ACC AM 3/22/18

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) 5 Growth Stocks Set to Ride the Chemical Industry's Upswing

   Mar 21, 2018 | Zacks (In Nasdaq)

   By Anindya Barman
   
   
   The chemical industry is gaining momentum after being stuck in a rut for a spell, making it an attractive investment proposition.
2. (ACC Mentioned) Here's How We Aim to Close the Loop on Ocean Plastic Pollution

   Mar 22, 2018 | Green Biz

   By Rob Kaplan and Susan Ruffo
   
   
   Around 8 million tons of plastic waste is dumped in the ocean annually. That equates to emptying a garbage truck of plastic into the sea every minute , most of it single-use products, such as plastic bags, candy wrappers, sachets and soda bottles.
3. (ACC Mentioned) Ocean Conservancy's CEO on Sea Change and Spawning Solutions

   Mar 22, 2018 | Green Biz

   By Elsa Wenzel
   
   
   Borders are elusive when it comes to the oceans, whether in the public imagination, business or the law.
4. Omnibus Rejects Big EPA Cuts, Hikes Energy and Interior Funds

   Mar 22, 2018 | E&E Daily

   By George Cahlink, Geof Koss and Kellie Lunney
   
   
   Energy and environmental programs would be boosted or escape cuts in a massive fiscal 2018 funding package that reverses years of mostly austere federal spending.
5. Spending Bill Rejects Trump's Proposed EPA Cut

   Mar 21, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire

   By Timothy Cama
   
   
   The $1.3 trillion government-wide spending bill released late Wednesday rejects President Trump’s proposal to slash the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) budget by 31 percent.
6. Lobbyists Seek Backdoor to Deregulation Through NAFTA Talks

   Mar 22, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
   
   
   While officials from the U.S., Canada, and Mexico try to hammer out a new North American Free Trade Agreement, lobbyists in Washington are using the deal's rewrite to advance a broad legislative agenda making it easier for U.S. companies to export coal, build factories, and move cargo.

LCSA News

7. EPA Seeks an Extra 90 Days to Propose Lead Dust Rule Update

   Mar 21, 2018 | Inside EPA

   EPA is formally asking a federal appellate court to clarify when it made final its Dec, 27 order requiring the agency to propose -- within 90 days -- an update to its lead dust hazard standard for residential buildings and to grant an additional 90 days to comply with the order, though environmentalists indicate they oppose the request.
8. Forestry, Paper Industries Prevail on Biomass in Omnibus Draft

   Mar 22, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Dean Scott
   
   
   Emissions from forest biomass would continue to be treated as carbon-neutral and the EPA would be barred from regulating lead in bullets and fishing tackle under the draft omnibus spending bill, congressional aides told Bloomberg Environment.

Chemical Management News

9. Washington Becomes First State to Ban Non-Stick Chemicals in Food Packaging

   Mar 21, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families

   By Beth Kemler
   
   
   Congratulations are in order for Toxic-Free Future, Washington Rep. Joan McBride and other partners in Washington! Today Governor Jay Inslee signed the Healthy Food Packaging Act, which bans toxic non-stick PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) chemicals in paper food packaging.
10. Study Finds Hormone-Disrupting Chemicals near Fracking Wells

    Mar 21, 2018 | WKMS

    By Glynis Board and Brittany Patterson
    
    
    Dozens of chemicals that can affect the fertility of humans and animals are being found in the air near unconventional oil and gas development, according to a new study.
11. In IRIS Comments, DOD Queries Study EPA Uses to Set Uranium Policies

    Mar 21, 2018 | Inside EPA

    By Maria Hegstad
    
    
    The Defense Department (DOD) is querying whether a 1998 study EPA is considering using in its upcoming Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment of uranium -- a study that is also the basis for several strict regulatory policies -- is appropriate, or whether the agency should instead use a 1949 study that could result in weaker limits.
12. California Weighs Fluorochemical Rules for Carpets, Rugs

    Mar 22, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Laura Mahoney
    
    
    California officials weighing whether to regulate fluorochemicals used to make carpets and rugs stain-resistant are facing opposition from the chemical and carpet industries but praise from environmental groups.
13. EU to Evaluate 21 Substances This Year

    Mar 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch

    By Luke Buxton
    
    
    Echa has adopted its updated Community Rolling Action Plan (Corap) for the period 2018-20.

Energy News

14. (ACC Mentioned) West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania Governors Form Shale Gas Agreement

    Mar 22, 2018 | Parkersburg News

    Leaders in West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania will continue to work together to market the region for natural gas development.
15. (ACC Mentioned) Pyrolysis Sector Makes Its Case Before Congress

    Mar 21, 2018 | Plastics Recycling Update

    By Colin Staub
    
    
    Plastics-to-fuel companies are asking federal lawmakers to include their sector in tax provisions benefiting alternative fuel producers.
16. Business Group Again Touting Petrochemical Benefits of Appalachian Basin

    Mar 21, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence

    By Jamison Cocklin
    
    
    A group of business leaders from the Appalachian Basin on Tuesday unveiled a study it commissioned that shows the region has significant advantages for ethylene cracker projects compared to the Gulf Coast, including low-cost feedstock and market proximity.
17. Billion-Dollar Question: Why Aren't More Crackers Being Built in Appalachia?

    Mar 21, 2018 | Pittsburgh Business Times

    By Paul J. Gough
    
    
    The reasons why there haven't been any more ethane crackers announced for Appalachia — and the critical importance of large-scale storage to support the region's burgeoning petrochemical industry — were big topics of discussion at an industry gathering Wednesday.
18. House Panel Weighs DOE Overhaul; Critics Call It a 'Disaster'

    Mar 22, 2018 | E&E Daily

    By Christa Marshall
    
    
    The House Energy and Commerce Committee is considering a sweeping overhaul to the Department of Energy's efficiency program that environmentalists warn could put a disastrous "deep freeze" on rules.
19. 'Bellwether' Auction Shows Weak Demand for Offshore Oil Leases

    Mar 21, 2018 | Politico Pro

    By Ben Lefebvre
    
    
    An Interior Department auction for offshore drilling leases generated $124.7 million, a relatively low amount that shows little industry interest as of yet in a key part of the Trump administration’s offshore energy policy.

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

Transportation and Infrastructure News

20. GOP Bills Target ESA to Get Roads out of 'Permitting Purgatory'

    Mar 22, 2018 | E&E Daily

    By Nick Sobczyk
    
    
    A group of Republican senators yesterday introduced three bills aimed at streamlining environmental permitting for highway projects.

Environment News

21. Fossil Fuel Subsidies Down, but Impact on Emissions in Question

    Mar 22, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Rick Mitchell
    
    
    The world's biggest economies have recently reduced financial support to consumers and producers of fossil fuels, but a recent study says those steps may have a limited impact on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
22. Ewire: Climate Science's Big Day in Court

    Mar 21, 2018 | Inside EPA

    As an unusual spring blizzard wallops the East Coast, the science of climate change will take center stage in a federal court in San Francisco where oil giants Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell are slated to present their views on the issue, along with attorneys for the cities of San Francisco and Oakland who are suing the fossil fuel corporations over their contribution to sea-level rise.
23. Omnibus Leaves out Most Controversial Environmental Policy Riders

    Mar 21, 2018 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard

    By Anthony Adragna
    
    
    Congressional Democrats took a victory lap tonight after successfully keeping controversial environment and energy policy riders mostly out of the final spending agreement, H.R. 1625 (115).
24. Legal Briefs Highlight Wide-Ranging Attacks on EPA's CSAPR 'Update'

    Mar 21, 2018 | Inside EPA

    By Stuart Parker
    
    
    A series of new legal briefs from several states, power companies and environmental groups highlights wide-ranging and often competing attacks on the Obama EPA's “update” to its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) emissions trading program, a program that the Trump administration is defending in ongoing appellate litigation.

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) 5 Growth Stocks Set to Ride the Chemical Industry's Upswing

   Mar 21, 2018 | Zacks (In Nasdaq)

   By Anindya Barman

   The chemical industry is gaining momentum after being stuck in a rut for a spell, making it an attractive investment proposition. The industry's upturn is backed by a resurgent global economy and strength across major end-use markets such as construction and automotive. 
   

   Improving fundamentals in the energy space - another key market for chemicals - has also been a significant tailwind for the chemical industry. A rebound in crude oil prices has led to a recovery in demand for chemicals in the energy market and a favorable pricing environment for chemical products. 

   The chemical industry wrapped up 2017 with a strong fourth quarter, continuing the momentum witnessed in the third. A host of companies in the space came up with forecast-topping earnings in the quarter, driven by continued strong demand across automotive and construction markets as well as strategic measures including productivity improvement, pricing actions, portfolio restructuring and earnings-accretive acquisitions. 

   Per the Zacks Industry classification, the chemical industry is grouped under the broader Basic Materials sector. The Basic Materials sector is among the Zacks sectors that scored the strongest gains in fourth-quarter 2017. Overall earnings for the sector climbed 45.2% while revenues spiked 21.3%. Roughly 89.5% of the sector participants posted earnings beat and around 73.7% surpassed revenue estimates.

   The Zacks Industry Rank of 61 carried by the Zacks Chemicals Diversified industry is a testimony to the fact that the chemical industry is in good health. The favorable rank places the industry in the top 24% of the 250+ groups enlisted. Our back testing shows that the top 50% of the Zacks ranked industries outperforms the bottom half by a factor of more than two to one. 

   Notwithstanding some lingering headwinds, the chemical industry's upturn is expected to continue this year as the fundamental driving factors remain firmly in place. 

   Strong Export Market, Investments Drive U.S. Chemical 

   The U.S. Chemical Industry has clawed its way back from the devastation wrought by Hurricane Harvey and is well set to ride the growth wave this year. The American Chemistry Council ("ACC"), an industry trade group, envisions U.S. chemical production (excluding pharmaceuticals) to rise 3.7% in 2018. 

   The growth is expected to be spurred by higher demand across light vehicles and housing markets, capital investments and improved export markets. Major export markets such as Latin America and Asia are also expected to play a significant role in basic chemical production growth this year and the next. Strengthening export markets and increasing capital spending are also driving chemical demand across key end-use markets such as light vehicles and housing. 

   The United States remains an attractive investment destination for chemical investment and domestic chemical makers continue to enjoy the advantage of access to abundant and cheaper feedstocks and energy. This is driving investment in chemical production projects. Per the ACC, the chemical industry has invested $185 billion in new factories, expansions and restarts of plants across the United States with more than half of these projects presently in the planning stage. Such investments are expected to boost capacity and export over the next several years. 

   EU Chemical Industry Swings Back to Life 

   The European chemical industry is also back on track after a long detour, taking succour from an improving global economic sentiment and an upturn in the Eurozone economy. Eurozone's recovery has been backed by a pick-up in global economic activity, declining unemployment, strengthening business and consumer confidence and monetary stimulus from the European Central Bank. 

   According to the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC), chemical output in the European Union (EU) climbed above the pre-crisis level for the first time in the fourth quarter of 2017. Amid a favorable operating environment, the European chemical industry saw a spike in output across most chemical sub-sectors along with a surge in chemical prices in 2017. CEFIC envisions EU chemical output to rise 2% year over year in 2018.

   5 Chemical Growth Plays 

   The chemical industry's momentum is expected to continue this year on sustained demand strength across construction and automotive markets, a rebound in demand in the energy place and significant capital investment. Amid such a backdrop, it would be a prudent idea to invest in chemical stocks with compelling growth prospects if you are looking to reap solid returns from your portfolio. 

   Growth investors look for stocks with aggressive earnings or revenue growth potential, which should lead to higher stock prices. Here we put a spotlight on chemical stocks that are poised for strong growth. With the help of our Style Score System , we have picked five stand-out stocks that have excellent prospects and might offer solid investment returns. 

   Our research shows that stocks with Growth Style Score of A or B when combined with Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) or Zacks Rank #2 (Buy) offer the best investment opportunities in the growth investing space. You can see the complete list of today's Zacks #1 Rank stocks here. 

   The Chemours Company CC 

   Delaware-based Chemours sports a Zacks Rank #1 and a Growth Score of A. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for earnings for 2018 is currently pegged at $5.30, reflecting an expected year-over-year growth of 38.7%. Chemours also has a long-term expected earnings per share (EPS) growth rate of 15.5%. 

   Annual estimates for Chemours have also moved north over the past 60 days, reflecting analysts' confidence on the stock. Over this period, the Zacks Consensus Estimate for 2018 and 2019 for the company have increased by around 6% and 3%, respectively. 

   Univar Inc. UNVR 

   Our next pick in the space is Illinois-based Univar armed with a Zacks Rank #1 and a Growth Score of B. The company has expected earnings growth of 23.7% for 2018. It also delivered positive earnings surprise in three of the trailing four quarters with an average beat of 20.8%. 

   The estimates for both 2018 and 2019 for the company have also increased by around 15% and 2%, respectively, over the last 60 days. Univar also has long-term expected EPS growth rate of 8.6%. 

   Huntsman Corporation HUN 

   Texas-based Huntsman is another attractive choice with a Zacks Rank #2 and a Growth Score of A. The company has expected earnings growth of 10.5% for 2018. It also has a long-term expected EPS growth rate of 8.3%. 

   Huntsman also delivered positive earnings surprise in each of the trailing four quarters with an average beat of 31.5%. The estimates for both 2018 and 2019 for the company have also increased by around 13% and 6%, respectively, over the last 60 days. 

   Stepan Company SCL 

   Headquartered in Northfield, IL, Stepan has a Zacks Rank #2 and a Growth Score of A. The company has expected earnings growth of 11.2% for 2018. It delivered a positive earnings surprise of 58.2% in the last reported quarter. The estimates for both 2018 and 2019 for the company have also increased by around 8% and 5%, respectively, over the last 60 days. 

   BASF SE BASFY 

   Germany-based BASF has a Zacks Rank #2 and a Growth Score of B. The company delivered positive earnings surprise in three of the trailing four quarters with an average beat of 5.8%. It has expected earnings growth of 13.7% for 2018. The company also has a long-term expected EPS growth rate of 6.7%. 

   Will You Make a Fortune on the Shift to Electric Cars? 
   Here's another stock idea to consider. Much like petroleum 150 years ago, lithium power may soon shake the world, creating millionaires and reshaping geo-politics. Soon electric vehicles (EVs) may be cheaper than gas guzzlers. Some are already reaching 265 miles on a single charge. 

   With battery prices plummeting and charging stations set to multiply, one company stands out as the #1 stock to buy according to Zacks research. 

   It's not the one you think. 

   https://www.nasdaq.com/article/5-growth-stocks-set-to-ride-the-chemical-industrys-upswing-cm937735
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

2. (ACC Mentioned) Here's How We Aim to Close the Loop on Ocean Plastic Pollution

   Mar 22, 2018 | Green Biz

   By Rob Kaplan and Susan Ruffo

   Around 8 million tons of plastic waste is dumped in the ocean annually. That equates to emptying a garbage truck of plastic into the sea every minute , most of it single-use products, such as plastic bags, candy wrappers, sachets and soda bottles.

   This mismanagement not only pollutes oceans and harms marine wildlife, but also makes life harder for locals, whether they are residents of neighborhoods that regularly flood (owing to drains clogged with plastic), workers at coastal resorts that cater to tourists or fishermen facing dwindling fish stocks. The economic implications are startling. Marine debris cost the 21 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation member economies around $1.3 billion in 2008, and that number is only going up as the problem gets worse. 

   We’re encouraged that the world is waking up to the crisis of plastic waste in our ocean, and working together to resolve it. News outlets around the world highlighted the shocking video earlier this month of the British diver swimming through plastic waste off the coast of Bali. The recent World Ocean Summit, held in Mexico earlier this month, focused extensively on plastic waste. The sixth International Marine Debris conference convened last week in San Diego and highlighted new and emerging science that will help us tackle this growing problem. Earlier this year, Evian, Coca-Cola and other businesses announced efforts to address packaging waste and improve recyclability of their products. 

   All of this is moving us in the right direction.To stop this flow of plastics into the ocean, the Asia-Pacific region needs more land-based systems for recycling and more markets for recycled products. This means building new infrastructure to collect, sort and process waste to prevent plastics and other materials from entering waterways and the ocean. It also involves developing new packaging designs that are easier to recycle and more valuable on the secondary market. With the right investments, we can help turn this waste into vital commodities for the manufacturing supply chain.

   But there is a big, looming question: Where or who or how will we pay for these ideas if we are to move them from concept to reality? 

   That's why we launched Closed Loop Ocean. This initiative aims to invest and unlock significant capital on behalf of the public and private sectors in better waste and recycling infrastructure in Southeast Asia. Closed Loop Partners and Ocean Conservancy are bringing together intergovernmental organizations, international nonprofits, financial institutions and industry leaders to stem the tide of ocean-bound waste while investing local communities and businesses. Partners include the Trash Free Seas Alliance, 3M, The Dow Chemical Company, Kimberly-Clark, The Coca-Cola Company, Procter & Gamble, PepsiCo, plastic makers from the American Chemistry Council and the World Plastics Council, and the Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA), an intergovernmental agency.  

   The first step for keeping plastics out of the ocean is to locate where most of it is coming from in the first place. Studies show that almost half of this garbage comes from five rapidly developing economies in Asia: China; Indonesia; the Philippines; Vietnam; and Thailand. These countries are all experiencing ballooning populations and speedy industrial growth, and they lack the infrastructure to effectively manage their waste.

   Closed Loop Partners has a proven track record investing in recycling infrastructure and the circular economy. We have financed more than $30 million worth of projects in over 20 American municipalities in order to return recycled waste to the consumer-product supply chain. Our fluency in the technology and business models necessary to unlock profit from circular-economy practices has unleashed more than $125 million in total capital, increased the value of recycled materials, and diverted over 200,000 tons of waste from landfills.

   Bringing this knowledge to new markets in Southeast Asia will be tricky, however, as the needs, conditions and resources in these countries are different. This is why a critical first part of our plan involves engaging local leaders, entrepreneurs, investors and non-governmental organizations to figure out the best way to marry our best practices in waste management with their on-the-ground expertise and leadership. Our strategy is to support and invest in local solutions, not to impose our waste schemes on foreign markets.

   Throughout 2018, once we have developed a network of partners and investors and established a pipeline of bankable ventures in Southeast Asia, we aim to narrow our focus to a few indicative projects. Our goal is to invest in plans that not only keep plastic waste out of the ocean, but also demonstrate how profitable and beneficial it can be to return recycled commodities to the supply chain. With these pilot projects, we will measure the effect of our interventions, shore up our relationships with local partners and create models that can be replicated throughout the region. Our partners from the consumer product and chemical industry are eager to invest in local waste-management infrastructure that will work to both keep their goods out of the ocean and generate new sources of recycled plastic to use in their products. 

   It is still possible to avoid the worst effects of this pollution if we invest in locally led, land-based solutions to keep plastics and waste from entering marine environments.  We need some of the biggest players in the field — from industry titans to renowned environmentalists — to plot a more sustainable way forward, commercially and ecologically. By investing in holistic waste management projects in markets with the greatest plastic leakage today, we are supporting the development of emerging economies around the world.

   https://www.greenbiz.com/article/heres-how-we-aim-close-loop-ocean-plastic-pollution
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

3. (ACC Mentioned) Ocean Conservancy's CEO on Sea Change and Spawning Solutions

   Mar 22, 2018 | Green Biz

   By Elsa Wenzel

   Borders are elusive when it comes to the oceans, whether in the public imagination, business or the law. 

   Naturally, much of Janis Searles Jones' work as Ocean Conservancy CEO is to transcend borders; she finds that passion for the oceans is bipartisan and building partnerships among "unusual bedfellows" is essential. The 46-year-old advocacy group's focus areas are vast: ocean acidification; smart planning; sustainable fisheries; "trash-free seas"; and regional protection of the Arctic and Gulf of Mexico.

   After one year at the helm of the Ocean Conservancy, where she has worked for nearly a decade, Searles Jones counts numerous allies within business, NGO and policymaking bodies. For instance, the Trash-Free Seas initiative includes scores of partners: Coca-Cola; Dow; the American Chemistry Council; Walmart; and the World Plastics Council, to name just a few. And last fall, the nonprofit teamed up on a $150 million effort with the Closed Loop Fund to support plastic waste management in Southeast Asia, where a disproportionate share of the world's marine debris originates.

   Searles Jones was raised near the Pacific coastlines of California and Oregon. From law school, she journeyed to Juneau, Alaska, hopping on a barge midwinter alongside her dog and pickup truck, to launch a career as an environmental attorney. She found handling ocean-related cases to be a revelation, a "wild frontier" from a legal perspective. Today, Searles Jones hopes that fresh attention to threats such as plastic pollution will bring more of the public's "mindshare" to the seas, and amplify the messages of "love and freedom" that ultimately drive change.

   Elsa Wenzel: Do you think there's being more attention paid to the ocean? You have Sylvia Earle on the cover of Time recently, and more talk of the blue economy. Are you seeing much of a change in awareness with ocean plastics and other things like that hitting headlines?

   Janis Searles Jones: Yes, absolutely. The ocean is sort of vastly under-served. ... The ocean is really, really massive in terms of the amount of the planet that it covers. But in terms of the amount of people's mindshare, the amount of research dollars, the amount of public attention, you're definitely seeing this — I'm going to be totally corny here and say "sea change" — in terms of people's awareness, and particularly around plastics.

   Wenzel: Do you think the rainforest and other land-based ecosystems have been getting an outsize share of their attention in recent decades, compared to the ocean?

   Searles Jones: It's easier to relate to something that you can touch and that you see every day. We always make this joke about trees and fish. If you're thinking about forests, it's a lot easier to count trees than it is to count fish. The ocean suffers both from this historical sense of being inexhaustible, on the one hand, and then on the other hand, being sort of out of sight, out of mind. ... Plastics and trash is such an interesting issue from an ocean advocate's perspective, because it is tangible, it is visible. Nobody likes trash.

   Wenzel: The funny irony is that maybe the pollution is what's making people see something that's been relatively unseen?

   Searles Jones: That is really one of the challenges and one of the real opportunities. Oceans have been incredibly inspiring for people. If you look at the Cousteau family, at all the different nature documentaries, the ocean is this seemingly endless source of new discovery. ... It's hard sometimes to pair what's happening in the ocean with how people relate to it. ... Oil spills are another real trigger for getting people to pay attention to the ocean. It is one of those things where sometimes you have to have what looks like visible damage to actually sort of catalyze that passion for the ocean.

   Wenzel: What else might help to build awareness? Is there a big role that technology is playing in terms of  Google Earth or big data, or other ways to connect the dots, or bring the unseen to be seen?

   Searles Jones: There's a huge role. As we have improved submersible technology, bringing all these images back and ... pushing them out into the world more, people can actually see what's in the ocean, what's in the deep. ... All of the remote-sensing also really improves our ability to monitor ocean acidification levels, for example. ... As you look at storm surges and sea-level rise, and how the ocean is directly affecting people’s communities, it becomes a more compelling aspect in their lives.

   Wenzel: What do you think is the No. 1 challenge to the oceans now? If you had to pick one, what would you focus on first?

   Searles Jones: Most scientists now would tell you that climate change is the biggest concern from an ocean perspective. ... You have increased acidification, on the other hand. And that has a variety of impacts, both for shell-building animals that live in the ocean, things that eat those shell-building animals, where fish and marine wildlife live, how their habitat is changing — and then for all of those coastal communities.

   Wenzel: And for our readers, the vast majority of whom work in corporate sustainability, what would you say is the greatest opportunity for the business community in terms of helping preserve the ocean?

   Searles Jones: One of them, which sort of started our corporate engagement almost three decades ago, is through the International Coastal Cleanup, which is a great way for corporations to engage their employees, provide a volunteer opportunity that invests in local communities, gets people out touching the ocean. ... We are definitely seeing sort of an evolution of things from an employee engagement lens, shifting to a sustainability lens, becoming part of the C-suite conversation about brand risk and how corporations position themselves as far as sustainability goes, and recognizing that there are a lot of long-term interests in ocean conversation.

   Wenzel: Do you have some success secrets for building a big web of partnerships like this across so many regions and organizations and types of organizations?

   Searles Jones: We really think seriously about what is the problem, what is the solution, who needs to be involved ... and then how do we develop a relationship with that sector, with that individual, with that corporation, with that government agency. ... We're always thinking about scale, we're always thinking about reach, we’re always thinking about innovation, we’re always thinking about how we get both the brain and the hearts and minds together to actually achieve conservation.

   An example in the trash and plastic space is the Trash Free Seas Alliance, which grew out of the work that we had been doing on the international coastal clean-up. ... It's generated one of the only global databases on marine debris. ... We took an approach where we wanted to bring unusual bedfellows, if you will, into the room.Wenzel: What should businesses know if they would like to get involved with the Ocean Conservancy?

   Searles Jones: From a plastics perspective, we only work with the best corporations, and they have to be committed. ... We're really looking for where this desire to affect change originates. Does it come from the top? Is sustainability or commitment to a certain issue central to the way that partner operates and makes decisions? Can they help us solve a problem? Will their involvement bring around real, meaningful change?

   Wenzel: Are there any big success stories that inspire you in your work that you think of as, "I wish I could have achieved this in my work with the Ocean Conservancy"?

   Searles Jones: One of the [social change campaigns] that one has to take real inspiration from is the Freedom to Marry campaign. ... [It] did a lot of really careful thought and analysis to figure out that what people related to was love and freedom — not so much rights and sort of the legal part of things. And when they rethought the campaign and re-executed a strategy against what people had been telling them they care about, which is love, it really changed the outcome.

   I have not seen sort of a social change movement happen that rapidly. It's really extraordinary when you look at it. ... And so one of the things that we’re doing is having a much more fundamental conversation about ocean constituents about what their core values are.

   Wenzel: So many campaigns around environmental conservation or climate change awareness are about doom and gloom or fire and brimstone, or they’re fear-based. Or they’re very wonky. So, how do you make the shift from that fear to love and freedom?

   Searles Jones: Everybody wants clean air, clean water, clean beaches. ... Nobody wants to drink dirty water, nobody wants their kid to drink dirty water, nobody wants to breathe polluted air. ... How do we figure out how to be much smarter in terms of talking to people about that? And so, [that's] me not talking about the max of sustainable yield for a particular fish stock when what somebody cares about is whether they have a clean and healthy environment, and ways to translate that...

   Part of our job is to get both more sophisticated and more heartfelt in having that communication with people, and making that connection, and giving people on-ramps and ways to express that value, and express that heartfelt concern about the ocean in a way that is relatable to them.

   Wenzel: Can you talk a bit about the notion of the blue economy, this idea that more people are waking up to the untapped business opportunities and the natural capital inherent in the oceans? That seems like a positive thing, but then at the same time, of course, where there are resources, there can be exploitation.

   Searles Jones: One of the things that really struck me when I moved from the terrestrial world to the ocean world is sort of how fragmented both the jurisdiction was, but also the different regulatory authorities. ... It tends to be focused on single-resource extraction.

   One of the things that we have been thinking about is ocean planning. ... It's just being smart about how you plan for and then execute activities in the ocean. But it is not nearly as widespread in terms of being required, or even being thought about. ... A lot of industries and sectors need to think about how all of the pieces fit together instead of just identifying sort of a single resource opportunity.

   Wenzel: Also, in terms of innovation, what do you think about the promise of the so-called circular economy, and where do the oceans come into play there?

   Searles Jones: In the short term, we're very much focused on the annual input of plastic waste into the ocean, which is about 8 million metric tons that goes into the ocean every year, which equates to roughly a garbage truck dumping a full load of plastic into the ocean every minute, and recognizing that if we cannot get in front of that problem, some of the excellent work that's being done on circular economy, on product innovation, on a lot of other fronts, will have sort of passed the ocean by.

   Wenzel: What advice would you give to somebody who wants your job someday or just wants to work in an impactful way in sustainability?

   Searles Jones: I am relentlessly focused on the art of the possible. ... Focusing on figuring out what problem it is that you're trying to solve, developing a solution set, figuring out who you need to support that solution set, who you need to engage to actually figure out what that solution set is, bringing all of those partners to the table and being very clear about what you're trying to accomplish together.

   https://www.greenbiz.com/article/ocean-conservancys-ceo-sea-change-and-spawning-solutions
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

4. Omnibus Rejects Big EPA Cuts, Hikes Energy and Interior Funds

   Mar 22, 2018 | E&E Daily

   By George Cahlink, Geof Koss and Kellie Lunney

   Energy and environmental programs would be boosted or escape cuts in a massive fiscal 2018 funding package that reverses years of mostly austere federal spending.

   Congressional leaders announced the accord late yesterday after weeks of arduous negotiations. The House is expected to pass the legislation as soon as today with the Senate likely to follow suit tomorrow in order to avoid a shutdown when current spending expires at midnight tomorrow.

   The bipartisan deal also appears to have the backing of the White House, after lawmakers agreed to add $1.6 billion for a U.S.-Mexico border wall and leave out direct spending for the Gateway rail and transit project connecting New York and New Jersey.

   Leaders and appropriators hailed the bill as a series of compromises made easier by a budget deal earlier this year that gave Congress a combined $200 billion more in discretionary spending in fiscal 2018 and 2019.

   Most of the proposed controversial environmental riders were jettisoned in final talks, although a "fix" for inconsistent wildfire funding was included as were forest management reforms.Level EPA funding

   U.S. EPA is funded at $8.1 billion in the bill, which is equal to current funding levels, despite White House calls to slash it by nearly one-third.

   That amount includes $2.9 billion for the Clean Water and Drinking Water state revolving funds, an increase of $600 million, as well as $1.15 billion for the Superfund program, a $66 million boost for a priority of Administrator Scott Pruitt, according to committee summaries.

   The Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program would receive $63 million, which Republicans said would help finance $6 billion in water infrastructure projects.

   The package continues riders barring EPA from regulating lead ammunition, as well as past instructions to consider biomass emissions to be carbon-neutral.

   Additionally, the measure includes a reauthorization of the brownfields redevelopment program for toxic waste sites, as well as a bipartisan Senate bill that would exempt farmers from reporting requirements for ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions under federal Superfund law (E&E Daily, March 15).

   It also contains a provision exempting certain small incinerators in Alaska from Clean Air Act requirements — a rider sought by Interior-Environment Appropriations Subcommittee Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).

   However, Democrats listed a number of "poison pill" riders they blocked from the final bill.

   These include a provision that would have exempted EPA's rewrite of the Clean Water Rule from administrative legal requirements and a rider that would have blocked an update of ozone air standards.

   Other riders that didn't make the cut include provisions barring payment for legal fees under several federal environmental laws; preventing EPA from enforcing financial assurance rules under Superfund; blocking the agency from enforcing water quality standards for the Chesapeake Bay; and prohibiting funds to implement the social cost of carbon metric used to justify climate rules.DOE, Army Corps funds boosted

   The Energy and Water spending bill, which covers the Energy Department and Army Corps of Engineers, received a major boost in overall spending of $4.7 billion to $43.2 billion for fiscal 2018.

   The Energy Department would see across-the-board increases for many programs, including research efforts and energy efficiency programs that the Trump administration has sought to cut deeply.

   The Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, the department's in-house incubator of promising but high-risk projects, would escape a plan by the White House and House conservatives to eliminate it. Instead, it would see its funding increase by $47 million to $353 million.

   DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, which President Trump also wanted to slash, would instead get about a $200 million bump to $2.3 billion.

   DOE's Office of Science, which covers much of the basic research done at DOE laboratories, would see its funding increase to a record $6.26 billion, a 16 percent increase over current spending.

   The legislation does not contain any dollars for work on developing and building a nuclear waste depository at Yucca Mountain, Nev. The House had hoped to provide tens of millions of dollars to begin the project. But Senate opposition, particularly from Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.), who has a tough re-election this year, prevailed.

   The Army Corps of Engineers would see its overall funding rise $789 million to $6.8 billion for fiscal 2018. That includes $3 billion for navigation projects and studies, with about half for Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund projects, a modest increase over current spending.

   The deal also excludes a controversial provision from previous bills that would have forced the Army Corps to immediately begin work on a $200 million pumping project on the Mississippi River.

   The Yazoo Backwater Area Pumps Project was rejected by the George W. Bush administration for damage to wetlands but revived this winter by soon-to-retire Senate Appropriations Chairman Thad Cochran (R-Miss.).Interior, NOAA funds increased

   The omnibus would increase funding for several major Interior Department agencies and programs over current spending levels — even above the administration's request.

   The department's largest agencies — the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service — all received funding boosts in the omnibus.

   BLM would receive $1.3 billion, $79 million more than the 2017 enacted level, including $50 million more to address the maintenance backlog on federal lands.

   Appropriators carved out $3.2 billion for NPS, $270 million more than the 2017 enacted level and including a $138 million increase for construction to address the maintenance backlog.

   FWS would get $1.6 billion, $75 million more than current spending and including a $53 million increase to address the maintenance backlog at wildlife refuges and fish hatcheries.

   The U.S. Geological Survey would receive $1.1 billion under the omnibus.

   The popular bipartisan Land and Water Conservation Fund and payments in lieu of taxes program also would get more money under the agreement than both current spending levels and the administration's recommendation.

   The omnibus would fund LWCF at $425 million, $25 million more than the fiscal 2017 level and much more than the $64 million level proposed in the president's request.

   "The Committees believe increasing access to our public lands for hunting, fishing, and other recreational activities is important," the report stated.

   The bill would also fully fund PILT at $530 million, $65 million more than the current spending level.

   The omnibus would provide $60 million for "greater sage-grouse and related sage-steppe conservation activities," equal to the current spending level. Appropriators encourage BLM "to continue working with states and other interested entities on the existing sage-grouse conservation plans and to improve the condition of the sage-steppe ecosystem."

   NOAA also would get a slight boost under the omnibus. The agency would receive $5.9 billion under the legislation, about $234 million more than the fiscal 2017 enacted level. That figure includes $1 billion for the National Weather Service and $883 million for NOAA Fisheries operations, research and facilities.

   The omnibus also includes $150 million to kick-start acquisition of a new polar icebreaker, mirroring a provision from the Senate's defense appropriations bill.

   It marks a significant step forward for the Coast Guard as it deals with the rapidly melting Arctic, even if it wouldn't cover the entire cost of a new vessel. The agency currently operates just two icebreakers and has been asking lawmakers for years to fund a new one to counter Russia's influence in newly opened shipping lanes.A 'jump forward'

   Several "poison pill riders" opposed by Democrats and environmental groups also were left out of the omnibus, including provisions that would have affected Endangered Species Act protections for various animals, including gray wolves, lesser prairie chickens and Preble's meadow jumping mice.

   The omnibus also does not include a provision that would prohibit funds from being used to enforce the BLM methane rule, which the White House is trying to roll back administratively. The Obama-era rule reduces the venting and flaring of the greenhouse gas during drilling on public lands.

   "The spending bill released by Congress today is more than just a positive step — it is a jump forward for conservation," said Lynn Scarlett, co-chief external affairs officer of the Nature Conservancy. "If enacted, this bill would achieve some of the most pressing conservation goals by providing both resources and processes needed to conserve American lands and waters for future generations."

   As for proposed department reorganizations, including the one planned at Interior, appropriators made clear agencies need to stick to certain guidelines.

   "No agency shall implement any part of a reorganization that modifies regional or State boundaries for agencies or bureaus that were in effect as of the date of enactment of this Act unless approved consistent with the General Guidelines for Reprogramming procedures specified herein," the report stated.

   "Any such reprogramming request submitted to the Committees on Appropriations shall include a description of anticipated benefits, including anticipated efficiencies and cost-savings, as well as a description of anticipated personnel impacts and funding changes anticipated to implement the proposal," the report added.

   https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/03/22/stories/1060077131
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

5. Spending Bill Rejects Trump's Proposed EPA Cut

   Mar 21, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire

   By Timothy Cama

   The $1.3 trillion government-wide spending bill released late Wednesday rejects President Trump’s proposal to slash the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) budget by 31 percent.

   Senior lawmakers negotiating the omnibus appropriations bill instead chose to give the agency $8.1 billion for fiscal year 2018, keeping it at the same level as 2017.

   The bill still needs to pass both chamber of Congress and get President Trump’s signature before Friday at midnight in order to prevent a government shutdown.

   “The American people support investments in clean air and water, public lands, parks, and the arts and humanities, which are vital to the health and well-being of our communities and our economy,” Sen. Tom Udall (N.M.), the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee panel responsible for the EPA, said in a statement.

   “Together, we rejected the Trump administration’s proposal to make massive and dangerous budget cuts, and instead, we restored funding for the EPA,” Udall said.

   The funding level represents a victory for Democrats, who had argued that Trump’s cuts would be disastrous. But much of the GOP also opposed the 31 percent proposed cut.

   The bill has a handful of new policy provisions for the EPA, including one to exempt farms from having to report their air pollution to the EPA and a requirement that the agency treat wood burning as a carbon-neutral and renewable electricity source.

   But the legislation also avoided a number of other policy riders that had Republican support or were in previous versions of the legislation.

   Lawmakers removed a provision that would have let the EPA skip the usual regulatory processes like gathering public comment as it works to repeal the Obama administration’s Clean Water Rule.

   In addition to the $8.1 billion for EPA in the main section of the bill, lawmakers tacked on an additional $763 million in another part of the bill for various EPA programs related to water infrastructure and to cleaning up polluted Superfund sites.

   http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/379679-spending-bill-rejects-trumps-proposed-epa-cut
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

6. Lobbyists Seek Backdoor to Deregulation Through NAFTA Talks

   Mar 22, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Jennifer A. Dlouhy

   While officials from the U.S., Canada, and Mexico try to hammer out a new North American Free Trade Agreement, lobbyists in Washington are using the deal's rewrite to advance a broad legislative agenda making it easier for U.S. companies to export coal, build factories, and move cargo.

   The strategy exploits the fast-track authority that allows presidents to negotiate big trade deals without having to worry about Congress tinkering around the edges. Under that authority, legislation to implement a trade deal can pass the House and Senate on a simple majority vote, without amendments or filibusters.

   That means a NAFTA bill could lead to the enactment of what is essentially a big-business wish list of regulatory reforms and other policies too ambitious or politically sensitive to clear Congress in a piecemeal fashion.

   Lobbyists and lawmakers behind the plan have drafted a NAFTA chapter on competitiveness that lays out broad goals for making regulation more predictable, investing in infrastructure, and streamlining permitting. If negotiators agree to tuck that chapter into the working NAFTA draft, it opens the door for the treaty legislation to make changes in U.S. law to fulfill those goals.

   The tactic could enable passage of an array of legislative proposals, including regulatory overhaul bills stymied in the Senate and measures to expand workforce development programs. Potential changes also could include setting ceilings on the cost of new regulations and making additional spectrum available for commercial use.

   This approach could improve the U.S. trade position by strengthening U.S. competitiveness from within and enticing businesses to invest in the country, said Adam White, who directs George Mason University's Center for the Study of the Administrative State and who has been briefed on the effort.

   “We need to be given the best possible opportunity to compete,” White said. “In some ways, that involves lowering barriers to trade abroad, but sometimes it involves lowering the barriers that we have created for ourselves.”

   Short Circuit Assessments

   Critics said the the plan uses the U.S. trade deficit as an excuse to short-circuit environmental assessment required under federal law, at a time when climate change, shrinking biodiversity, and other issues demand thorough analysis.

   “It's the opposite of the careful deliberation that needs to be done,” said Pat Gallagher, director of the Sierra Club's Environmental Law Program. “Last time I checked, the economy has been booming.“

   The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, the ultimate owner of Bloomberg Environment.

   Behind the Scenes

   The brains behind the plan are a husband and wife in Washington, one an oil and gas lobbyist, the other a trade lawyer at a top firm.

   Rebecca Rosen is vice president of policy and government affairs for Oklahoma-based Devon Energy Corp. Her husband, Jeff Weiss, spent 10 years in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and is now a partner at Venable LLP. They have quietly worked on the strategy for months, honing the approach as they slowly widened the circle of advocates, drawing support from business lobbies, lining up a few influential Senate supporters and getting buy-in from White House officials.

   It's been a tricky process, given how brazen the deal is. Some companies and business groups refused to publicly join, over fear of a public backlash. A few incredulous lobbyists wondered how the tactic hadn't been exploited before, while some special-interest groups worried the gambit could jeopardize fast-track authority.

   But the effort gained steam as NAFTA negotiations appeared to falter and business lobbyists across the nation's capital scrambled for creative solutions to salvage the deal. They saw this approach as a way to transform the trade agreement into the “better deal” that Trump has insisted on.

   On March 21, Trump formally asked Congress to extend his fast-track authority over trade deals for three years. He called the extension of trade-promotion authorities “essential” to demonstrate to foreign partners that the “administration and the Congress share a common goal when it comes to trade.“

   ‘Lock Into Law’

   Advocates of the NAFTA plan found support from a trio of GOP senators: Ted Cruz of Texas, Steve Daines of Montana, and Cory Gardner of Colorado. The senators touted the plan in a letter to Trump March 20, describing it as an unprecedented opportunity “to lock into law” major elements of the president's economic development plan.

   “To truly modernize NAFTA and re-energize the U.S. trade agenda, we need to include elements that address jobs and competitiveness head-on. That's the paradigm shift in trade policy that you've consistently championed,” they told Trump. “Modernizing NAFTA in this fashion” would “put the United States in a much stronger position to forcefully confront China, which is pursuing its own domestic strategies that are often harmful to U.S. interests.“

   Among the potential beneficiaries is Lighthouse Resources Inc., which has spent more than six years pursuing permits to build an export terminal in Longview, Wash., that could ship up to 44 million metric tons of coal and other bulk products annually to Asia.

   The project was blocked last year, when Washington state's ecology department denied a Clean Water Act permit, citing concerns about air quality and increased railroad traffic to serve the site. The proposed competitiveness chapter could give way to a broad rewrite of permitting requirements, giving Lighthouse a shot at approval.

   Environmental Reviews

   Possible changes such as putting deadlines on analysis required under the National Environmental Policy Act and requiring coordination of the assessments could give a lift to other projects, from proposed electric transmission lines and port improvements to solar farms.

   The American Action Forum estimated last year that some $229 billion worth of energy and transit projects are being vetted under NEPA. The plan addresses Trump's complaint that NAFTA prompted U.S. companies to fire workers and move factories to Mexico where they didn't face onerous regulation, proponents said.

   “This is the perfect antidote to that, to say ‘no, as part of this free trade agreement, we're going to strip back to the necessary—but no more than the necessary—regulations and speed up the permitting of building plants and facilities and factories here in the U.S.,’” said David McIntosh, president of advocacy group Club for Growth.

   http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=130260562&vname=dennotallissues&fn=130260562&jd=130260562
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

7. EPA Seeks an Extra 90 Days to Propose Lead Dust Rule Update

   Mar 21, 2018 | Inside EPA

   EPA is formally asking a federal appellate court to clarify when it made final its Dec, 27 order requiring the agency to propose -- within 90 days -- an update to its lead dust hazard standard for residential buildings and to grant an additional 90 days to comply with the order, though environmentalists indicate they oppose the request.

   The Justice Department (DOJ) on behalf of EPA filed a March 20 motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to clarify, or alternatively to grant a time extension, on the court's Dec. 27 directive that the agency update its lead dust hazard standard for residential structures as well as its regulatory definition of lead-based paint under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

   “While it is important for the proposed rule to be issued expeditiously, it is also important for EPA to have a clear and reasonable timetable so it can plan to complete the various analyses and administrative processes for the proposal in a responsible and timely manner, and those analyses and processes are still in progress,” the government motion says.

   But environmentalists oppose the government's request, according to an attorney representing the groups and the government's brief, and plan to file a motion in opposition.

   The 9th Circuit ruled Dec. 27 in A Community Voice, et al. v. EPA, finding that the petitioners were entitled to a writ of mandamus against EPA, requiring the agency to update its lead hazard standard for residential and child-care facilities and its definition of lead-based paint under TSCA.

   The court also found the agency had unreasonably delayed making these revisions after accepting a 2009 rulemaking petition from the same environmental groups who later filed the mandamus suit.

   The court ordered EPA to issue a proposed rule within 90 days “of the date this decision becomes final."

   But both DOJ and EPA remain unaware of when the court's “decision will 'become final' or whether it has” become final, the U.S. brief says. The government notes that the court has not yet issued a judgment or mandate to conclude that the court decision is final -- which it says usually occurs after the 45-day period for reconsideration expires.

   The motion says that in response to a March 16 letter from DOJ to the court requesting a clarification on the effective date of the 90-day time frame, the clerk that same day issued an order stating “that 'as this was a mandamus proceeding, there will be no mandate issued.'”

   Nonetheless, DOJ and EPA ask that the court now clarify what it meant by requiring a proposed rule within 90 days of the decision becoming final, and that it issue a mandate or certify a judgment to trigger the start of the 90-day time line now.

   Or, alternatively, they ask the court for a 90-day extension in which it must issue the draft rule.

   The government explains that it has been active in drafting a proposed rule, for example re-establishing an agency-wide work group, extensively working on a technical support document, developing an economic assessment of potential changes to the dust-lead standard, and consulting with the Department of Housing and Urban Development on potential revisions to the lead-based paint definition, the brief says.

   “The planning and coordination of all of these efforts [have] been based on the understanding that the 90-day period to generate a proposed rule would not be triggered until some action was taken that would cause the Court's decision to 'become final,' which until several days ago both DOJ and EPA understood would be the issuance of the Mandate -- or at least a certified Judgment.”

   The brief also argues that this case does not follow the same circumstances as other case law in which the court in a mandamus action chose not to issue a mandate.

   https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-seeks-extra-90-days-propose-lead-dust-rule-update
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

8. Forestry, Paper Industries Prevail on Biomass in Omnibus Draft

   Mar 22, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Dean Scott

   Emissions from forest biomass would continue to be treated as carbon-neutral and the EPA would be barred from regulating lead in bullets and fishing tackle under the draft omnibus spending bill, congressional aides told Bloomberg Environment.

   Both the ammunition and forest biomass regulatory provisions would be retained from previous spending measures.

   The biomass language would shield facilities that burn wood and other organic matter from greenhouse gas regulation. The forestry and paper industries have long sought to have biomass treated as carbon neutral, arguing that the decaying plant matter would eventually release its trapped greenhouse gas emissions.

   The language on ammunition and fishing tackle is meant to prevent the EPA from regulating toxic lead in ammunition, ammunition components, or fishing tackle under the Toxic Substances Control Act or other laws.

   The Obama administration had banned the use of lead ammunition and fishing tackle used on federal lands and waters over objections from hunters and fishermen.

   House and Senate appropriators hope to file the text March 21 of the fiscal year 2018 omnibus measure, to provide more than $1 trillion in domestic and defense spending through Sept. 30.

   It must be signed into law by midnight Friday to avoid a government shutdown.

   It's unclear whether two other high-profile issues will be kept in the bill.

   Democrats have fought to keep out language that would give the EPA more authority to roll back an Obama-era Clean Water Act rule that expanded agency jurisdiction over certain waterways and a rider expressly prohibiting the EPA and other regulatory agencies from taking into account the costs of carbon emissions before regulating.

   http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=130260553&vname=dennotallissues&fn=130260553&jd=130260553
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

9. Washington Becomes First State to Ban Non-Stick Chemicals in Food Packaging

   Mar 21, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families

   By Beth Kemler

   Congratulations are in order for Toxic-Free Future, Washington Rep. Joan McBride and other partners in Washington! Today Governor Jay Inslee signed the Healthy Food Packaging Act, which bans toxic non-stick PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) chemicals in paper food packaging. Because of their grease- and water-resistant properties, these chemicals are often added to food packaging, including microwave popcorn bags and fast food wrappers.

   PFAS are a class of synthetic chemicals used to repel oil and water from clothing, carpeting, furniture, food packaging, and non-stick surfaces on cookware. Some of them have been linked to cancer, kidney disease and thyroid disease. A recent study even found that exposure to these chemicals may make it harder to keep weight off after dieting.

   In a recent study, Silent Spring Institute tested more than 400 paper food wrappers from 27 fast food chains for fluorine—a marker of PFAS. Among dessert and bread wrappers, 56% tested positive whereas 38% of burger and sandwich wrappers did. Scientists have found that these chemicals migrate from wrappers into food. These chemicals are extremely persistent and can stay in the body for up to eight years. They’ve even been found in breast milk.

   These chemicals are commonly used to produce:

   Fast food containers

   Microwave popcorn bags

   Waterproof apparel such as raincoats

   Non-stick cookware such as Teflon™

   Personal care products such as dental floss and sunscreen

   Cosmetics such as mascara and eyeshadow

   Stain-resistant carpet and upholstered furniture

   According to Toxic-Free Future, Washington’s new law:

   Bans the use of PFAS chemicals in paper food packaging, like microwave popcorn bags, sandwich and butter wrappers, and french fry boxes, on January 1, 2022, as long as the Department of Ecology identifies that safer alternatives to PFASs are available by January 1, 2020.

   If Ecology is not able to identify a safer alternative by January 1, 2020, then the ban does not go into effect and Ecology must review the availability of alternatives every year.

   Once Ecology does identify a safer alternative, the ban goes into effect 2 years after the alternatives are identified.

   Congratulations again to everyone who worked on this bill! We’re looking forward to seeing the impact it has across the country.

   http://saferchemicals.org/2018/03/21/washington-becomes-first-state-to-ban-non-stick-chemicals-in-food-packaging/
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

10. Study Finds Hormone-Disrupting Chemicals near Fracking Wells

    Mar 21, 2018 | WKMS

    By Glynis Board and Brittany Patterson

    Dozens of chemicals that can affect the fertility of humans and animals are being found in the air near unconventional oil and gas development, according to a new study.

    More than 200 chemicals have been found near unconventionally drilled sites, most-commonly fracked wells, according to a paper published today in the journal Environmental Health.

    Carol Kwiatkowski, executive director of a nonprofit called the Endocrine Disruption Exchange, said that of those chemicals, 34 are known to be endocrine disruptors, or chemicals that interfere with hormone systems in mammals.

    “Well-known hazardous air pollutants are being found near fracking sites and may be contributing to health outcomes that are being experienced by people living near fracking sites,” said Kwiatkowski, a co-author of the study. “The endocrine disrupting chemicals that are found at these sites may be contributing to health outcomes that won’t be realized for decades.”

    Researchers reviewed more than 4,000 peer-reviewed papers. In total, they found 48 air sampling studies were conducted between 2003 and 2016. Texas’ Barnett Shale formation was studied the most. The Marcellus Shale formation in the Ohio Valley, was the fourth-most-studied area.

    Chemicals known to cause cancer, and heavy metals such as mercury, were also found near oil and gas development. 

    Researchers said more information is needed to know what the long-term health impacts of these chemicals are. An estimated 17.6 million Americans live near unconventional oil and gas wells.

    For this paper, the researchers did not do any original experiments, rather they looked only at the already-published science. The study also does not draw a direct link between hormone-disrupting chemicals and oil and gas development. Instead, it shows studies have found these chemicals are often found near oil and gas development.

    http://wkms.org/post/study-finds-hormone-disrupting-chemicals-near-fracking-wells
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

11. In IRIS Comments, DOD Queries Study EPA Uses to Set Uranium Policies

    Mar 21, 2018 | Inside EPA

    By Maria Hegstad

    The Defense Department (DOD) is querying whether a 1998 study EPA is considering using in its upcoming Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment of uranium -- a study that is also the basis for several strict regulatory policies -- is appropriate, or whether the agency should instead use a 1949 study that could result in weaker limits.

    In March 2 comments on EPA's initial assessment plan for its upcoming IRIS assessment, DOD questions whether the agency has closely assessed the quality of the 1998 study -- by Gilman et al. -- which it is considering using in its upcoming IRIS assessment and also provides the scientific basis for various drinking water and Superfund cleanup policies.

    The comments ask whether the Gilman study or the 1949 study by Maynard and Hodge, a study EPA used in the existing 1989 IRIS assessment and could result in significantly weaker risk estimates, would be "better science."

    "The question in the case of this uranium assessment may come down to whether an IRIS [reference dose (RfD)] based on the Maynard and Hodge study (1949) or a RfD based on a more recent study by Gilman et al. (1998) constitutes better science," DoD states in the comments.

    DoD goes on to add that "question remains whether a thorough assessment has yet been carried out on the quality of the [1998] Gilman et al. study," which other EPA offices and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) have adopted for use in recent assessments of uranium.

    For example, DOD notes, EPA's Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water (OGWDW) used Gilman to derive a drinking water equivalent level (DWEL), a measure EPA uses in its lengthy process to derive drinking water standards.

    ATSDR also used Gilman to derive its minimum risk level (MRL), an estimate of the daily human exposure to a hazardous substance that is likely to be without appreciable risk of adverse noncancer health effects over a specified duration of exposure.

    And EPA's Superfund program has also shown support for the Gilman study, DOD says.

    Because of this, "the IRIS team should objectively review this study in accordance with their commitment to Tier 1 toxicity values," DoD adds. "If the choice between two studies ends up being the case, it is suggested that a side-by-side comparison be carried out with respect to quality metrics in order to facilitate decision making."

    But which study EPA chooses could result in risk estimates an order of magnitude different. EPA's existing 1989 IRIS assessment of uranium, which the new plan would update, contains an RfD of 0.003 milligrams per kilogram bodyweight per day (mg/kg/day) using the 1949 study.

    ATSDR's 2013 Toxicological Profile on uranium does not calculate a chronic oral MRL, which would be the best comparison to an IRIS RfD. But its intermediate oral MRL of 0.0002 mg/kg/day is based on the 1998 study.

    EPA's IRIS assessment seeks to craft RfDs -- the greatest maximum amount the agency estimates an adult individual can ingest daily over a lifetime without harm -- for those chemicals it assesses in the IRIS program.

    The resulting risk estimates are generally for non-cancer effects, with EPA also often crafting an analogous reference concentration (RfC) for inhalation effects. As a result, the smaller the RfD or RfC, the more toxic EPA deems the chemical.

    IRIS Reviews

    IRIS' upcoming uranium assessment is one of the first to be initiated under the program's new leadership.

    EPA announced in February that it was launching two new IRIS reviews of uranium and chloroform, a surprising flurry of activity despite doubts over IRIS' future and potential Trump administration plans to shrink or shutter it.

    The documents were the first new assessments begun under the leadership of Tina Bahadori, director of the National Center for Environmental Assessment and Kris Thayer, IRIS director, since they took over the program early in the Trump administration.

    The uranium assessment plan will also be the focus of IRIS' first "public science webinar," a new step Bahadori and Thayer have introduced at the earliest stage of IRIS development to gather input into assessment plans. The webinar is scheduled for March 22, and will focus on the uranium assessment plan. EPA asks for "discussion with the public aimed at improving or clarifying" the plan. ATSDR's Sam Keith and Oscar Paulson of the Kennecott Uranium Company are scheduled to speak.

    DoD was the only group to provide substantive comments on the draft plan. The Wyoming Mining Association also commented, but its remarks were redacted from the public electronic docket and the association did not respond to Inside EPA's requests for a copy of their comments.

    DoD also questions which form of uranium EPA plans to assess, noting that "the element, soluble salts, and insoluble salts have quite different bioavailability and quite different toxicity. Even within each of these subgroups, the toxicities may differ substantially. The issue is whether EPA intends to provide "toxicity values suitable for all soluble forms of uranium" ... or "EACH soluble form of uranium." DoD suggests that "at a minimum, the EPA evaluate separately the three general forms of uranium (elemental, soluble salts, and insoluble salts). Within each of these forms, we suggest EPA should indicate which specific form was used for the derivation of toxicity values and, preferably, indicate the range of toxicity values within that form."

    DoD also notes that "[t]oxicology studies generally use the most soluble form of the test article (i.e., uranyl nitrate salts) which have the highest bioavailability. However, in the case of uranium, the common form of human exposure is likely to less soluble uranium species." DoD recommends that EPA address the issue by "showing the relative fraction of uranium species as a function of pH and the presence of complexing species such as carbonate. This will contextualize the discussion regarding exposure in drinking water/groundwater and provide confidence that there is an overall understanding of the potential human exposure to uranium species."

    DoD also states that the plan is not clear when discussing "the impact of abandoned uranium mines and former phosphate mines is on the health of those living near the mines and how that fits within the scope of this IAP. Also, it is unclear what role EPA's risk assessments and remediation projects of abandoned and former mines has on the scope of the IAP." And DoD says that EPA has described just one Native American tribe, the Navajo, as affected by uranium exposures, while two other tribes, the Hopi Pueblo and Acoma Pueblo, also are.

    Prioritized Assessments

    The new uranium assessment is one of a score of chemicals identified in 2015 by IRIS' previous leaders, Vincent Cogliano and Ken Olden, as part of their extensive effort to craft a list of prioritized contaminants for assessment after lengthy discussions with EPA program offices. The draft plan explains IRIS' intent to update the existing 1989 uranium IRIS assessment with a non-radiological, non-cancer oral assessment.

    "Oral exposure to uranium is of concern to the Superfund Program as this element has been found at approximately 60 Superfund sites, with oral intake driving site exposure assessments. EPA regulated uranium as a drinking water contaminant in 2000 based primarily on radiological exposures, but also considered kidney toxicity. The EPA's Office of Water (OW) periodically updates drinking water regulations and needs an IRIS assessment of uranium that examines the more recent literature," the plan explains.

    The plan also references OW's 2016 analysis of regulated contaminant occurrence data in public water systems, which finds that "[a]pproximately 4% of reporting U.S. drinking water systems (serving 8 million people in total) reported some exceedance of the EPA maximum contaminant limit for uranium of 30 [micrograms per liter of water."

    The plan adds that the "reassessment focuses on nonradiological, noncancer effects associated with uranium exposure because (1) IRIS assessments historically focus on the nonradiological effects of chemicals and (2) cancer risks from uranium have generally been attributed to and assessed as the result of radiation exposures."

    https://insideepa.com/daily-news/iris-comments-dod-queries-study-epa-uses-set-uranium-policies
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

12. California Weighs Fluorochemical Rules for Carpets, Rugs

    Mar 22, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Laura Mahoney

    California officials weighing whether to regulate fluorochemicals used to make carpets and rugs stain-resistant are facing opposition from the chemical and carpet industries but praise from environmental groups.

    The state's Department of Toxic Substances Control lacks the scientific basis to identify carpets and rugs treated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as a “priority product” that could prompt regulations, industry representatives said at public workshop March 20.

    U.S. manufacturers haven't been using versions of the substances that are considered harmful since 2007 and data don't show that substitute products are harmful, they said.

    “This is fundamentally flawed from a scientific basis,” Jessica Bowman, executive director of the FluoroCouncil, told Department of Toxic Substances Control officials.

    Substitute Compounds

    The substitute compounds—also PFAS—are called short-chain or side-chain compounds and replaced long-chain compounds, the industry representative said.

    Although the substitutes are less persistent in the environment than the long-chain compounds, there's enough to show that they are all harmful, environmental group representatives told the toxic substances department.

    The department's chemical profile report, released Feb. 15, offers “significant and ample support for listing as a priority product,” Miriam Rotkin-Ellman, senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the officials.

    Its proposed listing of PFAS as a “priority product” under its Safer Consumer Products regulations is the first step that could lead to regulations.

    Health Concerns

    PFAS compounds are used in an estimated 90 percent of the carpets and rugs made in the U.S. due to their stain-resistant properties, according to the department. Exposure to indoor dust from the use of the carpets and rugs poses health risks, especially to infants, children and other vulnerable populations, the state said.

    “This is a regulatory process, but we haven't regulated anything yet,” said Karl Palmer, branch chief for the Safer Consumer Products program at the Department of Toxic Substances Control. The department hasn't decided yet whether to issue new rules for the chemicals and is taking comments until April 16, he said.

    Carpet & Rug Institute President Joe Yarbrough and two other representatives of the FluoroCouncil spoke in opposition to the proposed listing and potential regulatory action.

    Representatives of the Center for Environmental Health, Green Science Policy Institute, and Woodland Coalition for Green Schools were supportive.

    http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=130260555&vname=dennotallissues&fn=130260555&jd=130260555
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

13. EU to Evaluate 21 Substances This Year

    Mar 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch

    By Luke Buxton

    Echa has adopted its updated Community Rolling Action Plan (Corap) for the period 2018-20.

    The Corap is a list of substances drawn up by Echa and EU member states that are to be evaluated over three years. Between them they develop risk-based criteria for selecting the chemicals that includes hazard and exposure information and tonnage.

    The 2018-20 list contains 108 substances for evaluation by member states. There are 17 newly allocated chemicals [see box] with the remainder published in the previous Corap in March last year. All substances included on the list have more than one ground for concern.

    This year eight member states will assess 21 substances. And in a nod to Brexit, substances previously allocated to the UK for evaluation in 2019 and 2020 have been passed to other member states, as the country will leave the EU in March next year. Last July, the UK said it would consider its commitment to conduct proposed evaluations already in the 2017-19 Corap, and whether it would propose additional substances to those already in the current Corap for the 2018-2020 programme.

    Substances

    Four of substances to be evaluated in 2018 are from among those added for the first time this year:

    amphoteric fluorinated surfactant;

    3-ethoxy1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-dodecafluoro-2-(trifluoromethyl)hexane;

    antimony trichloride; and

    2,5,7,10,11,14-hexaoxa1,6-distibabicyclo[4.4.4] tetradecane.

    The first two are suspected of having persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) and/or very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB) properties, while the final two are potential carcinogens and reprotoxins.

    Antimony trichloride has been under scrutiny the US recently. In January, a US peer review panel voted to accept the three key outcomes of a draft assessment of antimony trioxide that concludes the substance is 'reasonably anticipated' to be a human carcinogen.

    In 2019, at least 42 substances will be assessed and in 2020 a minimum of 45. However, by the end of March 2019 the Corap list will be updated again and may include changes for chemicals listed for 2019 and 2020. New substances may also be added.

    Member states will evaluate three new chemicals in 2019, and ten the following year.

    Registrants of Corap list substances may be asked to provide further information so that authorities can fully investigate the suspected concern. Echa said they should coordinate their actions and contact the evaluating member state.

    The agency has also urged registrants to update their dossiers, especially for uses and exposure scenarios. They will have an opportunity to comment, before any decision to request further information is taken. Draft decisions will be reviewed by other member states and Echa ahead of a final decision.

    Draft differences

    The draft Corap list published in October contained 107 substances.

    Two additional substances – antimony trichloride and diantimony tris(ethylene glycolate) – were notified for inclusion in the Corap in December last year. One substance included in the draft - 2,4,6-triallyloxy-1,3,5-triazine – was removed, upon request of the evaluating member state, due to new information, Echa said.

    The draft also listed 26 substances for evaluation in 2018, but some, according to Echa, have been postponed until next year because of member states either:

    facing resource issues;

    awaiting the results of ongoing compliance checks; and

    considering grouping – due to indications of structural similarity, substances are to be considered in a joint evaluation.

    New substances and evaluation year

    2018

    amphoteric fluorinated surfactant

    3-ethoxy1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-dodecafluoro-2-(trifluoromethyl)hexane

    antimony trichloride

    2,5,7,10,11,14-hexaoxa1,6-distibabicyclo[4.4.4] tetradecane

    2019

    chromium(III)oxide

    tetraphenyl m-phenylene bis (phosphate)

    n,n-diethylhydroxylamine

    2020

    triclocarban

    benzyl salicylate

    2-ethylhexyl salicylate

    4,4'-methylene bis(dibutyldithiocarbamate)

    trimethyloctadecylammonium chloride

    butan-2-one O,O',O''- (vinylsilylidyne)trioxime

    butan-2-one O,O',O''- (methylsilylidyne) trioxime

    acetic acid, oxo-, sodium salt, reaction products with ethylenediamine and phenol, iron sodium salts

    EDDHMAFEK

    reaction product of phenol, formaldehyde, ethylenediamine diacetic acid, iron chloride and potassium hydroxide

    https://chemicalwatch.com/65235/eu-to-evaluate-21-substances-this-year
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

14. (ACC Mentioned) West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania Governors Form Shale Gas Agreement

    Mar 22, 2018 | Parkersburg News

    Leaders in West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania will continue to work together to market the region for natural gas development.

    Gov. Jim Justice announced the extension of the Tri-State Shale Coalition Agreement with Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf. The goal of the Tri-State agreement is to enhance regional cooperation and job growth through developing shale gas in the Appalachian Basin.

    “Instead of competing, our three states are working together to promote the region as a center for shale-related manufacturing,” Justice said. “Shale gas presents an opportunity to spur economic growth beyond the wellhead. We are working to attract investors and downstream partners. We are encouraging chemicals and plastics manufacturers to come here, stay here and grow here with us in the Appalachian region.”

    The Appalachians have long been recognized as a source for valuable resources such as natural gas. The states host several chemical feedstock and plastics manufacturing businesses.

    The Tri-State Coalition participants said they intend to increase the region’s share of downstream-related business investments and the high-paying careers associated with them.

    Officials with Shale Crescent USA are at the World Petrochemical Conference this week in Houston, Texas. Shale Crescent USA has been involved with natural gas development efforts in West Virginia, southeastern Ohio and southwestern Pennsylvania as well as in the Mid-Ohio Valley.

    They released a report, “Benefits, Risks, and Estimated Project Cash Flows: Ethylene Project Located in the Shale Crescent USA versus the US Gulf Coast,” which said the Marcellus and Utica shale plays are some of the largest natural gas resources in the world and underlay the Shale Crescent USA region of Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

    Early forecasts say this region will supply 37 percent of the nation’s natural gas production by 2040.

    Officials with Shale Crescent USA are in Houston meeting with petrochemical company leaders and others to get them to consider this region for natural gas development, said Greg Kozera, director of marketing for Shale Crescent USA.

    Kozera said they heard about the extension of the agreement while at the conference and welcomed the news.

    “It is important all three states work together,” he said of the need to be competitive with the established petrochemical industry base in the Gulf of Mexico region of the country.

    “We need to compete as a region,” he added.

    If all three states work together on offering potential sites for a possible cracker facility, it saves time as company officials don’t have to go through the process of meeting state officials from three states, Kozera said. Once a company makes a decision on a potential site, the work can begin with state officials on deals that need to be worked out, he said.

    Kozera said they have been meeting with corporate CEOs and other executives to talk about this region.

    A site selector might pass on a property if it doesn’t match the list of requirements the company laid out. By talking with the CEOs, they are able to provide details on an area and how it might still be able to meet their needs.

    “It gets people to look at us,” Kozera said. “It creates awareness.”

    Under the coalition agreement, the states work together on issues in infrastructure systems, workforce development and marketing activities to better enable the region to harness the potential of Appalachian gas and natural gas liquids, officials said.

    The agreement identifies key areas in which the states cooperate to grow the natural gas industry, including workforce development, infrastructure and research.

    During annual Tri-State Shale summits, the government, educational and industry leaders from across the region meet to share information and best practices.

    A strong upsurge of investment in the U.S. chemical industry can be attributed at least in part to the plentiful supply of natural gas, reports the American Chemistry Council. The domestic supply gives U.S. chemical manufacturers a competitive edge, resulting in increased investment, industry growth and jobs, the report said.

    As of December 2017, the council reports, 317 projects cumulatively valued at $185 billion in capital investment have been announced.

    The Memorandum of Understanding creating the Tri-State Shale Coalition was signed in 2015. The cooperative agreement renewed automatically each year. The new signatures continue the regional cooperation agreement through Dec. 31, 2021.

    Representatives from public-private, economic development and philanthropic organizations such as Vision Shared of West Virginia, TeamNEO of Ohio, The Claude Worthington Benedum Foundation and the Regional Pittsburgh Alliance of Pennsylvania help support and guide the coalition’s efforts.

    http://www.newsandsentinel.com/news/business/2018/03/west-virginia-ohio-pennsylvania-governors-form-shale-gas-agreement/
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

15. (ACC Mentioned) Pyrolysis Sector Makes Its Case Before Congress

    Mar 21, 2018 | Plastics Recycling Update

    By Colin Staub

    Plastics-to-fuel companies are asking federal lawmakers to include their sector in tax provisions benefiting alternative fuel producers.

    Mike Dungan, CEO of plastics-to-fuel company RES Polyflow, testified in the U.S. House of Representatives last week, requesting that pyrolysis companies become eligible for the Alternative Fuel Credit and Alternative Fuel Mixture Credit. These provisions allow tax deductions for businesses that sell or use alternative fuels.

    The credits have received multiple one-year extensions and were most recently extended to cover the 2017 tax year. The U.S. House Ways and Means tax subcommittee held a hearing last week, inviting representatives from various alternative fuel interests to offer input on the credits.

    Some industries simply asked for a long-term extension of the incentives. But Dungan, representing the Plastics-to-Fuel & Petrochemistry Alliance of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), made the case for pyrolysis operations becoming eligible for the measures. Currently, the incentives cover natural gas, liquefied hydrogen, propane and similar fuels, but not fuel generated from pyrolysis, an oxygen-free process that does not involve burning.

    RES Polyflow makes gasoline and diesel blendstocks, naphtha and waxes from post-consumer plastics.

    Dungan described it as “an issue of fundamental fairness that technologies which convert post-use plastics into lower carbon fuels be included in a broadened definition” of alternative fuel, should the credits get extended. The pyrolysis industry, he said, is “exactly the type of fledgling industry that smart, targeted federal tax policy can help jumpstart.”

    “This is a way to de-risk these startup companies and get us up on our feet,” he said, in response to follow-up questions from lawmakers. “And maybe in five, six years we don’t need this support anymore. We’re just asking to participate.”

    He added that eligibility for the credits would allow the plastics-to-fuel industry to compete with other alternative fuel producers that already enjoy the benefits.

    “It de-risks us from an off-take perspective, so our fuels we produce are more attractive to the petroleum industry,” he said.

    At the state level, the ACC has been pushing legislatures to remove regulatory barriers to plastics conversion technologies. On March 21, ACC issued a statement hailing the Wisconsin Legislature’s passage of Assembly Bill 789, which exempts pyrolysis and gasification facilities from certain laws relating to solid waste facilities.

    “This new legislation will make Wisconsin a welcoming environment for innovative new manufacturing that converts post-use non-recycled plastics into fuels, chemicals or feedstocks for new plastics,” said Craig Cookson, ACC’s senior director of recycling and energy recovery. Florida has already passed a similar bill.Partnership with BP announced

    The testimony before Congress comes at a time of wider pyrolysis industry development. On March 20, RES Polyflow announced it has entered a supply agreement with BP and will begin processing plastics commercially at its first production plant.

    RES Polyflow’s facility in Ashley, Ind. will convert 100,000 tons per year of scrap plastics into 16 million gallons of low-sulfur diesel fuel and naphtha blend stocks. BP will purchase the entire fuel output of the facility. Besides fuel, the site will also produce commercial-grade waxes and will sell those into the industrial wax market.

    In a press release, the pyrolysis company said it anticipates the new facility will “create a new market for the growing stream of complex plastic film, flexible packaging and other low value, non-recycled plastic waste that typically ends up going to landfills or fouling local waterways.”

    The facility will launch in 2019, according to the release. RES Polyflow anticipates it will be the first of several facilities in the Midwest. Subsequent sites will be anchored around the Ashley, Ind. plant.

    Industry executives also recently discussed the state of the plastics-to-fuel sector at the Plastics Recycling Conference, which was held in February in Nashville, Tenn. In an interview prior to the event, an executive from pyrolysis company Renewlogy stated that the industry had proven itself by showing technical success, and is now ready to scale things up.

    “Now it’s a matter of demonstrating this as a mainstream and not just niche technology,” company CEO Priyanka Bakaya said.

    https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2018/03/21/pyrolysis-sector-makes-its-case-before-congress/
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

16. Business Group Again Touting Petrochemical Benefits of Appalachian Basin

    Mar 21, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence

    By Jamison Cocklin

    A group of business leaders from the Appalachian Basin on Tuesday unveiled a study it commissioned that shows the region has significant advantages for ethylene cracker projects compared to the Gulf Coast, including low-cost feedstock and market proximity.

    The group, which was formed to brand the Mid-Ohio Valley in Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania as Shale Crescent USA, has been working since 2016 to attract global attention and top energy-consuming businesses. It unveiled the study during another appearance at IHS Markit’s World Petrochemical Conference in Houston to raise more awareness about what Appalachia can offer the industry.

    The study, conducted by IHS Markit, found that ethane costs are 32% lower in the Shale Crescent region, compared to the Gulf Coast. More important it said, polyethylene, the manufactured pellets used to make a variety of plastics, cost 23% less to deliver from Appalachia compared to the Gulf. Royal Dutch Shell plc has said that about 70% of the North American polyethylene market is within a 700-mile radius of the ethane cracker it is constructing in western Pennsylvania.

    Based on an initial plant investment of $3 billion, the study found that over a 20-year period from 2020-2040, a petrochemical project in the Shale Crescent region would generate $11.5 billion of pre-tax cash flow, or $3.6 billion more than the $7.9 billion created by a similar Gulf Coast project.

    “The financial advantages for a Shale Crescent USA project are robust under different feedstock price scenarios, even when considering a range of capital costs and operating rate conditions,” said author Ron Whitfield, who is IHS Markit vice president of applied economics.  “This ultimately leads to lower delivered costs of polyethylene…”

    Shell’s facility would consume about 100,000 b/d of ethane to make ethylene and polyethylene. PTT Global Chemical pcl also plans to make a final investment decision later this year on a similarly sized facility that it wants to build in Belmont County, OH. While the companies have not revealed a price tag for the plants, it is estimated that they will cost about $5-6 billion each. Other crackers also have been proposed for the region.

    While Shale Crescent has its work cut out for it in competing with the Gulf Coast, a region that is witnessing a massive petrochemical expansion with several facilities in various stages of development in Texas and Louisiana, the group’s representatives have acknowledged that Appalachia can’t overtake the Gulf Coast petrochemical sector.

    Instead, Shale Crescent said the two regions can complement one another, with the Northeast suited to manufacture more domestic petrochemical supplies and the Gulf Coast focused on a growing exports market.

    Indeed, slightly more than half of all U.S. refinery capacity is on the Gulf Coast, according to the Energy Information Administration. The region also provides about two-thirds of the nation’s petrochemicals for use in plastics and other manufacturing.

    “This report challenges conventional wisdom and corroborates the decision by several international energy companies that have already selected our region as the location for major, multi-billion dollar projects,” said Shale Crescent spokesman Jerry James, who also serves as president of Ohio-based Artex Oil Co. “Our message to any other companies that are considering similar investments either here in the United States or internationally, is that the Shale Crescent USA region offers unparalleled advantages for petrochemical manufacturing and is open for business.”

    Since Shell announced in 2016 that it would move forward with a cracker, local, state and federal officials have stepped up their efforts to overcome a variety of challenges they see standing in the way of petrochemical growth in Appalachia. Land for large manufacturing operations must be identified, a major storage hub for natural gas liquids, which the region lacks, is considered key, and a workforce must be developed to compete with the Gulf Coast, which has distinct advantages with regard to construction and labor costs. 

    Another Pennsylvania-commissioned study was released last year showing that the Appalachian Basin is uniquely positioned to compete in the global petrochemicals market. That study, which was also conducted by IHS, found that there’s enough ethane available in the basin to support up to four more crackers in addition to Shell’s facility. 

    http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/113769-business-group-again-touting-petrochemical-benefits-of-appalachian-basin
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

17. Billion-Dollar Question: Why Aren't More Crackers Being Built in Appalachia?

    Mar 21, 2018 | Pittsburgh Business Times

    By Paul J. Gough

    The reasons why there haven't been any more ethane crackers announced for Appalachia — and the critical importance of large-scale storage to support the region's burgeoning petrochemical industry — were big topics of discussion at an industry gathering Wednesday.
    

    The bottom line: The $3 billion to $6 billion that it costs to build an ethane cracker has to be approved by someone, and it's a big commitment that would be extremely costly and potentially fatal to a company if it didn't work out.

    "It is a bet-the-company and certainly bet-your-career," said Tom Gellrich, founder of Top Line Analytics, a consultancy that focuses on downstream shale gas development like ethane crackers. Gellrich spoke at a pipeline and midstream conference held Wednesday at Southpointe by Kallanish Energy, a daily global energy news and analysis website.

    So far only Shell Chemicals, the division of Dutch multinational Royal Dutch Shell (NYSE: RDS.A), has made that billions-dollar commitment with the cracker it's building in Beaver County. PTT Global Chemicals is moving to a final investment decision on a second potential cracker in Belmont County, Ohio.

    Gellrich said his estimate is there's enough ethane — a byproduct of natural gas production that is critical in the production of plastics — for eight crackers. He said five crackers, including Shell's, could realistically be built.

    But that depends on a lot of factors, including the building of infrastructure to pipe ethane to petrochemical plants and the as-yet-unbuilt ethane storage hub. Despite Shell's big investment and marketing by Pennsylvania and others about the abundant supply of ethane in natural gas production — as well as a Shale Crescent USA study released Tuesday that shows the cost advantage of an Appalachian petrochemical industry and the proximity to major petrochemical markets — it's not an easy case to build.

    "It's a very tough time for business development right now," said Timothy E. Hanley, vice president of business development at Energy Storage Ventures. ESV and its subsidiary Mountaineer NGL is building the first ethane storage facility in Appalachia in a site in Ohio about 35 miles south of Wheeling, W.Va. While Mountaineer NGL isn't currently supplying Shell — it's relying on a custom-built, 94-mile pipeline and real-time delivery of ethane — Mountaineer NGL would be the operational ethane storage for nearby PTT Global Chemicals plant.

    Another big factor cited by Gellrich and Hanley: It's a lot less risky to build ethane crackers along the Gulf Coast, where there's existing infrastructure, supply and a tradition going back decades. That comfort level makes it easier to discount the cost benefits to being near the supply.

    "When you develop in the Gulf, you're bolting to a system that's already in use," Hanley said. "Here, it's (on) a blackboard (at the present time)."

    Gellrich agreed.

    "It's a lot easier to build on the Gulf Coast where they know how this works," Geller said. "There's an infrastructure."

    Hanley said Gulf Coast companies don't want to see large-scale petrochemical production in Appalachia but would instead have the ethane shipped by pipeline to the Gulf Coast. That's why Shell's decision — and its success once production gets underway at the plant next decade — is so important, Gellrich said.

    "Everybody's watching Shell," Gellrich said. "Everybody's watching what's going on."

    https://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/news/2018/03/21/billion-dollar-question-why-arent-more-crackers.html
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

18. House Panel Weighs DOE Overhaul; Critics Call It a 'Disaster'

    Mar 22, 2018 | E&E Daily

    By Christa Marshall

    The House Energy and Commerce Committee is considering a sweeping overhaul to the Department of Energy's efficiency program that environmentalists warn could put a disastrous "deep freeze" on rules.

    The committee circulated a discussion draft yesterday rewriting the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, a law that requires DOE to set mandatory efficiency regulations for dozens of products. Supporters of DOE's program say it has saved consumers about $2 trillion since its inception and is a key tool in fighting climate change.

    While the language could change and it's unclear when it might be formally introduced, a Republican committee official said EPCA legislation is a priority. The law, first enacted in 1975, hasn't seen a major update in more than a decade.

    "Among other things, it is hoped that this flexibility will allow the agency to focus on those rules likely to save the most energy," the official said. The committee has been working on the language for a long time, according to sources.

    The draft would change DOE's mandatory process where there's an automatic review of efficiency rules every six years. Instead of an automatic review, updates could be triggered by a petition from any stakeholder or the Energy secretary, the committee official said.

    Andrew deLaski, executive director at the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, called the text a "disaster" that would freeze DOE's program so that required efficiency levels for products such as ovens might never change again.

    Under the statute, products including dishwashers and air conditioners would have to meet a minimum efficiency threshold set by DOE.

    DeLaski said he was concerned that final language, if similar to the draft, would make it discretionary for DOE to update future standards. These potential changes would add hurdles to make it nearly impossible to improve existing rules, even if DOE decided to.

    Even though a petitioner could request a review, the process for doing so would be convoluted and lengthy, and would put the burden on private citizens rather than the government, he said.

    This "eviscerates the national efficiency standards program," he said. "If the government doesn't have to do something, it won't do it."

    Under existing law, DOE has to review standards every six years and decide whether an update for a given efficiency rule is warranted based on technology and economic impacts. If it is, the deadline is two years after that.

    Industry groups have pushed for changes to EPCA for years, saying that the six-year schedule is burdensome.

    "Oftentimes, our members have to start preparing for the next rulemaking before the current even one goes into effect," said Francis Dietz, a vice president for public affairs at the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute.

    AHRI and several other manufacturing groups sent comments to the Department of Energy last year calling for changes to EPCA, including slowing down the "never-ending churn" of rulemaking.

    The discussion draft would lengthen the timeline between any reviews, so they are at least eight years apart. The committee is also weighing a requirement that test procedures on appliances be completed before standards, something industry has been pushing for.

    "We are pleased that the committee recognizes the challenges faced by industries regulated by the 40-year-old Energy Policy and Conservation Act and the need to modernize it to reflect the realities of a changed marketplace," AHRI said.

    Kevin Messner, senior vice president of policy and government relations at the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, said the organization was reviewing the situation. But he said they were "fully supportive of legislative reform of the appliance program," adding that "making regulations discretionary is the construct of virtually every other regulatory framework that exists."

    Dietz said that AHRI had not fully endorsed the language and would have to consider carefully any plan making all future rule updates discretionary.

    Any bill also could face a long road if introduced. Previous updates to EPCA passed with bipartisan support in the Senate, deLaski said.

    The discussion is occurring at a time when DOE is weighing changes of its own to the efficiency standards program, including by turning it more into a market-based system (Greenwire, Nov. 27, 2017).

    Last December, the Trump administration released a regulatory plan that changed legal deadlines for many efficiency standards to "to be determined," prompting lawsuit threats (Greenwire, Jan. 5). In a report to Congress last month, DOE dropped a column showing statutory deadlines.

    Last week, a federal judge ordered DOE to publish several efficiency rules stalled by the Trump administration (Greenwire, March 14).

    Separately, some conservative groups are urging the agency to make changes. Yesterday, the Competitive Enterprise Institute floated a petition to DOE saying that efficiency standards for dishwashers have made things inconvenient for consumers by slowing down the machines. The group called for DOE to create a new standard for dishwashers requiring less than an hour for cleaning and drying.

    "For many consumers, it's a royal pain. We hope the Department of Energy will change course," said CEI general counsel Sam Kazman.

    Many newer models have express cycles, but they are not advertised well and are not as efficient as a regular cycle, according to CEI.

    DeLaski said it was true that dishwashers operated on the short cycle may not be as efficient as on the longer cycle, but consumers presumably don't always need the shorter interval.

    "Our research from a few years ago showed that dishwasher prices had not been affected by standards," he said.

    https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/03/22/stories/1060076993
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

19. 'Bellwether' Auction Shows Weak Demand for Offshore Oil Leases

    Mar 21, 2018 | Politico Pro

    By Ben Lefebvre

    An Interior Department auction for offshore drilling leases generated $124.7 million, a relatively low amount that shows little industry interest as of yet in a key part of the Trump administration’s offshore energy policy.

    The Trump administration has promoted offshore drilling as part of its policy to increase oil and gas production, advertising this lease sale as the largest ever in the Gulf of Mexico. Interior for the second auction in a row put its entire Gulf holdings up for lease, breaking previous practice of only offering parts of the Gulf up for auction at a time. And it again offered reduced rates for less attractive, shallow water parcels as it did at its August 2017 lease sale in the Gulf.

    Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, who has proposed opening virtually the entire U.S. coastline to oil and gas exploration, recently pointed to the auction as a “bellwether” of industry interest in expanded offshore drilling, compared to surging onshore production in states like Texas and North Dakota.

    But the auction brought in about the same amount of money as an August lease sale, which raised just $121 million — about 40 percent below the government's initial forecast. As recently as March 2017, Interior raised over $274 million with a single lease sale.

    Interior has actively promoted coastal drilling as a way to boost oil and gas production, but so far hasn’t been able to buck market trends that work against companies investing billions of dollars in deepwater projects that take years to start producing.

    Michael Celata, regional director for the Gulf of Mexico region at Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, argued it was unfair to compare Wednesday's sale to results before Interior started offering leases in the entire Gulf up for sale last August.

    “It’s difficult to compare this sale to sales from years past," Celata told reporters on a conference call Wednesday. “The best comparison is directly to the last previous sale.”

    Celata did not have the numbers for how much BOEM had forecast this latest lease sale would generate. Celata also said that lowering the royalty rates for shallow water tracts may have helped increase interest in the area. Data released after the sale showed companies had bid for 43 tracts in shallow water regions, nearly double the number from the March 2017 lease sale when shallow water royalty rates had been higher.

    Oil production coming from projects started in years past has helped bring oil production in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico to record highs, according to the Energy Information Administration. But more recently, Exxon, Chevron and other companies have hesitated to add more area to their operations in federal waters, preferring to drill in North Dakota, Texas and other onshore shale plays that have proven much cheaper to set up and much faster in producing new oil.

    But the area is also facing new competition for industry attention as Mexico has become more open to allowing foreign companies to drill in its part of the Gulf. Mexico for decades only allowed its national oil company Pemex to drill in those waters, meaning the area is much less developed than on the U.S. side.

    Shell and other international oil companies participated in a January auction of Mexican offshore oil leases, bidding aggressively despite fears that a change of government later this year could roll back the country’s energy policy reforms.

    In a time of low oil prices and strict limits on capital spending, companies have to decide whether to gamble on buying space in a less developed area or sticking to known territory on the U.S. side, said Bernadette Johnson, VP of market intelligence for Drillinginfo, an industry research organization.

    “You may do both, but many won’t,” Johnson said. “Companies are going to be much choosier because margins are tight and are going to stay tight.”

    https://www.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/03/bellwether-auction-shows-weak-demand-for-offshore-oil-leases-432145
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

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

Transportation and Infrastructure News

20. GOP Bills Target ESA to Get Roads out of 'Permitting Purgatory'

    Mar 22, 2018 | E&E Daily

    By Nick Sobczyk

    A group of Republican senators yesterday introduced three bills aimed at streamlining environmental permitting for highway projects.

    All three measures from Republican Sens. John Cornyn of Texas, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Dan Sullivan of Alaska and Deb Fischer of Nebraska would devolve federal permitting to state governments, mirroring one of the major goals of President Trump's infrastructure plan.

    "Delays in improvements to our aging infrastructure due to red tape continue to put Americans' safety at risk," Cornyn said in a statement. "This legislation will streamline the permitting process so updates to our roads can be made more efficiently without risk of harming the environment."

    Lawmakers have said if they do take up an infrastructure package based on Trump's plan this year, they'll likely cobble it together using existing bills and legislative language.

    An aide said Cornyn would be open to the possibility of the new bills being roped into a broader bill.

    The bills cover potentially controversial ground left untouched by the White House plan. But they also largely build on permitting changes made in the last big infrastructure bill, the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, passed in 2015.

    One of the bills, for instance, would allow states to take over some permitting responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act.

    The scope, however, is relatively limited. To be eligible, states would have to already be participating in a state permitting program for the National Environmental Policy Act authorized by the FAST Act.

    The two other measures introduced would make similar concessions of permitting power to the states as an extension of the same FAST Act program.

    One would give states authority to issue certain permits under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, while the other would devolve historic preservation permitting authorities.

    The three measures will likely encounter quick resistance from the environmental community. Greens and Democrats say the biggest holdup for transportation projects isn't environmental permitting, but rather lack of funding.

    But the group of GOP senators held the conservative line on permitting, calling the bills a "reasonable" step toward getting infrastructure built more efficiently.

    "America used to be known as a country that built great structures on time and on budget," Sullivan said in a statement. "Now our roads and other crucial infrastructure projects are often mired in permitting purgatory for years."

    https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/03/22/stories/1060076995
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

21. Fossil Fuel Subsidies Down, but Impact on Emissions in Question

    Mar 22, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Rick Mitchell

    The world's biggest economies have recently reduced financial support to consumers and producers of fossil fuels, but a recent study says those steps may have a limited impact on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

    Two Paris-based organizations have been keeping tabs on countries’ steps toward reducing support for greenhouse-gas-emitting fossil fuels since the world's biggest economies in 2009 committed to gradually eliminating subsidies.

    And global subsidies have fallen among the world's major economies, although they still top $150 billion annually, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reported last month.

    But another study, by the Austria-based International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, found that eliminating subsidies would have only a small impact on reaching the international Paris Agreement goal of keeping global warming to a maximum rise of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) compared to averages from before the Industrial Revolution.

    “Removing subsidies in most regions would deliver smaller emission reductions than the Paris Agreement (2015) climate pledges and in some regions global subsidy removal may actually lead to an increase in emissions, owing to either coal replacing subsidized oil and natural gas or natural-gas use shifting from subsidizing, energy-exporting regions to non-subsidizing, importing regions,” said an abstract to the report, published last month in the journal Nature.

    “Our results show that subsidy removal would result in the largest CO2 emission reductions in high-income oil- and gas-exporting regions, where the reductions would exceed the climate pledges of these regions and where subsidy removal would affect fewer people living below the poverty line than in lower-income regions.”

    Historical Context

    When leaders of the Group of 20 countries, which account for most of the world's economic output and carbon dioxide emissions, first committed to eliminating fossil fuel subsidies in 2009, the International Energy Agency and climate advocate groups said this measure was essential to cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

    Ahead of the Paris climate summit in 2015, the IEA—an independent affiliate of OECD—had calculated that fossil fuel subsidy reductions could have a major impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

    It estimated that they could contribute 10 percent of the additional cuts that would be needed—beyond those achieved through countries’ Paris climate commitments—to be able to hold global warming to 2 degrees Celsius or less, the supply division chief for the agency's flagship World Energy Outlook report, Tim Gould, told Bloomberg Environment.

    In its recent report, the OECD cataloged about 1,000 spending programs and tax breaks that governments used to encourage production or consumption of fossil fuels in the 35 OECD members, which include the world's advanced market economies, plus eight big non-OECD G-20 emerging economies: Argentina, Brazil, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Russia, and South Africa.

    It estimated that aggregate annual fossil fuel support for the 43 countries ranged from $151 billion to $249 billion from 2010 to 2016. Support in the OECD countries held level in the last two years of the study at about $82 billion per year, while in the emerging economies it plunged from a 2013 peak of $142 billion to $69 billion in 2016. Support for consumption of petroleum products accounted for the bulk.

    The IEA, based on its own data and calculations, found that “overall, the estimated value of global fossil-fuel consumption subsidies decreased by 18 percent to $260 billion in 2016, due in part to lower prices for the main fuels but also to continued efforts at reform,” Gould said.

    ‘Overhang of Historical Commitments’

    A report last year by Oil Change International, which advocates for an end to government programs that support fossil fuels and a transition to renewable energy, put the value of federal and state tax breaks and other measures to support, even if indirectly, fossil fuel companies at $20 billion annually in the U.S.

    The Washington-based American Petroleum Institute said the industry doesn't get subsidies in the U.S., and declined to comment.

    Fuels Europe, which represents 42 companies operating refineries in the European Union, didn't respond to a request for comment. Neither did the Vienna-based Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.

    The OECD's database is important for understanding the “overhang of historical commitments by governments around the world to support fossil fuel use,” Jatin Nathwani, executive director at the Waterloo Institute for Sustainable Energy at the University of Waterloo in Canada, told Bloomberg Environment.

    Biggest Impact Among Oil Exporters

    Countries that signed the Paris Agreement made country-specific pledges like reducing fossil fuel use, increasing renewable energy use, and taking other actions to curb carbon dioxide emissions.

    But very few countries’ Paris pledges actually included fossil fuel subsidy changes, Jessica Jewell, a researcher who was the lead author on the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis report, told Bloomberg Environment.

    The institute's study took OECD data on fossil fuel subsidies and calculated the global impact on energy-related carbon dioxide emissions if they were eliminated, and then the impact by region, Jewell said. It then compared those reductions to emissions reductions if countries fulfilled their Paris climate pledges.

    The institute found that in oil-and-gas exporting regions—Russia, the Middle East, North Africa, and Latin America—the emission reductions either meet or exceed what countries pledged in Paris. In other regions, including the big emitters—China, the U.S., and European Union—they don't meet what countries have pledged to in Paris, Jewell said.

    Fossil fuel consumption subsidies, as defined by the IEA, are much less common in the world's major consuming countries, “so it is natural that their removal, where this applies at all, has less of an impact,” Gould said.

    http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=130260558&vname=dennotallissues&fn=130260558&jd=130260558
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

22. Ewire: Climate Science's Big Day in Court

    Mar 21, 2018 | Inside EPA

    As an unusual spring blizzard wallops the East Coast, the science of climate change will take center stage in a federal court in San Francisco where oil giants Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell are slated to present their views on the issue, along with attorneys for the cities of San Francisco and Oakland who are suing the fossil fuel corporations over their contribution to sea-level rise.

    U.S. District Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California gave both sides eight questions to answer at the March 21 “tutorial” in the novel case, People of the State of California v. BP.

    Among the Alsup questions are, “What caused the various ice ages?” and “Apart from carbon dioxide, what happens to the collective heat from tail pipe exhausts, engine radiators, and all other heat from combustion of fossil fuels?” according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

    Vox calls the tutorial “a big deal” because, “It will set a federal judicial precedent establishing the facts of the mechanisms of global warming.” The presentations “will build a foundation for future litigation on the impacts of rising temperatures around the world, particularly lawsuits stemming from harm to the environment or human health from climate change.”

    Vox reports that the lesson will come in two parts -- the first will give both sides 60 minutes each to present the history of the study of climate change. The second part will give each side an hour to present the best available science on global warming, melting sea ice and other impacts. Vox also provides its own answers to each of the eight questions that leaves little doubt over the validity of the science.

    But the Sacramento Bee reports that the high-profile hearing is unlikely to be a “Scopes Trial,” referring to a landmark case that allowed evolution to be taught in public schools, because industry lawyers do not plan to deny that climate change is real.

    Chevron's lawyers told the Bee that the company accepts the international consensus that human activities are a main driver of the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and the resulting global warming.

    One of the lawyers, Avi Garbow, who was general counsel for EPA under the Obama administration, said, “On Wednesday, Chevron will not be engaging in a debate on climate change science.” Instead, the company will offer Alsup “a neutral assessment of the science.”

    The defendants instead are arguing that the claims have no merit, and have filed a motion to dismiss.

    But Dave Owen, an environmental law professor at University of California Hastings College of Law in San Francisco told KQED that the companies are in an awkward position and will be “stuck trying to explain their earlier public statements” and denials, which could be important since the cities are also arguing the companies misled the public.

    “A bunch of oil company lawyers are going to walk into federal district court and declare their acceptance of the science of climate change. That's a big deal,” he says.

    Alsup is moving forward with the tutorial after rejecting the defendants' motion to move the case to state court.

    However, a different federal judge in the same court reached the opposite conclusion March 16 in a similar case brought by other California governments, County of San Mateo, et al. v. Chevron, meaning the cases could proceed in different courts, thought Chevron has said it will appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

    https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-climate-sciences-big-day-court
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

23. Omnibus Leaves out Most Controversial Environmental Policy Riders

    Mar 21, 2018 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard

    By Anthony Adragna

    Congressional Democrats took a victory lap tonight after successfully keeping controversial environment and energy policy riders mostly out of the final spending agreement, H.R. 1625 (115).

    "While I am disappointed that the Interior and Environment bill continues to be the target for poison pill riders, I am relieved that, once again, we were able to protect our bedrock environment and conservation laws," Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), top Democrat on the EPA and Interior spending panel, said in a statement.

    Among the riders that didn't make the final cut: one that would have delayed implementation of EPA's revised ozone standard for 10 years, another that would have insulated repeal of the Obama administration's Waters of the U.S. rule from legal challenges, and one prohibiting Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves in the Great Lakes and Wyoming. Another rider excluded would have blocked implementation of an Interior rule curbing methane emissions.

    WHAT’S NEXT: The final package must clear Congress this week to prevent a federal government shutdown.

    https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

24. Legal Briefs Highlight Wide-Ranging Attacks on EPA's CSAPR 'Update'

    Mar 21, 2018 | Inside EPA

    By Stuart Parker

    A series of new legal briefs from several states, power companies and environmental groups highlights wide-ranging and often competing attacks on the Obama EPA's “update” to its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) emissions trading program, a program that the Trump administration is defending in ongoing appellate litigation.

    In the consolidated litigation over the update rule, upwind states and industry groups seek to ease pollution control mandates, while environmentalists push for tougher requirements.

    The Obama EPA’s 2016 update rule tightened emissions limits for states under the emissions trading program established by CSAPR for power plants. The original 2011 rule established trading for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2), in order to help states meet the 1997 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) expressed as 84 parts per billion (ppb), and also to meet EPA’s standards for particulate matter.

    The updated rule tightened NOx emissions caps in order to help states meet the tougher 2008 ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb, but left SO2 limits unchanged. EPA in 2015 adopted a tougher-still ozone NAAQS of 70 ppb, but so far the agency has not established any similar federal “backstop” trading rule to ensure attainment of the 2015 limit.

    Under the Clean Air Act’s “good neighbor” provision, states must craft state implementation plans (SIPs) outlining the emissions reduction measures they will adopt to mitigate their “significant contribution” of air pollution that contributes to problems attaining or maintaining NAAQS in other states downwind. Those SIPs are due for submission to EPA for agency approval for the 2015 NAAQS in October this year.

    EPA air chief William Wehrum has said he would prefer for states to rely on their own SIPs, rather than a federal rule, to mitigate interstate air emissions. Also, EPA has projected that almost all areas of the country outside of California will attain the 2015 NAAQS of 70 ppb by 2025 -- although environmentalists and some downwind states say this is too late to meet air law deadlines and protect public health.

    Meanwhile, the updated CSAPR rule still faces a concerted attempt by upwind states to weaken controls, in State of Wisconsin, et al., v. EPA, et al., now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Trump EPA is defending the Obama-era update from these efforts, but also fending off environmentalists’ claims that the update rule is unlawfully weak because it fails to ensure attainment and maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    States' Arguments

    In briefs filed March 19, the parties challenging the rule reiterate their criticisms of the updated regulation. A group of upwind states led by Wisconsin in their brief again attack EPA’s imposition of federal implementation plans (FIPs) on states instead of SIPs, in order to establish CSAPR state emissions caps, or “budgets."

    “When addressing the fact that the agency never considered whether imposing FIPs on individual States complied with the Good Neighbor Provision’s ‘significant[ ]’ downwind reductions provision or would be cost-justified, EPA seeks to change the topic, pointing out that courts have rejected different cost-related challenges to other interstate-transport rules,” the states say.

    “EPA does not point to anywhere in the record where it conducted this necessary analysis, a failing which led the agency to impose substantial costs upon States with no meaningful downwind benefits.”

    The states further say that EPA has failed to meaningfully respond to criticisms that it declined to take into account air monitoring data that contradicted its computer modeling projections, and that it exaggerated the ozone levels in areas bordering the ocean or Great Lakes.

     “EPA does not adequately respond to the States’ objection that its ‘grid-cell’ approach overstated ozone at coastal monitors; instead, EPA merely defends its general modeling approach, not that approach’s reasonableness for coastal areas,” the states say. Nor has the agency satisfactorily explained how to account for international ozone pollution that blows into the country, they say.

    'Over-control' Claim

    Utility industry and mining groups suing EPA over the rule’s stringency in their brief raise similar arguments that EPA’s rule results in unlawful “over-control.”

    The Supreme Court has in prior litigation largely upheld the CSAPR legal framework, but did find that controlling an upwind state more than is required to eliminate its significant contribution to all areas downwind to which it causes NAAQS attainment issues is over-control.

    The industry groups, led by the Utility Air Regulatory Group, say, “EPA cannot support its claim that this Court’s precedents compelled sole reliance on computer modeling -- to the exclusion of real-world air-quality data -- in identifying ‘problem’ receptors. EPA’s failure to properly consider such data was compounded by its disregard of international transport and other factors.”

    Further, “EPA refused to consider ozone-reducing effects of controls reasonably available to meet states’ own nonattainment-area requirements.” Downwind areas in nonattainment areas must impose tougher pollution controls than other areas, but the industry groups say EPA overlooked these local reduction measures.

    Statutory 'Flouting'

    However, environmental groups Sierra Club and Appalachian Mountain Club, along with Delaware, in their briefcounter that EPA’s update rule, by the agency’s own admission, does not ensure the good neighbor provision is met.

    “EPA’s defense is that the agency need not comply with the attainment deadlines Congress established . . . even though EPA concedes it must comply with that provision’s requirement to eliminate the offending emissions ‘as expeditiously as practicable.’ EPA’s flouting of the statutory deadlines is irreconcilable with the language of the Act and binding court precedent,” the groups say.

     The groups further argue that EPA overlooked better available emissions reductions, including shifting power generation to other fuel types, and also undermined the stringency of its rule by allowing use of emissions allowances “banked” under the earlier, less stringent version of CSAPR.

    Oral argument has not yet been scheduled in the case. 

    https://insideepa.com/daily-news/legal-briefs-highlight-wide-ranging-attacks-epas-csapr-update
    

    Return to headline | Return to top