Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 3/19/18
-
Hearing on Energy Budget
Mar 20, 2018 | Energy and Natural Resources Committee
Location: 366 Dirksen / 10:00 AM -
Hearing on Steel and Aluminum Tariffs
Mar 22, 2018 | Ways and Means Committee
Location: 100 Longworth / 10:00 AM -
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Chemical Industry Group Takes Aim at State Ingredient Disclosure Laws
Mar 19, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
Citing inconsistencies, American Chemistry Council pushes for Congress to enact national standards. -
(ACC Mentioned) Conor Lamb's Rejection of Corporate PAC Money Needs Context
Mar 17, 2018 | PolitiFact
By Colin Deppen
When Democrat Conor Lamb took the stage inside a Canonsburg ballroom brimming with supporters and news media on election night, he claimed victory in what amounted to one of the massive political upsets of the Trump Era. -
Scott Pruitt, Trump’s Rule-Cutting E.P.A. Chief, Plots His Political Future
Mar 17, 2018 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport
The headline speakers at the Conservative Political Action Conference’s annual showcase, the Ronald Reagan Dinner, have historically been rising stars in the Republican Party — firebrand pundits, prominent activists, future presidential candidates. -
New Science Panel May Bolster EPA's Chemical Policy Defense
Mar 19, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Scientific advice that a new external committee will give the EPA could improve the agency's chemical policies and help it defend decisions under court challenge, policy analysts say. -
Why Don't Americans Care about Chemicals?
Mar 19, 2018 | Salon
By Anna Robuck
For the past four years, researchers at Chapman University in Orange, CA have surveyed Americans to determine what we fear most. -
Serbia Takes Step towards EU Chemical, Biocidal Law Alignment
Mar 19, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Serbia has completed a 30-month project to help its future alignment with EU chemicals and biocides regulations. -
(ACC Mentioned) Appalachian Storage Hub, WV's Foundation for Future Investment
Mar 19, 2018 | WV News
By Brooks McCabe
The Appalachian Storage & Trading Hub will provide the foundation for West Virginia’s forthcoming manufacturing renaissance. -
Huge Wyoming Drilling Project Could Test Truncated Permitting
Mar 19, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Five energy companies’ sweeping proposal to drill some 5,000 new oil and natural gas wells over 10 years on 1.5 million acres in eastern Wyoming is a likely test case of an Interior Department order streamlining environmental reviews. -
Souki's Tellurian Warns U.S. Steel Tariffs Could Raise LNG Project Costs
Mar 16, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Collin Eaton
Tellurian, the Houston liquefied natural gas company co-founded by ex-Cheniere Energy boss Charif Souki, said U.S. steel tariffs could raise costs of the $15.2 billion Driftwood LNG export terminal under construction in Louisiana. -
The Anticipated Benefits of LNG Exports Have Become Reality
Mar 19, 2018 | The Washington Examiner
By Todd Snitchler
Less than a decade ago, the U.S. seemed poised to rival Japan as the world’s largest liquefied natural gas importer. Domestic production couldn’t keep up with demand and investors poured billions into LNG import facilities. -
Perry, Trove of Admin Officials Return to Testify on Hill
Mar 19, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Manuel Quiñones
Energy Secretary Rick Perry and a trove of other Trump administration officials will be back on Capitol Hill this week to defend the White House's fiscal 2019 budget request. -
U.S. EPA Watchdog Says Agency Did Not Use Possibly Flawed Methane Data for Regulation
Mar 16, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
In an attempt to resolve a scientific controversy stretching back to 2013, U.S. EPA’s inspector general (IG) has determined that the agency has not relied on possibly flawed results from a study of methane emissions from oil and gas fields. -
Pruitt's Delay of Chemical Safety Rule Faces D.C. Circuit Test
Mar 19, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
Opponents of an EPA effort to delay a chemical safety regulation intended to protect emergency responders and local communities urged federal judges March 16 to let the rule take effect. -
Case over Delayed EPA Rule Puzzles D.C. Circuit
Mar 16, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
State and environmental foes of the Trump administration were in federal court today trying to knock down U.S. EPA's decision to delay chemical safety rules. -
Judges Back EPA's Authority to Delay RMP, but Fault pace of Revisions
Mar 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Appellate court judges appear to be backing the Trump administration's authority to delay the Obama-era rule strengthening EPA's facility accident prevention program, but some are questioning why the agency needs a two-year delay, suggesting it should quickly revise a controversial provision and allow other new protections to take effect. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Shouldn't Have Eased Pollution Limit for Boilers, Court Says
Mar 19, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu
The EPA shouldn't have scaled back stricter emissions standards it set for heavy-duty furnaces used to generate steam at manufacturing facilities including paper mills and auto plants, a federal appeals court ruled March 16. -
(ACC Mentioned) D.C. Circuit Hands down Split Ruling on Boiler Standards
Mar 16, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
Industry and environmental groups each got something out of a court ruling today in the latest installment of a long-running legal battle over air toxics regulations for industrial boilers. -
Court Remands Boiler MACT Limits To EPA, Extending Lengthy Rulemaking
Mar 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Further extending a 25-year rulemaking, a federal appellate court has remanded some air toxics emissions limits for industrial, commercial and institutional boilers to EPA, agreeing with environmentalists that the agency failed to justify its use of a key carbon monoxide (CO) threshold as a proxy for toxic emissions.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Mar 20, 2018 | Energy and Natural Resources Committee
Witness:
Energy Secretary Rick Perry
-
Hearing on Steel and Aluminum Tariffs
Mar 22, 2018 | Ways and Means Committee
Witness:
Lightizer
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Chemical Industry Group Takes Aim at State Ingredient Disclosure Laws
Mar 19, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
Citing inconsistencies, American Chemistry Council pushes for Congress to enact national standards.
Makers of cleaning products sold in California soon will disclose their ingredients on labels and online, the result of a law the state enacted in October. New York, meanwhile, is on the cusp of imposing similar requirements.
Some U.S. chemical producers fear the requirements in the two jurisdictions won’t be identical and will cause headaches for producers and . . .
Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.
Story can be found here: https://cen.acs.org/articles/96/i12/US-chemical-industry-group-takes.html?type=paidArticleContent
-
(ACC Mentioned) Conor Lamb's Rejection of Corporate PAC Money Needs Context
Mar 17, 2018 | PolitiFact
By Colin Deppen
When Democrat Conor Lamb took the stage inside a Canonsburg ballroom brimming with supporters and news media on election night, he claimed victory in what amounted to one of the massive political upsets of the Trump Era. And he was clear that they’d managed this feat not with the financial backing of corporations, but with a grassroots network and a slew of small-money contributions.
"I'm proud that you helped me refuse corporate PAC money," he said to applause.
Lamb ran to fill Pennsylvania’s 18th congressional district seat, which was vacated by former U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy, a Republican, late last year. The New York Times and Democrats have called the race for Lamb, though absentee and provisional ballots were still being counted as of Friday, with Lamb leading his Republican opponent, state Rep. Rick Saccone, by hundreds of votes.
The darkhorse Democratic candidate raised millions in mostly small, online donations during the campaign — up to 62 percent of them from not just outside of the 18th district, but from outside of the state.
But is it true that corporate PAC money played no role in his campaign?
According to the Federal Election Commission, Lamb received 99 "discrete PAC contributions" from a total of 81 different PACs. Some of those PACs contributed multiple times. No corporate PAC contributions were reported by his campaign committee, per the FEC.
Instead, many of these PACs belong to unions; veterans groups; advocacy groups, such as the JStreet PAC, a self-described "political home for pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans"; and a host of Democratic leadership groups.
"He mainly received money from labor PACs and Democratic leadership PACs," said Andrew Mayersohn, a committees researcher with the Center for Responsive Politics.
"Labor PACs, obviously, don’t receive money from corporate PACs. Leadership PACs do (usually) take corporate PAC contributions, but I doubt that Lamb will feel indebted to Comcast just because Comcast's PAC gave to [U.S. Rep] Mike Doyle’s leadership PAC last year, and Doyle gave to Lamb’s campaign this year. More likely, he’ll feel indebted to Mike Doyle," Mayersohn said.
Adam Bonin, a Philadelphia lawyer specializing in political law compliance and advocacy, said the difference between accepting money from a corporate PAC and a PAC that has received corporate funds — or funds from corporate executives and employees — is significant.
"When people refer to corporate PACs, what they mean are PACs established by corporations and funded by their employees with officers and directors who decide where the funds are directed," Bonin said.
In Lamb’s case, donations of $200 or less accounted for half of the money — millions of dollars in total — raised by his campaign, according to Anne Feldman, press secretary for End Citizens United, a prominent backer of his campaign.
But there were also donations from PACs reliant on support from executives and employees — and their relatives — at some of America’s largest companies and conglomerates.
This includes Massachusetts Sen. Joe Kennedy III’s 4MA leadership PAC, which counts individuals with ties to Goldman Sachs, Ford Motor Company, Home Depot and a slew of pharmaceutical companies among its Top 20 contributors, per OpenSecrets.org and the Center for Responsive Politics, the group behind the site.
The Keystone Fund PAC, U.S. Rep. Mike Doyle’s political action committee, also donated to Lamb and has top donors with connections to T-Mobile, Comcast, Exelon and Google. Sen. Bob Casey’s Keystone America PAC, another Lamb contributor, has Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Aetna, Johnson & Johnson and Ernst & Young in its Top 20.
There’s also AmeriPAC: The Fund for a Greater America, a Lamb donor with contributors tied to Coca-Cola and Boeing, OpenSecrets.org reports. Each of these PACs donated the maximum of $5,000 to Lamb’s campaign.
"We group those [individual] contributions with corporate PACs when we talk about industry giving. For example, PNC Bank's PAC and PNC executives are ultimately part of the financial industry's political influence," Mayersohn said of OpenSecret.org’s lists of top PAC donors.
"Since most people work for a corporation of some kind, it's pretty hard for a campaign to avoid taking contributions from ‘corporate employees or owners.’ Lamb received some contributions from PNC employees, but would not have accepted money from their PAC (if asked)."
Feldman added: "When you're accepting money from a non-corporate PAC, it comes from hundreds, often thousands, of people who are concerned about issues that affect their day-to-day lives. This is very different from accepting money from corporate PACs which have a singular agenda, the corporation’s bottom line." (Of course there is the potential for overlap between corporate interests and the interests of non-corporate PACs.)
Corporate executives and employees are also capable of donating — with legal limits — to Lamb directly, which some certainly did. Bruce Ledewitz, a constitutional law professor at Duquesne University, said this is neither unusual nor improper.
"The question is if a rich person gives money to Donald Trump knowing Trump favors lower taxes, is that undue influence? And I say no, it is not," Ledewitz explained. "I don’t think there’s the slightest indication that campaign contributions have any influence at all. Lobbying has influence."
Mayersohn said there were also no corporate PAC expenditures on mailers or ads in support of Lamb’s candidacy. "Corporate PACs almost never make independent expenditures," he said. "Sometimes trade association or industry PACs (like the American Chemistry Council or the National Association of Realtors) make independent expenditures, but not in this race."
While some argue that the shunning of corporate PACs by political candidates is largely an empty gesture, groups like End Citizens United tout the Lamb campaign’s lack of corporate PAC donors as a breath of fresh air.
Lamb campaign manager Abby Murphy also said Lamb will again refuse corporate PAC money when he runs in November, this time in the what would be the new 17th Congressional District under a statewide redistricting plan.Our ruling
U.S. Congressional candidate Conor Lamb said, "I'm proud that you helped me refuse corporate PAC money."
FEC records do not list corporate PACs as having donated to his campaign or having directly spent money in support of his candidacy. While it’s possible corporate PAC money donated to other PACs reached him indirectly, experts say that’s not the same thing.
Lamb’s claim is literally accurate, but campaign finances are complicated and voters need additional information.
http://www.politifact.com/pennsylvania/statements/2018/mar/17/conor-lamb/conor-lambs-rejection-corporate-pac-money-needs-co/
-
Scott Pruitt, Trump’s Rule-Cutting E.P.A. Chief, Plots His Political Future
Mar 17, 2018 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport
The headline speakers at the Conservative Political Action Conference’s annual showcase, the Ronald Reagan Dinner, have historically been rising stars in the Republican Party — firebrand pundits, prominent activists, future presidential candidates.
Last month, it was Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
In the past year, Mr. Pruitt has emerged as a hero to President Trump’s supporters for his hand in rolling back environmental rules at an agency long disliked by farmers, the fossil fuel industry and the far right. And he has occasionally shocked his employees by criticizing the very agency he heads.
“It was an agency that was weaponized against certain sectors of the economy,” Mr. Pruitt said to applause at the Reagan dinner.
Now, people close to Mr. Pruitt say he is using his perch as Mr. Trump’s deregulatory czar to position himself for further political prominence — starting with a run for office in his home state of Oklahoma. He is widely viewed as a future candidate for senator or governor there, and Mr. Pruitt has made it known that if the president replaces his beleaguered attorney general, Jeff Sessions, he would be ready to step into the job.
Mr. Pruitt’s national profile has soared. He has appeared on the cover of the prominent conservative magazines National Review and The Weekly Standard. And Mr. Trump has privately praised some of Mr. Pruitt’s more controversial proposals, such as his idea to stage “red team, blue team”debates of climate-change science.
Mr. Pruitt has faced criticism, and received a reprimand from his boss, for spending more than $107,000 of public money on first-class air travel. But he remains a favorite of Mr. Trump’s, and after the past week of White House turmoil — with the president dismissing his secretary of state and intimating that a greater shake-up may follow — Mr. Pruitt appears to have job security that could work to his advantage over time.
The endgame, say people who have spoken with Mr. Pruitt, is a possible run at the presidency in 2024 or later. “It was always known among elite Republicans that this guy had higher ambitions,” said Keith Gaddie, a professor of political science at the University of Oklahoma. “The question was just, ‘Does he want to be president, or does he want to be attorney general?’”
To jump from E.P.A. chief to any of those posts would be highly unusual for the head of a historically wonky, low-profile agency. “The take has always been that E.P.A. is where your political career goes to die,” said William K. Reilly, who headed the agency under President George Bush.
Even in Republican administrations, Mr. Reilly said, the job historically involved imposing regulations on polluting industries, which can create powerful enemies. “It’s the kind of job that if you do it right, you antagonize a lot of people — big industry, even your own president,” he said.
But Mr. Pruitt has flipped the script. As Oklahoma’s attorney general, he sued the E.P.A. 14 times, and he has spent the past year working to undo regulations that would have required farmers to restrict their fertilizer use; oil and gas firms to control global warming pollution from their wells; and Midwestern power plants to burn less coal.
“He has made a big splash,” Mr. Reilly said. “The mission he is on is not one that his predecessors at E.P.A. have recognized. And it could be a good strategy to win the constituency that elected the president.”
Mr. Pruitt’s precise political path forward is not certain. He is viewed as a likely candidate to run for a Senate seat in Oklahoma in 2020 if the incumbent, James Inhofe, retires. But it remains unclear if Mr. Inhofe, 83, will do so, and his office declined to comment. There is also speculation that Mr. Pruitt might jump in as a last-minute candidate in this year’s governor’s race.
When asked about its boss’s ambitions, Mr. Pruitt’s staff emphasizes that he is focused only on the job at hand. It also notes that the E.P.A. chief has made a significant effort to promote his work. “Administrator Pruitt has utilized a wide array of news outlets to advance President Trump’s agenda on regulatory certainty and environmental stewardship,” his spokesman, Jahan Wilcox, wrote in an email. Through Mr. Wilcox, Mr. Pruitt declined an interview request.
Some former E.P.A. chiefs noted that Mr. Pruitt’s unusual speed at attempting to dismantle regulations could mean that those efforts might not stand up to later legal challenges. “The policies he’s pushing play very well in his home state and with the base — but you can’t do them overnight,” said Christine Todd Whitman, who headed the E.P.A. in the George W. Bush administration and before that was the governor of New Jersey. “They’re getting rushed out. I don’t think the homework is being done. It makes for good sound bites, but they might not stand up legally.”
That might not affect Mr. Pruitt’s longer-term political aspirations, though. “Pruitt could be gone from E.P.A. by the time that happens,” Ms. Whitman said.
Among the largest regulations Mr. Pruitt aims to roll back, at Mr. Trump’s direction, is an Obama-era clean water rule, known as Waters of the United States, which would have restricted the chemical fertilizers used by farmers. The rule has been particularly unpopular with the rural voters who make up the core of Mr. Trump’s base. This year, Mr. Pruitt announced he would freeze implementation of the rule and issue a more farmer-friendly version by the spring.
Last year, Mr. Pruitt made two trips to Iowa, a key campaign state in presidential elections, to talk about his agenda. In the summer, he met with farmers to tout his rollback of the clean water regulation. In December, he promised that the E.P.A. would not use regulations to curb the production of corn ethanol — an issue considered key for presidential candidates in Iowa.
Mr. Pruitt has also halted implementation of Mr. Obama’s climate change rules, which would have frozen construction of new coal-fired power plants, and has said he intends to propose a replacement rule this year. Last April, he spoke at a Pennsylvania coal mine, telling workers that “the regulatory assault is over.”
Behind the scenes, Mr. Pruitt has spent time with major political donors. Last year he met with Foster Friess, a Republican fund-raiser, and with investors connected to Sheldon Adelson, the party megadonor, according to meeting records obtained by The New York Times. He also met with Steven Chancellor, an Indiana coal executive and Republican fund-raiser, according to documents obtained by the Sierra Club and published by Politico.
“All of this is unusual,” Ms. Whitman said. “If you’re in a federal position, you should not appear to be campaigning.”
Were Mr. Inhofe, long known as Congress’s most vocal opponent of efforts to fight global warming, to retire, Mr. Pruitt would be a natural fit to try to win his Senate seat.
Mr. Pruitt, who keeps his watch set to the time in Oklahoma even when he is working on the East Coast, has traveled to his home state regularly. Last March through May he spent 43 out of 92 days in Oklahoma or traveling to or from the state, according to a report by the Environmental Integrity Project.
Mr. Pruitt’s rise to prominence in Oklahoma began during the eight years he managed and co-owned the Oklahoma City RedHawks, a minor league baseball team. He won a seat in the State Legislature and opened a small legal office, Christian Legal Services, to challenge government actions that he saw as compromising individual rights.
As an owner of the RedHawks, Mr. Pruitt ran television ads that featured himself promoting the team. They gave him statewide recognition and played a role in his 2010 race for attorney general, said Chris Wilson, an Oklahoma-based Republican strategist who worked on the presidential campaign of Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. “He had instant name recognition,” Mr. Wilson said.
As attorney general, Mr. Pruitt built close ties with the state’s oil and natural gas industry. A 2014 investigation by The Times found that energy lobbyists drafted letters for Mr. Pruitt to send to the E.P.A., on state stationery, outlining the economic hardship of environmental regulations on their industries.
The ties have paid off politically. Harold G. Hamm, who advised the presidential campaigns of Mr. Trump and Mitt Romney and is the chief executive of Continental Resources, an Oklahoma oil and gas company, was a co-chairman of Mr. Pruitt’s 2013 re-election campaign.
Mr. Pruitt’s tenure at the E.P.A. has already proven popular with the oil and natural gas industry. His proposals have been aimed at loosening regulations, particularly an Obama-era rule that would have required companies to rein in emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, from new oil and gas wells. (A federal appeals court later ruled that the effort was illegal.)
Energy companies were also delighted when Mr. Pruitt flew to Morocco in December, in an unusual trip aimed at promoting exports of natural gas. That trip received criticism, though, in part because the E.P.A. does not oversee natural gas exports.
The E.P.A.’s inspector general is investigating some of Mr. Pruitt’s trips, including the one to Morocco and some to Oklahoma, but it is not clear whether that will be a liability. “It’s not great, but it’s not fatal,” Michael McKenna, a Republican energy lobbyist who advised the Trump campaign, said referring to Mr. Pruitt’s airline expenses. “None of the old rules seem to apply,” he said. “The current president seems to have erased a lot of them.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/climate/scott-pruitt-political-ambitions.html
-
New Science Panel May Bolster EPA's Chemical Policy Defense
Mar 19, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Scientific advice that a new external committee will give the EPA could improve the agency's chemical policies and help it defend decisions under court challenge, policy analysts say.
“It's vitally important that EPA has strong, independent scientific advice to inform its decisions,” Trish Koman, a University of Michigan environmental health researcher and former Environmental Protection Agency scientist, told Bloomberg Environment.
The EPA told Bloomberg Environment March 13 it's poised to announce the slate of individuals selected to serve on its new Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals. Congress required the agency to convene the committee when it amended the Toxic Substances Control Act in 2016. The agency has yet to schedule the panel's first meeting.
Nevertheless, attorneys, consultants, academics, and environmental health organizations suggested to Bloomberg Environment a slew of topics they'd like EPA to bring before its new advisers and that are relevant to chemical safety and ongoing litigation over the agency's implementation of TSCA. Those topics include identifying workplace chemical uses, updating risk analysis tools, and helping EPA get information and concerns from exposed populations.
Useful Imprimatur
Asked if the advisory committee's input would help EPA develop legally defensible chemical decisions, Maureen Gorsen, a former California EPA attorney now working at Alston & Bird, said: “Of course it would.” Gorsen now helps regulated industries deal with chemical and other environmental issues.
If the decision based on that advice is challenged in court, the imprimatur of the outside advisers can offer evidence that the agency used a scientifically credible approach, Jim Aidala, senior government affairs consultant with Bergeson and Campbell P.C. said.
Getting and following a science advisory committee's recommendations, however, doesn't guarantee all parties will agree with the EPA's final decision nor that EPA will make the right decision, Aidala added.
The new chemical advisory committee will consist of about 18 industry, non-profit and other individuals with expertise in human health and ecological risk assessment, epidemiology, pediatrics, toxicology and other scientific disciplines.
The panel will meet three to four times a year for two years, and its charter can be extended.
Some researchers are skeptical the committee will improve the agency's decisions. A directive EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued last October will prevent leading experts who receive EPA grants from serving on the new committee, Koman and other researchers said.
“It appears this administration does not care for the advice of unconflicted scientists on the science and hopes to alter advisory panels to get the advice it wants to hear, rather than changing its policy decisions based on the science,” said Veena Singla, associate director for science and policy at the University of California San Francisco's reproductive health and environment program.
Unclear Definitions
Amended TSCA requires the agency to conduct more risk-based analyses than the original law required, and it strictly limits the agency's time to do these more complex chemical evaluations.
These include decisions such as whether: new chemicals pose or may pose an unreasonable risk that should prevent them from being manufactured or require some controls; existing chemicals raise sufficient health or environmental concerns to warrant closer scrutiny; and an existing chemical should be labeled, restricted, banned, or otherwise controlled to prevent potential harm.
The amended law requires the EPA to make such decisions while considering criteria the statute doesn't clearly define, said Aidala, who helped implement the original chemicals law during the Clinton administration.
Ambiguous statutory language is typical, because clearly defining decision criteria could prevent legislators from reaching the consensus needed to pass laws, he said. Allowing agencies to interpret the law also allows policies to evolve as new science emerges, Aidala said.
Conditions of Use
The undefined criteria include evaluating risk under a chemical's “conditions of use,” said Aidala, and Paul DeLeo, a principal with Integral Consulting Inc.
The law defines them as “the circumstances, as determined by the administrator, under which a chemical substance is intended, known, or reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed, distributed in commerce, used or disposed of.”
This “is a huge policy area that needs to be addressed,” DeLeo said.
The agency's interpretation of TSCA that assumes its giving it discretion to consider some—but not all—uses of a chemical already is being challenged by environmental health groups in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA and Safer Chem Healthy Families v. EPA.
Science v. Policy
Evaluating a chemical's risks integrates science and policy, Aidala said.
If the advisory committee has occupational experts they could, for example, help the agency identify workplace uses of a chemical that could result in workers being exposed to it, he said. The committee could identify workplace uses that would constitute 90 percent or more of workers’ exposures, Aidala said.
EPA's policy decision would be whether it's sufficient to include 90 percent, 95 percent, or some other percent of exposures stemming from its conditions of use, he said.
Risk Strategies, Tools
Steve Owens, assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention during the Obama administration, and DeLeo urged the agency to seek advice on how to apply the agency's general risk assessment guidance to the chemical analyses required by TSCA.
Environmental groups, for example, have criticized the agency's plans to assess the risks of 10 chemicals in commerce, said Owens, an attorney with Squire Patton Boggs. Such groups have said the agency's plans omitted critical ways people are exposed to the chemicals.
Early advice from the advisory committee on how to prepare scientifically credible risk assessment plans, or “scoping documents,” could help the agency prepare future plans, Owens said.
EPA has many risk assessment models that predict a chemical's toxicity and exposure, yet many of these are out of date, DeLeo said.
The committee could help the agency decide which models and other risk analysis tools need to be updated, he added.
Vulnerable Groups
The advisers should offer strategies to help the EPA assess people's total, or “aggregate,” exposure to a chemical it is evaluating as well as the cumulative exposure people would have to different chemicals that have similar effects on people's health, said Koman. A member of the American Public Health Association, Koman elaborated on such suggestions in comments the association submitted to the EPA.
An individual may be exposed to a chemical at work, through consumer purchases, and/or as a member of a community that inhales or ingests the chemical, said Koman, who previous worked with EPA advisory committees while working in the agency's air office. EPA must consider the full range of exposures, she said.
The total exposure to the chemical from food, water, and air also must be considered, Singla said pointing to comments she and other scientists submitted to the EPA.
Instead, the agency's risk evaluation plans for 10 chemicals focus on narrow, limited exposures, Koman said.
The agency also must take a more scientifically-based approach to identify the susceptible and highly exposed populations TSCA requires it to consider, Koman and Singla agreed.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine has offered advice on ways the agency could do that, Koman and Singla told Bloomberg Environment. EPA's advisers could offer thoughts on whether the agency is following that advice, Koman said.
Pruitt's Directive
The agency could should hear the perspective of exposed populations, Koman and Singla said. Including community representatives or scientists that have worked with them on the advisory committee could do that, they said.
Unfortunately, Koman said, Pruitt's directive, which bars scientists that have received EPA grants from serving on science advisory boards, could block the agency from hearing communities’ perspectives.
Researchers that receive EPA grants often conduct their research in consultation with the communities with which they work, she said. The research provides information and ideas relevant to issues advisory committees examine, she said.
“Pruitt's requirements bar people with expertise on topics relevant to the agency from serving on advisory committees,” Koman said.
In his directive, Pruitt said, researchers receiving the agency's grants should be barred, because receiving EPA money while offering it advice “can create the appearance or reality of potential interference” with the ability to independently and objectively serve as a federal advisory committee member.
But the EPA's Inspector General said in a 2013 report that grants do not equate with conflicts of interest.
“When a scientist is awarded a government research grant through an investigator-initiated peer-reviewed competition, there generally should be no question as to that scientist's ability to offer independent scientific advice to the agency” the Inspector General wrote quoting a Peer Review policy issued by the Office of Management and Budget during the George W. Bush administration. OMB oversees federal agency policies and evaluates the costs and benefits of proposed regulations.
Nancy Beck, EPA's deputy assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, worked as a toxicologist and risk assessor at OMB when it crafted that policy.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=129919561&vname=dennotallissues&fn=129919561&jd=129919561
-
Why Don't Americans Care about Chemicals?
Mar 19, 2018 | Salon
By Anna Robuck
For the past four years, researchers at Chapman University in Orange, CA have surveyed Americans to determine what we fear most. Polled at random, people were asked to rate their level of fear of about 80 different topics, including crime, terrorism, the government, environmental pollution, and personal fears.
For the first time in 2017, environmental fears ranked with Americans’ top 10 greatest fears: “pollution of oceans, rivers, and lakes,” “pollution of drinking water,” “global warming/climate change,” and “air pollution” all jumped into the top 10. They bumped perennial fears, about the economy, government, and terrorism, further down the list.
Increased concern about environmental pollution should not necessarily surprise us. In 2017, the Trump administration supported a market shift in US environmental policy and enforcement. That change has brought new attention to an old fact: we’ve created a whopping number and volume of chemicals over the years for use in industry and public health, somewhere around 140,000 formulations since 1950. Many of these chemicals can leach into the environment and into living creatures.
Although relatively few chemical pollutants are thought to be harmful to human health, only a paltry 2 percent or so of extant chemicals have been well-vetted for safety and toxicity by the US Environmental Protection Agency. We’re learning more every day about these significant levels of ambient contaminant exposure in the US, bringing this sort of pollution more into public awareness.
Though comparatively few in number, harmful synthetic chemicals can wreak havoc on public health around the globe. In 2015, an estimated 16 percent of all premature global deaths were caused by pollution and pollution-related disease, more than 15 times the number caused by war and all forms of violence combined. Ninety-two percent of these pollution-related deaths were in low- or middle-income countries, mostly related to air pollution. In the US, roughly 200,000 premature deaths each year are attributed to air pollution from combustion processes, like ground transportation and fossil fuel power.
Compelling evidence also suggests these chemicals impair the immune system and vaccine effectiveness, child brain development and learning ability, human fertility, weight loss, social behavior, cancer, and a slew of other diseases. You don’t need to work in a chemical plant for high exposure: we encounter pollutants in everyday activities, in concentrations that have been demonstrated to be impactful, in the here and now of normal life.
A chemical Catch-22
Looking at these figures and facts, something seems amiss. We rely on power plants and manmade chemicals every day, and they are supposed to better our lives, not cut them short. But here we are, caught in a chemical Catch-22: some of these same chemicals we count on — for energy, medicine, food, technology — can harm us and wildlife when they’re let loose, as they inevitably are.
Why do we allow chemicals to slip into our lives and bodies? Because it’s largely legal, at least in the US. Unlike more protective rules in Europe, chemical policy in the US errs away from the precautionary principle, which states that given two courses of action, with incomplete knowledge of the consequences, the more cautious approach should be followed. Under the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act(TSCA) and a 2016 update of the law, the burden generally falls on scientists to prove chemicals are harmful, to humans or the environment, before regulators intervene; chemicals are assumed safe until proven guilty.
The dangers of new chemicals are evaluated according to new and existing rules that critics argue have been substantially weakened by the current administration; proponents argue that new emphasis on speedy chemical approval is good for business and still protective of public health, collecting increased fees from manufacturers to defray TSCA implementation costs. Regardless of individual TSCA opinion, the overall jump-first, think-later approach can be costly — in terms of health, lives, and money — yet the public has yet to demand significant revisions to chemical regulations in the US.
Working in contaminant research, I wrestle with our relationship to chemicals every day. I recognize how important modern chemicals are for public health and safety. Yet at the same time, I see environmental contaminants behind cancer in my loved ones, in snake-oil ads for new miracle products, or when a friend tells me over the phone that she just can’t conceive. On most days, these realities motivate me to keep working, to find ways to measure and understand pollutants — to learn more so that we might better understand or regulate the chemical cocktail all around us.
But on bad days, I feel confused and frustrated and a little alone. Why is it so difficult for us to care about toxicants all around us, despite such dire consequences for ourselves and the people we love?
‘Apocalypse fatigue’
Over the last two decades, psychologists have hypothesized that we respond — or don’t — to faceless threats like climate change according to the way those threats are framed in contrast to the status quo. Economists, policy experts, and journalists have expounded on an outcome of this type of thinking, suggesting several terms to describe the phenomena: “threat fatigue,” “resistance fatigue,” and “apocalypse fatigue” all roughly mean the same thing — that we tire out from constant threats that challenge our modus operandi and thus don’t take any of them seriously enough.
Per Espen Stoknes, a Norwegian psychologist and economist, suggests five mental defenses that stifle public engagement with the climate change: distance, doom, dissonance, denial, and identity. In a nutshell, we often see climate change as apocalyptic but far off, at odds with our accepted lifestyles. So we often deny our role in it or refuse to act, unwilling to confront what it means for our habits and identity.
People keep falling ill, sometimes fatally, as research struggles to catch up
If you listen to Stoknes’ TED talk on the subject, you can substitute “synthetic chemical risk” almost everywhere he discusses climate change. Both are faceless, seem distant, and ostensibly require action outside of our routines: the same psychological and cultural barriers seem to influence how we see pollutants, and to neuter public concern and action. We may know that chemicals are all around us and may affect our health, but it seems like a minor threat, or one that is out of our hands, a danger beyond the actionable capabilities of any one person. These paralyzing assumptions mean chemicals keep getting introduced with little vetting. And people keep falling ill, sometimes fatally, as research struggles to catch up to how chemicals contribute to disease.
Where does this leave us?
The same solutions that encourage action on climate change may also help raise appropriate concern for chemical exposure. Stoknes suggests five approaches, readily transferable to our dilemma: discussing the issue in ways that make the threat personal; framing the issue in concrete ways — jobs, safety, etc — rather than global doomsday tidings; providing simple actions to make a difference; and finding better stories to break through denial or polarization.
Several organizations and many scientists are working on these goals already. Last winter, the journal PLOS released a special collection, “Challenges in Environmental Health: Closing the Gap between Evidence and Regulations,” in which a cast of experts filled the collection with short, easily understandable perspectives and essays.
The collection touched on the shortcomings of current law, what goes into our food, how toxicants affect children, how we can better protect drinking water, and a recent policy decision not to ban a pesticide. Each piece framed contaminant topics in terms of public health, policy, and solutions, going a step beyond sterile observations of most peer-reviewed articles. While the opinions were mostly of a kind, the expansive, interdisciplinary approach was both refreshing and riveting. Looking ahead, such holistic thinking is likely what’s required from everyone.
Chemical regulation still faces resistance in the US. Even the collection’s editor, Linda Birnbaum, the director of the National Institute of Environmental Health and Safety, was demonized by politicians who accused her of lobbying in her introduction. It can feel disheartening, but other, similarly accomplished scientists have started to speak out, too, including Joseph Allen from Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Richard Corsi from University of Texas. There are even new smartphone apps to better gauge individual exposure potential.
These figures set an example for how to discuss chemicals conversationally and to suggest consumer solutions with policy ones: we should try to tell better and more accurate stories, and to have an open mind. The results of the Chapman University study, indicating Americans today worry about environmental pollution, underscores the increasing effectiveness of more and better storytelling about pollution.
I personally have witnessed a sea change in my own loved ones over the past few years; my mom and dad, far from environmentalists, now try to buy organic foods and tell others about chemical safety. Engaging in these sorts of honest conversations about chemical pollution benefits us all, and will hopefully create fair solutions that support public health, the environment, and the economy.
https://www.salon.com/2018/03/18/why-do-not-americans-care-about-chemicals_partner/
-
Serbia Takes Step towards EU Chemical, Biocidal Law Alignment
Mar 19, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Serbia has completed a 30-month project to help its future alignment with EU chemicals and biocides regulations.
It has been in accession talks with the trade bloc since 2014 and is may join as soon as 2025.
EU member state Slovenia, in partnership with the Austrian environment agency, worked with the country on four areas to:improve capacities and abilities of the Serbian competent authority concerning chemicals and biocidal products management;acquaint the Serbian CA with the work of Echa and its committees;prepare for the transposition of the Biocidal Product Regulation (BPR) into Serbian law; andenhance administrative capacities for biocidal products management.
The project produced recommendations for capacity building in Serbian authorities to lay the foundation for adopting EU legislation.
It did not specifically focus on the implementation of REACH and CLP, a spokesperson from the Austrian agency said. However, other projects have been carried out in the recent past to harmonise Serbia's chemical legislation in this area.
The country’s current biocides law is based on the EU’s former Biocidal Product Directive (BPD), which preceded the BPR. The project "analysed and improved" the registration and authorisation of biocidal products in Serbia, the Austrian agency said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/64971/serbia-takes-step-towards-eu-chemical-biocidal-law-alignment
-
(ACC Mentioned) Appalachian Storage Hub, WV's Foundation for Future Investment
Mar 19, 2018 | WV News
By Brooks McCabe
The Appalachian Storage & Trading Hub will provide the foundation for West Virginia’s forthcoming manufacturing renaissance. This ten billion dollar investment will allow our multistate region, of which West Virginia is in the center, to become the second U.S. petrochemical manufacturing hub. Given this country’s reliance on petrochemical and plastics manufacturing and the fact that most of the feed stock so vital to these industries comes from the Gulf Coast, this opportunity is of national strategic significance. Creating supply chain redundancy is vital to national security interests. This is one of the reasons why there is so much national attention to our region. As far as West Virginia is concerned, the Appalachian Storage & Trading Hub creates the storage caverns, interconnected pipelines and trading infrastructure which will propel the region to the forefront in the construction of new manufacturing facilities. This investment will provide outstanding employment opportunities for decades to come. Creating high quality, sustainable jobs and dramatically expanding the tax base is what economic development is all about.
The Appalachian Development Group has been organized to champion this project. It is aggressively pursuing the next steps in obtaining approval for a $1.9 billion loan from the U.S. Department of Energy. Other financing opportunities are also being considered as the Storage Hub will ultimately be funded by multiple public and private sources with a mix of debt and equity. This multi-year effort is directly related to the future manufacturing investment in the region. It may be the single most important component of infrastructure needed to bring the region into the fold as a regional powerhouse in petrochemical and plastics manufacturing. The American Chemistry Council estimates that the United States produces 25 percent of the world’s natural gas liquids and one quarter of that comes from the northeast. With this availability of NGL’s, the ACC predicts that up to $36 billion of investment could be funneled into the northeast’s petrochemical and plastic manufacturing facilities creating employment for 100,000 workers.
The Marcellus, Utica and Rogersville Shale formations have already impacted the global oil and natural gas markets. It has changed the balance of power between the major energy producing countries. This impact will continue for the foreseeable future. What is less clear is how will West Virginia benefit in the long term from the game changing dynamics of shale gas and horizontal drilling technology? Exporting the natural gas and its derivatives to the Gulf Coast or shipping it to Japan and India do not provide the value added economic boost to the regional economy that is afforded when the natural gas liquids are used as raw materials for locally based manufacturing facilities. This is the end game for West Virginia. The resurgence of West Virginia as a manufacturing based economy provides a clear path to a balanced and sustainable future prosperity. The Appalachian Storage and Trading Hub provides the critical infrastructure which will provide manufacturers the confidence that the feedstock will be available in the quantity and pricing structure needed to assure a fair return on the billions of dollars in investment. This investment and the jobs that come with it is the real potential facing West Virginia.
The Appalachian Storage and Trading Hub is not without its detractors. The environmental community has expressed serious concerns with the exploration and production technologies used in extracting the natural gas and its liquids, as well as with the prospects for expanded or new petrochemical and plastic manufacturing facilities. These concerns must be thoughtfully address. The questions asked, must be answered. New technologies addressing these concerns need to be continually refined and improved. Environmental stewardship must be a top priority and we should to be unwavering in finding better ways to protect and nurture the world class ecological systems found within West Virginia. The state’s future rests on finding a sustainable balance between nature and the economy. The opportunities are too great not to address these issues head on. West Virginia will never reach its full potential until business and industry can find a mutually beneficial relationship with the environmental community. The sins of the past are too great to ignore. Going forward there must be a different world view, one which is based upon a close working relationship between the natural environment and economic development. They are not mutually exclusive.
Much of the future economic investment in West Virginia needs to be focused on infrastructure and expanded manufacturing facilities. This is the value added piece of the economic equations swirly around natural gas shale development. The dollars are dramatic. The employment opportunities are just as significant. The Appalachian Storage and Trading Hub provides the foundation for much of this hoped for growth and development. We need to do everything we can to make it a reality.
https://www.wvnews.com/statejournal/opinion/appalachian-storage-hub-wv-s-foundation-for-future-investment/article_3db49cb1-1fcb-505b-abe5-c8f071955f3b.html
-
Huge Wyoming Drilling Project Could Test Truncated Permitting
Mar 19, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Five energy companies’ sweeping proposal to drill some 5,000 new oil and natural gas wells over 10 years on 1.5 million acres in eastern Wyoming is a likely test case of an Interior Department order streamlining environmental reviews.
Environmental groups decried the use of the August 2017 streamlining order with a project of such vast size and scope, roughly 1,500 new well pads, 2,000 miles of new roads, and associated development activity lasting as long as 30 years.
Anadarko Petroleum Corp., Chesapeake Energy Corp., Devon Energy Corp., EOG Resources Inc., and SM Energy Co.'s Converse County Oil and Gas Project, has the potential to develop about 94 million barrels of oil and 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, the Bureau of Land Management said.
The BLM's draft environmental impact statement for the project—possibly the largest in Wyoming history in terms of surface disturbance and well pads—was available for public comment from Jan. 26 to March 12. But environmentalists are already gearing up to sue.
If substantial changes are not made before BLM releases the final enviroment impact statement and Record of Decision next year, “we definitely would” sue the bureau for violating the National Environmental Policy Act, Rebecca Fischer, an attorney with WildEarth Guardians in Denver, told Bloomberg Environment March 15.
Any potential lawsuit would pose an early test of the Interior Department order, which aims to wrap up NEPA reviews in a year. The order also requires environmental impact statements to be no more than 150 pages—or 300 pages for “unusually complex projects"—including appendices.
The impact story for the Wyoming project comes to more than 1,000 pages, with an additional 1,000 pages of appendices, Shannon Anderson, staff attorney for the Powder River Basin Resource Council in Sheridan, Wyo., told Bloomberg Environment March 14.
Cut Corners and Legal Exposure
Fischer said the impact statement is “reflective of the goals” of the Interior Department order, signed by Deputy Secretary David Bernhardt Aug. 31, 2017, a little over a month after he was confirmed by the Senate.
“They're cutting corners,” she said. “It's unfortunately resulting in much sloppier analysis, which is opening them up to legal challenges.”
She said the BLM is even ignoring the recommendations of the Environmental Protection Agency, which rated the preferred alternative for the project as having “environmental concerns” and “insufficient information.” The project also has drawn questions from Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), typically a strong supporter of the oil and gas industry.
In comments submitted March 12, the EPA said it was concerned about the absence of mitigation to address air quality impacts and a lack of information about protective measures for existing ground water, surface water, drinking water, and wetlands.
The preferred alternative calls for 900 million gallons more of fresh water use for hydraulically fracturing wells, and adds more roads, well pads, wastewater disposal and surface disturbance than the other pro-development alternative, the EPA said.
‘Ongoing Effort’
The project could create more than 8,000 jobs and generate some $18 billion to $28 billion in royalty revenue for mostly private state and federal mineral owners, Jennifer Brice, spokeswoman for Anadarko in Denver, told Bloomberg Environment March 14.
While the BLM administers about 64 percent of the mineral estate within the project area, only 6 percent of the surface acreage is BLM land. Four percent of the surface area is managed by the Forest Service, 7 percent by Wyoming, and the remaining 83 percent is privately owned.
The environmental reviews for the project have been “an ongoing effort for several years” involving the public, operators, and state and federal agencies, she said.
But the speed with which the Bureau of Land Management is acting is also unheard of, the resource council's attorney Anderson said.
“You rarely see BLM act this fast, but the agency is under new orders right now,” she said. The 45-day comment period that just ended is “the bare minimum” under NEPA, she said. A request by environmental groups for a 60-day extension of the public comment period was denied by the acting manager of the BLM Casper Field Office, who added that the environmental review process is “on schedule to be finished in one year.”
Preferred Alternative
Anderson said it was unusual for the BLM to essentially just choose the industry proposal as its preferred alternative without incorporating any measures that would mitigate impacts to air, water, and wildlife, she said. Under NEPA, the BLM—as the lead federal agency on the project—is “supposed to consider a range of reasonable alternatives,” she said.
“Ordinarily, the BLM would put forward standard stipulations about mitigation alternatives,” Fischer said. “This time they're proposing to waive those stipulations.” The effect of those waivers will be to eliminate some 57 mating areas for the protected greater sage grouse, a ground-dwelling, chicken-sized bird that has seen its numbers dwindle across its 11-state range.
The project also will release thousands of tons of volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides into the air, with more than 1,000 tons of climate-warming carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per well at the peak of production activity, environmental groups said.
‘Devoid of Measures’
“Astonishingly, BLM's proposal is completely devoid of any measures that will reduce these harmful, smog-forming, climate-altering, and toxic air pollutants beyond those required by federal and state laws,” the Environmental Defense Fund said in comments submitted March 12.
Another inadequacy of the EIS is that it proposes to defer site-specific NEPA analysis until the companies apply for permits to drill, environmental groups said.
“This is inadequate because in our experience, deferring site-specific NEPA analysis to a later date often results in it never occurring at all,” Western Watersheds Project, American Bird Conservancy, and Center for Biological Diversity said in joint comments submitted March 12.
Brady Owens, spokesman in the BLM Casper Field Office, told Bloomberg Environment March 14 the bureau intends to release the final impact statement and Record of Decision for the project in January or February 2019.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=129919559&vname=dennotallissues&fn=129919559&jd=129919559
-
Souki's Tellurian Warns U.S. Steel Tariffs Could Raise LNG Project Costs
Mar 16, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Collin Eaton
Tellurian, the Houston liquefied natural gas company co-founded by ex-Cheniere Energy boss Charif Souki, said U.S. steel tariffs could raise costs of the $15.2 billion Driftwood LNG export terminal under construction in Louisiana.
The prospect of increased materials costs under the Trump Administration's 25 percent tariff on foreign-made steel stunned the oil and gas industry late last month, when the new policy was announced.
Companies are building or planning to build dozens of steel oil and gas pipelines, LNG terminals and other infrastructure to accommodate the second U.S. shale boom, and they're beginning to use new math to calculate the cost of those projects.
"Recently announced tariffs on imported steel may significantly increase our construction costs," Tellurian said in regulatory filings on Thursday.
At the moment, Tellurian estimates its costs for its Driftwood pipeline will come in at $2.3 billion; $1.4 billion for a pipeline connected to the Haynesville shale play in Louisiana and $3.7 billion for another connected to the Permian. It acknowledged those costs could rise, but did not provide an estimate on how much steel imports could lift those costs.
In a letter to President Donald Trump earlier this month, industry trade group LNG Allies said the industry that's preparing to export U.S. shale gas "relies on steel imports for critical structural and other components of its facilities, including certain types of steel for which there is no U.S. manufacturer."
The LNG industry's structural steel often comes from China, India, Turkey and Korea, the Washington D.C.-based group said.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Souki-s-Tellurian-warns-U-S-steel-tariffs-could-12758391.php
-
The Anticipated Benefits of LNG Exports Have Become Reality
Mar 19, 2018 | The Washington Examiner
By Todd Snitchler
Less than a decade ago, the U.S. seemed poised to rival Japan as the world’s largest liquefied natural gas importer. Domestic production couldn’t keep up with demand and investors poured billions into LNG import facilities.
But then the shale revolution turned the U.S. natural gas market upside down. Seemingly overnight, the U.S. became the world’s largest natural gas producer. Instead of a major LNG importer, we are soon going to challenge for the title of largest exporter. It’s an opportunity we should embrace.
The second LNG export terminal in the lower 48 states, the Cove Point facility in Southern Maryland, recently opened commercial operations. Several additional LNG export facilities are under construction. In total, the U.S. Energy Information Administration expects 9.6 billion cubic feet per day of LNG export capacity online by the end of 2019. And more export capacity is proposed.
While U.S. LNG exports are only in their initial stages, the once-theoretical benefits are becoming reality. Exports are pumping billions into local economies. For example, the Cove Point facility was a $4 billion investment that created 3,000 construction jobs and will generate an additional $40 million per year for the county that calls it home.
Furthermore, exports are pulling their supply from additional natural gas production, not existing production. That means domestic natural gas prices remain comparatively low and new production is pouring additional investment and jobs into gas-producing states. According to analysis by ICF International, LNG exports could contribute up to 452,000 jobs nationwide by 2040 and add up to $73.6 billion annually to the nation’s GDP. Alone, these figures make a strong case for exports but the benefits reach far beyond our shores.
U.S. exports are also helping improve the energy security of our allies by offering a new source of supply. A more robust global LNG marketplace will help defang traditional gas exporters that have used natural gas as a geopolitical weapon. Poland and Lithuania, for example, have already imported U.S. natural gas and have used their new diversity of supply as leverage in contract negotiations with Russia.
Along with security benefits, U.S. LNG exports are also helping achieve environmental progress. Just as greater use of natural gas for electricity generation has helped slash emissions of traditional pollutants and carbon dioxide here at home, a more robust global LNG marketplace is allowing other nations to embrace natural gas and reduce emissions as well.
China and India are both leaning on LNG imports to fuel their growing economies. In Beijing, greater use of natural gas lowered fine particulate matter by roughly 50 percent over the last three months of 2017. China has become the world’s second largest LNG importer behind Japan, and India has ambitious plans of its own to increase its LNG import capacity. India wants to more than double the share of natural gas in its electricity mix by 2022 and is eyeing the addition of 11 new LNG import terminals.
LNG exports are proving a multidimensional success story. We should be promoting this success story to the world. Increasing domestic LNG exports will create jobs, help our economy grow, and make our nation more energy secure. The Department of Energy is right to move forward with additional export facilities.
Further, multiple studies, including analysis from DOE, have shown that exports won’t significantly affect U.S. natural gas prices. So the market should be left to determine how much, or how little, U.S. natural gas is exported. The global LNG marketplace is highly competitive. Should U.S. natural gas prices begin to rise, importers will buy from cheaper competitors, putting a ceiling on our exports.
U.S. natural gas production has jumped more than 40 percent in a decade, and U.S. natural gas reserves have grown to a 52-year high. We have the capacity and know-how to meet domestic natural gas demand while also benefiting from exports. LNG exports are driving economic growth at home, strengthening the energy security of our allies and helping achieve global environmental progress. It’s a success story we would be wise to support.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/the-anticipated-benefits-of-lng-exports-have-become-reality
-
Perry, Trove of Admin Officials Return to Testify on Hill
Mar 19, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Manuel Quiñones
Energy Secretary Rick Perry and a trove of other Trump administration officials will be back on Capitol Hill this week to defend the White House's fiscal 2019 budget request.
Last week at a House Appropriations Committee hearing, Perry defended proposed cuts for renewable energy and efficiency programs and pointed to earlier poor management when lawmakers asked whether he would ensure promising renewable and efficiency technologies would make it out of the laboratory.
"One of the reasons that these programs have been criticized in the past ... my observation, I think this is the reason why ... is because they haven't been managed that well," he said.
There are several issues Perry has not addressed in detail that are priorities to members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, where the secretary will appear, including the Department of Energy's plans for meeting efficiency standard deadlines.
Perry also could see questions about plans to reorganize spending for carbon capture research and rebuilding efforts in Puerto Rico.
Undersecretary Mark Menezes and leaders of DOE's applied energy offices are scheduled to appear at a separate House Appropriations Committee hearing.
The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is slated for an approximate 65 percent cut under President Trump's plan, while the nuclear energy office could see a reduction of about 25 percent.
Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy Steven Winberg is expected to take questions on both carbon capture priorities and efforts to develop small modular coal units.
Also testifying is Bruce Walker, DOE assistant secretary for the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, which is planning to break off a separate cybersecurity branch. The budget request calls for $96 million for the new Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security and Emergency Response.Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Also appearing on the Hill this week will be the three members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The commissioners will likely be questioned about the NRC's initiative to transform its culture and regulatory framework in response to industry changes and the development of advanced nuclear technology (Greenwire, March 15).
In at least one of the hearings, they will also face questioning about the NRC's work on licensing the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site.
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has been a key supporter of the project and has pushed for appropriations as well as legislation to expedite it.
NRC members might not have much to say, though. Their agency has been essentially blocked from moving forward with licensing by the Nevada congressional delegation.
What little they have been able to advance has been through technical meetings related to the document database that would be used in the case of licensing being resumed (Greenwire, Feb. 26).NOAA
On Wednesday, House appropriators will take up NOAA's budget, which would be cut by nearly 20 percent in fiscal 2019 under Trump's plan.
The National Weather Service would be particularly hard hit, losing 355 jobs, including 248 forecasters and others who provide support services.
Fourteen months into Trump's presidency, NOAA still has no permanent administrator, with the Senate yet to vote on the nominee, AccuWeather CEO Barry Myers.
Trump's choice for the No. 2 position at NOAA, retired Rear Adm. Timothy Gallaudet, will defend the budget.
The White House blueprint would set NOAA's overall budget at $4.56 billion in 2019, a decrease of $1.08 billion from current levels.
The budget also would scrap NOAA's Coastal Zone Management grants, the Sea Grant program, the National Estuarine Research Reserve System, the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund and the agency's Office of Education, among other reductions.
In its budget document, administration officials said the budget would allow NOAA to "sustain core functions and enable critical enhancements" while making tough decisions to cut some programs.Agriculture
Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue will address his agency's request before House appropriators Wednesday.
Perdue is likely to face questions about the spending plan's $5.8 billion cut in discretionary funding, to $18 billion, in fiscal 2019.
Specific aspects of the proposal, such as cuts to crop insurance subsidies and conservation programs, as well as a new food delivery program for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, could raise objections from both Democrats and Republicans.
The administration's proposal to slash the federal subsidy for crop insurance premiums from 62 percent to 48 percent has fallen flat with lawmakers on the House and Senate agriculture committees in charge of writing the 2018 farm bill.
Perdue has distanced himself from that proposal, telling reporters last month that he defended farmers' interests in talks with the White House Office of Management and Budget ahead of the budget's release (Greenwire, Feb. 22).
A proposal to eliminate the Conservation Stewardship Program and the Regional Conservation Partnership Program hasn't gone much further.
And the proposal to devote some of SNAP to new food delivery service — using the buying power of the government to reduce costs — has been widely panned, although Perdue in a news conference last month urged advocates not to dismiss the idea out of hand.
The proposed cuts would affect the Office of the Inspector General as well. Inspector General Phyllis Fong told lawmakers last week her agency would lose 50 employees and see a "significantly decreased level of effort" if Congress approves the budget request as is.
The OIG would likely conduct 16 percent fewer audits and 16 percent fewer investigations, Fong said, if the cuts are distributed equally. The return to the government from the OIG's work could fall by about $50 million, she said.
Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.), ranking member of the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, said the budget request would "adversely impact farmers, rural communities and those in need of government assistance."Others
Also on the Hill this week will be leaders of the National Nuclear Security Administration, the Department of Commerce and the military.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle want U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to testify on his agency's request. He will likely be on the Hill in April.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/stories/1060076685
-
U.S. EPA Watchdog Says Agency Did Not Use Possibly Flawed Methane Data for Regulation
Mar 16, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
In an attempt to resolve a scientific controversy stretching back to 2013, U.S. EPA’s inspector general (IG) has determined that the agency has not relied on possibly flawed results from a study of methane emissions from oil and gas fields.
Critics claimed that the study was based on inaccurate measurements made using faulty equipment. They alleged the study underestimated emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from U.S. oil and gas fields.
In a report released on March 16, the inspector general found that the devices were EPA-approved. The IG did not find conclusive evidence of misuse.
EPA did not use the study’s emission figures for development of its greenhouse gas inventory or for the agency’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, the report says. Nor did EPA use the study’s data when setting the 2016 regulation to limit methane emissions from the oil and natural gas sector.
The study was published in 2013 (Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, DOI:10.1073/pnas.1304880110) by David Allen, a University of Texas, Austin, chemical engineering professor and a former top advisor to the agency.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/96/web/2018/03/US-EPA-watchdog-says-agency.html
-
Pruitt's Delay of Chemical Safety Rule Faces D.C. Circuit Test
Mar 19, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
Opponents of an EPA effort to delay a chemical safety regulation intended to protect emergency responders and local communities urged federal judges March 16 to let the rule take effect.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard oral arguments about whether the Environmental Protection Agency violated the Clean Air Act in granting petitions to reconsider the regulation (RIN:2050-AG82), and then delaying its effective date until 2019. The rule was issued in January 2017, during the Obama administration.
At stake is how much the EPA must prove before rolling back regulations it finds objectionable, and whether the emergency response and coordination requirements called for in the rule will take effect at high-risk chemical facilities.
Industry groups have argued that transparency about such risk-management plans could compromise security, whereas some community members said they need information to care for workers during plant disruptions, fires, or explosions.
According to opponents, the EPA violated the Clean Air Act in delaying the regulation in response to industry-backed reconsideration petitions that raised questions about the rule. It was improper for the agency to delay the regulation without determining the complaints were valid, they said.
“The whole purpose and effect of this was to enable and ensure noncompliance,” Emma Cheuse, a staff attorney at Earthjustice, told the court.
To the contrary, regulators need discretion to develop new policy solutions during a new administration, Jonathan Brightbill, a deputy assistant attorney general representing the EPA, told the court. The public would not be harmed by the regulation's delay because many of the provisions would not have taken effect for years anyway, he said.
EPA Revises Rule
The EPA is crafting a replacement rule (RIN:2050-AG95) and sent a draft of the changes it's proposing to the White House Office of Management and Budget March 12.
Local and national public health and environmental groups, labor unions, and 11 states sued the agency last year, arguing it did not provide sufficient reasons for the delay.
The EPA said it needed to push back the rule while the reconsideration process moves forward, Cheuse told the court, but under the Clean Air Act, the agency cannot delay a regulation solely because it is reconsidering it.
“That is not reasoned decision-making,” Cheuse said.
Rather, the agency must determine that the concerns industry organizations raised are valid instead of simply asserting that they could be valid and that the EPA needs time to find out, she said.
Questioning
Judge Judith Rogers, a Clinton appointee, appeared to sympathize with some of the arguments against the EPA, while Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a George W. Bush administration appointee, was more skeptical of the petitioners’ claims.
It seems like “administrative law 101,” that an agency can amend any part of a prior rule as long as it gives notice and accepts public comments, Kavanaugh said.
Instead of putting the regulation on hold, the EPA could have proposed narrow revisions to the rule to address specific concerns, such as the issue of security disclosures to local response organizations, Rogers said.
Companies could go to court if they disagree with specific requests for information from local first responders, rather than have the EPA put the entire rule on hold, added.
Delaying the regulation so long could make it harder for companies to meet the original compliance deadlines, according to Rogers.
“The delay rule tells them, ‘Don't worry about it,’” he said.
Restricting the EPA's ability to delay the rule could leave it with a binary choice to keep an old regulation in place or rescind it entirely, he warned. The EPA at least found “cause for doubt” over the previous administration's actions, Kavanaugh said.
The case is Air Alliance Houston v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 17-1155, oral argument 3/16/18.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=129919554&vname=dennotallissues&fn=129919554&jd=129919554
-
Case over Delayed EPA Rule Puzzles D.C. Circuit
Mar 16, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
State and environmental foes of the Trump administration were in federal court today trying to knock down U.S. EPA's decision to delay chemical safety rules.
But while courts have been receptive to other lawsuits challenging delays in Obama-era environmental and energy standards, judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today appeared to struggle over EPA's authority in this case.
They kept attorneys for two hours, well past the 40 minutes they had allotted for arguments. "This is complicated," Judge Judith Rogers, who presided, said around the half-hour mark.
At issue is a regulation EPA published in January 2017, shortly before the Obama administration left office, aimed at protecting emergency responders from chemical exposure, preventing accidents at plants and helping facility operators learn from accidents that do occur.
The rule was supposed to have gone into effect in March 2017, but EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt stayed compliance for 90 days. The agency followed up in June by announcing a nearly two-year delay to Feb. 19, 2019, after holding a public comment period (E&E News PM, June 12, 2017).
Pruitt said EPA needed more time to weigh concerns, including those raised by some states that the rule would pose national security risks because it would allow data about chemical facilities to be disclosed to the public.
Environmentalists and other states sued, charging EPA had both violated the Clean Air Act and failed to follow proper rulemaking procedures.
In August 2017, the D.C. Circuit panel denied a request by the plaintiffs to immediately reinstate the rules but agreed to hear the case in an expedited manner (Greenwire, Aug. 31, 2017).
Today's proceedings were punctuated by several complex exchanges between judges and attorneys over what Congress intended in the Clean Air Act and the ability of a new administration to reconsider the decisions of a prior one, as well as the practical effects of both the underlying rule and delaying it for nearly two years.
The panel's lone conservative appointee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, appeared most likely to side with EPA. At one point in the lengthy arguments, he said the agency's decision to delay the rule when presented with national security concerns was the product of "good government."
"Judges do this, too," Kavanaugh said. "We issue a decision. We're pretty certain about it. And then someone raises something — actually, this, that or the other thing — and we may have some more doubts about it.
"So, too, an agency. ... It would seem like that's just good government for an agency, when it's presented with things that might be different from what they had assumed, to think about that," he said.
Kavanaugh, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, noted that the Obama administration similarly delayed the effective date of a rule setting requirements under the Clean Air Act New Source Review program when it took office.
"What's wrong with saying, 'We want to look at that more carefully'?" Kavanaugh asked.'Effective rescission'
The Trump administration's foes, though, argue EPA based its delay on a provision of the Clean Air Act that allows the agency to put off a rule by only 90 days if it has received reconsideration petitions.
EPA has turned that authority into an "effective rescission" of the Obama-era standards, argued Emma Cheuse, an attorney at Earthjustice representing Air Alliance Houston and other community organizations.
She also argued that Congress, in the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, ordered EPA to set an effective date "as expeditiously as practicable."
"The fact that they might put something in place in the future is not sufficient reason to suspend it," Cheuse said.
Judge Robert Wilkins, an Obama appointee, asked several questions about EPA's reconsideration authority, suggesting the case was different from a lawsuit last year in which the D.C. Circuit ruled EPA exceeded its authority by delaying a rule for limiting methane emissions from oil and gas operations by 90 days.
Rogers, a Clinton appointee, said the issues were complicated because, in the "real world," a new administration needs more than 90 days to figure out how it wants to approach such a complex rule.
"They're trying to find out where their new offices are, who their assistants are going to be, what experts they're going to rely on. All that can't happen in 90 days," she said. "Was Congress really considering this aspect of a new administration having a different worldview?"
But Rogers also grilled Jonathan Brightbill, a Justice Department attorney representing EPA, over why the agency labeled its action as a "reconsideration" — and thereby raised the legal questions about its authority to extend a delay beyond 90 days — and didn't just launch a new rulemaking.
"Go ahead and put out a notice of proposed rulemaking, and let's move forward," Rogers said.
Brightbill said EPA sent such a notice to the White House Office of Management and Budget this past Monday and that the agency is on pace to issue a new rule when the delay expires.'Horrible accidents'
The arguments took place in the wake of an explosion yesterday at a Texas chemical plant that injured two workers and left a third missing.
The environmental and state litigants say that the longer the rules are delayed, the more likely it is that events like that will occur.
Susan Eckert, an attorney representing the United Steelworkers and other labor unions, said Hurricane Harvey especially highlighted the safety concerns that the Obama-era rule aimed to address.
Flooding from the hurricane, which rocked Houston in August 2017, caused chemical fires and explosions at an Arkema Inc. plant. Lawsuits allege the plant lacked emergency plans and was unprepared for the flooding.
"Workers are hurt first and worst when there is one of these accidental releases," Eckert said. "If the rules had gone into place, they would have already helped our members deal with these horrible accidents."
Eckert's testimony prompted Rogers to pointedly ask Brightbill, the attorney representing EPA, about the people who are "injured" and "dying" because of accidents that occur regularly at chemical plants.
"The record is full of this problem that these are extremely dangerous situations, people are continuing to be harmed," she said. "I don't see anything in the delay rule that says, 'We have evidence that these harms are not occurring.'"
According to court filings, an average of 200 reported incidents occurred each year at chemical plants between 2004 and 2013, during which time 59 people died.
Brightbill countered that only one major provision of the Obama standards would be affected by the delay. That provision requires emergency responders and facilities to do coordinated planning on an annual basis. The rest of the provisions have longer compliance deadlines, he said.
"The delay rule is actually very limited in scope," Brightbill said, adding that facilities are already doing planning that's "substantively very similar" under community right-to-know laws.
Shannon Broome, an attorney representing an industry coalition that's challenging the underlying rule, said the status quo was effective for responding to incidents at chemical plants. She accused the plaintiffs of overstating the impacts of the delay and said the process and chemical at issue at Arkema were not subject to the updated rules.
Broome also argued there were serious concerns about private citizens having access to sensitive data about facilities. EPA "did the only thing it possibly could do when this information came to its attention," she said.
On behalf of a coalition of states, Louisiana Solicitor General Elizabeth Murrill argued that the Trump administration was, contrary to its foes' arguments, actually saving more lives by delaying the rule.
She said that the Obama rule had created confusion, "the enemy of effective response."
"When you layer confusion and change that may again change and create more confusion, you are inhibiting the ultimate goal of this process, and that is to improve emergency planning and response," Murrill said. "Not delaying the rule could in fact jeopardize more lives because it injects that element of confusion and chaos and delay."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/03/16/stories/1060076643
-
Judges Back EPA's Authority to Delay RMP, but Fault pace of Revisions
Mar 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Appellate court judges appear to be backing the Trump administration's authority to delay the Obama-era rule strengthening EPA's facility accident prevention program, but some are questioning why the agency needs a two-year delay, suggesting it should quickly revise a controversial provision and allow other new protections to take effect.
“If you're going to delay this thing, where is the finding that these things are not going to occur?” Judge Judith Rogers said during March 16 arguments in Air Alliance Houston, et al., v. EPA and E. Scott Pruitt. She noted that facility accidents and injuries continue to happen on a regular basis. “People continue to be harmed. I don't see anything in the delay rule saying these things are not occurring.”
In the case, Democratic-led states, environmental groups and labor union intervenors are urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to vacate EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's nearly two-year delay of the Obama EPA's Jan. 13 final rule updating the agency's Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility safety program with new requirements.
Pruitt last June delayed the effective date of the Obama-era RMP update rule nearly two years from June 19, 2017, to Feb. 19, 2019, to allow the Trump administration time to revise the regulation after it accepted an industry petition for reconsideration.
The RMP rule brings new requirements for facilities to conduct independent audits and analyze safer alternatives, and also bolsters requirements for coordinating and sharing data with first responders and the public. EPA updated RMP in response to former President Barack Obama's August 2013 Executive Order on improving facility safety issued after a fertilizer facility in West, TX, exploded in April of that year killing 15 people, including first responders.
A final ruling in the lawsuit challenging the delay is expected to clarify EPA's authority to delay Clean Air Act rules and could significantly bolster the Trump Administration's deregulatory agenda.
That agenda has seen setbacks in recent months as courts have found delays of other rules bolstering protections for formaldehyde releases from wood products or lead dust hazards violated the statutes under which the rules were promulgated.
In the current case, EPA and roughly a dozen Republican-led states have argued that the agency has broad authority under section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act to set effective dates after following notice-and-comment procedures. But petitioners contend the agency's nearly two-year delay violates a Clean Air Act limit on delays for purposes of revision to 90 days.
Petitoners also contend EPA must expeditiously implement final rules issued under the law.
The Justice Department's Jonathan Brightbill defended EPA's delay rule as regulatory change, issued after taking notice-and-comment, and as necessary to prevent security risks that would result from disclosure of facility data under the Obama-era final rule.
He also argued that the delay was narrowly-tailored to affect only emergency planning provisions, which would result in release of facility data, and not other provisions of the rule, which have compliance dates further into the future.
'Good Government'
The three-judge panel generally agreed that agencies have authority to delay and revise rules.
“It seems to me the agency or a new administration can come in and say, 'we assess these concerns differently,'” Judge Brett Kavanaugh said during the March 16 oral argument.
“It would seem that's just good government, when an agency gets new information to go back and consider that.”
Rogers and Judge Robert Wilkins also appeared skeptical of environmentalist and Democratic-led states' arguments that the Clean Air Act section 307(d)(7)(B) precludes EPA from delaying rules for reconsideration, through notice-and-comment rulemaking, for longer than 90 days.
For example, Rogers said it is unrealistic to expect an incoming administration to revise rules in 90 days, though she also suggested delays should not go on indefinitely.
“This is complicated -- a new administration is still trying to figure out where its offices are” in the first three months, she said. “You have more time, as long as you show you're being conscientious about a delay matter, and you're not sitting on your hands.”
Rogers also questioned why the Trump administration has not already fixed the provision of the RMP rule it believes raises security concerns, and suggested EPA also must weigh ongoing risks to the public from facility accidents.
In response to Rogers' concerns that EPA has not quickly amended the controversial provisions that would result in disclosure of security-sensitive facility data, Brightbill noted that EPA sent proposed revisions for White House review March 12, and is expected to issue final revisions by the time the delay rule expires.
Brightbill said that a 90-day provision in the Clean Air Act is to allow EPA to collect information to form the basis of a regulatory change, which was the agency's June delay rule that allowed the agency to fully assess concerns.
Louisiana Solicitor General Liz Murrill, who represents Republican-led states that are backing EPA's delay rule, argued that the Obama-EPA's effort to address industry concerns raised in public comments on a proposed version of the RMP update rule added a layer of confusion that will stymie state and first responders' efforts to respond to disasters.
“No one thinks it's not a good idea to improve and modify these rules, but the devil is in the details,” Murrill said. “When you layer on confusion you're inhibiting the goal of emergency planning and response.”
Steven Wu, of the New York Attorney General's Office, who represented Democratic-state petitioners, argued that the Clean Air Act section section 307(d)(7)(B) limits EPA's Administrative Procedure Act authority to delay rules for purposes of reconsideration to 90 days, and that EPA failed to provide evidence showing the delay is necessary to prevent security risks.
Wu disputed Brightbill's claim that the delay rule only will postpone certain facility emergency planning efforts, arguing that the delay rule also postpones post-accident analysis provisions, which could help prevent future accidents.
Emma Cheuse, of Earthjustice, argued that the delay rule will broadly postpone compliance given that facilities need time to begin implementing the changes of the Obama final rule.
She also faulted Murrill's assertion the update rule would cause confusion, arguing that it would bring first responders information they need to respond to chemical disasters.
“It's hard to imagine a situation more confusing than a first responder arriving on a scene and becoming sick,” because they do not know the hazards of chemicals released.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/judges-back-epas-authority-delay-rmp-fault-pace-revisions
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Shouldn't Have Eased Pollution Limit for Boilers, Court Says
Mar 19, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu
The EPA shouldn't have scaled back stricter emissions standards it set for heavy-duty furnaces used to generate steam at manufacturing facilities including paper mills and auto plants, a federal appeals court ruled March 16.
Judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with environmental groups led by the Sierra Club that said the Environmental Protection Agency shouldn't have adjusted its standards for carbon monoxide, a stand-in for organic air pollutants including formaldehyde, so that industrial boilers could emit more pollution.
“EPA did not adequately justify its change of direction on the carbon monoxide limits because it failed to explain how the revised limits would minimize the targeted pollutants to the extent the Clean Air Act requires,” a three-judge panel said in an opinion written by Judge Cornelia Pillard.
The ruling, paired with an earlier U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA decision, could change how EPA measures the toxic organic air pollutants it is supposed to control.
“This is not just about carbon monoxide, which is bad for you,” James Pew, the Earthjustice attorney representing the Sierra Club, told Bloomberg Environment. “It's about a whole bunch of things that are bad for you and can cause cancer and birth defects.”
Lawyers representing industry interveners declined to comment, Jennifer Scott, communications director for the American Chemistry Council, told Bloomberg Environment.
The court remanded the case to EPA and told the agency to reconsider its decision to adopt current carbon monoxide limits, but did not vacate the carbon monoxide standard “because vacatur would cause substantial disruptive effects by removing emissions limits” for the regulated hazardous air pollutant.
The court also dismissed a separate Sierra Club claim that the EPA provisions for startup and shutdown of the industrial boilers were too lax.
The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, the ultimate owner of Bloomberg Environment.
Standards for Some 14,000 Boilers
Industrial boiler emissions standards apply to approximately 14,000 boilers in the U.S., according to the EPA.
The EPA first set standards for toxic boiler emissions in 2004. In an update in 2013, the agency revised the standards so that there were none more stringent than limiting carbon monoxide emissions to 130 parts per million.
Because the EPA didn't make this change through a notice and comment period, Pew said, outside groups had to petition for reconsideration in 2013.
When the agency reconsidered its toxic air pollutant standards for industrial boilers in 2015, it retained the 2013 decision easing carbon monoxide standards, prompting environmental groups to sue in January 2016.
The EPA argued in the case that limiting carbon monoxide emissions to below 130 ppm would not necessarily reduce organic pollutants further. But the court said past EPA data contradicted that claim.
The agency also contradicted its claim in a separate case, U.S. Sugar Corp v. EPA, that carbon monoxide was a good surrogate for toxic air pollutants at levels below 150 ppm, Pew said.
That case resulted in EPA having to reconsider whether carbon monoxide is a reasonable surrogate for organics at all, Pew said.
In the case decided March 16, the court ruled that whether the EPA regulates hazardous air pollutants directly or through a surrogate, it has to reduce emissions to the maximum level achievable.
“It's not good enough for EPA to opine it's getting good enough reductions,” Pew said.
“We often focus on power plants as sources of pollution,” Frank O'Donnell, president of the advocacy group Clean Air Watch, told Bloomberg Environment."But there are many hundreds of thousands of industrial boilers out there that also pump out pollution, including toxic chemicals, and often, if those things were not controlled, public health would suffer greatly.”
The case is Sierra Club v. EPA, D.C. Cir. App., No. 16-1021, 3/16/18.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=129919553&vname=dennotallissues&fn=129919553&jd=129919553
-
(ACC Mentioned) D.C. Circuit Hands down Split Ruling on Boiler Standards
Mar 16, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
Industry and environmental groups each got something out of a court ruling today in the latest installment of a long-running legal battle over air toxics regulations for industrial boilers.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed with the Sierra Club that U.S. EPA failed to justify weakened limits for carbon monoxide when using the deadly gas as a surrogate for other hazardous pollutants and remanded them to the agency for further work.
But the American Chemistry Council and a dozen other industry organizations could also claim a partial victory as the three-judge panel found EPA's reliance on work practice standards for startups and shutdowns was adequate.
Those standards "reasonably approximate what the best-performing boilers can achieve," Judge Cornelia Pillard wrote in the 35-page opinion on behalf of the panel, which also included Judith Rogers and Sri Srinivasan. All three are Democratic appointees.
The Obama-era rules at issue were originally issued in 2011 — then amended in 2013 and 2015 — to curb hazardous air emissions from large industrial boilers, along with process heaters and smaller boilers.
Today's decision came almost exactly six months after oral arguments in the case. There, Pillard had appeared sympathetic to the arguments of the Sierra Club and several other environmental groups that EPA failed to justify its use of the 130-parts-per-million carbon monoxide limits as surrogates for organic hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).
"It just seems like this black box needs an explanation," she said at the time (E&E News PM, Sept. 15, 2017).
In today's opinion, Pillard wrote that the agency hadn't made the case that organic HAP releases "cannot be further reduced" when a boiler's carbon monoxide emissions are below 130 ppm.
EPA data didn't show, for example, that one such organic HAP, formaldehyde, was destroyed as carbon monoxide concentration dropped below the 130 ppm threshold, she wrote.
"EPA concluded that the otherwise well-documented general correlation between [carbon monoxide] and organic HAPs does not persist below 130 ppm without providing a reasoned basis for its conclusion," her opinion said.
Environmental groups had also challenged the specific work practice standards EPA allowed in place of numeric emissions limits for boiler startups and shutdowns.
During shutdowns, some emissions are exempt from pollutant controls. During startups, operators can use fuels not considered "clean" while then required to turn to cleaner alternatives "as expeditiously as possible."
The Sierra Club argued that EPA illegally expanded the startup period for which numeric limits don't apply to four hours, thus allowing boilers to sidestep emissions requirements for a longer period of time.
In today's opinion, however, Pillard wrote that the standards were "the product of considerable trial and error." While "painting in broad strokes" in setting the four-hour limit, EPA's approach was reasonable, she wrote.
And by eventually requiring "numeric-standard compliance," the agency's rule "minimizes emissions by ensuring startup is not needlessly drawn out," wrote Pillard.Reaction
In a phone interview, Sierra Club attorney Sanjay Narayan called the ruling a "win for public health" that will "appropriately control" emissions of formaldehyde and other organic air pollutants.
An American Chemistry Council spokeswoman, saying the group's attorney still needed to review the decision, had no immediate comment.
At the American Forest and Paper Association, one of the other industry challengers, President and CEO Donna Harman, welcomed the court's thumbs-up to work practice standards but urged EPA to end a "25-year rulemaking roller-coaster ride" by responding quickly to the court's remand of the carbon monoxide limits.
"Our companies are focused on generating essential power from their boilers and deserve affordable and achievable standards that are not constantly in flux," Harman said.
Today's ruling is a follow-up to a 2016 decision in the case U.S. Sugar v. EPA.
There, a somewhat different panel on the D.C. Circuit sided with environmentalists in throwing out part of the standards on the grounds that EPA erred in excluding some boilers that were among the best-performing in some subcategories. The standards would have been more stringent had they been included.
But the court in that decision severed the issues involving both the adequacy of EPA's carbon monoxide limits and the workplace standards for startups and shutdowns.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/03/16/stories/1060076645
-
Court Remands Boiler MACT Limits To EPA, Extending Lengthy Rulemaking
Mar 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Further extending a 25-year rulemaking, a federal appellate court has remanded some air toxics emissions limits for industrial, commercial and institutional boilers to EPA, agreeing with environmentalists that the agency failed to justify its use of a key carbon monoxide (CO) threshold as a proxy for toxic emissions.
But in a unanimous March 16 decision, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld EPA's use of “work practice standards” in lieu of numeric emissions limits during boiler startup and shutdown, a rejection of environmentalists' arguments.
Writing for the panel, Judge Nina Pillard found that the Obama EPA in its 2015 rule setting maximum achievable control technology (MACT) for boilers failed to explain why a limit of 130 parts per million (ppm) of CO is an acceptable surrogate for individual emissions limits for different air toxics.
“After calculating emissions limits for the organic pollutants by reference to the amount of carbon monoxide emitted by the best performing boilers in each subcategory, EPA concluded that the lowest of the carbon monoxide limits were too low, so it substituted a single, higher limit that it deemed sufficient to control the pollutants,” Pillard writes.
“EPA did not adequately justify its change of direction on the carbon monoxide limits because it failed to explain how the revised limits would minimize the targeted pollutants to the extent the Clean Air Act requires,” she concludes.
Environmental groups led by Sierra Club brought the case, Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA, et al., to challenge the CO limit and also EPA's use of work practice standards as a substitute for numeric MACT emissions limits during boiler startup and shutdown, when emissions controls are not fully effective.
The suit was the last in a succession of cases challenging the boiler standards, which the Obama EPA first issued in 2011, then voluntarily re-issued in 2013 to make them more accurate.
Pillard's ruling does not question EPA's right to limit a surrogate substance when regulating air emissions, but found that EPA changed its position to allow a weaker CO limit to serve as MACT for several hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) emitted by boilers.
The ruling is generally consistent with the panel's views during Sept. 15 oral arguments, where the judges appeared dubious of EPA's explanations for why the 130 ppm CO threshold is appropriate and achieves the necessary control of toxics.
One judge even questioned EPA's “black box” scientific rationale for setting a limit on CO as a “surrogate” for reducing air toxics from boilers.
The ruling will force EPA to explain again why the 130 ppm CO limit is appropriate, or to instead substitute specific air toxics limits for each target pollutant subject to MACT. Individual limits might be difficult to enforce, however, because of technical challenges in monitoring for low levels of specific air toxics.
Years-long Rulemaking
The ruling extends a rulemaking that has been in the works since the Clinton administration, though the Bush administration first issued a final version of the rule in 2006.
But the Obama administration moved to amend it, issuing a new final rule in 2011, though the agency voluntarily reconsidered it in 2013 and revised it again in 2015.
As part of the 2013 reconsideration, the agency scrapped CO thresholds it had established. Government lawyers defended the decision, arguing that the 130 ppm threshold was appropriate because the relationship between CO levels and air toxics levels is difficult to discern below that limit.
But Sierra Club argued that the threshold level does not provide the necessary control of toxics.
During earlier litigation, the D.C. Circuit in its 2016 decision in U.S. Sugar Corp., et al., v. EPA, et al., rejected environmentalists' contention that EPA cannot rely on CO as a sufficiently reliable surrogate for air toxics, but the court remanded a series of emissions limits to the agency because it found EPA had not explored whether tougher limits might be possible.
In its new ruling in Sierra Club, the court says, “We take EPA to mean that organic HAP emissions are effectively nonexistent--or, in any event, cannot be further reduced--whenever a boiler’s CO emissions are below 130 ppm. If articulated and adequately supported in the record, such a position could well satisfy” the Clean Air Act.
“But the record does not support any such conclusion here,” Pillard writes. “EPA concluded that the otherwise well-documented general correlation between CO and organic HAPs does not persist below 130 ppm without providing a reasoned basis for its conclusion.” Hence the agency's rule is arbitrary and capricious, she finds, remanding -- but not vacating -- the affected standard.
However, on the second part of Sierra Club's challenge, Pillard finds that “startup and shutdown work practice standards are permissible because, consistent with the Clean Air Act, they reasonably approximate what the best performing boilers can achieve.”
EPA's work practice standards give boilers up to four hours during startup to engage their controls, in addition to mandating use of “clean fuels” such as natural gas where possible during startup.
Pillard disagrees with environmentalists' contention that EPA failed to tailor the work practice standards to different boiler types to minimize toxic emissions. “Though EPA was painting in broad strokes, its approach was reasonable. EPA knew boilers had heterogeneous startup processes, and it reasonably concluded that startup performance (and associated variability) was not correlated with any easily isolated boiler characteristics. This left EPA with no basis on which to apply different definitions of startup to different boilers by subcategorizing them into different 'classes' or 'types,'” Pillard writes.
She further finds that Sierra Club's argument that EPA's rules during shutdown are too lax “overlooks the reality of how shutdowns unfold,” requiring boilers to be gradually cooled down. EPA's methods reasonably mitigate emissions during shutdown, she says.
Reacting to the ruling, the American Wood Council (AWC) March 16 welcomed the court's decision to uphold the work practice standards but called on EPA to quickly address the CO issue.
“AWC is pleased the Court upheld the practical start-up and shut down requirements and hopes that outstanding issues with carbon monoxide limits can be resolved quickly to provide much-needed clarity after more than 25 years of this rulemaking process. We’re concerned that the final resolution continues to elude us.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/court-remands-boiler-mact-limits-epa-extending-lengthy-rulemaking
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested