Preview Newsletter

ACC AM 3/05/18

Congressional Hearings

Hearing on Infrastructure Plan
Mar 6, 2018 | House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

Location: 2167 Rayburn / 10:00 AM

Industry and Association News

(ACC Blog) There’s a Reason We Use Plastics to Package Food
Mar 2, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steve Russell

This week, a grocery store in Amsterdam made headlines for being the first to offer an aisle without plastic packaging.
(ACC Mentioned) As NAFTA Talks Resume, New Business Poll Backs Staying in Pact
Mar 3, 2018 | 10,000 Couples
By Shelley Chandler

Smith: With negotiations underway, Salmonsen says it is important to remember that NAFTA is paramount to the success of not only USA agriculture, but other industries and future trade partnerships.
(ACC Mentioned) Here's What Corporate America Is Saying about Trump's Tariffs
Mar 4, 2018 | CNN
By Jackie Wattles

American steel and aluminum manufacturers are applauding President Donald Trump's plan to slap tariffs on imported metals. Pretty much everyone else is not happy.
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Industry Slams Trump Steel Tariffs
Mar 2, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo

The chemical industry’s leading U.S. trade group, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), has condemned the Trump Administration’s plan to impose tariffs on imported steel and aluminum.
(ACC Mentioned) Bans on Plastic Straws in Restaurants Expand to More Cities
Mar 5, 2018 | The New York Times
By Daniel Victor

The latest is Malibu, Calif. Before that came Seattle; Davis and San Luis Obispo, Calif.; and Miami Beach and Fort Myers, Fla.
(ACC Mentioned) Business, Birds and Beaches; How Marine Debris Affects Kauai
Mar 5, 2018 | The Garden Island
By Jessica Else

Royal Caribbean cruise line was one of several companies that announced recently a campaign to eliminate single-use plastics from its cruise ships by the year 2020.
(ACC Mentioned) Companies Court Lawmakers with Charitable Giving, but Don't Always Disclose the Funds
Mar 5, 2018 | The Center For Public Integrity
By Carrie Levine

In August, a nonprofit group dedicated to archiving the official and personal papers of Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, gathered donors for golf at an “authentic yet refined” luxury mountain resort boasting “the largest spa in Utah.”
Trump's Proposed Steel Tariffs Could Hammer Houston Businesses, Oil Industry
Mar 2, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Collin Eaton

Max Tejeda hoped his oilfield pipe business would find some financial relief in bigger paychecks this year as drillers recuperate from the worst downturn in decades.
Trump Taps Dow Official to Oversee EPA Waste Program
Mar 2, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Corbin Hiar

President Trump today nominated a top chemical company official to oversee U.S. EPA's solid waste office.

LCSA News

(ACC Mentioned) EPA Non-Animal Chemical Tests Plan Needs Specifics, Groups Say
Mar 5, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sara Merken

Scientists and animal welfare advocates want an upcoming EPA strategy on ways to reduce the use of animals in chemical safety tests to state specifically what is expected of both regulators and companies.
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Fees to Review Chemicals to Start Oct. 1, EPA Says
Mar 5, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

Chemical manufacturers and processors should prepare to start paying fees Oct. 1 so the EPA can recoup some of its costs of implementing the amended Toxic Substances Control Act, a top EPA chemicals official said March 2.
(ACC Mentioned) OSHA Official Downplays Prospects For EPA Deference On Chemical Risks
Mar 2, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds

A senior Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) official is downplaying the prospect of significant consultation with EPA on chemical risks to workers under the revised toxics law as some industry groups have sought, calling the extent of such collaboration “hard to predict” and suggesting it is often unnecessary.

Chemical Management News

Industry Falls Short of Supplying EU with All Required Safety Information for Chemicals
Mar 5, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue

Chemical manufacturers and importers have failed to supply all required safety information for some substances when registering them for use in the European Union during the past decade, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) says.
House OKs chemical regulation bill prompted by PFOA contamination
Mar 4, 2018 | Bennington Banner
By Jim Therrien

A bill regulating toxic substances in Vermont that was prompted by PFOA contamination of wells in Bennington is moving toward possible adoption in the Legislature.
Prime Minister: UK to Seek 'Associate Membership' of Echa
Mar 5, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton

The British government is to seek "associate membership" of Echa and other European agencies as part of the EU withdrawal negotiations, UK prime minister Theresa May has told an audience in London.

Energy News

State Eschewed Fracking but Natural Gas Still Poised to Grow
Mar 3, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)

Maryland is not taking part in the boom of natural gas fracking, otherwise known as hydraulic fracturing. But the fossil fuel is still poised to grow in the state.
It's Official: Cove Point Becomes Second U.S. Facility to Export LNG
Mar 2, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut

History was made in the early hours of Friday with the departure of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) tanker owned by a subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell plc from Dominion Energy’s export facility on Chesapeake Bay in Maryland.
Trump Drilling Plan Faces Backlash
Mar 4, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama

The oil industry has been put on the defensive in the fight over the Trump administration’s plan to expand offshore drilling.
EPA Amends Methane Rules, Proposes Withdrawing Oil, Gas Guidelines for VOCs
Mar 2, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has finalized two amendments to Obama-era rules governing new sources of methane emissions, and it is proposing to withdraw some guidelines for reducing volatile organic compounds (VOC) to save the oil and gas industry millions.

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Transportation and Infrastructure News

Sullivan Urges Infrastructure Bill Push
Mar 2, 2018 | Inside EPA

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) is urging Republican leaders in the Senate to make infrastructure funding legislation a priority, expressing concern about recent comments from Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the Senate majority whip, that there may not be enough time to address infrastructure given other priorities on lawmakers' agenda.
More Hearings Set as Push Spools Up
Mar 5, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk

The Trump administration will continue pitching its infrastructure plan on Capitol Hill this week.

Environment News

(ACC Mentioned) Top Science Adviser Uncertain about Human Role in Warming
Mar 2, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Corbin Hiar

The head of U.S. EPA's Scientific Advisory Board today said he wasn't sure if man-made emissions of greenhouse gases were causing climate change.
EPA Ozone Nonattainment 'Classifications' Rule Uses Obama-Era Methods
Mar 2, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker

EPA has issued a final rule for how to classify areas of the country in various levels of not attaining the 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), adopting Obama-era methods used for compliance with the prior 2008 ozone standard and abandoning a never-published Trump administration classifications proposal.
Critics Warn 'Limited' EPA Role In Possible CPP Replacement Is Unlawful
Mar 2, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan

States and environmental groups are warning that the “very limited role” the Trump EPA is envisioning for itself in overseeing state programs under a possible replacement for the Clean Power Plan (CPP) would be unlawful if finalized because it would give states enormous leeway to impose weak greenhouse gas limits or impose no restrictions at all.
POLITICO pro New Jersey: Environmental Groups Taking Appeal of Exxon Settlement to State Supreme Court
Mar 5, 2018 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Anielle Muoio

Environmental groups have requested that the state's highest court hear its appeal of New Jersey's controversial Exxon Mobil settlement.

Congressional Hearings

Hearing on Infrastructure Plan

Mar 6, 2018 | House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

Return to headline | Return to top

Industry and Association News

(ACC Blog) There’s a Reason We Use Plastics to Package Food

Mar 2, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters

By Steve Russell

This week, a grocery store in Amsterdam made headlines for being the first to offer an aisle without plastic packaging. If the thinking behind this offering is “less plastic is better in the grocery store”—then we need to ask: In what way is this really a good thing? And we need to be clear about the problem(s) this move is designed to solve.Are we trying to reduce food waste?
Every year in the United States, about 30 to 40 percent of the food we grow goes uneaten, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The longer a food item stays fresh, the greater its chance of being eaten. Studies have shown that cucumbers wrapped in plastic last eleven days longer than unwrapped cucumbers 1; bananas wrapped in plastic last 21 days longer than their unwrapped counterparts 2; and beef wrapped in plastic vacuum packaging with an oxygen barrier film lasts 26 days longer 3.
Countries that package a greater share of food items tend to generate far less food waste than we do 4.Do we also want to reduce the environmental impacts that come with food waste?
Growing food requires investments of water, land, energy, and fuel. Now consider that we throw away 30 to 40 percent of everything we grow. That means we’re not just wasting food, we’re wasting 30 to 40 percent of all the resources we used to grow that food. Think of a little food packaging as a small investment that helps to protect all of the resources that went into producing that item.
The director of the Industry Council for Research on Packaging and the Environment has said, “A telling fact is that ten times more resources—materials, energy and water—are used to make and distribute food than are used to make the packaging to protect it.” So when we waste a food item, we’re wasting 10 times the resources that were used to make its protective packaging.
Plus food is the single most prevalent material in our landfills. When food decomposes, it produces methane, a greenhouse gas 21 times more potent than CO2. Landfills generate 20 percent of all methane emissions, so using plastic packaging to prevent food waste can really help cut our carbon emissions.Thinking beyond food waste, what about reducing our overall environmental footprint?
It’s true that we can make packaging out of materials other than plastics, namely paper, glass, aluminum and steel. But studies have shown that plastics are often more efficient. Being both strong and lightweight means plastics can ship more product with less packaging material than alternatives. And using less material in the first place results in significant reductions in energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and waste.
A 2016 study by Trucost (Plastics and Sustainability 5) found that replacing plastic with alternatives in packaging and consumer products could raise environmental costs at least fourfold. Another study 6 showed that replacing plastics with alternatives in packaging would increase the amount of plastic packaging generated in the United States by 55 million tons annually, and would increase energy use and our carbon footprint by 82 percent and 130 percent, respectively. Not much of an improvement, right?Don’t we need to keep plastics out of our oceans?
YES. Full stop. Used plastics shouldn’t find their way into our rivers and oceans. Yet it’s highly unlikely that the packaging on items purchased in a grocery store, then transported home—where we have access to curbside waste collection (and usually also recycling)—will become marine litter. It just doesn’t add up.
The supermarket chain says it’s using biofilms as an alternative to plastics, and claims they’re compostable. But “compostable” products on the market today don’t readily breakdown in our oceans, and recyclers don’t want them for obvious reasons. In the United States and other Western countries, we’re fortunate to have strong systems for collecting and managing materials after use. We need to work on getting more plastics into our recycling systems and making sure our used plastics are directed toward their next productive use. For consumers, that means placing used bottles, containers, caps and lids in our curbside bins and bringing our used polyethylene bags and wraps to grocery stores. We can also shop for new products made with recycled plastics. And of course, we can choose to bring a reusable bag or bottle with us on the go. These, too, are often made from plastics.
The benefits of plastic packaging might not be making headlines these days, but they are making a positive difference in preserving our food and reducing our environmental footprint.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2018/03/reason-why-we-use-plastics-to-package-food/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) As NAFTA Talks Resume, New Business Poll Backs Staying in Pact

Mar 3, 2018 | 10,000 Couples

By Shelley Chandler

Smith: With negotiations underway, Salmonsen says it is important to remember that NAFTA is paramount to the success of not only USA agriculture, but other industries and future trade partnerships.
Woodall says having a solid NAFTA deal is critical for the USA cattle industry. In 2016, the most recent year examined by IEG, the US shipped $1.2 billion worth of dairy products to Mexico, up from $201 million in 2002. The USTR declined to comment.
"I don't think the odds are [likely] that we will have an absolute withdrawal from the NAFTA agreement, but I can't totally rule that out because... some of these provisions... are non-starters unless they're modified fairly significantly", said Cal Dooley, CEO of the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
Two auto lobbyists in the United States, who spoke on background, said they did not believe there was a joint meeting scheduled with the Detroit auto companies but individual consultations might happen.
But with tight margins in the chemical industry, he said even the 6 percent MFN tariffs that Mexico could put in place would raise costs for US exports.
Separately, a private-sector official familiar with the talks said that negotiators from the three sides had now completed talks on good regulatory practices.
Officials do not anticipate major breakthroughs on other intractable issues such as agriculture and dispute resolution mechanisms in the Mexico City round, due to run until March 5.
USA dairy exports to Mexico have grown from $124 million in 1995 to $1.2 billion in 2016, according to a new analysis released by Informa Economics IEG.
In a bid to revive USA factories, the White House has proposed raising the regional automotive rules of origin for passenger cars to 85 percent from 62.5 percent and add a US -specific requirement of 50 percent.
The report suggests that over time, the tightly integrated North American supply chains within NAFTA would be disrupted, as manufacturers in Mexico and Canada seek cheaper suppliers from other parts of the world. Canada at the last negotiating round in Montreal proposed its own ideas on how to calculate the value of regional content in vehicles, including giving more credit for driverless and electric cars, plus research and development work. Colin Woodall, Vice President of Government Affairs for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association is hoping for more reason being injected into the talks.
http://10thousandcouples.com/2018/03/as-nafta-talks-resume-new-business-poll-backs-staying-in/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Here's What Corporate America Is Saying about Trump's Tariffs

Mar 4, 2018 | CNN

By Jackie Wattles

American steel and aluminum manufacturers are applauding President Donald Trump's plan to slap tariffs on imported metals. Pretty much everyone else is not happy.
Trump made the surprise announcement on Thursday: He wants a 25% tariff on imported steel and a 10% tariff for aluminum.
His goal is to bolster US production of the metals and combat unfair trade practices with the tariffs, which are taxes the government can place on imported goods.
But international competition is a big reason why aluminum and steel are cheap.
So while US steel and aluminum suppliers welcome less competition, companies that rely on the materials are warning that prices on everything from beer to cars will go up -- and jobs in a multitude of industries will be at risk.
"According to third-party analyses, this 10% tariff will create a new $347.7 million tax on America's beverage industry, including brewers and beer importers, and result in the loss of 20,291 American jobs," McGreevy said in a statement.
Ball Corporation, a top supplier of metal packaging, urged Trump to reconsider.
"Aluminum can sheet and tinplate steel have no national security applications, and tariffs on them likely will have negative downstream impacts on food and beverage manufacturers, as well as increased prices for consumers," CEO John Hayes said.
Even Hershey, which uses aluminum foil to wrap its chocolate Kisses and steel to build plants, said the policy could "have a negative impact on the entire U.S. economy."
And The American Chemistry Council -- which represents companies like 3M (MMM), Procter & Gamble (PG), DuPont (DWDP) and ExxonMobil (XOM) -- warned the tariffs could make factories more expensive, slow innovation, and have "punishing" effects.
Car buyers could see prices go up "substantially," according to the American International Automobile Dealers Association, which was formed to advocate for free trade. The group also warned that retaliatory tariffs from other countries stand to burden American consumers by driving up the price of goods in general.
Officials across the pond have already threatened to implement such retaliatory tariffs on American-made denim, motorcycles, and bourbon. Many believe the tariffs could spark a trade war, with other countries applying their own, onerous tariffs on American exports.
But Trump is undeterred. He went so far as to declare that trade wars are "good" and "easy to win," and said he'd hit Europe back with tariffs on imported cars from companies like BMW and Volkswagen.
White House trade adviser Peter Navarro told CNN's Jake Tapper that he expects President Donald Trump to sign a measures by the end of this week or early in the next.
http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/04/news/economy/companies-respond-to-trump-tariffs/index.html

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Industry Slams Trump Steel Tariffs

Mar 2, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News

By Alexander H. Tullo

The chemical industry’s leading U.S. trade group, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), has condemned the Trump Administration’s plan to impose tariffs on imported steel and aluminum.
In a meeting with representatives of the steel and aluminum industries yesterday, President Donald J. Trump suggested a 25% tariff on imported steel and a 10% duty on aluminum.
“I remember when I was growing up, U.S. Steel, that was the ultimate company,” Trump said. “And today, you have so many closed plants.”
The administration has grown increasingly concerned about steel. Last month, the Department of Commerce issued a report that called for the U.S. to reduce steel imports. The report pointed out that steel imports grew at double-digit rates in 2017 and that the U.S. now imports more than 30% of the steel it consumes.
Because of foreign competition, the Commerce Department said, the U.S. steel industry has shuttered six oxygen furnace facilities and idled another four since 2000, representing more than half of such plants in the U.S. “Domestic steel production is vital to national security,” it said.
However, ACC is asking Trump to reconsider the tariffs because they will drive up the cost of building chemical plants in the U.S.
“For a chemical manufacturing industry that has invested $185 billion in new factories, expansions, and restarts of facilities around the country, President Trump’s announcement comes at the worst possible time,” ACC said. “More than half of these investment projects are still in the planning stage, and market shifts caused by tariff increases may convince investors to do business elsewhere.”
Petrochemical plants use a lot of steel. For example, Sasol estimates that the $11 billion ethylene cracker and downstream chemical complex it is erecting in Lake Charles, La., will require 58,400 metric tons of steel.
Chemical firms are currently building eight major ethylene projects in the U.S., meant to take advantage of cheap ethane feedstocks derived from shale. Two projects were completed last year. Several more are under consideration.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/96/web/2018/03/Chemical-industry-slams-Trump-steel-tariffs.html

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Bans on Plastic Straws in Restaurants Expand to More Cities

Mar 5, 2018 | The New York Times

By Daniel Victor

The latest is Malibu, Calif. Before that came Seattle; Davis and San Luis Obispo, Calif.; and Miami Beach and Fort Myers, Fla.
They’re all cities that have banned or limited the use of plastic straws in restaurants. Straws, routinely placed in glasses of water or soda, represent a small percentage of the plastic that’s produced and consumed but often end up on beaches and in oceans.
Advocates said laws aimed at cutting back on the use of plastic straws can help spur more significant behavioral changes.
“I think a lot of people feel overwhelmed by the magnitude of the plastic problem,” said Diana Lofflin, the founder of StrawFree.org, an activist organization based in San Diego. “Giving up plastic straws is a small step, and an easy thing for people to get started on. From there, we can move on to larger projects.”
The City Council in Malibu voted on Monday to bar restaurants from giving out plastic straws, utensils and stirrers. Similar measures are being considered in other coastal cities, including Berkeley, Calif. A bevy of restaurants across the country have also voluntarily stopped providing straws.
It’s not just happening in the United States. Scotland plans to be rid of plastic straws by 2019, and Taiwan is banning single-use plastic items, including straws, cups and shopping bags, by 2030.
Around the world, people have wrestled with the environmental effect of plastics, which do not naturally degrade and are frequently used once before settling in landfills, clogging storm drains or collecting in the ocean, often for long periods of time. Many countries have banned, limited or taxed the use of plastic bags.
Some of the leading organizations in the plastics industry have said they agree with the idea of reducing the use of straws, but have said laws are the wrong way to go about it. They haven’t fought the laws with the same vigor they used to oppose bag bans.
The American Chemistry Council has taken a softer approach to straw bans than it did with bags, suggesting that restaurants provide straws only when a customer asks for one.
“We believe providing straws through an ‘on-demand’ system gives customers choice and helps prevent waste by ensuring that straws are distributed only to those who need them,” Steve Russell, vice president of the organization’s plastics division, said.
Scott DeFife, vice president of government affairs for the Plastics Industry Association, said in an interview that the problem of ocean debris was complex, stemming more from inadequate resources for waste management.
“We, as a nation, are not going to solve our marine debris issues by banning straws in restaurants,” he said.
He said straws had become “the new poster child” for environmentalists.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/03/climate/plastic-straw-bans.html

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Business, Birds and Beaches; How Marine Debris Affects Kauai

Mar 5, 2018 | The Garden Island

By Jessica Else

Royal Caribbean cruise line was one of several companies that announced recently a campaign to eliminate single-use plastics from its cruise ships by the year 2020.
“We have a newly formed plastics team within the corporation,” said chief executive Michael Bayley. “We manage our waste very well, but we have an exciting opportunity to play our part in the overall reduction of plastic, which, it’s becoming clear for all to see, has such a negative impact on our oceans.”
The company isn’t the only cruise line to ditch the plastics. Several lines including P&O Cruises and Cunard also made the announcement as part of an environmental compliance plan.
The announcements come in the wake of the American Chemistry Council’s December predictions that plastic production will rise 40 percent in the next decade. Studies show about 10 percent of that plastic ends up in the ocean annually — about 8 million tons currently.
February also brought a report to the Royal Geographical Society from environment journalist Oliver Tickell, which claims the release of plastic into the oceans violates international law and urges governments to take action.
“Lost and discarded fishing equipment can entrap fish, turtles, cetaceans, sea birds and other marine animals, causing great suffering and high mortality,” Tickell writes in the report.
Commercial fishing equipment is the bulk of the plastic and marine debris that lands on Kauai, according to the island’s Surfrider Net Patrol, and animals do become entangled.
In fact, land-based beach debris isn’t nearly as much of a problem on Kauai, according to Net Patrol. Derelict nets are the bulk of the debris, though there is microplastic woven into many of the beaches.
“We don’t have the inundation of water bottles you see on other islands,” he said. “Much of our plastic is in the form of nets.”
These so-called “ghost nets” and other fishing equipment are responsible for navigational hazards on the water and for animal entanglement below. The January release of the humpback whale from hundreds of feet of braided fishing line off the coast of Maui is one example.
Fishermen retrieve these ghost nets from the sea as they see them, according to the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, but the nets can become lost in the Pacific Ocean quickly.
Some of those made up the more than 91,000 pounds of debris Kauai Surfrider volunteers collected off of Kauai beaches in 2017.
Debris and the birds
Kauai’s endangered seabirds are also at risk when it comes to marine debris, especially microplastics, but conservationists say that it is low on the list of current threats, according to Andre Raine, of the Kauai Endangered Seabird Recovery Project.
Raine was part of a mentor group for Elizabeth Kain, graduate of Kauai Community College, who studied the topic in a paper entitled, “Plastic Ingestion by Newell’s and wedge-tailed shearwaters in Hawaii,” published in 2016.
Together, the group discovered plastic ingestion has increased since the 1980s, for both the Newell’s shearwater and the wedge-tailed shearwater.
In fact, the frequency of plastic ingestion in Newell’s shearwater drastically increased from 11 percent in 1987 to 50 percent in the recent study.
“It is a significant threat, but we have more pressing threats like power line collisions and predators,” Raine said.
Debris and tourism
Concerns about impacts to the economy, as well as the environment, have been raised by entities like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which studied and confirmed that marine debris deters visitors.
On Kauai, however, plastic and people are simultaneously arriving at exponential rates and business is thriving — especially within the tourism industry.
For the past six years, Hawaii has set records in the visitor industry. In 2017, visitor spending on Kauai increased 9.6 percent to $1.8 billion in 2017 from $1.6 billion in 2016.
Total visitor numbers for Kauai saw a 7.5 percent increase to 1.3 million in 2017 from 1.2 million in 2016, according to Hawaii Tourism Authority.
And none of those tourists are complaining about marine debris or plastic on the beaches, according to Sue Kanoho, KVB’s executive director.
In fact, between the shopping and dining, many vacationers are finding ways to lend locals a hand and help clean up the beaches.
“The visitor base is important for our cleanup efforts,” said Barbara Wiedner, of Kauai’s Surfrider. “We’ve had some people with families they get off the plane and it’s their first activity.”
She continued: “More and more people are contacting us in advance of their trip, wanting to give back to the island because they love it so much.”
She says while those efforts are important, stopping the production of marine debris is important and ditching single-use plastic makes a huge difference.
“We have to stop using plastic,” Wiedner said. “And, with their (cruise ships’) closed circuit, it’s probably less expensive to wash a plate than throw it away.”
http://www.thegardenisland.com/2018/03/03/hawaii-news/business-birds-and-beaches-how-marine-debris-affects-kauai/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Companies Court Lawmakers with Charitable Giving, but Don't Always Disclose the Funds

Mar 5, 2018 | The Center For Public Integrity

By Carrie Levine

In August, a nonprofit group dedicated to archiving the official and personal papers of Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, gathered donors for golf at an “authentic yet refined” luxury mountain resort boasting “the largest spa in Utah.”
The fundraising event was also an opportunity to spend two days with Hatch himself — the powerful chairman of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee.
Companies and trade associations that spent much of 2017 seeking to influence landmark tax legislation, which Hatch took a leading role in shaping, were hit up for the soiree. Among them: drugmaker Merck & Co., which, like almost every other big company last year, was lobbying for favorable tax provisions. Among other contributors writing checks to the Orrin G. Hatch Foundation in four- and five-figure amounts last August: the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and Visa, Inc.
Top donors reportedly gave $100,000 or more.
By law, corporations and organizations that lobby the federal government must disclose certain charitable contributions to nonprofits, including ones such as the Orrin G. Hatch Foundation that are intimately tied to lawmakers. They also must disclose spending to “honor” lawmakers and high-level executive branch officials if the spending meets certain criteria.
But a Center for Public Integrity analysis found more than 20 companies and trade associations that have failed to disclose payments made to nonprofit groups aligned with government officials or aimed at honoring lawmakers they may want to influence. In every instance, other companies disclosed payments linked to the same events, though varying circumstances and exceptions to federal rules allow some omissions.
Nevertheless, so far, two companies and trade associations acknowledged not properly disclosing their payments and are amending their disclosures in response to inquiries from the Center for Public Integrity.
The federal disclosure laws have loopholes, and enforcement of the so-called lobbying contribution requirement is close to nonexistent.
And while it’s difficult to determine the precise reasons, organizations are not disclosing as many instances of such spending as they used to.
Lobbying forces seeking to influence public officials have indeed reported hundreds of millions of dollars in such “honorary contributions” in the decade since this disclosure law, prompted by ethics scandals in the mid-2000s, took effect.
But the number of “honorary contributions” disclosed in the reports is roughly a third of what it was a decade ago, when the disclosure requirement first kicked in, even though the number of lobbying registrants filing the reports has remained relatively constant. Only 308 filings disclosed any such honorary contributions in 2017, the lowest number since the requirement came into force.
Out of more than 600 organizations disclosing honorary contributions in 2008, the first year the requirement was in force, more than 200 never did so again.
“When there is no peril, there is no law,” said Meredith McGehee, executive director of Issue One, a nonpartisan nonprofit that advocates for government ethics and accountability.‘You are absolutely right’— but ...
Merck’s 2017 disclosures didn’t initially include, for example, a $20,000 contribution to the Orrin G. Hatch Foundation or a $5,000 gift to a scholarship fund named for Rep. Jim Clyburn, a long-serving South Carolina Democrat.
“We are amending our lobby disclosures to reflect those charitable donations as well, and our compliance department is working to add procedures to ensure that all donations in the future are noted on all applicable disclosures,” said John Cummins, a spokesman for Merck & Co.
Siemens Corp. also amended its disclosure, to show expenses associated with an event hosted at the company’s Pennsylvania Avenue offices in Washington, D.C. At the event, the nonprofit Jefferson Islands Club honored Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, a member of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet, with the Jefferson Islands Club Citizen of the Year award.
The Jefferson Islands Club is an invitation-only group that owns a private, 50-acre island in Maryland — an island boasting a clubhouse, skeet shooting range, private trails and kayaks. The retreat is meant to provide “suitable surroundings and comforts where members may assemble, discuss and promote Jeffersonian philosophies,” according to the club’s website, which also says Rep. Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, is the latest in a long line of members of Congress to serve as honorary chairman.
A Siemens Corp. executive is on the Jefferson Islands Club board, according to Brie Sachse, a Siemens spokeswoman.
“Siemens takes its public disclosure obligations seriously,” Sachse said. “Siemens generally does not sponsor events that fall into this reporting requirement. While the contribution level alone did not trigger the reporting requirement, due to the board position of our executive, the contribution should have been reported, and the report has been amended accordingly.”
In other cases, companies and trade associations said they did not disclose sponsoring events involving covered public officials because lawyers determined the circumstances fall within exceptions laid out by the House and Senate disclosure guidance.
Those decisions are sometimes complex and dependent on the amount spent compared to the total cost of the event, and it’s common for companies to make diverging decisions about whether to disclose.
In November, the Independent Women’s Forum, a nonprofit whose mission is to “improve the lives of Americans by increasing the number of women who value free markets and personal liberty,” honored Kellyanne Conway, a senior adviser to the president, as “a woman of valor” who is “truly a tremendous role model for women and girls.”
The event carried a long list of sponsors, in different tiers, including the American Chemistry Council, the Motion Picture Association of America, and the Distilled Spirits Council. The only one that included its spending in federal disclosure reports was Google.
When asked by the Center for Public Integrity, the American Beverage Association initially said it would amend its reports to disclose sponsorship of the Independent Women’s Forum gala honoring Conway.
“They looked into it and determined you are absolutely right. It did need to be disclosed,” said William Dermody, a spokesman for the American Beverage Association. Dermody said the association was internally reviewing such spending to ensure it had no additional amendments before filing the new report.
More than a week later, Dermody emailed to reverse his stance, saying the trade association’s legal team “has been looking into that further and has informed me that no disclosure is required under the law for that kind of expense in our circumstances.”
“Sorry for the confusion,” he added.
More than a dozen companies did not respond to inquiries about how they disclosed participation in various events, or declined comment regarding their disclosures, including Novartis, the American Petroleum Institute and the American Chemistry Council.Loopholes and interpretations
The rules date back to 2007, when Congress passed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act in response to massive lobbying scandals centered around one-time super lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The act imposed a series of new disclosure and ethics requirements on lobbyists and lawmakers.
The requirement to disclose event sponsorships and contributions to charities controlled by lawmakers drew less attention than other provisions, such as new gift rules for lawmakers and a requirement that lobbyists disclose “bundled” campaign contributions.
The new contribution filings require twice-a-year disclosure of contributions to political committees from corporate PACs, as well as contributions to inaugural committees and presidential libraries and certain types of meeting expenses.
Brett Kappel, an attorney with Akerman LLP who advises clients on disclosure, said that when the law first took effect, the clerk of the House and secretary of the Senate, who track lobbying disclosure filings and make them available to the public, initially took a broad view on what had to be disclosed.
“The regulated community pushed back on that and they narrowed it,” he said.
When working with clients to find spending that has to be disclosed, Kappel said the biggest challenge is charitable contributions in response to requests that don’t go through the normal channels, such as requests made by members of Congress directly to high-level corporate officers.
Many of the disclosure reports filed contain only political contributions, the easiest type to verify against other public documents.
A careful reading of the rules shows there are plenty of ways for companies and trade associations to honor public officials, or give to their favorite charities, without triggering disclosure requirements.
Lawyers who advise companies and trade associations on the disclosures say they spend a lot of time reviewing specific facts around the events and the exact circumstances of their clients’ participation.
“I often end up looking at a lot of invitations to determine that member of Congress participated, but in what role: Were they being honored or were they just there as a member of the honorary host committee?” said William Minor, a lawyer for DLA Piper whose practice includes advising on disclosure requirements. “Those two things are different.”
Companies can give via their own charitable foundations, something Merck’s Cummins said the company did in some instances. They can buy sponsorship packages for events honoring a lawmaker or administration official that include gala tickets or tables, featured spots on signage, and other sponsor perks but still not spend enough to be considered “paying the costs of the event,” the language that would trigger the disclosure.
A spokesman for the Motion Picture Association of America pointed to this so-called “table exception” to explain why the organization did not disclose its sponsorship of the gala honoring Conway.
It’s also fine to give money to groups closely associated with lawmakers and government officials — but that aren’t “established, financed, maintained or controlled” by them — without publicly disclosing the donation.
Take the Wyoming Congressional Awards Council, which presents young people with medals to “recognize initiative, achievement and service.” The nonprofit council hosts an annual golf tournament in the tony resort region of Jackson Hole, Wyoming, and its website lists nearly two dozen blue-chip corporations as “2017 sponsors” — UPS, Chevron and Novartis among them.
Wyoming’s three members of Congress — Sens. John Barrasso, Mike Enzi and current Rep. Liz Cheney — are included on the board as “honorary chairpersons.”
The highest-tier donor packages for the event — the $25,000 “Wallop Level” package and the $20,000 “Gold Corporate Sponsor” package — include “appropriate recognition in letters to members of Congress.”
Out of the sponsors on the website, 16 lobby the federal government and are thus required to file the disclosure reports that include honorary contributions. Only two out of those 16 organizations — the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a trade association, and pharmaceutical company Abbvie — elected to include information about the Wyoming event on their disclosures.
Some of the companies said they had been mistakenly included in the 2017 sponsor list, and were contacting organizers to be removed. Others, including UPS and AARP, said the event didn’t have to be disclosed because members of Congress are only honorary board members.
“The Lobbying Disclosure Act Guidance is clear that ‘A non-voting board member (e.g. honorary or ex-officio) does not control an organization for these purposes,’” a spokeswoman for UPS, Kara Ross, said in an email responding to questions.Is anyone enforcing the law?
The secretary of the Senate and the clerk of the House are responsible for referring violations to the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, D.C., which enforces the Lobbying Disclosure Act.
The U.S. attorney’s office has pursued civil penalties against lobbying firms for failing to file the disclosure forms altogether, said Jelahn Stewart, a special counsel to the U.S. attorney.
But Stewart said she’s not aware of any complaints concerning improper or inadequate disclosure of money a lobbying group gave to a nonprofit to honor a government official.
“The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia is committed to identifying and pursuing organizations and individuals that repeatedly disregard their filing obligations under the Lobbying Disclosure Act,” Stewart said in an email. “Repeat offenders who fail to take their reporting obligations seriously will be held accountable in order to protect the public’s right to know who is seeking to influence policy on Capitol Hill.”
The Government Accountability Office, the watchdog arm of Congress, examines lobbyists’ compliance with many requirements of the Lobbying Disclosure Act annually and issues a report to Congress, but it does not audit disclosure of honorary contributions as part of that process.
“We have not examined them because we don’t have any way of identifying honorary contributions that have not been reported,” said Yvonne Jones, a director in the strategic issues team at GAO.
That means most companies and trade associations are on the honor system. As Minor points out, many big companies are struggling to keep track of activities taking place across far-flung offices and sprawling corporate footprints, and aren’t always sure what to include.
“There’s certainly room for lots of judgment calls here, and when I work with companies, I make those judgment calls all the time,” he said.
McGehee said companies and trade associations may not be aware of the requirement to disclose in the first place. But if the requirement isn’t enforced, she said, the public has no way to know what goes on when lobbyists and public officials mingle at galas and on golf courses.
“I’ve always believed that disclosure was incredibly important because it’s what gives the public insight into how the system actually works. And if the practice cannot withstand the light of day and public scrutiny, than that practice should be challenged,” she said. “But if you don’t have disclosure and enforcement of disclosure, there’s no way for the public or anyone else to go in and demand a change.”Cigarettes, drugs and booze
Hatch entered the U.S. Senate in 1977. In January, he decided to not seek re-election this year, and Mitt Romney, the Republicans’ 2012 presidential nominee, is running to replace him.
The Orrin G. Hatch Foundation was formed in 2015 with a goal of preserving the papers of its 83-year-old namesake, and creating a center named after him.
In 2016, the Orrin G. Hatch Foundation reported raising $5.9 million in tax filings with the Internal Revenue Service, per a tax filing available via CitizenAudit.org. Multiple news outlets, including Politico, reported the foundation was heavily courting K Street donors.
But 2016 disclosure filings showed only $146,000 in contributions to the foundation from trade associations and companies that report charitable contributions under the lobbying disclosure requirements — a small fraction of the money raised.
In 2017, that number went up to $315,000. The foundation’s tax return isn’t yet available for 2017, so there’s no way to determine how much it raised in total.
Donors disclosing contributions in 2017 included: the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, a trade association for biotechnology companies; liquor giant Diageo North America; pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly & Co.; hotel company Hilton Worldwide; the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; America’s Health Insurance Plans Inc.; and tobacco giant Altria, according to House and Senate disclosure filings.
All spent millions of dollars lobbying Congress on issues including tax reform. For example, the Biotechnology Innovation Organization spent about $9.4 million. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America spent $25.4 million, putting them among the top spenders on lobbying the federal government in 2017.
The Center for Public Integrity asked several of the companies that disclosed contributing to the Orrin G. Hatch Foundation to expand on the reasons why they contributed. None did.
“I don’t have anything additional to contribute” beyond the information in the disclosure, said Holly Campbell, a spokeswoman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
“Our filings speak for themselves,” said Kristine Grow, a spokeswoman for America’s Health Insurance Plans.
The Center for Public Integrity also asked the Orrin G. Hatch Foundation to voluntarily reveal how much money it raised in 2017, as well as release its donor list and comment on whether it solicits contributions from organizations with business before the Senate Finance Committee.
Trent Christensen, the foundation’s executive director, did not directly address those requests. Instead, he emailed a one sentence response: “To your questions, The Orrin G. Hatch Foundation has taken appropriate steps to ensure that its activities comply with all applicable ethics requirements.”
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2018/03/05/21585/companies-court-lawmakers-charitable-giving-dont-always-disclose-funds

Return to headline | Return to top
Trump's Proposed Steel Tariffs Could Hammer Houston Businesses, Oil Industry

Mar 2, 2018 | Houston Chronicle

By Collin Eaton

Max Tejeda hoped his oilfield pipe business would find some financial relief in bigger paychecks this year as drillers recuperate from the worst downturn in decades.
But the owner of Houston-based Tejas Tubular Products said the Trump Administration could dash his hopes for a recovery if it follows through on a proposal made this week to impose a 25 percent tariff on imported steel, a high cost for an industry that buys most of its metal from overseas.
"We're going to be less competitive than we were before," Tejeda said. "I'm wearing my red 'Make America Great Again' hat. But he blew it on this one."
President Donald Trump's plan to protect U.S. steel makers and squeeze foreign rivals, announced on Thursday, would almost certainly hike costs for Houston's oil companies, which use thousands of tons of steel in drilling, refining and pipeline operations to literally make the local economy go. In the West Wing on Thursday, Trump said he planned to sign executive orders imposing the steel tariffs and a 10 percent tariff on imported aluminum next week. He can do so without approval from Congress after the Commerce Department established in a recent study that steel imports are a threat to national security because, investigators said, they are "weakening our national economy."
In Houston, the steel tariffs could complicate the so-called second wave of chemical plant construction expected in coming years across east Houston and the Gulf Coast, after some $60 billion in local petrochemical projects wind down.
Eighty-nine iron and steel mills, foundries and nonferrous metal producers with 2,200 employees in Houston would benefit from American steel protectionism. But that's less than a tenth of 1 percent of the region's workforce. More than 2,200 manufacturing companies in Houston, with over 88,000 employees, buy metals to make hardware, industrial machinery, turbines, parts for vehicles and other tools, and all would see raw materials costs surge under Trump's plan.
The cost of manufacturing equipment, building construction, automobiles and appliances made with steel could ultimately fall on consumers, and absorbed by manufacturers in the form of smaller profits.
"It'll affect a lot of people and businesses in Houston," said Patrick Jankowski, senior economist at the Greater Houston Partnership.
In the U.S. oil patch, drillers spent about $8.5 billion last year on hundreds of tons of pipe that go into the earth to pull up oil and gas. The same 11,300 oil and gas wells would cost $10.5 billion if steel prices were 25 percent higher, said Art Berman, a geological consultant at Labyrinth Consulting Services in Houston.
Higher costs could mean the oil companies that dominate Houston's economy may have to cancel drilling projects or slow the development of major U.S. ventures, possibly slowing hiring or, in the worst case scenario, even cut jobs, analysts said. On average, a U.S. shale well uses about 390 tons of steel, according to one estimate.
"We're going to kill jobs in steel-using sectors, particularly in energy," said Bob McNally, president of energy research firm Rapidan Energy Group in Washington D.C. "That's economics 101. There's no upside to this whatsoever, especially if you're trying to build infrastructure. It's a huge cost increase."
Jack Gerard, chief executive of the trade group American Petroleum Institute, warned the steel and aluminum tariffs could wreak havoc on global supply chains, raise costs of expensive U.S. oil and gas projects and threaten jobs.
"The U.S. oil and gas industry, in particular, relies on specialty steel for many of its projects that most U.S. steelmakers don't supply," Gerard said in a statement.
President Trump tweeted on Friday that the United States is losing billions on trade with other countries, and that "trade wars are good, and easy to win." The Trump Administration recently raised tariffs on solar panels and washing machines. One country long-considered one of Trump's targets in his protectionist rhetoric is China.
But China doesn't have as much to lose in Trump's looming steel trade war as its closest trading partners. The United States only accounts for 1.4 percent of China's steel exports of almost 83 million tons. And the United States only buys 2.9 percent of its $33.6 billion in imported steel from China. But U.S. companies buy about half of their steel from Canada, Mexico and Brazil, according to research firm Wood Mackenzie.
The president's talk of an international trade war comes as the United States, Canada and Mexico renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, the 24-year-old agreement that has created closer ties between the three countries, particularly in border states like Texas and cities like El Paso, Laredo and Houston, which benefits from bustling international trade.
The Port of Houston imported and exported 3.7 million short tons of steel in 2017, up 68 percent from the year before, when crude prices sank to a dozen-year low and hampered the oil industry's demand for steel products.
But Houston's international trade could get hit by the tariffs, as well, port officials said. Roger Guenther, executive director of the Port of Houston Authority, said a 25 percent tariff on steel would cut into the volume of goods shipped in and out of North America's most active port for steel. And that could hit the local job market and slow economic growth.
"Our history shows that steel cargo immediately declined following a tariff increase," he said in a statement.
Oil field service companies that employ the bulk of Houston's energy workforce may have to eat much of the increase in steel prices. Even though U.S. oil prices have risen above $60 a barrel, the service industry still isn't in a position to demand much higher prices for their equipment and crews, after sharply cutting prices and laying off thousands of workers during the two-year oil downturn.
"Oil field service companies have been taking it on the chin for the past three years," Berman said. "Things are still awfully competitive out there. If you have all this equipment sitting around, you're going to be willing to work at a loss as long as you've got the cash to service your debt and keep people employed."
Tejeda's 28-year-old company has already seen raw materials costs rise 38 percent since October as steel prices rose to $800 per ton, buoyed by increased oil prices and rising demand. In his business, foreign pipe makes up 70 percent of the market. Steel tariffs would increase his costs 13 percent, and hamper demand for his pipes as drillers slow down projects.
"It's possibly the worst decision Trump could have made," Tejeda said. "There are more jobs related to making things out of steel than there is in steel-making."
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Houston-s-economy-oil-industry-could-get-hit-12723259.php

Return to headline | Return to top
Trump Taps Dow Official to Oversee EPA Waste Program

Mar 2, 2018 | E&E News PM

By Corbin Hiar

President Trump today nominated a top chemical company official to oversee U.S. EPA's solid waste office.
Peter Wright is managing counsel at the Dow Chemical Co. If the Senate confirms him as assistant administrator for land and emergency management, he will oversee waste disposal and cleanup efforts like the Superfund program, which is a top priority for EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.
Some of the nation's more than 1,340 Superfund sites were created by Dow or its subsidiaries, which could force Wright to recuse himself from weighing in on those cleanups. For example, Dow's industrial facilities have been linked to sites in Los Angeles, Michigan and Wyoming.
Before joining Dow in 1999, Wright worked at the law firm Bryan Cave LLP and Monsanto Co., an agrichemical giant. He began his legal career with the environmental practice group of the firm Baker & Daniels, which is now part of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.
He graduated summa cum laude from Indiana University's law school in 1986 and summa cum laude from Wabash College in 1981.
"Peter is exceptionally qualified to lead the Office of Land and Emergency Management," Pruitt said in a statement. "He has the expertise and experience necessary to implement our ambitious goals for cleaning up the nation's contaminated lands quickly and thoroughly."Energy Department pick
Trump also nominated James Campos to lead the Department of Energy's Office of Economic Impact and Diversity, which advises the Energy secretary on the effects of energy programs on minority communities.
Campos is currently a senior adviser to the president of Nevada State College and a board member of the Nevada Taxicab Authority. He also has held positions leading renewable energy initiatives for the College of Southern Nevada and as a commissioner for the Nevada Consumer Affairs Division.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/03/02/stories/1060075323

Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

(ACC Mentioned) EPA Non-Animal Chemical Tests Plan Needs Specifics, Groups Say

Mar 5, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Sara Merken

Scientists and animal welfare advocates want an upcoming EPA strategy on ways to reduce the use of animals in chemical safety tests to state specifically what is expected of both regulators and companies.
The Environmental Protection Agency will release its long-awaited strategic plan to promote alternative methods for animal testing the week of March 5, Louis Scarano, who manages the development of the strategy, said Feb. 28 at an American Chemistry Council conference in Washington.
The amended Toxic Substances Control Act requires the EPA by June 22 to develop a strategy to reduce or replace vertebrate animal tests and use more data from non-animal tests to predict the health and environmental effects of chemical exposures.
The chemical industry and animal welfare advocates are looking for specific and technical language in the plan that would detail methods and criteria, how the EPA will implement the non-animal approaches in chemical assessments, and what information regulators need from the alternative tests to aid regulatory decisions. The guidelines should also be flexible enough to accommodate new approaches in the future, they said.
Detailed Plans and Criteria
Catherine Willett, director of regulatory toxicology, risk assessment and alternatives at the Humane Society of the United States, said she is looking for a well-articulated, descriptive strategy for how the EPA will identify testing methods that don't involve animals, determine the information needed to make decisions, and successfully implement new approaches.
The agency presented a basic outline of the strategy in November.
But the chemicals industry needs very specific guidance on what criteria federal agencies will use to determine if new testing methods are acceptable, Craig Rowlands, senior scientist at Underwriters Laboratories, told Bloomberg Environment.
Animal Data a Benchmark
Historical chemical bioassays—which involve testing on a living organism—could serve as a benchmark for how accurate the new, alternative tests need to be in predicting chemical safety, Rowlands said.
Allowing the industry to access that data could help determine if new approaches will deliver equivalent scientific information to what an animal bioassay offers.
Sue Marty, toxicology science director at the Dow Chemical Co., told Bloomberg Environment the EPA needs to develop a framework “where alternative models can be applied in a manner such that they are ‘fit for their intended purpose.’”
The agency could work with laboratories and other groups with alternative test experience to support decisions to shape the strategy, she said.
The elements of an evaluation to prioritize chemicals, for example, could be different than those for a final hazard decision, she said.
Evolving Process
The strategy should also clearly state that developing non-animal tests is an iterative process, and that the plan will continually be updated to reflect new technologies, Willett said. The EPA is required to provide a report to Congress every five years on progress in implementing the plan.
The agency's list of acceptable new methods and strategies should clearly state that companies are also free to use evolving approaches not on the list, Kristie Sullivan, vice president of research policy with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, told Bloomberg Environment. The list is a starting point, and should allow the effort to keep evolving, she said.

The agency's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics—which evaluates new and existing chemicals—needs to leverage already-available methods in addition to new strategies to determine what works or can be changed, Sullivan said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=129011185&vname=dennotallissues&fn=129011185&jd=129011185

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Fees to Review Chemicals to Start Oct. 1, EPA Says

Mar 5, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

Chemical manufacturers and processors should prepare to start paying fees Oct. 1 so the EPA can recoup some of its costs of implementing the amended Toxic Substances Control Act, a top EPA chemicals official said March 2.
Before then, the Environmental Protection Agency wants to hear from industry and other interested parties by April 27 whether fees (RIN:2070-AK27) it recently proposed struck the right balance among all the factors the agency had to consider, Mark Hartman, acting deputy director of the EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, said at the Global Chemical Regulations Conference.
The agency estimates it needs $20 million per year to recoup a projected $80 million in expenditures, he said. The EPA had to estimate costs because amended TSCA gave it many new responsibilities.
The agency plans to issue those proposed fees as final in time to begin collecting them in fiscal 2019, which begins Oct. 1, Hartman said. The law allows the agency to recoup up to 25 percent of its costs.
As the EPA estimated its costs and fees, it tried to balance the time and effort companies and agency staff spent reviewing chemical information for decisions, Hartman said. Those decisions include whether a chemical poses an unreasonable risk, how those threats might be reduced, and whether it can enter commerce.
“If we lower fees in one area, we need to raise them in others,” Hartman said. “The agency is very open to hearing different ideas for how to do this.”
Agency's Cost Estimates Increased
A work group of the American Chemistry Council's members plan to dive into the heart of the EPA's rule—its cost estimates, Michael Walls, vice president of regulatory and technical affairs for the council, told Bloomberg Environment.
The council agrees industry needs to contribute to the costs of implementing the amended chemicals law, he said.
The EPA's proposed fees are higher, however, than it previously estimated its costs to be, and manufacturers want to understand the rationale, he said.
For example, the EPA proposed fees ranging between $1.3 million and $2.6 million to evaluate the risks of a chemical when a chemical manufacturer asked the agency to undertake that analysis.
Yet at an April 2015 hearing the agency estimated it spent about $1 million on a chemical risk analyses, Walls said. He referred to testimony Jim Jones—who then headed the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention—delivered at a House subcommittee hearing.
That estimate assumed the EPA was doing much of the risk review work, Walls said. But, if a company or consortia ask the agency to carry out a risk assessment, their effort preparing materials could be recognized by lowering fees, he added.
Those chemical purchasers also will be thinking through ways to incentivize data collection through EPA's chemical fees, Lawrence Culleen, an attorney with Arnold & Porter—and representing a coalition of companies that purchase chemicals to make manufactured goods—said.
But, the EPA's proposed fees don't reflect the fact that different risk evaluations will have divergent costs depending on how complex they are and how much data is brought to the table, Hartman said. That could be part of fee calculations.
Chemical manufacturers, Walls said, can't say what the “right” fees are until they've dug into the agency's economic assumptions and estimates. The American Chemistry Council also is unlikely to recommend specific fees when it submits comments, he said. It does, however, intend to offer EPA ideas on alternative ways fees could be calculated, he said.
Liability
If companies join together to combine existing and new toxicity, exposure, or other chemical data to submit to the EPA for a risk evaluation, the rule would make them jointly liable for the entire fee, Walls said.
“Any one member of the consortia could be on the hook for the full fee,” Walls said.

Given that chemical makers have experience figuring out how to divide up the costs they incur when preparing data for regulators, there's no reason they can't apportion the costs, he added.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=129011183&vname=dennotallissues&fn=129011183&jd=129011183

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) OSHA Official Downplays Prospects For EPA Deference On Chemical Risks

Mar 2, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Dave Reynolds

A senior Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) official is downplaying the prospect of significant consultation with EPA on chemical risks to workers under the revised toxics law as some industry groups have sought, calling the extent of such collaboration “hard to predict” and suggesting it is often unnecessary.
“I'm not sure how active it will be over the long run,” William Perry, director of OSHA's Directorate of Standards and Guidance, told a chemical sector conference March 1 in response to a question on whether OSHA is assisting EPA in that agency's review of chemicals' risks to workers under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Perry, speaking March 1 at the American Chemistry Council's annual Global Chemical Regulations Conference in Washington, DC, said that OSHA has had discussions with EPA on its efforts to review new and existing chemicals under the revised TSCA, which expressly calls for EPA to consider chemicals' risks to workers in reviews.
He said the worker health and safety agency will provide technical assistance when a chemical poses a significant risk to workers but that EPA can proceed on its own when addressing lower-risk substances.
Some risks from new chemicals are “pretty straightforward,” Perry said, and that EPA could address minor risks, such as those that require skin protection on its own. “When you get to more serious effects [requiring] respirator use that is when EPA would come to us and we'll give them whatever technical support we can, but how much it will be, ultimately, it's too hard to predict right now."
His comments appear to provide the first public response to calls from industry groups for EPA to develop a process for coordinating with OSHA before regulating chemicals' risks to workers under the revised TSCA.
In a Dec. 1 letter and issue paper submitted to EPA the TSCA New Chemicals Coalition (NCC), which represents 20 chemical companies, urged the agency to craft a process for consulting with OSHA when assessing worker risks under the revised TSCA, and to adopt new regulatory restrictions only when OSHA rules fail to address unreasonable risk.
The group argued that OSHA rules adequately protect workers in most cases, making EPA restrictions unnecessary. NCC also called EPA's long-standing efforts to address new chemicals' risks to workers “mistaken,” faulting such efforts as encroaching on OSHA's authority for ensuring safe workplaces.
But labor groups and some industrial hygienists oppose use of OSHA standards, saying they are largely out of date and ineffective -- a point that even OSHA acknowledges.
During the Global Chem conference other industry officials reiterated similar requests. Tim Serie, of the law firm Beveridge & Diamond, acknowledged that EPA has authority under the revised TSCA to regulate worker risks, but argued that the agency should work with OSHA to try and reduce unnecessary burdens.
“EPA has broad authority, within certain bounds, to consider and regulate risks to health in the workplace,” Serie said, noting that the revised TSCA specifically identifies workers as a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation.
He also said that EPA is already focusing on risks to workers in its reviews of pre-manufacture notices (PMN) of new chemicals that companies submit to the agency, and in other contexts. For example, the agency's first proposed section 6 rules targeted risks to workers from certain uses of trichloroethylene and two paint stripping ingredients.
Consult 'To The Extent Practicable'
But Serie also argued that TSCA section 5 requires EPA to consult “to the extent practicable” with other federal agencies before addressing unreasonable risks to workers. While echoing the NCC request for EPA and OSHA to consult on chemicals' risks to workers, Serie said the scope of consultation the law requires is unclear.
“It's really an open question what this provision does or should require,” he said. “Does it require EPA to consult with OSHA every time it imposes a restriction or should it be an ongoing dialogue with OSHA. It's really important that EPA considers this in the new chemicals program."
Serie also argued that EPA's new chemical reviews should consider exposure controls that chemical manufacturers include in a premanufacture notice (PMN), as well as the level of a workers' exposure in its chemical risk assessments under TSCA.
And he argued that TSCA section 9 requires EPA to consult with other agencies before addressing chemicals' risks and to impose the least burdensome of duplicative requirements.
“We aren't aware that this has been used in the last couple decades, but we think this may be an opportune time to address this provision and start to coordinate with other agencies, especially OSHA,” Serie said.
The scope of EPA's authority to address chemical risks to workers has been a decades-long question that has played out in various EPA programs. In recent years, OSHA has faulted its own permissible exposure limits (PELs) for addressing chemicals' risks to workers, backing union arguments that they are outdated.
OSHA says on its website that “OSHA recognizes that many of its permissible exposure limits (PELs) are outdated and inadequate for ensuring protection of worker health."
But NCC, in its December letter to EPA, argued that other OSHA regulations are adequate to protect workers. The group cited OSHA enforcement of regulations requiring use of personal protective equipment (PPE) to limit worker exposures when necessary and of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act's General Duty Clause, which requires that employers provide workplaces that are free of recognized hazards likely to cause death or serious physical harm.
“[I]t is clear that EPA is required to evaluate the adequacy of the existing OSHA regulatory scheme, including the General Duty clause, and to adopt additional restrictions or prohibitions only when they are needed to protect against unreasonable risk,” the industry white paper says.
Labor unions have recently urged EPA to reject the NCC request to defer to OSHA rules to protect chemical exposures, arguing that the approach would violate the revised TSCA, and that OSHA lacks resources and authority to adequately protect workers.
In Jan. 20 comments on EPA's framework for reviewing new chemicals under TSCA, the United Steelworkers (USW) argued that OSHA's General Duty clause and respiratory protection standard are either difficult to enforce or inadequate.
USW also argued that since 1970, OSHA has issued few comprehensive standards protecting workers from chemical exposures, and that 400 OSHA chemical exposure limits are based on science from the 1960s or earlier.
Speaking to the industry conference, Tim Feeley, an industrial hygienist with Covestro, LLC, an adhesives manufacturer, backed labor groups' long-standing assertions that OSHA PELs are outdated and inadequate to protect workers, noting that many companies now use voluntary standards issued by the professional association American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, called Threshold Limit Values (TLVs), to protect their workers.
“Due to the lack of new, updated PELs, many professionals and regulatory bodies will defer to TLVs as the 'de facto' or adopted regulatory limit for an agent,” Feeley said.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/osha-official-downplays-prospects-epa-deference-chemical-risks

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

Industry Falls Short of Supplying EU with All Required Safety Information for Chemicals

Mar 5, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News

By Cheryl Hogue

Chemical manufacturers and importers have failed to supply all required safety information for some substances when registering them for use in the European Union during the past decade, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) says.
Most of the missing data was related to reproductive and prenatal developmental toxicity, mutagenicity or genotoxicity, and long-term aquatic toxicity, ECHA says in a Feb. 28 report. Since the agency began operating in 2008, ECHA has sent nearly 2,600 requests to companies asking them to furnish additional information that is required by the EU’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation & Restriction of Chemicals law, known as REACH. In 2017, ECHA checked 222 registration documents, most of them regarding chemicals that raised concerns about their possible toxicity and with potential for widespread exposure. The agency ended up asking for more information about 151 of these substances, saying that the missing data were essential to demonstrate safe uses of the materials, according to the report.
“We will continue our efforts to ensure that industry has the data they need to safely use their substances. This also improves safety for consumers,” says Bjorn Hansen, ECHA executive director.
As of the end of 2017, some 12,000 companies had registered more than 17,000 unique chemicals under REACH, the report says. All substances that are manufactured in or imported into the EU in amounts greater than 1 metric ton per year must be registered under REACH by May 31.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/96/i10/Industry-falls-short-supplying-EU.html

Return to headline | Return to top
House OKs chemical regulation bill prompted by PFOA contamination

Mar 4, 2018 | Bennington Banner

By Jim Therrien

A bill regulating toxic substances in Vermont that was prompted by PFOA contamination of wells in Bennington is moving toward possible adoption in the Legislature.
S.103 has cleared the Senate with some additions proposed in the House, and supporters hope it will be approved without significant changes, said Sen. Brian Campion, D-Bennington.
He and fellow Bennington County Democrat, Sen. Dick Sears, are sponsors of the legislation.
The bill also passed the Senate last session before being sent back by the House with recommendations, the lawmakers said.
Additionally, a controversial provision on liability for businesses that use toxic or hazardous materials was stripped out before the bill was sent to the House and now is being considered separately, in S.197. That bill last week cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee, which Sears chairs, but it faces strong opposition from lobbyists and organizations representing industries.
The original bill followed discovery in early 2016 of widespread PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) contamination of wells in Bennington, believed by the state to emanate from stack exhaust from two former ChemFab Corp. factories.
S.103 establishes an Interagency Committee on Chemical Management, including a member of the House and Senate; the secretaries of the Natural Resources, Agriculture, Health, Labor, Public Safety and Commerce and Community Development departments, and the commissioner of information.
The provisions would take effect on July 1 if passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Phil Scott, but the governor has already formed the group, Campion said.
"I don't know what the House will do, but I hope they concur with our work so we can get it to the governor soon," Campion said Friday. "This is an important bill for Vermonters, and I certainly hope his signs it."
He added: "The working group was established by executive order [of the governor] over the summer. Our bill puts the group in statute, so it will continue no matter who is in the governor's office."
The Committee on Chemical Management would have a citizen advisory panel with expertise in chemical management and health; review federal action under the Toxic Substances Control Act and its effects on Vermont law, and annually review chemical inventories to identify unregulated chemicals of concern.
And the committee would report annually to the Legislature regarding chemical inventories and recommend rules or legislation to reduce the effects on health or the environment.
Reporting requirements
The committee is required in its first report to the Legislature to recommend legislation to establish a centralized electronic chemical reporting system for businesses and for citizens to review the data.
The group also is required to amend state record-keeping and reporting requirements about chemical use, including thresholds for reporting, persons subject to record-keeping and ways to streamline reporting.
And the bill requires the group to recommend on amending the Toxic Use and Hazardous Waste Reduction Program, including which chemicals should be reported, reporting thresholds and the information to be submitted.
Groundwater testing
The legislation requires any new groundwater source to be tested by the owner or the entity that controls the source for specified chemicals prior to use as a well.
Among chemicals to be tested for are arsenic, lead, uranium, gross alpha radiation; total coliform bacteria, nitrate, fluoride and manganese.
The Agency of Natural Resources could require additional testing, including by area of the state, and the agency will adopt rules on how to implement the testing requirements, including when to test and who is authorized to test.
Children's products
Among changes added in the House, Campion said, are a requirement for manufacturers of children's products containing a chemical of concern to children to report the brand name, product model and product code if available. And the bill allows the commissioner of health to add a new chemical to the list on the basis of independent peer reviewed research.
The commissioner also could restrict the sale of or require the labeling of a children's product containing a chemical of concern after consulting with the working group.
http://www.benningtonbanner.com/stories/house-oks-chemical-regulation-bill-prompted-by-pfoa-contamination,533745

Return to headline | Return to top
Prime Minister: UK to Seek 'Associate Membership' of Echa

Mar 5, 2018 | Chemical Watch

By Luke Buxton

The British government is to seek "associate membership" of Echa and other European agencies as part of the EU withdrawal negotiations, UK prime minister Theresa May has told an audience in London.
In her third major address on Brexit on Friday, Ms May said the country will "want to explore with the EU the terms on which the UK could remain part of EU agencies, such as those that are critical for the chemicals, medicines and aerospace industries – the European Medicines Agency, the European Chemicals Agency, and the European Aviation Safety Agency".
The UK would accept, she told a Mansion House audience, that "this would mean abiding by the rules of those agencies and making an appropriate financial contribution".
A few days before her speech, Ms May faced pressure from opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn who said it makes "no sense" for the UK to abandon EU agencies.
Ms May went on to outline what she believed to be the benefits of an associate membership approach for both Britain and the trade bloc:it is "the only way", she said, to meet the country’s objective of ensuring that products in these sectors only need to undergo one series of approvals in one country. To achieve this a "comprehensive system of mutual recognition" will be needed.these agencies play a critical role in setting and enforcing relevant rules and the UK could "continue to provide our technical expertise"; andUK firms could resolve certain challenges related to the agencies through UK courts rather than the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
In the case of REACH registrations it is unclear whether this single approval is to be granted by Echa or by a new UK chemicals agency and then be 'mutually recognised’ by Echa.Enforcing rules
Ms May reiterated the point from her Florence speech last September that UK law "may not necessarily be identical to EU law, but it should achieve the same outcomes", and the country would commit to ensuring that regulatory standards on both sides "remain substantially similar in the future".
Parliament would remain "ultimately sovereign", she said, and could decide not to accept agency rules, "but with consequences for our membership of the relevant agency and linked market access rights".
On the other hand, she added, in some cases Parliament might choose to pass an identical law. "Businesses who export to the EU tell us that it is strongly in their interest to have a single set of regulatory standards that mean they can sell into the UK and EU markets," she said.
But there will need to be an "independent mechanism" to oversee these arrangements, she said – separation from the jurisdiction of the ECJ was a key demand in the run up to the referendum.Industry welcome
The UK Chemical Industries Association (CIA) has welcomed the government’s pursuit of associate membership.
The prime minister’s statement is an "encouraging step forward which acknowledges our industry’s long-standing call for regulatory consistency in leaving the European Union" CIA chief executive Steve Elliott said.
The CIA urged the UK and EU negotiating partners and the entire European chemical industry "to respond positively" to this initiative, "keeping in mind the desired aim of minimal disruption to EU chemicals trade and investment as an outcome from Brexit".
And Ms May’s commitment to enable continued involvement of UK officials and their related technical expertise in the workings of REACH is something Mr Elliott believes would be welcomed by European counterparts.
The prime minister’s aim of avoiding duplicate testing and related costs under REACH "would also help protect a decade’s worth of investment" in the regulation, Mr Elliott added.
He pleaded with "all sectors, trade unions, NGOs and political parties" to work with the government "to see if we can make this proposal work".
Unanswered questions
While the UK prime minister’s speech was wide ranging it left a number of questions unanswered for the chemical industry, including:
Ms May said the UK wants a system of "mutual recognition" to ensure UK companies only need to undergo one series of approvals. In the case of REACH registrations, would approval be granted by Echa or by a new UK chemicals agency and then mutually recognised by Echa?
The prime minister said associate membership of Echa is the only way to ensure chemicals need to undergo just one series of approvals. What does this mean in practice?
When Ms May says UK and EU regulatory standards will remain "substantially similar", what does this mean? Clearly they won't be identical.
The prime minister acknowledges that Echa and other agencies have a critical role in setting and enforcing rules, and that associate membership might mean the UK could continue to provide technical expertise. While Echa and the Commission might welcome such input, would they let the UK sit on its committees? And is this what the UK wants?Ms May’s speech left open the possibility of a future prime minister breaking away from European standards and "outcomes". What certainty does this offer the EU?"
There will need to be an independent mechanism to oversee" arrangements laid out in her speech. Therefore not the European Courts of Justice (ECJ). So, if UK wants future disputes resolved by UK courts not the ECJ, how might EU27 chemical competitors respond to a UK rival having its case heard by its own national courts?
https://chemicalwatch.com/64534/prime-minister-uk-to-seek-associate-membership-of-echa

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

State Eschewed Fracking but Natural Gas Still Poised to Grow

Mar 3, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)

Maryland is not taking part in the boom of natural gas fracking, otherwise known as hydraulic fracturing. But the fossil fuel is still poised to grow in the state.
The Baltimore Sun reported Saturday that Gov. Larry Hogan is pushing to connect more homes to natural gas lines. And he wants a Canadian energy company to invest more than $100 million in infrastructure.
The Hogan Administration says natural gas is far cleaner than coal and heating oil. But the Chesapeake Climate Action Network has said the expansion would be contrary to Maryland’s investment in clean energy and greenhouse gas reductions.
Critics are concerned that fracking in other states poses risks to ground water. There are also concerns that pipelines in Maryland will leak methane, a greenhouse gas.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/state-eschewed-fracking-but-natural-gas-still-poised-to-grow/2018/03/03/8d21ab86-1f07-11e8-98f5-ceecfa8741b6_story.html?utm_term=.4361048ca1ac

Return to headline | Return to top
It's Official: Cove Point Becomes Second U.S. Facility to Export LNG

Mar 2, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence

By Charlie Passut

History was made in the early hours of Friday with the departure of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) tanker owned by a subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell plc from Dominion Energy’s export facility on Chesapeake Bay in Maryland.
According to reports, the Gemmata, a Singapore-flagged, G-Class tanker owned by Shell NA LNG, left the Dominion Energy Cove Point LNG LP terminal at Lusby, MD, early Friday. Dominion confirmed that the ship and its cargo, the first ever from Cove Point, had departed and final commissioning work was underway.
"Shell NA LNG is providing the natural gas needed for liquefaction during the commissioning process and is off-taking by ship the LNG that is produced," Dominion said.
Cove Point is the second U.S. facility to export LNG sourced from domestically produced natural gas in the Lower 48. Cheniere Energy Inc.'s Sabine Pass LNG terminal in Cameron Parish, LA, began exporting gas in February 2016.
Executive director Charlie Riedl of the Center for LNG (CLNG), said the first commissioned cargo from Cove Point marked an important day for the growing U.S. LNG industry.
"This is the second U.S. LNG export facility, the first on the East Coast, and one of many to come," Riedl said Friday. "The projects provide thousands of jobs at home and environmental and geopolitical benefits abroad. This cargo represents countless hours of work from thousands of people and $4 billion of investment, the largest construction investment in Maryland's history.
"The vast natural gas resources in the U.S. enable LNG exports to bring significant benefits to communities right here at home. As more LNG exports come online, those benefits will increase exponentially, in terms of job creation, investment and supply contracts across the whole natural gas supply chain."
Cove Point's marketed capacity is fully subscribed under 20-year service agreements. Pacific Summit Energy LLC, a U.S. affiliate of Japan's Sumitomo Corp., as well as Gail (India) affiliate Gail Global (USA) LNG LLC, have each contracted for half of the marketed capacity. Sumitomo has agreements to serve Tokyo Gas Co. and Kansai Electric Power Co. Inc.
Last Monday, Shell issued a report that found LNG demand was strong in 2017, and it predicted LNG demand would increase at an average rate of 4%/year over the next 20 years. Shell also reported that 1,100 spot cargoes were delivered in 2017, a 17% increase from 2016 and equivalent to three cargoes delivered every day.
In December an LNG tanker docked at Cove Point to assist with the commissioning process. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued an authorization for Dominion to export LNG produced during commissioning activities via vessel in November [CP13-113].
India's oil and gas minister said state-owned Gail has been trying to renegotiate its contractwith Dominion. The company called the minister's claims a mischaracterization.
In late January, the Sierra Club agreed to drop a lawsuit contesting approvals of LNG exports from four U.S. facilities, including Cove Point.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/113569-its-official-cove-point-becomes-second-us-facility-to-export-lng

Return to headline | Return to top
Trump Drilling Plan Faces Backlash

Mar 4, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Timothy Cama

The oil industry has been put on the defensive in the fight over the Trump administration’s plan to expand offshore drilling.
The backlash against Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s decision to consider oil and natural gas drilling nearly everywhere along the nation’s coasts has been fierce and bipartisan.
Drilling opponents have dominated the public conversation since the plan was released in January. Meanwhile, almost all of the Atlantic and Pacific coast governors have come out in opposition to the plan, spurring Zinke to remove Florida’s waters from the proposal just days after it was released.
With energy prices, including for gasoline, remaining fairly low, the industry is facing numerous headwinds as it pushes to open up significant new areas for drilling.
“We recognize the fact that this is a bit more of an uphill fight because the pressure is off,” said Tim Charters, a lobbyist at the National Ocean Industries Association, which represents oil companies and others involved in offshore oil, gas and wind development.
“When Florida’s tourism is getting crushed because gasoline is $4 a gallon, folks want to look at new drilling. When oil has been stable for several years and gasoline is around $2.50, the pressure is off,” he said.
“We’re working to remind everyone that these resources belong to the American people and should be used for the benefit of all of America.”
One person who works in energy industry advocacy said that the Trump administration is likely to come out with a final drilling plan that oil and gas interests can be proud of.
But that person also warned the industry risks losing the narrative unless it steadily makes the case to the public for offshore drilling.
“We can always do more,” he said. “Even though you know you’re always going to be outnumbered, you have to make sure that that voice of why this is beneficial gets out there.”
The Trump administration’s January drilling proposal would schedule lease sales for offshore drilling rights between 2019 and 2024.
In a move without recent precedent, the administration proposed offshore drilling almost everywhere: the entire Pacific and Atlantic coasts, all of Alaska’s waters except the ecologically sensitive Bristol Bay and the entire Gulf of Mexico coast, which currently hosts the vast majority of the nation’s offshore drilling.
The January announcement was just the first step of many. Officials are taking public comments through next week. They will then potentially narrow the options down, release another proposal, take comments again and then release a final version, which could be narrower still.
It would likely be years before any drilling began.
But the plan nonetheless sparked wide-ranging opposition from lawmakers, governors, coastal towns and businesses, not to mention environmentalists.
Opponents fear that spills like the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster could wreak havoc across multiple states, hurting both coastal businesses and the environment.
“Whether it’s environmental devastation that people care about or economic devastation, coastal communities do not want this. And the people and businesses who have the most to lose from the offshore drilling proposal just absolutely do not want it,” said Diane Hoskins, campaigns director for Oceana.
Opponents of the plan have been vocal, pushing towns to pass resolutions, staging protests, writing newspaper letters to the editor and buying advertising.
But the oil industry has also been active, drawing upon military veterans, grass-roots efforts and web advertising to push the drilling expansion.
The Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) has been working in coastal states and communities, pushing people to file comments with the Interior Department, attending local meetings and more.
The industry-backed group counts thousands of individual members across the country.
“Our position on this is that this should be a good opportunity to learn more and kind of listen to all the differing perspectives and gathering information,” said David Holt, president of CEA.
“What are the benefits for offshore to these coastal communities and states? What are the opportunities for revenue? What are the opportunities for jobs and infrastructure and all the other things,” he said.
“There are groups out there that are trying to foreclose a discussion for the general public and families and small business and elected leaders to better understand what these opportunities are. That’s what we’re trying to inject in the conversation.”
The American Petroleum Institute (API), the industry’s main lobby in Washington, D.C., has also been active, meeting with decisionmakers and using its existing grass-roots campaigns like Energy Nation and Energy Citizens.
“If we’re going to truly try to embrace American energy security, it’s essential for us to keep as many options on the table as possible, so we can at least find out what kind of resources might be out there. That’s all we’re talking about at this point,” said Erik Milito, the group’s upstream director.
Milito said much of the conversation from API centers on the argument that it’s in the country’s best interest to produce more oil and gas domestically instead of relying on imports.
“It’s really a fundamental question that we face: do we want to produce oil and natural gas here in the U.S. or do we want to move that investment to other parts of the world?”
But industry is also pushing back on environmental objections to offshore drilling, saying its safety record has improved dramatically since the Deepwater Horizon spill.
“Over the past eight years, industry and government have really ramped up safety through equipment, practices and safety systems, as well as regulations,” Milito said.
The biggest setback for oil and its allies was the exemption that Zinke gave to Florida. After a brief meeting with Gov. Rick Scott (R) — a close Trump ally and likely Senate candidate — Zinke said waters near Florida will not be in the plan.
But it’s unclear whether that will completely foreclose drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. That area is the top prospect for drillers, since they have a good sense of the geology and they have infrastructure and equipment nearby.
While the industry was publicly angry about Zinke’s decision, officials say it’s not necessarily a complete loss.
“He could keep portions of the eastern Gulf open and block most of the rest of Florida and maybe that would be acceptable,” an industry source said.
Nor will drilling necessarily be blocked from the entire Pacific or Atlantic coasts. Zinke is obligated to consider governors’ opinions, but they don’t have to be the last word.
“They’re not lost causes,” Milito said. “They have to consider a multitude of factors when it comes to where and when to provide leasing opportunities in the outer continental shelf. The views of the governors are an important factor, but they’re one of many.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/376514-trump-drilling-plan-faces-backlash

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Amends Methane Rules, Proposes Withdrawing Oil, Gas Guidelines for VOCs

Mar 2, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence

By Charlie Passut

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has finalized two amendments to Obama-era rules governing new sources of methane emissions, and it is proposing to withdraw some guidelines for reducing volatile organic compounds (VOC) to save the oil and gas industry millions.
Eliminating the VOC rules alone would save operators a total of at least $14 million over a 14-year period, according to officials.
On Thursday, EPA unveiled two amendments to fugitive emissions requirements contained in its New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), which were promulgated in 2016. Specifically, the agency plans to amend requirements that oil and gas operators repair leaking components during unplanned or emergency shutdowns, as well as monitoring requirements for well sites located on Alaska's North Slope.
The amendments were signed by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt on Feb. 23, and have since been submitted for publication in the Federal Register.
Separately, EPA proposed to completely withdraw the 2016 Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for the oil and gas industry. The CTG provides recommendations for some states and areas that are required to address VOC emissions from covered sources, which form part of state implementation plans to meet national standards for ground-level ozone.
Under the current NSPS, operators have 30 days to repair leaking components found during monitoring surveys, with some exceptions. Those include that the repairs are technically infeasible, would require the shutdown of a compressor station or well, or it would be unsafe to conduct repairs during operations. In those cases, operators are required to fix leaks during a next event, including unscheduled or emergency shutdowns, or within two years, whichever is earlier.
The first of the two amendments would remove the requirement that operators fix leaks during unscheduled or emergency shutdowns. However, they would still be required to make repairs during the next scheduled shutdown of a compressor station or well; a well shut-in; after a planned vent blowdown; or within two years, whichever is earlier.
The EPA said it had received comments that under the current requirements, repairs conducted during unscheduled or emergency shutdowns "could lead to unintended negative consequences both at well sites and compressor stations, including emissions that are higher than emissions that would occur if the leaks were repaired during a scheduled shutdown.
"This could occur from venting or flaring that would be necessary while certain equipment was depressurized or 'blown down' in order for the repair to occur -- actions that can lead to higher emissions than would occur from continuing to delay a repair. Similarly, commenters noted that the requirement to repair leaks during unscheduled or emergency shutdowns could lead to gas service disruption."
The EPA added that after considering the comments it received, along with supporting data, it had decided on an amendment rather than a stay or extending the requirement's phase-in period, "which would have provided only temporary relief."
Monitoring North Slope Wells
The current NSPS also requires semiannual monitoring of wells in Alaska's North Slope, in an area that extends from the Brooks Range to the Arctic Ocean, to accommodate the area's Arctic climate.
Under the second amendment released Thursday, new or modified wells that begin production between September and March would conduct initial leaks monitoring surveys within six months after the startup of production or by June 30, whichever is later. New or modified wells that begin production between April and August must continue to meet the requirements of the 2016 rule, which requires initial monitoring surveys within 60 days of the startup of production.
Also, once the initial surveys are completed, operators would be required to conduct annual, rather than semiannual, monitoring surveys at well sites on the North Slope. The annual surveys would have to be conducted at least nine months apart, but no more than 12 months apart.
EPA said the amended the North Slope requirement is based on public comments that said "monitoring technologies specified in the 2016 rule cannot reliably detect methane emissions for much of the year because of extremely cold temperatures. Temperatures in the North Slope region often are below zero."
Withdrawing CTG
On withdrawing the CTG, EPA said the move is warranted because it would be more efficient for the states. Otherwise, states could be required to revise implementation plans twice: first to address recommendations tied to the 2012 NSPS, and potentially a second time after reconsideration of the 2016 NSPS is complete.
"In addition, facilities throughout the oil and natural gas sector may contain some sources subject to the 2012 NSPS and other sources subject to the 2016 NSPS," EPA said. "Withdrawing the oil and gas CTG in its entirety will allow EPA to take a more holistic approach as it considers options for addressing VOC emissions from covered oil and gas sources."
The EPA said even if the CTG were withdrawn, some states still may be required to obtain VOC emission reductions from existing oil and gas sources as part of their state implementation plans to meet EPA's national ozone standards.
According to the EPA, under Sections 182 and 184 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), some states are required to deploy Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) to limit VOC emissions from existing sources that are covered by a CTG.
"CTGs are not regulations and do not impose legal requirements directly on pollution sources," the EPA explained. "Rather, they provide recommendations for state and local air agencies to consider as they determine what emissions limits to apply to covered sources in their jurisdictions in order to meet RACT requirements."
RACT is required in ozone nonattainment areas currently classified as "moderate" and above, of which there are currently 21 in the United States. RACT is also required throughout the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), which includes 11 states and metropolitan areas in the Northeast.
The OTR comprises Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont. It also includes Washington, DC, and portions of northern Virginia.
EPA said withdrawing the CTG would not prevent states from taking separate actions to reduce oil and gas emissions if they chose to do so. But a withdrawal would eliminate the requirement that the 21 nonattainment areas and the OTR region use RACT for oil and gas sources that are not major sources.
"The CAA requires RACT for major sources of VOC emissions in nonattainment areas classified as moderate and above and throughout the OTR, independent of CTGs," the EPA said.
The agency estimates that the oil and gas industry could save $45-49 million per year, or $439-599 million between 2021 and 2035, in avoided compliance costs if all states fully addressed RACT and CTG is withdrawn.
However, under a scenario where CTG is withdrawn and some states obtain VOC emission reductions from existing oil and gas sources as part of their state implementation plans to meet the national ozone standard, the EPA estimates savings would total $1.2-1.6 million per year, or $14-16 million from 2021 through 2035.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/113564-epa-amends-methane-rules-proposes-withdrawing-oil-gas-guidelines-for-vocs

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Transportation and Infrastructure News

Sullivan Urges Infrastructure Bill Push

Mar 2, 2018 | Inside EPA

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) is urging Republican leaders in the Senate to make infrastructure funding legislation a priority, expressing concern about recent comments from Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the Senate majority whip, that there may not be enough time to address infrastructure given other priorities on lawmakers' agenda.
“I was a bit surprised by the leadership saying it didn't look like they had the time” to pass an infrastructure funding bill this year, Sullivan said during a March 1 Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW) hearing on the Trump administration's infrastructure plan. “Let's make the time,” he added, suggesting that lawmakers could work weekends to get it done. “I think this is a huge priority. Let's get to work,” he said.
Sullivan's comments at the hearing focused on aspects of the Trump plan related to the Transportation Department and Army Corps of Engineers come after Cornyn Feb. 27 told reporters that an infrastructure bill was unlikely this year.
“I certainly would be happy if we could, but we’ve got a lot of things to do, [infrastructure] being one of them, and I don’t know if we will have time to get to that,” Cornyn told Bloomberg.
Committee Chairman John Barraso (R-WY), in his opening remarks at the hearing, said EPW is making progress on bipartisan legislation to address water infrastructure but added that more progress needs to be made on transportation.
One difficult transportation issue is whether to raise current fuel taxes, which the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is supporting to finance new infrastructure but which many Republicans oppose.
In a Feb. 14 closed-door meeting with lawmakers, President Donald Trump offered his support for raising gas and diesel tax by 25 cents a gallon and dedicating that money to improve roads, highways and bridges.
During the hearing, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) asked Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao if the Trump administration has committed to supporting a gas tax increase.
“You need to ask the White House about that,” Chao responded.
Van Hollen pressed Chao, asking whether she has had discussions about the issue with the White House.
“Yes, but you need to talk to the White House about it,” she reiterated.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/sullivan-urges-infrastructure-bill-push

Return to headline | Return to top
More Hearings Set as Push Spools Up

Mar 5, 2018 | E&E Daily

By Nick Sobczyk

The Trump administration will continue pitching its infrastructure plan on Capitol Hill this week.
After a sometimes fiery hearing in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last week featuring Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, a House panel will convene tomorrow to discuss President Trump's proposal.
Chao will return as a witness at the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing.
The meeting will be the first official House action on the Trump plan and likely another step in the administration's campaign to sell the plan to members — particularly Democrats — skeptical that anything will come of it this year.
The administration started that crusade last week, as representatives from the White House, Army Corps of Engineers and Transportation Department spread out across the Hill to talk up the plan.
White House infrastructure aide D.J. Gribbin rebuffed attacks on the proposal during a speech to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials on Thursday.
Meanwhile, Alex Herrgott, the infrastructure point man for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, and Jim Ray, an infrastructure adviser for the Transportation Department, touted the president's ideas at an event sponsored by Bracewell LLP's Policy Resolution Group.
Still, some around Washington, D.C., wonder whether Congress will pass much of anything, much less a big infrastructure bill, once it finishes work on the omnibus later this month.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a member of leadership, repeatedly said last week that it might be difficult to find the time, especially with the glacial pace of nominee votes in the Senate.
But administration officials have a rosier outlook. "It's a default in this town to be a naysayer," Herrgott said last week. "It's easy."
Once other big-ticket issues move to the wayside, Herrgott added, "we're going to see a lot of movement that currently folks are not necessarily giving as much credit to."
Things will move more quickly in the House, where T&I Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) says he's starting work on a bipartisan bill with ranking member Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.).
Trump has proposed spending $200 billion in federal money to leverage $1.5 trillion in total investment. The president's plan would also put a shot clock on National Environmental Policy Act reviews and make other changes to permitting, ideas that don't sit well with Democrats.
"He put out a package, there was some really great stuff in it," Shuster said last week. But, he added, "some of the stuff he put in it I'm not so sure it's going anywhere, and I've been very frank with him and his team."
Shuster said he's hoping to push legislation through the House before the August recess or, failing that, during the lame-duck session after the elections (E&E News PM, Feb. 28).
But key lawmakers still face the monumental task of paying for Trump's proposed $200 billion investment. The always-tricky Highway Trust Fund, which is set to become insolvent in 2020, has entered the conversation, as well.
Chao and other administration officials said last week they're interested in stabilizing the fund, which is paid for by the federal gasoline tax.
On the issue of raising the gas tax, which hasn't been hiked since 1993, the administration's perspective isn't clear cut. Trump is said to have endorsed an increase, but Chao and other officials have tamped down that excitement.
The trust fund and gas tax could feature prominently at a separate hearing on Wednesday in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Highways and Transit to discuss long-term funding for highways and transportation programs.
Shuster, who supports raising the tax, will try to get the wheels moving on the full committee tomorrow before lawmakers start bearing their political teeth in the midterm season.
Shuster said at the transportation officials' conference last week that he anticipates losing some Republican votes on a bipartisan bill in order to lure enough Democrats to push it through the Senate.
"On the House side, I've got to attract Democrats," he said. "If I attract Democrats on an infrastructure bill, I will lose Republicans because there will be something in there that 20, 30, 50, 60 Republicans will say, 'Nah, I'm not going to vote for that.'"
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/stories/1060075365

Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

(ACC Mentioned) Top Science Adviser Uncertain about Human Role in Warming

Mar 2, 2018 | E&E News PM

By Corbin Hiar

The head of U.S. EPA's Scientific Advisory Board today said he wasn't sure if man-made emissions of greenhouse gases were causing climate change.
"I really don't know," SAB Chairman Michael Honeycutt told E&E News.
"I haven't studied that," he said along the sidelines of the American Chemistry Council's GlobalChem conference. "I try to stay in my lane. I have too much really in my field to keep up with to jump over here and study that."
Honeycutt, who has been leading the SAB since Feb. 18, received a Ph.D. in pharmacology and toxicology from the University of Louisiana, Monroe, in 1993, according to his profile on the business networking site LinkedIn.
As head of the SAB, Honeycutt is now tasked with providing scientific advice to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and congressional committees with oversight of the agency.
That means Honeycutt and his board will likely have to weigh in on the regulation EPA puts forward to replace the Clean Power Plan, the Obama administration's signature rule for addressing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, which the vast majority of scientists believe are a primary driver of global warming.
Honeycutt, who has led the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality's toxicology division for over two decades, argued that his lack of knowledge about climate science wouldn't be a problem.
"We have people on the board who that's their field of study," he said. "And I would rely heavily on them. So anything that comes up, they would certainly be on any subcommittee and actively involved in any of the discussions."
He added, "I just haven't dealt with it at all. Not at all."
Pruitt, Honeycutt's new boss, doesn't deny that climate change is occurring. But he has raised questions about humans' role in warming the planet.
"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact," Pruitt told CNBC last year.
Those comments, which came shortly after Pruitt took control of EPA and began rolling back its climate research efforts, prompted an outcry from many scientists who have studied global warming (Greenwire, March 13, 2017).Evolution
Honeycutt also declined to comment on past statements Pruitt has made questioning scientific support for the theory of evolution.
"I can't speak for Administrator Pruitt, and I don't really know that that's within the realm of the Science Advisory Board," he said. "It just doesn't seem like a question that I should address."
Pruitt's recently unearthed comments on evolution were provided to Politico by an anonymous source.
"There aren't sufficient scientific facts to establish the theory of evolution, and it deals with the origins of man, which is more from a philosophical standpoint than a scientific standpoint," Pruitt said on a local talk radio show in 2005 when he was an Oklahoma state senator.
Pruitt's views on evolution, which EPA didn't dispute, are similar to those held by many other Christian conservatives but well outside the scientific mainstream. Evolution is a core theory that, while unprovable, is supported by a broad range of verifiable scientific evidence.
Honeycutt, who said he plans to lead his first full meeting of the SAB in May or June, is willing to look into the theory of evolution for Pruitt.
"If that's something he would like the board to take up, he can direct us to," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/03/02/stories/1060075319

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Ozone Nonattainment 'Classifications' Rule Uses Obama-Era Methods

Mar 2, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Stuart Parker

EPA has issued a final rule for how to classify areas of the country in various levels of not attaining the 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), adopting Obama-era methods used for compliance with the prior 2008 ozone standard and abandoning a never-published Trump administration classifications proposal.
The final rule, released March 1 ahead of its publication in the Federal Register, uses the Obama EPA's “percent above the standard” (PATS) method that places areas in escalating degrees of nonattainment, ranging from “marginal” to “extreme.” Nonattainment areas must adopt pollution controls to come into compliance with the NAAQS, with those in more severe nonattainment mandated to take tougher measures, but also given more time to comply.
It is unclear how the finalized rule differs from a proposed classifications rule that EPA sent for White House Office of Management & Budget pre-publication review on Sept. 21 but withdrew on Feb. 13. The final rule instead enacts a proposed classifications rule floated by the Obama EPA in November 2016, which the previous administration sought public comment on but never finalized.
“EPA has determined that the Agency had sufficient public input on its November 17, 2016 proposal to move forward with a final rule,” says an agency source. “The November 2016 proposal and today’s final rule largely retains and updates the implementing regulations that apply for the 2008 ozone standards, for purposes of the 2015 ozone standards. This approach would create stability in the planning process for our state and local partners.”
The George W. Bush administration set the prior ozone NAAQS in 2008 at 75 parts per billion (ppb), while President Barack Obama's EPA in an October 2015 rulemaking tightened the limit to 70 ppb. President Donald Trump's EPA is reconsidering the tightening of the limit but is under legal pressure to implement the standard.
While the final rule retains the prior methodology for classifications, based on threshold concentrations of ozone, it does not include other aspects of the 2016 Obama EPA proposal that address how to revoke prior NAAQS standards and measures to prevent “backsliding” in air quality.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in its Feb. 16 ruling in South Coast Air Quality Management District, et al. v. EPA, et al. scrapped much of the Obama EPA's method for revoking older NAAQS and imposing anti-backsliding measures.
However, such measures are absent from the new classifications rule, suggesting the D.C. Circuit ruling might not have a direct impact on it.
EPA is facing litigation over its delay in issuing nonattainment area designations, which were due by an Oct. 1 Clean Air Act deadline. Utilities are already urging EPA to reconsider some initial nonattainment findings and reclassify them to attainment.
Attainment Deadlines
The agency's attainment deadlines apply from the effective date of designation of areas. The agency now aims to finish most designations by April 30, except for the San Antonio area, for which it intends to finish designation by Aug. 10.
EPA in a fact sheet to accompany the final rule lists the classification thresholds as follows: marginal from 71 ppb up to 81 ppb, moderate from 81 ppb up to 93 ppb, serious from 93 ppb up to 105 ppb, severe from 105 ppb up to 163 ppb, and extreme from 163 ppb upward.
Attainment deadlines will be consistent with the approach taken in the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS, and are: marginal three years from effective date of designation, moderate six years from effective date of designation, serious nine years from effective date of designation, severe 15 years (or 17 years) from effective date of designation, and extreme 20 years from effective date of designation.
In its response to comments in the final rule, EPA rejects arguments that the PATS approach results in too many areas being labeled “marginal,” rather than “moderate.” Areas in marginal nonattainment need not craft state implementation plans (SIPs) showing how they will attain the NAAQS.
“EPA recognizes that the nonattainment area classification thresholds established in this action would likely result in the vast majority of nonattainment areas being initially classified marginal for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, subjecting states associated with these areas to fewer mandatory air quality planning and control requirements than would apply in higher classifications. However, as the commenters acknowledge, the PATS approach has 'a degree of consistency with Congressional intent' and has withstood judicial review,” the agency says.
“Furthermore, the EPA disagrees that implementation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS was not in keeping with Congress’ design simply because many Marginal areas did not attain by their initial attainment deadline,” EPA says.
Taking alternative approaches to classification “would introduce more judgement [sic] and uncertainty in the threshold determination process than contemplated” by the Clean Air Act , and, thus pose “heightened legal risk,” EPA says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-ozone-nonattainment-classifications-rule-uses-obama-era-methods

Return to headline | Return to top
Critics Warn 'Limited' EPA Role In Possible CPP Replacement Is Unlawful

Mar 2, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Lee Logan

States and environmental groups are warning that the “very limited role” the Trump EPA is envisioning for itself in overseeing state programs under a possible replacement for the Clean Power Plan (CPP) would be unlawful if finalized because it would give states enormous leeway to impose weak greenhouse gas limits or impose no restrictions at all.
Further, these critics warn that the agency is contemplating revising decades-old implementing regulations for Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111(d), the section under which the rule is crafted, which generally require states to meet the stringency of a federal “emission limitation” with limited exceptions.
But supporters of the Trump administration's efforts to overhaul the CPP say that EPA's approach is lawful because the agency's 111(d) authority is limited to outlining a “procedure” for how states should submit compliance plans, and offering general “guidelines” to inform state efforts.
The simmering debate over how prescriptive any rule should be -- outlined in recent comments on EPA's advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) floating options for a CPP replacement -- is occurring alongside several other disputes over the rule, including the agency's proposed legal interpretation that it is restricted to setting GHG standards based on actions taken within a power plant's “fenceline.”
But opponents of the Trump EPA's approach are highlighting what they say would be a major shift in EPA's air act role, which has long required the agency to set a federal emissions standard while giving states flexibility to meet that standard.
The ANPR “raises the possibility that a new EPA guidelines only would set out procedures for states to use in developing state programs, and leave decisions on the amount of emission reduction from the power sector largely or entirely to the states,” says undated comments from a group of former agency staff known as Save EPA. “This would be a recipe for achieving little emission reduction,” beyond a business-as-usual scenario.
The group adds that such an approach is “inconsistent with EPA’s longstanding interpretation of the roles of EPA and states in implementing” section 111(d).
Similarly, a group of 12 states organized by the Georgetown Climate Center argues in Feb. 26 comments that “EPA has an obligation to issue binding emission guidelines that states must achieve.” These states charge that the ANPR wrongly says EPA's 1975 implementing rules for section 111(d) “authorize” it to make its emission guidelines binding but give it the option not to do so.
“[T]he regulation EPA cites actually requires EPA to issue binding emission guidelines,” the states say. “That regulation states that 'where the Administrator has determined that a designated pollutant may cause or contribute to endangerment of public health, emission standards shall be no less stringent than the corresponding emission guidelines,' except in the specific circumstances identified in subsection (f) of that section. EPA should apply any exceptions sparingly, as their use will lessen the effectiveness of the rule in achieving the CAA's goals.”
These states -- California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington -- say that non-binding standards would create an uneven playing field for states and the power sector, enabling a “'race to the bottom' where states are encouraged to loosen pollution standards in order to attract industry.”
Further, Feb. 26 comments from a coalition of national environmental groups say that while states under section 111(d) craft facility-specific “standards of performance,” the statute requires such standards to reflect “the degree of emission limitation achievable” through EPA's guidelines.
They add that the 1975 regulations “specifically rejected the argument that [EPA's] role was limited to 'prescrib[ing] procedural requirements for adoption and submittal of State plans.'” At the time, the agency noted that such an interpretation would let states to “set extremely lenient standards -- even standards permitting greatly increased emissions -- so long as EPA’s procedural requirements were met.”
'Developing Procedures'
But industry groups that support a narrower CPP replacement are seeking maximum flexibility for states under any new rule. “EPA’s role should be limited to developing procedures and guidelines,” say Feb. 26 comments from the Florida Municipal Electric Association (FMEA). EPA should define the “best system of emission reduction” -- outlining GHG-reduction strategies states could use when setting standards -- “and direct the states to develop performance standards based on unit by unit analysis.”
Additionally, to the extent that EPA's 1975 implementing regulations allow it to set binding limits, FMEA says the agency should rescind those rules.
“This regulation has no basis or foundation in the” CAA, the group says, noting that the statue specifically allows states to take a range of factors into account when setting facility-specific standards, including the facility's remaining useful life.
Also, the National Mining Association in Feb. 26 comments says a CPP replacement should “fully recognize” that states can set standards that are “less strict than they might otherwise be. . . . After incorporating the unit’s remaining useful life or other factors that may affect the appropriate level of the standard at a specific unit, the standard for that unit may be less stringent or even no standard at all, as compared with the standard that might otherwise apply.”
The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association argues that while states have significant leeway on this issue, they do not have “unfettered discretion.” If states fail to submit or enforce standards, “EPA must step in. But EPA’s role is a modest, backstop role, reserved for the extreme and unlikely circumstance in which a state either fails to act at all or at least fails to act in a way that is reasonable.”
Another industry association, the Utility Air Regulatory Group, says EPA must “respect the states' role” under section 111(d), citing the statute's remaining useful life criterion, as well as the 1975 implementing rule's allowance for weaker standards on a case-by-case basis if it is “significantly more reasonable” to do so.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/critics-warn-limited-epa-role-possible-cpp-replacement-unlawful

Return to headline | Return to top
POLITICO pro New Jersey: Environmental Groups Taking Appeal of Exxon Settlement to State Supreme Court

Mar 5, 2018 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard

By Anielle Muoio

Environmental groups have requested that the state's highest court hear its appeal of New Jersey's controversial Exxon Mobil settlement.
In 2015, the state announced it would settle with Exxon for $225 million over the contamination of more than 1,000 acres in Bayonne and Linden, where the company had refineries. The settlement, reached more than a decade after the state sued Exxon for $8.9 billion, drew widespread criticism from environmental groups who accused the Christie administration of striking a sweetheart deal.
Environmental groups, including the New Jersey Sierra Club and Environment New Jersey, first appealed the decision in the Superior Court's Appellate Division. But the appellate court ruled in February that the green groups didn’t have enough standing for an appeal.
The same groups are now taking their case to the state Supreme Court.
"We’re asking the Supreme Court to intervene and take this case because believe the lower courts got it was wrong," Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, said in a statement. "Their decision would set a bad precedent that would chill citizens from exercising their rights to sue their government when the government was wrong."
Read the notice of appeal here.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested