improve using that understanding.”
According to Rudolph, other than flexibility, cost effectiveness is why the lab uses organic polymers.
"You can produce and process them pretty inexpensively compared to the standard materials that are being used," Rudolph said.
Organic bioelectronics don't weigh a lot compared to materials that are on a rigid space, according to Rudolph. For example, when you make bioelectronics flexible, they can be rolled and a lot of rolls can be loaded onto a truck to be easily transported.
“These technological advances will help in the medical field,” Dr. Joseph Alpert, cardiologist and professor of medicine at the UA, said. “We can measure in patients their glucose and blood pressure more routinely instead of direct inter-skin contact.”
http://www.wildcat.arizona.edu/article/2017/11/science-biomarkers-selectivity

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) A Behind-the-Scenes Look at Scott Pruitt's Dysfunctional EPA

Nov 10, 2017 | EcoWatch

By Rachel Leven

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt doesn't hide his contempt for how the agency has been run, but does profess to care about one of its key programs: Superfund, which oversees the cleanup of the nation's worst toxic-waste sites. In April, he toured a site in East Chicago, Indiana, contaminated with lead and arsenic, and told residents, "We are going to get this right."
The following month, Pruitt—Oklahoma's attorney general before he joined the EPA—tapped one of his former donors, banker Albert "Kell" Kelly, to find ways to accelerate and improve Superfund cleanups. Kelly started by consulting career staff members —often-knowledgeable officials who work at the agency regardless of who holds the White House. But then Kelly closed off the process, conferring with Pruitt to produce a final plan that altered or excluded many of the staffers' suggestions. Gone, for example, was the idea that EPA officials be identified early on to lead discussions with communities on how contaminated land should be used after cleanup.
"We're missing a huge opportunity to do something new and different with Superfund," said one of two EPA employees who described the process to the Center for Public Integrity on the condition of anonymity.
What happened with Superfund is hardly an anomaly. Today's EPA is wracked with internal conflict and industry influence, and is struggling to fulfill its mission, according to more than two dozen current and former agency employees. A few dozen political appointees brought in under the Trump administration are driving policy. At least 16 of the 45 appointees worked for industries such as oil, coal and chemicals. Four of these people—and another 21—worked for, or donated to, politicians who have questioned established climate science, such as Pruitt and Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla).
Career staff members—lawyers, scientists, analysts—are largely being frozen out of decision-making, current and former agency employees said. These staffers rarely get face time with Pruitt and frequently receive top-down orders from political appointees with little room for debate. They must sometimes force their way into conversations about subjects in which they have expertise.
And that is a big mistake, said one of Pruitt's predecessors.
Career employees are "very dedicated to protecting human health and the environment, and they will change their ways of how they do that if they're convinced you really want to accomplish that aim," said Christine Todd Whitman, EPA administrator under President George W. Bush.
One such employee agreed. "I think it's the fact that we're not following regular procedures, we're not sure of what the legal justification is for some of the things they're asking us to do. We're just kind of being told, 'Do the opposite thing you did 18 months ago.' That's hard to swallow."
The EPA staffers who spoke to the Center for Public Integrity said the isolation of Pruitt's top staff from the rest of the agency limits the perspectives the administrator is exposed to before making decisions. Two appointment calendars, covering a six-month period beginning in March, show that Pruitt hears overwhelmingly from industry. He was scheduled to meet 154 times during the period with officials from companies such as ExxonMobil and trade associations such as the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry's biggest lobby group. API was among at least 17 donors to Pruitt when he ran for state or federal office or led the Republican Attorneys General Association that have met with him as EPA administrator. Those same calendars indicate he saw only three groups representing environmental or public-health interests, though an EPA press release says he met with two others.
EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman disputed claims that the roughly 15,000-person agency is riven with discord. Career employees are "vital" to the EPA's work and meet regularly with political appointees and the administrator, she said, citing ongoing deliberations on a water-pollution rule as an example. (Two career employees who spoke to the Center at Bowman's request confirmed that they routinely work with political appointees and did so on the water rule.)
"We talk to people throughout the regions, the states, the career staff and a variety of different perspectives prior to making decisions," Bowman said, adding in an email that "we follow the Administrative Procedure Act in our regulatory process, meaning taking into consideration comments submitted by ALL commenters, including environmental NGOs, the public, and other commenters."
For the public, much is at stake. Under Pruitt, who sued the EPA 14 times as Oklahoma's attorney general, the agency already has declined to ban a pesticide linked to neurological damage in children; frozen requirements to reduce water pollution from coal-fired power plants and opened the door to loosening limits on toxic coal waste. The EPA most recently proposed eliminating the Clean Power Plan, an Obama administration rule aimed at reducing carbon emissions in the power sector.
"These rules [being rolled back] aren't perfect by any stretch of the imagination. There are ways to improve things," said Gordon Binder, who served as chief of staff for then-EPA Administrator William Reilly under President George H.W. Bush. "But Pruitt's come in with a flyswatter and is slapping them down instead of laying out the problems with a rule and saying, 'How can we fix it?'"
Who's running the EPA?
There's a striking absence of high-level leadership at the EPA. Only one of 13 positions requiring Senate confirmation—Pruitt's—is filled. These positions—higher-ranking than those held by the 45 political appointees—include leaders of key agency offices that oversee air, water and other programs. Six people have been nominated for the 12 open slots and are awaiting confirmation (although two of them have joined the EPA in the meantime as senior advisers).
Most major decisions are made on the third floor of the William Jefferson Clinton South Building on Pennsylvania Avenue, where Pruitt and his handful of confidants have their offices. Among those who most prominently have Pruitt's ear: EPA Chief of Staff Ryan Jackson, who previously held the same position with Inhofe, and Samantha Dravis, who worked with Pruitt at the Republican Attorneys General Association and now leads the EPA's Office of Policy.
Dravis, widely seen as Pruitt's closest adviser, came to the agency with a background in law and politics but little environmental experience. That's a departure from her two immediate predecessors, who were already at the EPA when they were tapped to lead the policy office.
Jackson helped Inhofe negotiate major bipartisan deals in the Senate, such as the passage of federal chemical-policy reform. Still, emails released under the Freedom of Information Act to The New York Times show that Jackson directed career staff to deny a petition seeking to ban chlorpyrifos, a pesticide suspected of harming children's brains, directly contradicting the recommendations of EPA scientists.
Bowman said in an email that career staff were "instrumental" in drafting the denial. The former acting head of the EPA's chemicals office, a career employee who left the agency last month, told the Times she opposed the decision, even as she followed Jackson's instructions.
Other influential political appointees include Sarah Greenwalt, senior adviser to the Office of the Administrator, who worked for Pruitt when he was Oklahoma's attorney general; Bowman, head of public affairs, who came from the American Chemistry Council, a chemical-industry trade group; and Mandy Gunasekara, a senior policy adviser who worked on the Republican staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
Nine career staff members told the Center for Public Integrity that their opinions seem to hold little weight. They are excluded from meetings, they said, and their advice on agency operations is often disregarded. Some believe this is because of the flurry of leaks that have come from inside the agency since Pruitt took office. Political appointees have lashed out at suspected leakers and relieved them of work assignments, even in the absence of proof, career employees said.
"They are terrified of career staff leaking," one said. "And once they get an idea in their head [about] someone, they won't change it."
Bowman said, "Those concerns have not been brought to our attention. And if they are we will do everything we can to address them."
Pruitt has broken with tradition by foregoing many introductory briefings with career staff designed to help new administrators set priorities, several current and former employees said. Instead, he's worked to roll back EPA rules, an effort that also diverges from common practice.
Political appointees are taking more of a hands-on role in tasks career employees previously would have handled. Take, for example, a recent notice announcing EPA plans to reconsider whether certain vehicle-emission standards for greenhouse gases were too strict. Career staff had drafted a concise version of the notice, but appointees expanded the number of vehicles affected by the review and made the Department of Transportation the lead agency on the decision, despite the EPA's legal obligations to control planet-warming emissions under the Clean Air Act.
"This was a much more major re-write" than would have happened under previous administrations, said an EPA employee familiar with the matter. "At least one plausible outcome of this process," the employee said, "is that the EPA would unilaterally abdicate its [legal] responsibility."
'Checking the box'
On the rare occasions when career employees are asked to brief Pruitt, he seems unwilling to change his anti-regulatory posture on major industry priorities, according to some career employees. Betsy Southerland, who headed an office within the EPA's water program until August, said her team met with Pruitt twice about a ruledesigned to limit wastewater discharges from power plants as he considered weakening parts of it.
The team told Pruitt that industry arguments against the rule already had been considered and found to be inaccurate. They offered more nuanced actions the administrator could take to address concerns expressed by the Small Business Administration, a separate federal agency; and the Utility Water Act Group, a lobbying organization. Pruitt was unmoved, she said. In August, the EPA announced it would reconsider key parts of the rule.
"You get the feeling that his mind was made up before we started the briefing process," Southerland said. "It looked like he was kind of checking the box to meet with us." The Times found similar behavior by Pruitt when the EPA declined to ban chlorpyrifos. Pruitt didn't follow agency scientists' advice, having "promised farming industry executives who wanted to keep using the pesticide that it is 'a new day and a new future,'" the Timesreported.
These episodes could simply reflect inexperience—appointees struggling to figure out the agency they lead. They also could reflect pressure placed on the EPA by executive orders and presidential memoranda to act quickly on big-ticket issues like the Clean Power Plan.
But Pruitt's pro-industry bent has convinced some current and former employees that he and his like-minded advisers are aiming to destroy the EPA from the inside.
"Look, I think he does not support what the agency has been trying to do for 40 years," said William Ruckelshaus, EPA administrator under Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. "He wants to dismantle—not improve or reform—the regulatory system for protecting public health and the environment."
https://www.ecowatch.com/scott-pruitt-epa-2508063833.html

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Senate Confirms Trump EPA Nominee With Oil Industry Ties

Nov 10, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)

By Michael Biesecker

WASHINGTON — The Senate narrowly confirmed a lawyer for the petrochemical industry on Thursday to a key post at the Environmental Protection Agency to oversee air pollution regulations affecting his former clients.
William Wehrum was approved on a vote of 49 to 47 to serve as assistant administrator for air and radiation. He previously served as a regulator at EPA under President George W. Bush.
Republican moderate Sen. Susan Collins of Maine joined Democrats in voting against President Donald Trump’s nominee. Four senators, two from each party, did not vote.
Wehrum is expected to help administrator Scott Pruitt in an ongoing push to reverse or delay Obama-era regulations, including those seeking to decrease emissions from coal-fired power plants. Like Trump, Pruitt disputes the consensus of leading climate scientists that carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels is the primary cause of global warming.
As an attorney, Wehrum represented the interests in Washington of clients that included the American Petroleum Institute, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the American Chemistry Council and the National Association of Manufacturers.
Sen. John Barrasso, the Wyoming Republican who chairs the Senate environment committee that weighed Wehrum’s nomination, praised his credentials.
“The EPA’s air office has been responsible for creating the agency’s most punishing regulations,” Barrasso said. “Bill Wehrum’s three decades of environmental policy experience will be enormously helpful as he works to cut red tape, protect America’s air and allow our economy to grow.”
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat who serves on the environment committee, said Wehrum is the latest in a series of industry insiders and science deniers appointed to key regulatory jobs at EPA.
“It is an array of cranks, charlatans, hacks, lobbyists, toadies in really unprecedented measure in the history of our country,” Whitehouse said in a speech on the Senate floor just before the vote. It seems that at this point the key and only credential for appointment to the Environmental Protection Agency is that you are reliably pro-industry and reliably anti-public health.”
Environmentalists worried Thursday that Wehrum will help further weaken clean air protections already under assault by the Trump administration.
It’s genuinely hard to fathom someone less suited to lead clean air efforts at the EPA than Bill Wehrum,” said Andrea Delgado, a legislative director at the environmental advocacy group Earthjustice. “Like other Trump nominees, he has made a career leading efforts to weaken standards that protect us from mercury, silica, lead and smog at the expense of the health and safety of children, workers and communities.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/senate-confirms-trump-epa-nominee-with-oil-industry-ties/2017/11/09/ae3c31a4-c572-11e7-9922-4151f5ca6168_story.html?utm_term=.98b7e26b4a93

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Trump EPA Nominee Confirmed Even Though He Sued Agency 31 Times In The Past Decade

Nov 10, 2017 | Newsweek

By Sydney Pereira

The Senate confirmed a man who has represented oil, gas, and chemical companies for the past decade to the Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday.
William Wehrum, whom President Donald Trump nominated to lead the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, was confirmed in a 49-47 vote after objections by Senate Democrats, including Senator Tom Carper of Delaware and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.
This was Wehrum’s second chance at the position after being nominated by President George W. Bush. He served as acting air administrator from 2005 to 2007.
After Senate Democrats blocked Wehrum’s confirmation over a decade ago, he began working at the law firm Hunton & Williams, where he represented the American Petroleum Institute, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the American Chemistry Council, and the National Associations of Manufacturers. All were involved in litigation battles against the Obama administration’s EPA, The Hillreported.
The Democrats on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, led by Carper, said that Wehrum has sued the EPA 31 times since 2008 to undermine the Clean Air Act.
He has represented industry trade associations to fight against regulations that protect workers from silica exposure and attempted to block California from raising vehicle standards, reported The Intercept .
In early October, when Wehrum, himself, testified, he would not acknowledge data in a graph provided by Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon detailing greenhouse gas emissions and rising temperatures from 1880 through 2005. When Merkley pressed him on the issue, Wehrum responded, “I’m not familiar with those data. I have no idea what it depicts.”
Carper spoke out against Wehrum in previous hearings, but in a final plea on Thursday morning, he called on other senators to vote against his nomination.
“I have said this before, and I’ll say it again because it makes Mr. Wehrum’s priorities clear: Our courts have overturned regulations that Mr. Wehrum helped craft while at the EPA a staggering 27 times. That’s 27 times that the courts determined that the rules that Mr. Wehrum put in place did not follow the law or did not adequately protect public safety.”
Carper referenced the 27 times that courts determined rules created by Wehrum during his time as acting administrator for Air and Radiation under the Bush administration were illegal.
“In one of those instances,” said Carper during the hearing on Thursday, “the court found EPA’s lack of action to reduce mercury and air toxics pollution emissions from electric power plants.”
Another EPA nominee has been scrutinized by both sides of the aisle. Kathleen Hartnett White, nominated by Trump to lead the Council on Environmental Quality, said that climate regulation was a form of paganism pushed by communists, reported KUT 90.5 FM, the National Public Radio affiliate in Austin, Texas.
She also called carbon dioxide—one of the primary greenhouse gases causing global temperatures to rise at unprecedented levels—the “gas of life.”
White was grilled by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse on Wednesday. Whitehouse asked about rising ocean temperatures as a result of greenhouse gas emissions, and Hartnett White responded, “There’s not one right answer.” Plus, she added, opinions differ.
“I do not have any kind of expertise or even much layman’s study of the ocean dynamics and the climate change issues,” she added.
The Huffington Post noted multiple times she was unable to defend her climate change denial, including when Hartnett White said she has “no specific knowledge” of the well-documented instances of bleaching of coral reefs.
Andrew Wheeler, another nominee who testified Wednesday alongside Hartnett White, was nominated to be deputy administrator of the EPA. Though less controversial than Hartnett White, Democrats noted his time spent lobbying for coal and energy firms, reported The Hill .
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-confirms-epa-nominee-sued-agency-past-decade-707071

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) 10 Senators Call for Investigation into EPA Pushing Scientists Off Advisory Boards

Nov 10, 2017 | Inside Climate News

By Georgina Gustin

A group of Senate Democrats is calling for an expanded investigation into efforts by the Trump Environmental Protection Agency to effectively push independent scientists off key EPA advisory boards and replace them with scientists from the fossil fuel and chemical industries.
In a letter sent to the Government Accountability Office on Thursday, the 10 senators asked the GAO to investigate a new directive, issued by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt on Oct. 31, that restricts any scientist who has received EPA funding from serving on the agency's scientific advisory panels.
Pruitt said the move was intended to clear up conflicts of interest and to rid advisory panel members of financial ties to the agency. But scientific groups, academics and advocacy organizations have all pointed out that it will mean the most experienced scientists—whose qualifications earn them government grants in the first place—will no longer be able to serve in these roles.
"The double-standard is striking: an academic scientist that receives an EPA grant for any purpose cannot provide independent advice on a completely different subject matter on any of EPA's science advisory boards," the senators wrote, "while industry scientists are presumed to have no inherent conflict even if their research is entirely funded by a company with a financial stake in an advisory board's conclusions."
Five days after Pruitt issued the directive, The Washington Post reported that he appointed 66 new members to advisory panels, many of them with ties to industries the agency regulates. Several panel members stepped down.
"Under this new policy, EPA will be replacing representatives of public and private universities including Harvard, Stanford, Ohio State University, and the University of Southern California with scientists who work for Phillips 66, Total, Southern Company, and the American Chemistry Council," the senators wrote.
In response to a request for comment, an EPA spokesperson replied: "The Administrator has issued a directive which clearly states his policy with regard to grantees." The agency did not respond to questions about whether new members will be required to sign conflict of interest declarations or undergo a review process.
Earlier this year, the EPA said it would not renew the terms of members of its broader Board of Scientific Counselors, and beyond EPA, the administration has allowed other scientific boards to expire altogether. In August, the acting head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) told members of an advisory panel for the National Climate Assessment that it would allow the panel's charter to lapse.
The recent Pruitt directive is similar to legislation long pushed by Republicans in Congress, including a bill introduced earlier this year called the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act.
Science organizations have pointed out that anyone receiving a federal grant undergoes a merit review, which scrutinizes their professional standards and ethics, and that grant applicants have to declare they have no conflicts of interest before receiving government grants.
"EPA's decisions have real implications for the health and well-being of Americans and in some cases people worldwide," wrote Chris McEntee, the executive director of the American Geophysical Union. "By curtailing the input of some of the most respected minds in science, Pruitt's decision robs the agency, and by extension Americans, of a critically important resource."
The senators' letter on Thursday follows a previous request to the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, to investigate the EPA's policies and procedures related to advisory panels.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/09112017/scott-pruitt-epa-investigation-scientists-advisory-board-gao-congress

Return to headline | Return to top
Dems Ask GAO To Consider New Advisory Panel Policy In Probe

Nov 9, 2017 | E&E News PM

By Sean Reilly

A group of 10 senators is asking the Government Accountability Office to expand a probe of U.S. EPA's advisory panels to include a new policy that bars membership to anyone currently receiving grants from the agency.
While EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has said the ban is needed to preserve the committees' ability to provide independent advice, "we doubt this premise withstands scrutiny," Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and nine other lawmakers wrote in the request today to the congressional watchdog agency. Instead, the new policy "appears to be making it easier for industry-funded scientists" to serve on EPA's 22 federal advisory committees, they said.
The ban also entails a double standard, according to their letter. While an academic scientist who receives an EPA grant for any purpose cannot provide advice — even on different topics — industry scientists "are presumed to have no inherent conflict even if their research is entirely funded by a company with a financial stake in an advisory board's conclusions."
This summer, the GAO had agreed to a request by most of the same senators — all Democrats with the exception of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — to explore EPA's process for selecting advisory committee members (E&E News PM, July 20). In today's letter, they asked the GAO an array of other questions, including whether other agencies have similar policies and whether receipt of an EPA grant presents "a legitimate conflict of interest."
A GAO spokesman could not be reached for comment this afternoon.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/11/09/stories/1060066213

Return to headline | Return to top
Senate Sends EPA an Air Chief in Largely Party Line Vote

Nov 10, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Abby Smith

The Senate is sending the EPA an air chief—adding to the agency's team its second confirmed political appointee.
In a largely party line 49–47 vote, the Senate confirmed William Wehrum to head the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Air and Radiation, a post he held in an acting capacity during the Bush administration. Senate Democrats unanimously opposed Wehrum's nomination, and they were joined by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the only Republican to vote no.
Wehrum otherwise had the support of Republicans, and he is expected to play a critical role in the EPA's plans to roll back and rewrite Obama-era climate and air regulations.
In a signal that the vote will likely fall on party lines, coal-state Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.), who supports some of the Trump administration's efforts to rewrite Obama-era climate rules, announced that he would not support Wehrum.
Manchin cited Wehrum's work representing brick and cement industry trade groups to challenge silica exposure standards for workplaces. “After reviewing his record, I am concerned that he does not fully appreciate the deadly impacts of silica and other harmful agents, which is troubling in light of the important role he will play in the protection of our communities on many issues,” Manchin said in a statement.
Republican Backing
In comments ahead of today's vote, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the EPA's air office is “in desperate need of new leadership from someone who understands how to implement clean air policies in a balanced way. That's William Wehrum.”
Wehrum currently serves as an attorney for Hunton & Williams LLP, where he has represented several industry clients including utility and petroleum trade groups.
But Senate Democrats argued that Wehrum's prior experience shows that he is unfit for the air post. Wehrum has “clearly shown he is dismissive of the science that is at the core of EPA's mission to protect public health,” Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), ranking member on the Senate environment committee, said in Nov. 9 remarks on the floor.
Courts have overturned regulations that Wehrum helped to craft “a staggering 27 times,” Carper said.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=123474941&vname=dennotallissues&fn=123474941&jd=123474941

Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

EDF Outlines Issues For TSCA Inventory Rule Suit

Nov 9, 2017 | Inside EPA

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) is signaling how its lawsuit will challenge the Trump EPA's rule for determining the universe of existing chemicals subject to review under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), arguing the rule fails to provide for sufficient vetting of secrecy claims and will delay required reporting.
In a Nov. 9 nonbinding statement off issues, lodged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, EDF argues that in issuing the inventory reset rule, one of three rules that will guide EPA's review of existing chemicals, the agency likely violated the TSCA law updated in June 2016, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
EDF says it will ask the court to determine “[w]hether the final rule violates TSCA because it allows submitters to assert claims of confidential business information (CBI) without meeting all of the requirements of TSCA” governing such claims.
Furthermore, the group will ask the court to determine “[w]hether the final rule violates TSCA because reporting will not be completed for 420 days after publication of the rule, even though Congress expressly directed EPA to require that manufacturers, and processors as applicable, report within 180 days of publication of the rule?” the group adds. “As a result, the rule causes a significant delay in the release of certain information.”
The lawsuit filed Sept. 5 is one of three environmentalists and public interest groups have filed challenging Trump EPA rules establishing a framework for review of existing chemicals. Advocates say Trump administration appointees revised the Obama EPA's proposed TSCA rules, largely along industry talking points, before issuing the final versions this summer.
Existing chemicals are those that have been in commerce for decades and were largely grandfathered under the old law. The need to address risks from existing chemicals was a major driver of TSCA reform.
EDF and other groups, including Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families and the Natural Resources Defense Council Aug. 10 and 11 challenged EPA's two other framework rules for prioritizing and evaluating existing chemicals for review under the new law.
The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, in September, consolidated the challenges to the prioritization rule in the 9th Circuit and to the risk evaluation rule in the 4th Circuit. EDF's lawsuit challenging the inventory reset rule is proceeding along a different track in the D.C. Circuit.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/edf-outlines-issues-tsca-inventory-rule-suit

Return to headline | Return to top
How The Trump Administration In Putting Its Stamp On TSCA

Nov 9, 2017 | Law 360

By Juan Carlos Rodriguez

Law360, New York (November 9, 2017, 11:03 PM EST) -- The Trump administration has pleased industry players and frustrated environmental groups with its approach to implementing amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act, weighing in on key issues ranging from how the government handles applications for new chemicals to enter the marketplace, to how it evaluates the risk posed by substances already in use.

Here are five ways the President Donald Trump administration is shaping the way TSCA is interpreted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

New Chemical Reviews

Under the EPA’s new chemicals program, companies must submit applications for new chemicals they want to bring to the market. Before the 2016 amendments to TSCA, the EPA had authority to review new chemicals but was under no obligation to do so. Now, the EPA must review them, and the Trump administration's methods differ markedly from its predecessors'.

After passage of the law, applications started to back up as the EPA struggled to review them. The EPA said about 600 applications had accumulated by the beginning of the summer, but in August Administrator Scott Pruitt said the backlog had been mostly cleared. Richard Denison, lead senior scientist at Environmental Defense Fund, said that’s because the Trump administration is taking shortcuts.

“[Under Obama], many more chemicals were being flagged and subjected to either testing or other conditions because EPA now had to make a determinative finding about the chemical’s risk,” Denison said. “What the industry did was to go directly to the agency, which has forced changes to the program that are just now playing out and essentially revert back to where the program was before the law was amended.”

Denison said because the EPA’s approach hasn’t come in the form of a rule, it hasn't been challenged in court yet, but he said that could happen down the road as more information about the process comes to light. The EPA is hosting a public meeting on Dec. 6 to discuss changes to the program.

Others feel the EPA has made a practical change that recognizes its resource limitations and still provides the public protection for which the law was intended.

Mark Duvall, a principal at Beveridge & Diamond PC, credited the Pruitt EPA for looking for ways to speed up the processing of new chemical applications, and said while it’s still slower than industry would like, it’s getting better.

“It’s important because the process is the route to bringing new chemicals to market, many of which are greener and more efficient, can contribute to economic growth, which can aid pollution prevention by reducing the amounts of more toxic chemicals,” Duvall said.

Inventory Reset Rule

Under the TSCA amendments, also called the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, the EPA was required to come up with a rule to update its inventory list of chemicals — a daunting prospect, since the list contains about 85,000 chemicals. The rule was finalized in August, and differed from the version proposed by the Barack Obama administration in January, particularly in respect to how companies may assert claims that chemicals constitute confidential business information — a relief to many businesses.

“I was pleasantly surprised about how many of the comments were favorably addressed by EPA in the final rule. In almost every respect, the final rule was more workable than the proposal,” said Thomas Berger, a partner at Keller and Heckman LLP.

But EDF has challenged the rule at the D.C. Circuit. While no briefs have been filed in the case, Denison said the controversy stems from the fact that the final rule establishes that any company can assert a CBI claim for a particular chemical.

“EPA’s final rule establishing the inventory reset does something we think is not legal: to allow not only the company that originally made a CBI claim for its chemical to reassert it, but to allow any company that makes that chemical to assert the claim,” he said. “In our view the law is quite clear that it is only someone who wishes to maintain an existing claim who is allowed to reassert it.”

Prioritization Rule

The first step under the TSCA revisions for evaluating the safety of existing chemicals is prioritization. In an August final rule that set up the prioritization process, the agency said it must decide the level or risk that a chemical poses and designate it as either high priority, which requires further evaluation, or low priority, meaning further study isn’t needed.

This rule — and another that addresses how the agency assesses risk — has also been challenged by EDF, as well as two other groups that each filed separate petitions for review in different circuit courts. One of those groups, the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the Trump administration's approach will result in incomplete analyses that play down a chemical's risk to human health.

"We oppose the rules because they give EPA nearly unlimited discretion to decide which uses of a chemical it considers to determine whether the chemical poses an unreasonable health risk," NRDC attorney Daniel Rosenberg and scientist Jennifer Sass said in an August blog post when the lawsuit was filed. "TSCA requires EPA to consider a chemical’s 'conditions of use,' including all 'intended, known, and reasonably foreseeable uses.' But these rules allow EPA to pick and choose which uses to consider. So EPA can exclude sources of exposure to a chemical that affect the overall risk the chemical poses."

Warren Lehrenbaum, a partner at Crowell & Moring LLP, said he thinks the criticism of the Trump administration rule is premature.

“It’s too early to tell whether these changes in the final regulations will have the dramatic consequences that some critics are predicting,” he said. “It also remains to be seen whether those rules will survive the pending court challenges.

Risk Evaluation Rule

Another rule issued in August addressed the second step in the chemical assessment regime: risk evaluation. The EPA set up a process for determining if a chemical presents “an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.” In making that finding, the EPA said it may not consider costs or other “nonrisk” factors.

The same groups that challenged the prioritization rule have challenged the risk evaluation rule for largely the same reasons. Denison said the Trump administration’s final rule reversed course “180 degrees” from what the Obama administration had proposed in regard to how the agency will look at chemical uses that may no longer be common, or “legacy” uses. Again, the rule's challengers say the Trump administration can ignore certain uses, which could result in skewed risk analyses.

He said instead of studying every “condition of use,” as the previous regime had proposed, the EPA now will exclude certain types of uses in some cases.

“The legal challenges said EPA asserts authority and discretion that the law doesn’t give it,” Denison said.

But the EPA said in August it believes its rule passes muster.

“This process incorporates the science requirements of the amended statute, including best available science and weight of the scientific evidence,” the rule said.

--Additional reporting by Adam Lidgett. Editing by Pamela Wilkinson and Breda Lund.
https://www.law360.com/environmental/articles/983681/how-the-trump-administration-in-putting-its-stamp-on-tsca

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

Ford Cleared of Asbestos Claims From 1970s Brake Repair

Nov 10, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Peter Hayes

Ford Motor Co. won dismissal of lung cancer claims by the widow of a man allegedly exposed to asbestos while working on car brakes.
Constance Aveni failed to identify the manufacturer of the brakes her husband removed from Ford vehicles, the Superior Court of the State of Delaware ruled (Aveni v. Ford Motor Co., 2017 BL 401215, Del. Super. Ct., No. N14C-06-037, 11/8/17).
Testimony that Vincenzo Aveni changed the brakes on Ford vehicles he purchased new in the 1970s wasn't enough to show he was exposed to asbestos from Ford products, the court said.
Although all of Ford's brake drums manufactured before 1980 contained asbestos, “it is pure speculation that Mr. Aveni replaced Ford products that contained asbestos,” the court said.
Aveni's son testified that he didn't recall the manufacturers of brakes and gaskets for the cars, but that he saw his father work on Ford Econoline vans, a Ford F-150, three Pintos, a Ford Granada, and a 1971 Comet.
He asserted that the Ford vans were purchased new, and his father changed the oil, brakes, and muffler on the vans.
The complaint also alleged that several of the other cars were purchased new.
Judge Calvin L. Scott issued the opinion.
Allen D. Bowers represented Aveni.
White & Williams LLP represented Ford.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=123474961&vname=dennotallissues&fn=123474961&jd=123474961

Return to headline | Return to top
No Link Between Roundup and Cancer, Study Finds

Nov 10, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Tiffany Stecker

A long-term survey of tens of thousands of U.S. farmers found no significant link between cancer and exposure to glyphosate, best known as the main ingredient in Monsanto Co.'s Roundup herbicide.
But the study shines a light on previously neglected areas, and could lead to further inquiry into the link between glyphosate and an uncommon form of leukemia, one of the paper's authors said.
The paper, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute Nov. 9, marks the first update in 12 years to the continuous national Agricultural Health Study (AHS) of farmers. The findings are consistent with the last paper from the AHS, which also found no correlation between the controversial weedkiller and cancer.
However, scientists did find a more than twofold increase in cases of acute myeloid leukemia (AML), a rare cancer of the blood, for the most exposed farmers compared with those who never sprayed glyphosate.
This finding is not statistically significant, Laura Beane Freeman, co-author of the paper, said because of the small number of AML cases. But it signals a need for further study of the matter.
“There's definitely a need to look at glyphosate in other exposed populations,” Freeman, an epidemiologist with the National Cancer Institute, told Bloomberg Environment. “I think replication of this [AML] finding in other populations is probably the most important thing to do.”
The study results are the best example of how glyphosate affects farmers and their spouses in the real world, according to Scott Partridge, Monsanto's vice president of global strategy.
“It is the gold standard. It conclusively demonstrates that there is no association between the exposure, use of glyphosate, and cancer,” Partridge told Bloomberg Environment.
Largest Study of Its Kind
The National Cancer Institute began tracking farmers and their families in 1993 to measure their exposure to a number of pesticides and other environmental factors, and the incidence of cancer. It's the largest study of its kind in the world.
The latest paper counted and studied more than 54,000 farmers in North Carolina and Iowa. The institute released findings in 2005 from the survey that also found no strong link between glyphosate exposure and cancer.
The latest paper includes more than three times the cancer cases found in the 2005 results—7,290 compared to 2,088.
The paper also marks the first time the institute could analyze different types of leukemia, Freeman said.
The size of the study gives it importance, John Yu, an assistant professor in the University of Georgia's Department of Environmental Health Science, told Bloomberg Environment. But it has some weaknesses.
The paper measures exposure only by the days and years a person was around glyphosate, but doesn't take into account measures to protect oneself, such as wearing protective clothing. It also doesn't mention exposure to other pesticides, which can be a confounding factor, Yu said.
IARC Controversy
News of the findings of the paper hit headlines months before its official release. In June, legal documents surfaced indicating that the senior scientist in charge of the AHS, Aaron Blair, thought the AHS findings could have led to a different outcome on a controversial scientific finding on glyphosate.
In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer assessed the scientific literature on the weedkiller and found it to “probably” cause non-Hodgkins lymphoma, a cancer of the lymphatic system. IARC didn't look at the latest AHS data to come to its determination, even though it was complete, because it hadn't been published in a scientific journal.
The conclusion put the spotlight on a chemical that has been treated as a relatively safe herbicide by regulators around the world. Monsanto launched a campaign to discredit IARC's monograph, or assessment of the substance.
IARC Had ‘Full Access’ To Earlier Findings
Recent reports also indicate that IARC favored certain studies that showed an association between glyphosate and cancer.
“It's time now for IARC to withdraw that monograph,” Partridge of Monsanto said.
Freeman disagrees that the latest study would have moved the needle on IARC's decision. The agency had access to the published 2005 report, which came to the same conclusion as the latest one: glyphosate exposure does not result in higher cancer rates.
“They had full access to the 2005 paper that showed no association,” Freeman said.
Although Monsanto is the original maker of glyphosate, dozens of companies now make it. As of 2010, more than 750 glyphosate products were sold in the U.S., and it was registered for use in more than 130 countries, according to the paper.
The current 15-year authorization to let farmers continue to use glyphosate in the 28-nation European Union expires Dec. 15.
But a sufficiently large bloc of countries opposed a compromise five-year reauthorization in a regulatory committee vote Nov. 9, meaning the decision will be kicked to another committee meeting before the end of November.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=123474937&vname=dennotallissues&fn=123474937&jd=123474937

Return to headline | Return to top
Special Report: The Decisions Behind Monsanto's Weed-Killer Crisis

Nov 9, 2017 | Reuters

By Emily Flitter

(Reuters) - In early 2016, agri-business giant Monsanto faced a decision that would prove pivotal in what since has become a sprawling herbicide crisis, with millions of acres of crops damaged.
Monsanto had readied new genetically modified soybeans seeds. They were engineered for use with a powerful new weed-killer that contained a chemical called dicamba but aimed to control the substance’s main shortcoming: a tendency to drift into neighboring farmers’ fields and kill vegetation.
The company had to choose whether to immediately start selling the seeds or wait for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to sign off on the safety of the companion herbicide.
The firm stood to lose a lot of money by waiting. Because Monsanto had bred the dicamba-resistant trait into its entire stock of soybeans, the only alternative would have been “to not sell a single soybean in the United States” that year, Monsanto Vice President of Global Strategy Scott Partridge told Reuters in an interview.
Betting on a quick approval, Monsanto sold the seeds, and farmers planted a million acres of the genetically modified soybeans in 2016. But the EPA’s deliberations on the weed-killer dragged on for another 11 months because of concerns about dicamba’s historical drift problems.
That delay left farmers who bought the seeds with no matching herbicide and three bad alternatives: Hire workers to pull weeds; use the less-effective herbicide glyphosate; or illegally spray an older version of dicamba at the risk of damage to nearby farms.
The resulting rash of illegal spraying that year damaged 42,000 acres of crops in Missouri, among the hardest hit areas, as well as swaths of crops in nine other states, according to an August 2016 advisory from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The damage this year has covered 3.6 million acres in 25 states, according to Kevin Bradley, a University of Missouri weed scientist who has tracked dicamba damage reports and produced estimates cited by the EPA.
The episode highlights a hole in a U.S regulatory system that has separate agencies approving genetically modified seeds and their matching herbicides.
Monsanto has blamed farmers for the illegal spraying and argued it could not have foreseen that the disjointed approval process would set off a crop-damage crisis.
But a Reuters review of regulatory records and interviews with crop scientists shows that Monsanto was repeatedly warned by crop scientists, starting as far back as 2011, of the dangers of releasing a dicamba-resistant seed without an accompanying herbicide designed to reduce drift to nearby farms.
In 2015, just before Monsanto released its soybeans seeds, Arkansas regulators notified the firm of damage from illegal spraying of its dicamba-resistant cotton seeds. Some cotton farmers chose to illegally spray old versions of dicamba because other herbicides approved for use on the seeds were far less effective.
The EPA did not approve the new dicamba formulation that Monsanto now sells for use with cotton and soybean seeds - XtendiMax with Vapor Grip - until after the 2016 growing season.
Monsanto’s Partridge acknowledged that the company misjudged the regulatory timeline for approval of its new herbicide.
“The EPA process was lengthier than usual,” Partridge said.
Monsanto, however, denies culpability for the crisis that followed the two-stage approval.
“The illegal misuse of old dicamba herbicides with Xtend seeds was not foreseeable,” the company’s attorneys said in a response to one class action suit filed by farmers in Missouri. “Even if it were foreseeable that farmers would illegally apply old dicamba to their Xtend crops, which it was not, Monsanto is not liable for harms caused by other manufacturers’ products.”
Monsanto’s Partridge said in a written statement that the reports of damage from illegal spraying of dicamba on its cotton seeds in 2015 were “extremely isolated.”
“Those who applied dicamba illegally should be held responsible,” Partridge said.
Monsanto’s handling of the delayed herbicide approval may cause the firm legal and public relations damage, but it has boosted the company’s business considerably. Instead of halting seed sales while waiting on herbicide approval, Monsanto captured a quarter of the nation’s massive soybean market by the start of 2017, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Even the damage from dicamba may have boosted sales. Some farmers whose crops were harmed said in interviews that they bought Monsanto’s new dicamba-resistant seeds as a defense against drift from nearby spraying.
State regulators believe the illegal spraying of dicamba-tolerant cotton and soybean crops continued in 2017 - after the EPA approved Monsanto’s new herbicide. Farmers would still benefit from using old versions of dicamba because it is cheaper than XtendiMax. Many growers also have dicamba on hand because it is legal to use for limited purposes.
Regulators have not yet determined, however, how much damage came from illegal spraying and how much came from the legal application of XtendiMax, which weed scientists say still vaporizes under certain conditions.
Monsanto concedes that XtendiMax has caused crop damage, but blames farmers who the company says did not properly follow directions for applying the herbicide.
The EPA, after delaying a decision on XtendiMax, gave the herbicide a limited two-year approval - as opposed to the standard 20 years - in case drift issues arose.
A U.S. Department of Agriculture spokesman, Rick Corker, acknowledged in a statement to Reuters that the release of an engineered seed before its companion herbicide caused problems. The department, he said, is now in talks with the EPA about whether to coordinate approvals of paired seeds and chemicals.
“USDA and EPA are in discussions regarding the timing of our deregulations,” Corker said in a statement.
The EPA did not comment on whether it planned any policy changes in response to the dicamba crisis.EARLY WARNINGS
Dicamba is cheap, plentiful, and has been used as a weed killer for decades. But its tendency to damage nearby fields had caused U.S. regulators to limit its use to the task of clearing fields before planting or after harvest, when there are no crops to damage and cooler temperatures make it less likely the substance will migrate.
Farmers who illegally sprayed dicamba during growing season are now facing fines of up to $1,000 for each violation of EPA rules limiting the use of dicamba, which are enforced by state regulators.
Farmers with damaged crops have filed at least seven lawsuits — five class-action suits and two by individuals — seeking compensation from Monsanto. The suits claim the company should have known that releasing the seeds without a paired herbicide would cause problems.
Monsanto officials had been repeatedly warned of the potential for damage from illegal spraying of dicamba on seeds designed to resist the chemical.
In October 2011, five scientists from Ohio State University addressed a conference in Columbus focused on the future of dicamba. In attendance were agriculture researchers from across the country as well as representatives of the companies Monsanto, Dow Chemical and BASF.
According to Douglas Doohan, one of the conference’s organizers, three Monsanto employees, including Industry Affairs Director Douglas Rushing, attended the meeting. Monsanto had a keen interest in the topic because the company was far along in developing its new line of dicamba products at the time.
In their introduction to the symposium, Doohan and his colleagues outlined what they called an increased risk of illegal dicamba spraying by farmers once dicamba-resistant seeds became available. They also argued that dicamba-resistant seeds - and the illegal spraying that might accompany them - would lead farmers whose crops were damaged to buy their own dicamba-tolerant seeds to protect themselves from further drift, according to conference records.
Monsanto’s Rushing gave his own presentation about dicamba to the symposium, according to conference records. Rushing explained the need for a new herbicide-and-seed combination to replace those that had grown less effective as weeds become more tolerant to certain chemicals, according to slides outlining Rushing’s conference presentation. He raised the issue of damage from dicamba drift, but said the risks could be reduced by using certain kinds of sprayers and taking other precautions.
Rushing could not be reached for comment. Monsanto did not directly respond to questions about the symposium.DAMAGE REPORTS
Years later, some of what the scientists outlined in their presentations was becoming reality.
Monsanto released its dicamba-resistant cotton seed in the summer of 2015. The seed was compatible with two other legally available herbicides, giving farmers options for dealing with weeds before the EPA’s approval of XtendiMax.
But farmers started digging into their dicamba stockpiles anyway, and damage reports started to trickle in. Monsanto officials were among the first to see those reports, according to minutes of an Arkansas Plant Board committee meeting in July 2015.
Jammy Turner, a Monsanto salesman, was on the Arkansas Plant Board, the agricultural regulator that investigated the complaints. He and Duane Simpson, a Monsanto lobbyist, attended the committee meeting. There, the board’s Pesticide Division Director Susie Nichols gave a report about drift damage complaints linked to the new seed technology.
At that meeting, lobbyist Simpson was asked by the board what Monsanto was doing about drift damage complaints, according to the minutes. Simpson told the committee that the firm had been telling farmers not to spray dicamba illegally, even over crops specifically designed to withstand it. He said the company would consider pulling whatever licenses Monsanto had given to offending farmers to use its technology.
At an Aug. 8, 2016 meeting of the same committee, Simpson was asked again how Monsanto was dealing with farmers illegally spraying dicamba on Xtend crops. This time, he responded that Monsanto saw no way to pull farmers’ seed licenses over the issue.
Monsanto did not comment on Simpson’s statements in response to written questions from Reuters. The company said it would consider revoking a particular farmer’s license if asked to do so by state regulators “when they have investigated and adjudicated an egregious violation.”
Larry Steckel, a weed scientist and professor at the University of Tennessee, said those early damage reports should have been a red flag to Monsanto against releasing its soybean seeds the following year.
“It turned out to be a precursor of what was to come,” he said.
Neither Turner nor Simpson responded to calls and emails seeking comment. Monsanto did not comment on the company’s involvement in the Arkansas investigations.
By the end of 2015, the damage reports linked to the Xtend cotton seeds were making the rounds among scientists. Weed scientist Michael Owen, a professor at Iowa State University, said he warned at the ISU Annual Integrated Crop Management Conference on Dec. 2-3, 2015 that no dicamba formulations had been approved for use on Xtend crops. He told attendees it wasn’t clear when the formulas would be greenlighted, and that the situation was cause for concern.
Monsanto representatives attended that conference, according to ISU Program Services Coordinator Brent Pringnitz, who handled the registration. He would not identify them.
Owen said he also repeated his warning directly to Monsanto officials around the same time, but did not name them.
Monsanto did not comment on Owen’s assertion that he warned the company about dicamba spraying.FLAWED ASSUMPTIONS
Farmers who spoke to Reuters and others who gave testimony recorded in state records described a variety of reasons why they purchased Xtend seeds before XtendiMax was available.
One farmer in Arkansas, Doug Masters, planted Xtend cotton in 2015 and was caught illegally spraying dicamba, according to Arkansas Plant Board records. He said the Monsanto salesman who sold him the Xtend seeds told him that, by the time the plants came up in the summer of 2015, it would be legal to spray dicamba and he should go ahead and do it, according to the board records.
Masters declined to identify the Monsanto salesman to Arkansas regulators, records show. He declined again, when reached by Reuters, to identify the representative. Masters admitted that he illegally sprayed dicamba, and the Plant Board fined him $4,000, assessing the maximum penalty allowed for four violations.
Monsanto did not comment on Masters’ testimony to the plant board.
Ritchard Zolman, another Arkansas farmer caught illegally spraying his cotton in 2015, said in a disciplinary hearing held by the Arkansas Plant Board that he’d planted Xtend seeds because he thought he could spray dicamba legally over his fields 14 days before his crops came up from the ground, according to records.
But the Plant Board ruled it was illegal to spray dicamba onto a field where planted crops had not yet sprouted, disciplinary records show. Zolman was fined $3,000 for three dicamba spraying violations, records show.
Zolman declined to comment.
In Missouri, Gary Dalton Murphy III said he and his family planted Xtend soybeans in 2016 after “hearing” that dicamba would be legal to spray by the summer. He did not say who told him dicamba would be legal that season.
When Murphy learned XtendiMax would not be available, the family got rid of their weeds by hand, hiring extra workers to help.
(Additional reporting by Steve Barnes in Little Rock, Arkansas; Editing by Rich Valdmanis and Brian Thevenot)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-monsanto-dicamba-specialreport/special-report-the-decisions-behind-monsantos-weed-killer-crisis-idUSKBN1D91PZ

Return to headline | Return to top
Monsanto, DowDuPont Left Hanging as EU Deadlocks on Glyphosate

Nov 10, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Stephen Gardner

Monsanto, DowDuPont, and other companies that use glyphosate in their pesticide formulations were left frustrated Nov. 9 as the European Union once again failed to make a decision on reauthorizing the chemical.
The current 15-year authorization to let farmers continue to use glyphosate in the 28-nation EU expires Dec. 15—but a sufficiently large bloc of countries opposed a compromise five-year reauthorization in a regulatory committee vote Nov. 9, meaning the decision will be kicked to another committee meeting before the end of November.
Glyphosate is the world's most widely used herbicide and is the active ingredient in products such as Monsanto Co.'s Roundup and DowDuPont Inc.'s Durango DMA. However, the substance has been dogged by accusations about its health effects, in particular after the World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer said in 2015 it is “probably carcinogenic.”
That finding has since been contradicted by the European Food Safety Authority and the European Chemicals Agency, but some EU countries including—France and Italy—believe the substance should be phased out.
In the Nov. 9 regulatory committee vote, representatives from Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg and Malta voted against the proposed five-year reauthorization of glyphosate. Bulgaria, Germany, Poland, Portugal and Romania abstained from the vote, and the remaining 14 EU countries voted in favor of the reauthorization.
Under EU qualified majority rules, the vote was considered to have delivered “no opinion” on the reauthorization of glyphosate.
Next Step Late This Month
The European Commission, the EU's executive arm, said it would now refer the matter to an appeals committee of EU country representatives. Should that committee also deliver a no-opinion vote, the decision on whether or not to reauthorize glyphosate would fall to the commission.
Previously in such circumstances, the commission has approved authorizations on the back of positive opinions from the European Food Safety Authority. However, commission spokeswoman Anca Paduraru said Nov. 9 it would “take it step by step” and would await the outcome of the appeals committee meeting.
Paduraru said the appeals committee would be convened “by the end of November.”
A spokesman for Monsanto, who asked not to be identified citing company policy, referred a request for comment to the European Crop Protection Association, which represents pesticide manufacturers.
Luxembourg: ‘Good Outcome For Our Health’
It's “disappointing there is still no clear decision,” Graeme Taylor, public affairs director for the European Crop Protection Association, told Bloomberg Environment. Glyphosate should be reauthorized in the EU for 15 years on the basis of the positive opinion of the European Food Safety Authority, he said.
Carole Dieschbourg, environment minister for Luxembourg, which opposes the reauthorization of glyphosate, said in a Twitter message that the no-opinion vote was a “good outcome for our health and environment.”
Franziska Achterberg, food policy director for Greenpeace EU, said in a Nov. 9 statement that the European Commission had now tried six times to broker an agreement between EU countries on the reauthorization of glyphosate, and should “ban it now, not in three, five or 10 more years.”

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=123474938&vname=dennotallissues&fn=123474938&jd=123474938

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

(ACC Mentioned) WVU Energy Institute Pushes For Regional Liquid Natural Gas Hub

Nov 9, 2017 | The Exponent Telegram

By Conor Griffith

MORGANTOWN — West Virginia University Energy Institute Director Brian Anderson said the recently signed memorandum of understanding between West Virginia and China Energy Investment Corp. Limited will help foster the development of a liquid natural gas storage hub and related infrastructure.
On Thursday, China Energy, a longtime research and development partner with WVU, announced an agreement that will bring an investment of $83.7 billion to West Virginia.
Anderson said the investment will be used to help develop the proposed Appalachian Storage and Trading Hub, along with other projects that can develop the state’s natural gas infrastructure and lead to plastics manufacturing.
The WVU Energy Institute has worked toward the storage hub for years, focusing its efforts on transportation improvement, workforce development, marketing and research.
“To quote Pat Getty, president of the Benedum Foundation: ‘Wealth is created where value is added,’” Anderson said.
He said the way forward represents a departure from the way West Virginia has handled its natural resources for the past 100 years.
Instead of sending out raw materials, Anderson said the goal now is to keep Marcellus and Utica Shale gas close to home, where it can be processed at cracker plants — such as the one Shell is building north of Pittsburgh — and shipped to manufacturing centers. That will be made possible with the trade and storage hub.
Having this hub, he said, means Appalachia can one day be on par with the country’s current natural gas hot spot, the Gulf Coast, with the added perk that most manufacturing centers that turn natural gas plastics into everyday products are much closer. That means cheaper shipping costs, less energy spent moving materials and even lower emissions.
Anderson said shipping out raw, unrefined goods can only go so far. He equated natural gas plastics with trading 100 pounds of wooden furniture versus 100 pounds of timber; one is going to fetch a better price than the other.
He hopes development of a trade hub in West Virginia will precipitate the opening of new cracker plants in West Virginia.
“We hope this catalyzes all the other ancillary industries,” Anderson said, emphasizing the importance of making sure hub development doesn’t move too far ahead of the rest of the industry and vice versa. “We have to be strategic and careful.”
Anderson said Shell’s cracker plant is scheduled to be finished in 2022, about the same time the trade and storage hub will be completed, based on the pace of engineering, procurement of property and construction. Sites for the hub in West Virginia have been considered but none have been finalized.
Anderson said it’s hoped the deal with China Energy will attract more partners to invest in the state further down the road.
In the meantime, more formalized agreements have yet to be sorted out as to how much of the China Energy funding will go toward the hub and how much will go to other related projects. In view of the memorandum, Anderson said the pace of hub development will stay the same so that everything falls in place as planned.Jennifer Scott of the American Chemistry Council said economists with the council conducted a study of the region, using the same input/output model used by more than 20 government agencies and 250 colleges and universities, to assess Appalachia’s natural gas resources.
“West Virginia and the region already has a natural gas/plastics manufacturing capacity, but with a trade and storage hub, we found potential for growth of that capacity,” she said.
Across four states, Scott said, development of the hub, along with the accompanying petrochemical industries, could generate more than 100,000 new and permanent jobs by 2025, jobs that would also generate $2.9 billion in tax revenue. She said those jobs would break down to about 25,700 directly employed by the natural gas industry, 43,000 jobs in businesses that supply and support natural gas operations, while a further 32,000 jobs can be created while the former two groups go spend their paychecks.
“This investment by China Energy is the culmination of years of relationship building, both by West Virginia University and the state,” WVU President Gordon Gee said in a statement. “It is also an excellent example of the possibilities that we have been discussing within the West Virginia Forward initiative with our partners at the state Department of Commerce and Marshall University.”
West Virginia Forward aims to ID large-scale, short-term projects that can boost West Virginia’s economy through five principles: Building on existing assets; growing and diversifying beyond the sectors already established; finding disruptive trends; considering regional impact; finding the quick wins.
“As I have traveled the state talking about West Virginia Forward, I have frequently said we need a ‘quick win.’ In the economic development world, this is a nearly unprecedented big win,” Gee said. “The agreement, and the ramifications from it, will help move West Virginia forward for years to come.”
https://www.theet.com/news/free/wvu-energy-institute-pushes-for-regional-liquid-natural-gas-hub/article_5017e272-1f61-585a-9472-9cbfad3502b2.html

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) UPDATE: $83.7 Billion Announcement Is ‘A Game Changer’ $83.7 Billion Investment Announced In W.Va.

Nov 9, 2017 | WSAZ-TV

The $83.7 billion investment is an agreement with China Energy. It is a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that promises to bring that amount to West Virginia over the next 20 years.
To put the dollar amount into perspective, it would be the world's third wealthiest person, behind Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates, and is well above the combined value of every product and service produced in West Virginia last year.
"It's certainly a game changer for the state of West Virginia," said Brian Anderson, director of WVU’s Energy Institute.
As for the reason why, "it's the lowest cost of raw materials for the petrochemical sector on the planet."
It means the investment opportunity is here, helped by relationships going back several years.
Plus Anderson said the state has a workforce that can “jump right in.”
Anderson said the projects will span much of the state -- particularly the Ohio and Kanawha valleys.
Likely first on the list are natural gas power plants in Harrison and Brooke counties, as well as the Appalachia Storage Hub with possible sites in Ohio and Kentucky, as well as Putnam and Jackson County, West Virginia.
"I have extremely high hopes that we can see a large portion of this portfolio adding up to 83 billion," said Anderson.
He adds that each project on the memo has been researched and is viable now, but over the next 20 years, some may come off the list or be added depending on the economic climate.
"The chances the investment is zero is extremely, extremely low."
So while exciting, few details are known.
"Certainly a developing story,” Anderson said. “It's going to take us a long time to fully realize the potential.”
As for the job totals, Anderson said the American Chemistry Council estimated a $36 billion investment as bringing 101,000 jobs with 70,000 directly in the investment and another 30,000 to help supply it.
With $83 billion, he would expect at least double that -- though some jobs would likely be in Ohio, Kentucky and Pennsylvania too.
A news conference about the announcement is scheduled at 11:30 a.m. Monday, Nov. 13 in the Governor's Reception Room at the State Capitol. More details will be announced then.
"We have had a complete turnaround in West Virginia in 2017," Gov. Jim Justice said in a release. "Just think, we started with a $500 million dollar deficit and now the jobs are coming back and where there was despair there is now real hope. All of these things have created a momentum to bring prosperity and goodness to the people of our state. While this is a great day for West Virginia we truly believe there are thousands of more great days to come."
ORIGINAL STORY 11/9/17
China Energy Investment Corporation Limited has signed an agreement with the West Virginia Dept. of Commerce on an $83.7 billion plan to invest in shale gas development and chemical manufacturing projects in West Virginia.
The Memoradum of Understanding was signed Thursday in Beijing, witnessed by President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping.
West Virginia Secretary of Commerce H. Wood Thrasher and China Energy President Ling Wen signed the MOU.
"This is a great day for the state of West Virginia," Gov. Jim Justice said. "I’ve been saying for the last couple months that the tides are turning in West Virginia and this is proof. Today is another sign as we joined with my good friend President Trump to announce the largest investment in our state’s history."
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) also released a statement Thursday morning, saying, "I am thrilled Secretary Thrasher and China Energy have signed the Memorandum of Understanding today in Beijing. I have always said that West Virginians are the hardest working people in the world. I’m glad China Energy recognizes this and is working with us to create jobs and economic growth in our state."
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) said early Thursday morning, "Expanding Appalachia’s energy infrastructure, including developing a regional storage hub and market for natural gas liquids, will have a transformative effect on our economy, our security, and our future. From driving growth and creating jobs to maximizing America’s energy potential, the benefits for West Virginia and the country from this new investment will be significant and long-lasting.
"That’s why I worked diligently to expand West Virginia's energy infrastructure and bring this investment to our state, advocating for it with President Trump, Vice President Pence, and Secretaries Perry and Ross. I’m excited to continue working with the administration, and state, local and private-sector leaders to keep this effort moving forward," Sen. Capito said.
China Energy is the world's largest power company, with more than 200,000 employees.
This investment by China Energy is the culmination of years of relationship building, both by West Virginia University and the state,” WVU President Gordon Gee said. “It is also an excellent example of the possibilities that we have been discussing within the West Virginia Forward initiative with our partners at the state Department of Commerce and Marshall University.
“As I have traveled the state talking about West Virginia Forward, I have frequently said we need a ‘quick win.’ In the economic development world, this is a nearly unprecedented big win. The agreement, and the ramifications from it, will help move West Virginia forward for years to come.”
Marshall President Jerry Gilbert released the following statement on the announcement:
“I congratulate Governor Jim Justice, Commerce Secretary Woody Thrasher and Economic Development Director Kris Hopkins on this amazing announcement. This is indeed a game-changer for West Virginia and I could not be more excited about this development and what it means for our state and for Marshall University.
“One of my priorities as president is economic development for West Virginia and ensuring Marshall is a full partner with the Department of Commerce. Our faculty has the expertise and, through our College of Information Technology and Engineering and our College of Science, is equipping our students with the necessary skill sets to be leaders in this global economy, providing top-notch researchers to develop new technologies. We also are helping our state workforce train for the jobs of tomorrow through RCBI, our center of excellence in advanced manufacturing.
“At Marshall University, we have the knowledge, engineers, researchers, tech specialists and professionals to help this endeavor come into reality. We stand ready to partner with the state to provide this workforce. Put simply, Marshall University is ready to get to work!”
http://www.wsaz.com/content/news/China-Energy-signs-837-billion-West-Virginia-investment-agreement-456288953.html

Return to headline | Return to top
West Virginia Gets China Energy Deal That Dwarfs State's GDP

Nov 10, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Jim Polson

West Virginia was the biggest recipient of the $250 billion of investments signed during President Donald Trump's visit to China.
China Energy Investment Corp. plans to invest $83.7 billion in shale gas development and chemical manufacturing projects in the state over two decades, according to a statement from the state's Department of Commerce.
The memorandum of understanding marks the first step in a series of commitments the company expects to make in West Virginia. These include power generation, chemical manufacturing and underground storage of natural gas liquids derivatives. The size of the proposed investment is largerthan the state's gross domestic product last year of $73.4 billion.
Although the deal is non-binding, it was welcomed in a state that has borne the brunt of coal's long-term decline. West Virginia Governor Jim Justice, a coal and real estate mogul elected to office last year, has lobbied the Trump administration to prop up the state's coal-mining sector.
“Expanding Appalachia's energy infrastructure, including developing a regional storage hub and market for natural gas liquids, will have a transformative effect on our economy, our security and our future,” U.S. Senator Shelley Moore Capito, a West Virginia Republican, said in the statement.
China Energy Investment was formed from the combination of Shenhua Group Corp., the nation's largest coal miner, and China Guodian Corp., one of its top-five power generators.
Without a contractual obligation, there's no guarantee developments agreed to in an memorandum will get funded and built.
“At the end of the day what really counts is contracts,” Jason Feer, head of business intelligence at Poten & Partners Inc. in Houston, said in a phone interview Wednesday. “An MoU is usually an agreement to continue talking.“
—With assistance from Ryan Collins and Tim Loh.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=123474950&vname=dennotallissues&fn=123474950&jd=123474950

Return to headline | Return to top
China Energy’s $83.7B MOU Sets Sights on West Virginia Shale, PetChem Projects

Nov 9, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence

By Charlie Passut

During President Trump's first state visit to China, officials from West Virginia and state-owned China Energy Investment Corp., the world's largest power company, signed an $83.7 billion memorandum of understanding (MOU) to develop shale gas and chemical manufacturing projects in the Mountain State.
West Virginia Department of Commerce (WVDC) Secretary H. Wood Thrasher and Ling Wen, a representative for China Energy, signed the MOU during a U.S.-China Business Exchange meeting in Beijing early Thursday, as Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping looked on.
WVDC said the MOU represented the largest investment in a series of projects involving U.S. corporations and other states agreed to at the trade mission, which collectively totaled $250 billion. Another project to develop liquefied natural gas in Alaska at a cost of $43-60 billion was clinched by three Chinese firms and Alaska officials.
Under the 20-year agreement, China Energy potentially may develop power generation and chemical manufacturing projects in West Virginia, plus underground storage of natural gas liquids (NGL) and derivatives. WVDC said planning for the projects was already underway.
An MOU is not a formal contract but rather a nonbinding agreement outlining the terms and details of an understanding, including each parties' responsibilities. An MOUoften is the first stage in reaching a formal contract.
"This is a great day for the State of West Virginia. I've been saying for the last couple months that the tides are turning in West Virginia and this is proof," said Republican Gov. Jim Justice. He said the MOU could be "the largest investment in our state's history."
Thrasher said West Virginia "has actively sought direct foreign investment to strengthen and diversify our economy," and that other international firms that arrived before China Energy have been "solid corporate citizens," which have created jobs and supported communities in the state. "In that same spirit, we welcome China Energy and the mutual benefits our energy collaboration will bring."
WVDC said the state's business relationship with the Chinese company began in 2002, when Shenhua Group, then China's largest coal producer and the world's largest coal distributor, began joint research with West Virginia University on direct coal liquefaction technology. In 2014, Shenhua entered into a 50/50 joint venture with Energy Corporation of America to develop 25 horizontal wells targeting the Marcellus Shale in neighboring Greene County, PA.
Last August, the Chinese government restructured Shenhua Group and China Guodian Corp., a state-owned electric utility, into China Energy, creating the world's largest power company with more than 200,000 employees.
West Virginia's elected officials in Washington gave bipartisan praise to the potential plans.
"Expanding Appalachia's energy infrastructure, including developing a regional storage hub and market for NGLs, will have a transformative effect on our economy, our security, and our future," said Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito. "From driving growth and creating jobs to maximizing America’s energy potential, the benefits for West Virginia and the country from this new investment will be significant and long-lasting."
The state’s Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin said he was "thrilled" that the MOU was signed. "I have always said that West Virginians are the hardest working people in the world," he said. "I'm glad China Energy recognizes this and is working with us to create jobs and economic growth in our state."
Rep. David McKinley (R-WV) added that the "investment in shale gas resources located here in West Virginia will spur tremendous economic growth in our communities."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/112401-china-energys-837b-mou-sets-sights-on-west-virginia-shale-petchem-projects

Return to headline | Return to top
Alaska LNG Draws Major Support from China as Sinopec, Financiers Step Forward

Nov 9, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence

By Carolyn Davis

Three Chinese companies tentatively have stepped forward to help finance Alaska’s costly and long-stalled natural gas export dreams.
Gov. Bill Walker in China on Wednesday signed the five-party joint development agreement (JDA) to develop Alaska liquefied natural gas (LNG) with China’s state-owned Sinopec Group, the Bank of China and China Investment Corp. (CIC). Also signing on was the Alaska Gasline Development Corp. (AGDC).
“This agreement has all five necessary signatories -- the buyer, the lender, the investor, the developer and the state,” Walker said. “This is a big project with big players and big benefits.”
The project has been estimated to cost anywhere from $43-60 billion. As designed, Alaska LNG would have capacity for up to 20 million metric ton/year of LNG. Included in the design is a three-train liquefaction plant in Southcentral Alaska at Nikiski, an 800-mile, 1.1 meter diameter gas pipeline, a North Slope gas treatment plant, and interconnecting facilities to connect the Prudhoe Bay gas complex to the gas treatment plant.
“There are more steps before a final investment decision is reached, but having the largest LNG buyer in the world participating in this project means the Alaska LNG project has favorable market engagement at the highest level,” Walker said. “This project will finally allow Alaska to reach its full potential as a state. As we move from having one of the highest unemployment rates in the country to the lowest, we will build a stronger Alaska.”
During construction, Alaska LNG is expected to create 12,000 jobs, he noted.
President Trump, who is in Asia-Pacific region for trade meetings, and Chinese President Xi Jinping were at the signing ceremony at the Great Hall of the People. Sinopec is considered the largest oil and gas company in the world by revenue, which in 2016 was estimated at almost $455.5 billion. CIC is China’s direct investment arm, while Bank of China is a state-owned commercial bank.
“Because Alaskans need well paying jobs and affordable energy to power our homes, schools and businesses, this Alaska LNG project is critical,” Walker said. “The gasline is key to building a stronger Alaska.”
The agreement “brings the United States one step closer to energy dominance,” Walker said. The governor also thanked the Alaska legislature “for staying the course” in continuing to fund the AGDC.
Alaska’s congressional delegation hailed the agreement with China, the state’s largest trading partner.
In a joint statement, Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Dan Sullivan (R-AK), as well as Rep. Don Young (R-AK), said responsibly developing Alaska’s natural resources “offers a great opportunity to create good jobs and new wealth in our state and across the country, while paying down both state and federal deficits, improving our balance of trade, and strengthening our national security.”

Alaska gas exports long have been a goal for the state’s major gas producers BP plc, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil Corp., but the trio and TransCanada Corp. last year threw cold water on the project, indicating it was unlikely to work without more financial backing.
Hurdles remain, as the AGDA indicated the JDA is an “expression of interest,” rather than a binding contract. Under the JDA, the parties agreed to work cooperatively on LNG marketing, financing, the investment model and China content in Alaska LNG, with a “periodic result” in 2018, according to AGDC.
The agreement “brings the potential customer, lender, equity investor and developer together with a common objective of crafting mutually beneficial agreements leading to increased LNG trade between Alaska and China,” said AGDC President Keith Meyer.
Sinopec officials added that the Chinese producer was “interested in the possibility of LNG purchase on a stable basis from Alaska LNG.” Meyer said Sinopec could take part in project construction in return for up to 75% of capacity on the pipeline and liquefaction plant.
“The price of the LNG is going to be tied to the cost of finance,” Meyer said. “It’s going to result in a low cost of LNG, depending on the creativity and the largess of the Chinese banks.”
The project developers also would have to make separate purchase agreements for LNG from the state producers, according to Walker.
“This is an agreement that will provide Alaska with an economic boom comparable to the development of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System in the 1970s,” Walker said.
China is natural gas-thirsty, as the government has a plan to replace coal and petroleum to reduce pollution. During July alone, China imported 7.2 Bcf of U.S. LNG, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The country also is tracking to take over as the world’s largest gas consumer, surpassing the United States, in the next few decades, according to forecasts.
Analysts weighing in the potential blockbuster deal noted that the project’s startup could be at a minimum five years away.
Wood Mackenzie’s Kerry-Anne Shanks, head of Asia gas and LNG research, noted that the project remains in its early stages.
“Wood Mackenzie classifies it as speculative, which means the commercial structure and marketing plan are not yet clear,” Shanks said. “It is likely to take a few years” before a final investment decision is made, and LNG projects “generally take at least four years to construct from project sanction.”
Alaska has in the past exported gas via ConocoPhillips’ Kenai LNG plant, but volumes were small and costs relatively low.
“The main issue for the Alaska LNG project is its high cost,” Shanks said. “It's a large project at 20 mmty of capacity, with an 800-mile pipeline. Sinopec may be able to secure cheaper LNG supply elsewhere.” However, “Alaska LNG has the advantage of being closer to China than U.S. LNG projects located on the Gulf Coast.”
Verisk Maplecroft analyst Hugo Brennan said the commercial agreement “allows Trump to portray himself as a master dealmaker, while distracting from a lack of progress on structural reforms to the bilateral trade relationship.
“The deal is politically expedient, yet its nonbinding nature gives Sinopec the flexibility to quietly back away from the deal down the line. Beijing is mindful of the need to maintain varied commodity import routes.”
Alaska LNG exports would “align with strategic objectives cloaked within China’s Belt and Road Initiative” Brennan said. “Alaskan LNG would help reduce China’s reliance on energy trade that must transit maritime chokepoints vulnerable to potential disruption. Its strategic advantage over LNG supply from the East Coast is that it would not have to transit the Panama Canal.”
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/112396-alaska-lng-draws-major-support-from-china-as-sinopec-financiers-step-forward

Return to headline | Return to top
China's Appetite for U.S. Energy Falls Short of Binding Deals

Nov 10, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Dan Murtaugh, Aibing Guo and Ryan Collins

China showed its appetite for big ticket investments in U.S. energy production and exports during President Donald Trump's visit, but left the event with almost no binding deals.
Agreements announced in Beijing Nov. 9 included nearly $84 billion in shale gas and chemicals in West Virginia, a $43 billion Alaskan LNG project, and $11 billion in long-term supply of liquefied natural gas from the only mainland U.S. exporter. Ethane, turbines, and next-generation nuclear reactors were also among the announcements.
The pacts dominated the $250 billion in U.S.-China deals unveiled this week during President Donald Trump's visit to Beijing. Almost none of them included financial commitments or purchase agreements.
China Petrochemical Corp., known as Sinopec Group, signed a joint development agreement with Alaska Gasline Development Corp. on a plan to pipe natural gas from the state's northern shore to a proposed liquefaction terminal in the south, where it would be shipped abroad. The deal for the Alaska LNG project, which the U.S. State Department said Nov. 9 would include investments of up to $43 billion, has been in discussions for years and already sidelined by American majors.
“This kind of non-binding commercial agreement allows Trump to portray himself as a master dealmaker, while distracting from a lack of progress on structural reforms to the bilateral trade relationship,” Hugo Brennan, an Asia analyst at Verisk Maplecroft said in an email. “The deal is politically expedient, yet its non-binding nature gives Sinopec the flexibility to quietly back away from the deal down the line.”
Other U.S.-China energy agreements announced Nov. 9 include:
• West Virginia and China Energy Investment Corp.—the newly formed world's biggest power company—signed a memorandum of understanding to invest $83.7 billion in shale gas development and chemical manufacturing projects in the state.
• Cheniere Energy Inc. and China National Petroleum Corp. signed a memorandum of understanding for the long-term sale and purchase of LNG. The announcer at the signing ceremony said the deal was worth $11 billion, a figure neither company has disclosed.
• Delfin LNG and China Gas Holdings Ltd. signed a non-binding memorandum of understanding for the sale of up to 3 million tons a year of LNG.
• Westinghouse Electric Co. and State Nuclear Power Technology Co. signed contracts for six AP1000 nuclear reactors to be built in China.
• GE and China Datang Corp. signed a framework agreement for future joint projects and deals, including gas and steam turbines, that could total $1 billion.
American Ethane
A $26 billion agreement between American Ethane Co. and Nanshan Group for a 20-year supply of ethane from the Gulf Coast of Texas to a new ethylene plant in China was among the only binding contracts signed. The two sides negotiated the deal in June, according to a statement from American Ethane.
China's thirst for natural gas is a result of an ever-growing economy and a new push by President Xi Jinping's government to replace dirtier fuels like coal and petroleum to limit pollution. The country's natural gas use could almost triple from last year to about 600 billion cubic meters by 2040, and it could overtake the U.S. as the world's largest consumer by 2050, according Sanford C. Bernstein & Co.
Exxon Mobil Corp., ConocoPhillips, BP Plc, and TransCanada Corp. have distanced themselves from the Alaska LNG project after estimating in 2012 that it would cost as much as $65 billion and take more than a decade to construct. As of this year, all of those companies had withdrawn from the project's application. Sinopec said in a statement Nov. 9 that it's interested in buying stable supplies of LNG from the project.
Supply, Diversity
Cheniere Energy runs the only terminal sending U.S. shale gas overseas. The Houston-based company has been trying to lock in buyers to build a sixth gas liquefaction plant at the Sabine Pass terminal in Louisiana and a third at the Corpus Christi terminal being constructed in Texas. A Beijing-based CNPC spokesman declined to comment Nov. 9 on the memorandum of understanding, while Cheniere didn't respond to requests for comment sent outside normal business hours.
“The U.S. has a natural gas oversupply problem and has been looking for ways to export the fuel,” said Anna Yu, a Hong Kong-based analyst at ICBC International Research Ltd. “Meanwhile, China is looking to diversify its sources of LNG import to improve its energy security.”
China has already signed deals with suppliers in Qatar, Australia, and other nations for more than 40 million tons a year of LNG through 2030, but it still needs more than 20 million tons to meet demand by the end of that period, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Chinese LNG buyers have not yet inked any long-term purchasing agreements or investment deals with U.S. LNG exporters.
Memorandums of understanding are typically non-binding, so there are rarely legal ramifications if one side backs out. They can push an LNG project's development process along, but they are not enough to attract financial investments, Jason Feer, head of business intelligence at ship broker Poten & Partners Inc. in Houston, said by phone.
“At the end of the day, what really counts is contracts,” Feer said. “An MoU is usually an agreement to continue talking.”
The MoUs that came out of Trump's visit to China mirrored a similar wave of non-binding agreements signed amid South Korean President Moon Jae-in's visit to the White House in June. Korea Gas Corp. announced at the time that it would look into potential investments in LNG projects in Alaska, Texas and Louisiana. SK Group signed an agreement with General Electric Co. and Continental Resources Inc. to pursue shale gas developments.
—With assistance from Jing Yang, Alfred Cang, Li Liu and Peter Martin.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=123474955&vname=dennotallissues&fn=123474955&jd=123474955

Return to headline | Return to top
Williams Cleared to Resume Work on $3 Billion Gas Pipeline

Nov 10, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Lynn Doan and Tim Loh

Williams Partners LP was cleared by a federal court to resume construction on a $3 billion pipeline that will help shuttle shale gas across the eastern U.S.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied a request from environmentalists and landowners to stay approval of the Atlantic Sunrise project pending its review, saying they didn't satisfy “stringent requirements.” An administrative stay that temporarily halted work on the pipeline earlier this week was also lifted.
The brief disruption in construction sent U.S. gas driller Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. plunging on Nov. 7 as it's a major would-be shipper on the line. The shares rebounded Nov. 9, rising as much as 2.8 percent to $28.60 in New York. The stay prompted Williams to blast the pipeline's foes as “opponents of American energy” who were putting as many as 8,000 jobs in jeopardy and depriving families of low-cost gas. The company has already pressed President Donald Trump's administration for help getting another controversial pipeline built in New York by stressing the jobs it would create.
“We will promptly resume construction activities on this important pipeline project, which will leverage existing energy infrastructure to deliver economic growth and help millions of Americans gain access to affordable Pennsylvania-produced clean-burning natural gas,” Williams said in a statement late Nov. 8.
Both Cabot and Williams have been projecting a mid-2018 startup of the Atlantic Sunrise project.
—With assistance from Andrew Harris.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=123474951&vname=dennotallissues&fn=123474951&jd=123474951

Return to headline | Return to top

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

Wehrum's Confirmation Likely To Expedite Pruitt's EPA Air Policy Overhaul

Nov 9, 2017 | Inside EPA

By Doug Obey

The Senate's 49-47 vote to confirm William Wehrum to head EPA's Office of Air & Radiation (OAR) is likely to boost agency Administrator Scott Pruitt in his plan to overhaul Clean Air Act policies, which includes rollbacks of climate and other air rules, and changes to new source review (NSR) permitting to ease industry burdens.
Although Democrats failed to prevent the upper chamber from confirming Wehrum Nov. 9 -- an industry lawyer and previously the George W. Bush EPA's acting OAR chief -- they are vowing to continue attacking his policies while he serves at the agency. Their goal is to make Wehrum and other controversial nominees for top EPA and other environmental positions political liabilities for Republicans who support them.
It would be the “height of moral irresponsibility” to confirm Wehrum, Senate Environment & Public Works committee ranking member Tom Carper (D-DE) exclaimed Nov. 9 on the Senate floor prior to the vote, though Democrats had conceded well before then that Wehrum's confirmation seemed a done deal.
All GOP senators present except Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) voted in favor of Wehrum, with all Democrats present voting against, clearing the path for him to become the next permanent assistant administrator (AA) in OAR. In that position he will oversee the agency's air policies, which under Pruitt are focused on either rolling back Obama-era rules or reducing burdens on industries.
Pruitt in a statement soon after the Senate's vote suggested that having Wehrum in place will help advance his agenda. “Bill Wehrum has a long history of public service, including over 30 years working in the environmental field. I look forward to him joining EPA to help us implement our positive environmental agenda and administer programs that ensure that Americans have access to clean air,” said the administrator.
Among Pruitt's priorities are: Repeal of the Clean Power Plan greenhouse gas standards for existing power plants; potential revisions to first-time limits on the GHG methane from new oil and gas drilling; reconsideration of the Obama EPA's decision in 2015 to tighten the ozone national ambient air quality standards; and a recently launched task force weighing options for streamlining the NSR permitting process, and more.
Wehrum and Pruitt will also have to grapple with the agency's looming final renewable fuel standard (RFS) fuel production targets for 2018 due by a Nov. 30 statutory deadline, and the upcoming 2019 targets. The RFS was a major focus of debate over Wehrum's nomination, with some Republican senators refusing to back the nominee until they won assurances from Pruitt that he would not impose major cuts to RFS targets.
Internal Communications
Wehrum's confirmation is expected to accelerate implementation of Pruitt's agenda by providing a new point of contact between the administrator's team and the career staff within OAR.
Press reports and sources have said that Pruitt has developed a reputation as keeping major deliberations to just a small political team without significant career staff consultation. Having a confirmed AA in place should improve the daily operations of OAR, even if many of its priorities under Pruitt are controversial.
Wehrum is also now in a position to put his own stamp as air program head on the Pruitt' EPA's embrace of “cooperative federalism” touted as giving states a greater say in implementation of air act and other policies -- although some states and environmentalists recently expressed wariness about this goal.
Although Wehrum won confirmation to head OAR, the closeness of the Senate vote also underscores the extent that many items on Pruitt's and Wehrum's agenda will remain contentious, with environmentalists arguing that many items on industry's wish list are likely to wind up in the courts -- where Wehrum's tenure overseeing OAR in the Bush era included EPA losing several lawsuits that challenged the agency's air policies as unlawful.
“Mr. Wehrum lost over 27 lawsuits in the Bush administration for violating the Clean Air Act,” said John Walke, the Natural Resources Defense Council's clean air program director, at a Nov. 8 Capitol Hill press conference held by several Senate Democrats and advocates to criticize multiple Trump administration nominees for environmental posts. Walke's statistic referred to Wehrum's defense of controversial George W. Bush administration policies, both as acting air chief and chief legal counsel.
Some of those losses came in the wake of proposed changes to NSR to make it more flexible -- many of which were subsequently rejected by the courts -- with Wehrum an aggressive advocate of the view that the program has become bloated and unworkable for industries seeking to comply.
Observers have previously suggested Wehrum may have to prioritize some proposed NSR changes over others endorsed in a recent Department of Commerce report, with some arguing that full implementation of the ideas could take more than one presidential term and is sure to involve contentious litigation.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/wehrums-confirmation-likely-expedite-pruitts-epa-air-policy-overhaul

Return to headline | Return to top
Los Angeles Emissions Trading Plan Changes Snuffed Out by Court

Nov 10, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Carolyn Whetzel

Southern California air quality officials will have to revisit changes to a regional pollution credit trading program approved in 2015, a state court said.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District's governing board ran awry of procedural requirements in approving last minute revisions to the Regional Clean Air Incentives Market amendments, California Superior Court Judge Amy D. Hogue said.
The revisions were substantial enough to trigger a new public review process, Hogue said in a Nov. 6 decision vacating the approval (Communities for a Better Env. v South Coast Air Quality Mgt. District, Cal. Super. Ct., No. BS161399, 11/6/17).
“We disagree with the court ruling,” Sam Atwood, a spokesman for the air district, told Bloomberg Environment. “We think our Board acted within its authority. We will evaluate our options.”
The ruling leaves the amendments in place pending further action by the board, Atwood said.
At issue are RECLAIM changes designed to force oil refineries and other large sources of nitrogen oxide emissions to further reduce their emissions by 2022.
Staff recommended amendments to the program to shrink annual credit allowances to cap emissions earlier and at higher level. At the Dec. 4, 2015 public hearing, members of the governing board opted for a less aggressive proposal backed by the oil industry.
Meanwhile, the South Coast air district has decided to phase out the RECLAIM program by 2031, and replace it with traditional control measures.
Earthjustice filed the lawsuit on behalf of Communities for a Better Environment, Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, and Natural Resources Defense Council.
The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, founder of Bloomberg L.P. Bloomberg Environment is an affiliate of Bloomberg L.P.
“It's unclear what they will do,” Earthjustice attorney Adrian Martinez told Bloomberg Environment in an email. “The Board has some different members now. Also, it's unclear how this will play into the sunsetting of RECLAIM.”
Launched in 1993, RECLAIM covers 276 facilities in the Los Angeles area, all large sources of nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides. The amendments affected 56 of the facilities. Emitters either reduce emissions to meet annual limits or buy RECLAIM credits.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=123474948&vname=dennotallissues&fn=123474948&jd=123474948

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested