Preview Newsletter
ACC PM Clips Report 4/5/2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Chief: US Trade War with China 'Not the Answer'
Apr 5, 2018 | RigZone
By Matthew V. Veazey
The head of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) on Wednesday urged the U.S. and Chinese governments to resolve their differences on trade, cautioning that an escalation could jeopardize close to $200 billion in U.S. chemical investments. -
(ACC Mentioned) Biggest Losers, Industries Impacted the Most Amid US China Trade War
Apr 5, 2018 | Devdiscourse
By Newsdesk
China reacted on US President Donald Trump’s Tariffs on USD 50 billion of Chinese imports with a counter tariff on 106 categories of US imports like soy, frozen pork, autos, with additional tariffs of 25 percent. -
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Petrochemicals, Plastics Could Suffer From China Tariffs, Analysts Say
Apr 5, 2018 | Seeking Alpha
By Carl Surran
Some 40% of the 106 U.S. products goods under threat of tariffs from Chinaare plastics, petrochemicals, petroleum products and specialty chemicals at a time when the industry is investing heavily in new production, CNBC reports. -
(ACC Mentioned) China Tariffs to Shock US and Global Chemical Markets
Apr 5, 2018 | ICIS
By Joseph Chang
Contrary to the expectations of industry executives and analysts, China is directly targeting certain chemicals and polymers as it rolled out its list of $50bn in retaliatory tariffs against US imports. -
Michigan Producers Urge Against China Trade War
Apr 5, 2018 | The Detroit News
By Keith Laing and Louis Aguilar
Detroit automakers and Michigan agriculture groups are urging the Trump administration to resolve differences with China without escalating a trade war, after that country threatened tariffs on additional U.S. products, including cars, auto parts, chemicals, soybeans, corn and beef. -
Pruitt's Chief of Staff Eyes Exit — Source
Apr 5, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender and Zack Colman
The chief of staff to U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is looking to leave his job as ethics problems continue to besiege his boss, according to an administration official. -
Top Pruitt Aide Resigns from EPA Amid Controversies
Apr 5, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
A top aide and close friend of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt has issued her resignation in the midst of various scandals plaguing the agency chief. -
(ACC Mentioned) API, EDF Clash Over New EPA Option For Protecting CBI Data Under TSCA
Apr 5, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Environmentalists and oil industry groups are criticizing EPA's plan for using alternative names, known as unique identifiers, to protect proprietary chemical data submitted to the agency, though the groups are at odds over EPA's approach, with industry charging it does not offer adequate protections while environmentalists say it does not ensure sufficient disclosure. -
(ACC Mentioned) 'Significant' Food Packaging Guide Goes Beyond Regulatory Minimums
Apr 5, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie Miller
he new Food Safety Alliance for Packaging (FSAP) guidelines are significant, and potentially controversial, because they go beyond regulatory requirements, and are based primarily on preferences of brand owners. -
Senator to Introduce Bill in US Removing Phthalates from FCMs
Apr 5, 2018 | Chemical Watch
US Senator Dianne Feinstein (D–California) has signalled her intention to introduce legislation removing phthalates from food packaging materials. -
Dining Out May Increase Phthalate Exposure, Study Suggests
Apr 5, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Dining out may increase exposure to phthalates, according to a US study using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (Nhanes), collected between 2005 and 2014. -
EPA Publishes Earlier Formaldehyde Deadline
Apr 5, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has published the updated formaldehyde emissions rule compliance deadline arising from a recent court ruling, in the Federal Register. -
Oil and Gas Industry Faces Microplastics Scrutiny
Apr 5, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The oil and gas industry has been named as an area for investigation in Echa’s recent call for evidence on the use of products with intentionally added microplastics. -
Vermont Advances Bill Reducing Hurdles to Banning Children's Products
Apr 5, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Vermont's legislature has approved a bill that would give the state's health commissioner increased authority to ban or restrict children's products. The governor's signature is all that stands in the way of the controversial measure becoming law. -
Crumb Rubber PAHs Transfer to Water and Air, Study Suggests
Apr 5, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in rubber crumb, used in synthetic turf for sports pitches, quickly transfer into rain water and air, according to research by scientists in Spain. -
Methane Whiplash: Enviros Prep Appeal as Court Ices Rule
Apr 5, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
On-again, off-again Obama-era standards for methane emissions on public lands are off, again. -
Scrapping Obama Rule Perpetuates Royalty Losses — Report
Apr 5, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
Federal officials charged royalties on just a tiny fraction of natural gas lost by energy firms extracting hydrocarbons from public lands, a new nonpartisan report has found. -
Attorneys General Sue EPA Over Methane Regs
Apr 5, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
A coalition of attorneys general sued U.S. EPA today, bidding to force the regulation of methane emissions from existing oil and gas sources. -
New Regional Emissions Study Offers Insights into New Mexico’s Oil and Gas Emissions Problems
Apr 5, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Hillary Hull
A new study from the Western Regional Air Partnership — a collaboration of state, tribal, and local air agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency, federal land managers, and other local stakeholders — finds methane emissions from New Mexico’s oil and gas facilities are higher than previous estimates and notes regulations could help address the problem. -
Shale Boom is in the 3rd Inning; Investors to Decide How Game Plays Out
Apr 5, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By William Arnold
Recent media attention questions the future of shale oil production in the U.S. Will capital discipline put a brake on growth or will domestic production rise to the point of undermining prices again? As so often in business, it’s the investors who will make the call. -
Crude Oil Spills into Bay Jacques
Apr 5, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
A crude oil storage tank leaked 4,200 gallons into Bay Jacques in Louisiana, according to the Coast Guard. -
Pruitt has Made Environmental Injustice the Norm at EPA: 5 Shocking Examples
Apr 5, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Felice Stadler
As Scott Pruitt’s ethical woes mount, we must not lose sight of the profound damage he has done to environmental safeguards in just one year – and how disproportionally that affects people in our country. -
Southern California Regulators Have a Chance to Rein in Freight Pollution. Will They Take It?
Apr 5, 2018 | LA Times
By Tony Barboza
Over and over in their decades-long war on smog, Southern California regulators have failed to use a powerful tool against ports, warehouses and other freight and logistics hubs that are magnets for air pollution.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Chief: US Trade War with China 'Not the Answer'
Apr 5, 2018 | RigZone
By Matthew V. Veazey
The head of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) on Wednesday urged the U.S. and Chinese governments to resolve their differences on trade, cautioning that an escalation could jeopardize close to $200 billion in U.S. chemical investments.
“U.S. chemical manufacturers believe the principles of free and fair trade should apply to all members of the WTO (World Trade Organization), and that includes China,” ACC President and CEO Cal Dooley said in a prepared statement. “However, engaging in a trade war with one of our country’s most significant trading partners is not the answer. We strongly urge both the U.S. and Chinese governments to work together to come to a satisfactory and mutually beneficial decision before this situation escalates further.”
Dooley was referring to China’s State Council Customs Tariffs Commission’s decision to impose an additional 25-percent tariff on chemicals and other products imported from the United States. According to China’s official Xinhua news agency, exactly when the Chinese imposes the tariffs hinges on when the U.S. government acts on its own package of tariff increases on imports from China.
Earlier this week, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) published an extensive proposed list of Chinese-made products that could be subject to higher U.S. tariffs. According to a USTR press release, the proposed list will undergo a public notice and comment process before USTR makes a final determination on products subject to additional duties.
The Chinese Embassy in the United States urged the Trump administration to reconsider the proposed tariff hikes.
“As the Chinese saying goes, it is only polite to reciprocate,” stated the embassy. “We hope that the U.S. side, with sense and long-term picture in mind, refrain from going further down the wrong path.”
Dooley called China “one of the U.S. chemical industry’s most important trading partners,” noting that the country imported 11 percent – amounting to $3.2 billion – of U.S. plastic resins last year.
“We are particularly concerned that 40 percent of the products to which China has assigned new tariffs are chemicals, including polyethylene, PVC (polyvinyl chloride), polycarbonates, acrylates, and others,” stated Dooley.
In addition, Dooley said that nearly $185 billion in new chemical factories, expansions and facility restarts throughout the U.S. rely on assumptions based on existing tariff schedules.
“(M)arket shifts caused by tariff increases may convince investors to do business elsewhere,” warned Dooley. “We strongly urge the U.S. and China to reach a productive and meaningful agreement before any of the proposed tariff schedules go into effect.”
Another organization with a stake in U.S.-China trade relations, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), called tariffs “one proposed response” to China’s “theft of American intellectual property and their use of unfair trade practices.” However, NAM on Tuesday cautioned that tariffs would likely “create new challenges in the form of significant added costs for manufacturers and American consumers.” In addition, NAM contends tariffs could provoke China to “take further destructive actions against American workers.”
Instead, NAM called on the Trump administration to pursue a “rules-based bilaterial trade agreement with China.”
“If the imposition of tariffs is the first bid in negotiating a more level playing field, manufacturers believe the end product must be a new, strategic approach that includes negotiating a fair, binding and enforceable rules-based trade agreement with China that requires them to end their unfair trade practices once and for all,” said NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons, who sent a letter to President Trump in January regarding his organization’s stance on the issue.
https://www.rigzone.com/news/acc_chief_us_trade_war_with_china_not_the_answer-05-apr-2018-154134-article/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Biggest Losers, Industries Impacted the Most Amid US China Trade War
Apr 5, 2018 | Devdiscourse
By Newsdesk
China reacted on US President Donald Trump’s Tariffs on USD 50 billion of Chinese imports with a counter tariff on 106 categories of US imports like soy, frozen pork, autos, with additional tariffs of 25 percent.
The trade war fear has been hitting global stocks for the last 2 months. Many experts say that the US move and China's reaction is likely to slow global economic growth.
A lot of industries are directly impacted by the fears of trade war.
Technology Companies: The S&P 500 technology sector, dipped 0.5 percent on Wednesday when Trump announced tariffs before rebounding to end 1.3 percent higher.
Chip makers are the worst-hit stocks, China is an assembly hub for electronic devices and the biggest consumer of semiconductors.
Aircraft Makers: Boeing Co, the major aircraft maker closed 1 percent down after announcements from both the countries weighing down the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Boeing said it is assessing the situation, the impact of tariffs on newer aircrafts was not immediately clear.
Auto Companies: Automakers have been urging two countries to work together and resolve issues since long. GM rival Ford Motor Co also lost as much as 3 percent before rebounding to close 1.6 percent higher while electric carmaker Tesla Inc, which depends on China for 17 percent of its revenue, fell as much as 5.8 percent before retracing losses to end up over 7.2 percent. Shares of Fiat Chrysler fell as much as 3.4 percent before recovering to end up nearly 2 percent.
Whiskey makers: US Whiskey accounts for 70 percent of the total US spirits exported to China by value. The Distilled Spirits Council, a US industry group, asked the United States and China to reach a resolution without subjecting American whiskey to more tariffs, which it said would harm Chinese consumers, its hospitality sector and US whiskey exporters.
Brown-Forman Corp, the maker of Jack Daniel's whiskey, slipped about 1 percent before recovering to close up 1.3 percent to USD 54.71 after whiskey was singled out as the only spirit on which China planned to impose more tariffs.
Commodities and Chemical Industry: The American Chemistry Council (ACC) - which counts Exxon, Chevron, Monsanto and others as its members - urged the United States and China to come to an understanding. "Engaging in a trade war with one of our country's most significant trading partners is not the answer," said ACC Chief Executive Officer Cal Dooley.
Producers of US soybeans that trade in China were also affected, Archer Daniels Midland Co and Bunge Ltd fell almost 1.5 percent initially before recovering later.
There are winners from the trade war as well, other countries that exports saw a surge in stocks. Brazil’s soy premium touched historic highs on account of possible increase in demand.
https://www.devdiscourse.com/Article/3087-biggest-losers-industries-impacted-the-most-amid-us-china-trade-war?reg=South%20Asia
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Petrochemicals, Plastics Could Suffer From China Tariffs, Analysts Say
Apr 5, 2018 | Seeking Alpha
By Carl Surran
Some 40% of the 106 U.S. products goods under threat of tariffs from Chinaare plastics, petrochemicals, petroleum products and specialty chemicals at a time when the industry is investing heavily in new production, CNBC reports.
China is the third-biggest export market for U.S. chemicals, totaling $10.6B in 2016, the latest year included in an analysis of U.S Department of Commerce data conducted by the American Chemical Council.
One of the targeted items that stands out is polyethylene, according to Alex Lidback, VP for chemicals at Wood Mackenzie, saying "It's a concern without a doubt because the U.S. has a good cost position, they're adding capacity and the Chinese market is very short of polyethylene as a whole, so they need the imports to meet their demand growth."
Top petrochemical producers include DowDuPont (NYSE:DWDP), Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM), Huntsman (NYSE:HUN), LyondellBasell (NYSE:LYB) and Chevron Phillips Chemical (NYSE:CVX).
Another targeted U.S. export is propane; Lidback says China has been investing in plants that turn propane into propylene, and those facilities have been counting on a steady supply of pure U.S. propane.
Some of the companies involved in the U.S. propane export business include Enterprise Products Partners (NYSE:EPD), Targa Resources (TRGP, NGLS) and Phillips 66 (NYSE:PSX).
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3343713-u-s-petrochemicals-plastics-suffer-china-tariffs-analysts-say
-
(ACC Mentioned) China Tariffs to Shock US and Global Chemical Markets
Apr 5, 2018 | ICIS
By Joseph Chang
Contrary to the expectations of industry executives and analysts, China is directly targeting certain chemicals and polymers as it rolled out its list of $50bn in retaliatory tariffs against US imports.
“China has made it clear it doesn’t want a trade war but isn’t going to roll over if Trump wants it. China’s had over a year to plan for this, and you can see the tariffs are very carefully targeted,” said Paul Hodges, chairman of International eChem.
China did not mention a specific date for the 25% tariffs to take effect. It should be an effective bargaining chip against US tariffs. “Calling out chemicals explicitly… [is] likely to be more of a warning shot rather than a significant disruption for the industry. Trade flows should adjust relatively quickly, and most chemical companies have significant local production in China,” said Jefferies analyst Laurence Alexander.
It’s still a shock. Delegates at the International Petrochemical Conference (IPC) hosted by the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) in San Antonio, Texas, in late March saw very little chance US chemicals would be directly targeted.
ICIS senior consultant John Richardson has been warning about the threat to US chemical exports in the ICIS Asian Chemical Connections Blog, where he saw $12.4bn of US chemical exports at risk.
Chemicals comprise about 40% of the list of 106 US products targeted by China tariffs, including polyethylene (PE), polycarbonate (PC), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), acrylonitrile (ACN), catalysts, lubricants, epoxy resin, acrylic polymers, vinyl polymers and polyamides.
“Oddly, neither styrene nor ethylene glycol were on the list – the two single largest volume chemicals exported from the US to China,” said Jonas Oxgaard, chemicals analyst at Bernstein.
The analyst does not expect the tariffs to have a US price impact, as the listed chemicals are a small percentage of US exports.
“For example, only around 6% of LDPE/LLDPE exports go to China, and out of those 6%, half are specialty grades,” said Oxgaard.
However, the US is gearing up for a huge wave of PE capacity coming on in 2018 and 2019, with much of it targeted for export. The tariffs include linear low density PE (LLDPE), most grades of LDPE, and medium density PE (MDPE) but excludes high density PE (HDPE).
“LLDPE may be the most impacted polymer volume wise, with 4.3% of the US production exported to China in 2017,” said James Ray, senior ICIS consultant.
GLOBAL PRICE WAR
A global price war becomes more likely if US product meant for China is diverted elsewhere, say Europe.
“The US is not going to stop producing. The potential for a price war was already high, but with tariffs, it would be a near certainty,” said Hodges. “There are two giants in the room – ethane-based integrated producers, and refinery-based integrated producers. They are… [going to] run full out. Everyone else better think of alternative plans and fast.” US PE volumes under tariff going to China would be extremely uncompetitive. “You can’t get through a 25% tariff barrier with something as commoditised as PE or PVC,” said Hodges.
PRICES TO ACTUALLY RISE?
A contrarian view is that global PE prices could actually rise. “If China buys from a source other than the US, that source will not have product for all of its current customers and US producers will fill the void,” said Cowen analyst Charles Neivert. “This may be a bit more costly because it will take multiple customers to fill the China volume. Ultimately, it might have the effect of raising the global price, since the US ‘price’ has just gone up by 25%.”
A China tariff on US PE could also limit additional global capacity. “Such an announcement would certainly disincentivise producers from embarking on the next wave of capacity additions in the US, making an already tight market tighter,’ said Alembic Global Advisors analyst Hassan Ahmed.
Wells Fargo analyst Frank Mitsch urged investors to keep it in perspective. The US is “vastly advantaged” as it costs just 13 cents/lb to produce 1 lb of ethylene from ethane versus 42 cents/lb for naphtha, he said.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) is understandably concerned. China imported 11%, or $3.2bn of all US plastic resins produced in 2017. And the US exported $11.5bn of chemicals and polymers, or 9% of its overall chemical exports, to China in 2017, according to the trade group.
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2018/04/04/10209139/china-tariffs-to-shock-us-and-global-chemical-markets/
-
Michigan Producers Urge Against China Trade War
Apr 5, 2018 | The Detroit News
By Keith Laing and Louis Aguilar
Detroit automakers and Michigan agriculture groups are urging the Trump administration to resolve differences with China without escalating a trade war, after that country threatened tariffs on additional U.S. products, including cars, auto parts, chemicals, soybeans, corn and beef.
The latest retaliatory threats come after the Chinese government warned of 25 percent duties on a list of 106 products from the U.S. The move is the latest ratcheting of tension after President Donald Trump directed U.S. officials to impose tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese imports last month, citing an “out of control” trade deficit.
Although most vehicles sold by Detroit automakers in China are built in that market, Ford Motor Co. exported more than 4,000 Mustangs to China last year. Tesla Inc. sold nearly 15,000 cars there last year. German manufacturers BMW and Daimler AG could be hit by duties on luxury cars built in the U.S. and shipped to China.
Not only that, cars built by Detroit carmakers in China and shipped to the U.S. are vulnerable to tariffs threatened by Trump: General Motors Co. builds its Buick Envision compact SUV in Shanghai; the plug-in version of the Cadillac CT6 is built in Jinqiao.
The Michigan Pork Producers Association says about one-quarter of the pork sold by U.S. producers is exported. That includes some of the 2.5 million pigs raised on 2,000 farms across the state.
Mary Kelpinski, CEO of the pork producers’ group, said uncertainty over the future of the North American Free Trade Agreement and possible tariffs by China are disrupting markets.
“Farmers are already feeling the impact of trade disputes in the futures market,” she said in a Wednesday email. “We are very hopeful for a quick resolution. We cannot afford a trade war.”
Soybeans, meanwhile, are Michigan’s top food export, with $448 million of product sent out of the country in 2015. The Michigan Soybean Association urged leaders Wednesday to “resolve differences without escalating the current trade dispute.”
“The tariffs announced by China will lead to real money lost for farmers that they won’t be able to reinvest in their farms or spend at local equipment dealers, restaurants or movie theaters in rural communities throughout the nation,” said Dave Williams, president of the state soybean group. “This situation is entirely preventable and must be resolved.”
Automakers similarly reacted to the Chinese pronouncement with appeals to both sides to find a solution.
“We encourage both governments to work together to resolve issues between these two important economies,” Ford Motor Co. said in a statement.
General Motors Co. added: “We support a positive trade relationship between the U.S. and China, and urge both countries to continue to engage in constructive dialogue and pursue sustainable trade policies. We continue to believe both countries value a vibrant auto industry and understand the interdependence between the world’s two largest automotive markets.”
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles US LLC declined comment, as did Tesla.
Michigan’s chemical sector is a $16 billion annual industry, supporting more than 100,000 jobs in the state, according to the Michigan Chemistry Council. The state’s chemical industry exports $4.5 billion annually, making it the third-largest export sector in the state. China is the third-biggest export market for U.S. chemicals, after Canada and Mexico. In 2016, U.S. chemical exports to China totaled $10.6 billion.
The council said more than 40 of the 106 proposed tariffs announced by China would be on chemicals or plastics materials. Chemicals like polycarbonates, epoxy resins and acrylonitrile are used to make automotive parts as well as electronics, the group said. So even though the proposed tariffs may have only a slight impact on U.S.-made cars, they will affect other companies that supply Chinese manufacturers, the group said.
DowDupont Inc. didn’t respond for comment Wednesday. But last month Jim Fitterling, chief operating officer of Dow Chemical Co. in Midland, said tariffs proposed by China could total hundreds of millions of dollars for operations. To avoid those duties, he said the company was considering Canada or Argentina for expansion instead of the U.S.
President Trump tried to downplay the risk of a trade war Wednesday.
“We are not in a trade war with China, that war was lost many years ago by the foolish, or incompetent, people who represented the U.S. Now we have a Trade Deficit of $500 Billion a year, with Intellectual Property Theft of another $300 Billion,” he tweeted. “We cannot let this continue!”
Trump added in a subsequent tweet: “When you’re already $500 Billion DOWN, you can’t lose!”
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/2018/04/04/avoid-china-trade-war-say-michigan-producers/33556561/
-
Pruitt's Chief of Staff Eyes Exit — Source
Apr 5, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender and Zack Colman
The chief of staff to U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is looking to leave his job as ethics problems continue to besiege his boss, according to an administration official.
Ryan Jackson has been unhappy in the job for a while, according to the source, but the scandals have made the job even less appealing. Jackson is responsible for much of the administrative work in Pruitt's office, meaning he's been at the center of the controversies.
The news that Jackson, a former longtime aide to Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), is looking to exit comes as another top Pruitt aide is resigning. Samantha Dravis, Pruitt's policy chief and one of his closest staffers, told agency officials last week that she's planning to leave later this month.
The New York Times reported earlier today that Jackson has considered resigning due to frustration with Pruitt.
Pruitt told the Washington Times yesterday he's told his team "all the way through this process, focus on results. Keep your head down, stay focused." Pruitt said of his critics, "We're getting things done, and that's what's driving these folks crazy."
But the controversies surrounding Pruitt continue to simmer, and White House officials have said they're investigating his behavior.
Donelle Harder, who worked with Jackson in the Senate, called Jackson a "person of commitment." She credited him with navigating tricky political situations as a congressional aide. "There were many opportunities to throw in the towel. Even in the midst of whatever inner turmoil is being perceived by the media, Ryan Jackson will know when the timing is right, thoughtful and best for a new chief of staff to take over," she said.
Jackson and EPA's press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/04/05/stories/1060078283
-
Top Pruitt Aide Resigns from EPA Amid Controversies
Apr 5, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
A top aide and close friend of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt has issued her resignation in the midst of various scandals plaguing the agency chief.
Samantha Dravis, the senior counsel and associate administrator in EPA's Office of Policy, tendered her resignation last week, the agency confirmed to The Hill on Thursday.
The sudden departure is described by one source with close knowledge of Dravis’s relationship with Pruitt as a “five-alarm story.”
Dravis has a long history with Pruitt, the former attorney general of Oklahoma.
She previously worked with Pruitt as policy director and general counsel at the Republican Attorneys General Association. She was also president of the Rule of Law Defense Fund, affiliated with the same organization, and before that legal counsel at Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce — an organization of conservative political donors led by the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch.
The source described the relationship between Pruitt and Dravis as a close friendship, saying the aide was Pruitt's "best friend" and someone he had dinner with "several times every week."
An EPA official pushed back on the characterization that the two had a close personal relationship, saying that Pruitt frequently had meals with his staffers, the majority of which were in group settings.
Dravis declined to comment for the story.
EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman said Dravis is departing the agency to pursue other career opportunities.
"After serving for over a year as EPA’s head of policy, Samantha Dravis has decided to pursue other opportunities. She has been integral in the agency’s successful implementation of the President’s environmental agenda and the agency wishes her success in her future endeavors," Bowman said in a statement.
Two sources told The Washington Post that Dravis's resignation was unrelated to Pruitt’s recent onslaught of ethics issues and that she is leaving to join the private sector.
Pruitt has recently come under fire for a number of scandals, including a decision to significantly raise the salaries of two close EPA political appointees. The salaries of Sarah Greenwalt and Millan Hupp — who had both come to Washington with Pruitt from Oklahoma — were raised from $107,435 to $164,200, and from $86,460 to $114,590, respectively, The Atlantic reported.
Pruitt denied knowledge of the raises in an interview with Fox News on Wednesday, and said the appropriate person who had signed off on the raises would be dealt with.The EPA head has also weathered a storm of controversy involving his living arrangements, as well as a number of questionable decisions he has made at the agency. Last week, ABC News first reported that Pruitt rented a two-bedroom condo on Capitol Hill for $50 each night he slept there. Pruitt’s daughter also lived for a period of time in the condo, which was owned by the wife of a prominent energy lobbyist. On Monday, The Washington Post reported that the EPA considered leasing a private jet for Pruitt for $100,000 a month. The news has led to a number of calls from members of Congress for Pruitt to step down or be fired — including from two GOP House members. Trump on Tuesday downplayed the likelihood that Pruitt could soon be fired, telling reporters, "I hope he's going to be great." However on Wednesday, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders declined to answer directly when asked by reporters if President Trump has confidence in Pruitt. "The president thinks that he's done a good job, particularly on the deregulation front," Sanders said.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/381773-top-pruitt-aide-resigns-from-epa-amid-controversies
-
(ACC Mentioned) API, EDF Clash Over New EPA Option For Protecting CBI Data Under TSCA
Apr 5, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Environmentalists and oil industry groups are criticizing EPA's plan for using alternative names, known as unique identifiers, to protect proprietary chemical data submitted to the agency, though the groups are at odds over EPA's approach, with industry charging it does not offer adequate protections while environmentalists say it does not ensure sufficient disclosure.
The competing criticisms, spelled out in recent comments from the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and American Petroleum Institute (API), are at odds with those from other chemical industry groups, which generally backed EPA's proposed approaches for addressing confidential business information (CBI).
TSCA Section 14(g)(4) requires that EPA assign a "unique identifier" (UID) to each specific chemical for which the agency approves a request for CBI protection and to consistently apply that UID to all data submitted on the chemical, including non-confidential information.
But EPA officials have said that the provision fails to adequately specify a process for ensuring that related, publicly disclosed information, does not identify the chemical, or other related data, that is protected as CBI.
During a May 24 meeting at EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C., environmentalists and petro-chemical sector groups sparred over how broadly EPA should apply CBI restrictions preventing disclosure.
Advocates argued that the new law favors disclosure over secrecy, while industry officials said the revised TSCA gives EPA significant flexibility to craft a system for balancing public disclosure with protecting agency-approved claims for CBI.
EPA last summer sought public input to address the concern. Citing "drawbacks" to two approaches the agency floated over the summer, EPA in a Feb. 8 Federal Register notice sought comment through March 12 on a third proposed alternative for using a UID to protect confidential chemical data submitted to the agency.
Under the proposed alternative, EPA would ascribe a single UID to the name of a chemical substance with a valid CBI claim and use that UID whenever the chemical is referenced in other non-confidential data submitted under various TSCA provisions.
But the approach would allow EPA to forgo use of the UID in cases where doing so would permit connection of public data with a chemical for which the agency has approved a CBI claim, and identify the substance.
EPA says it expects cases where it would forgo use of the UID to preserve a CBI claim would be rare.
But API, in a break with other industry groups, opposes EPA's proposed approach, arguing it offers insufficient protection from disclosure of CBI.
API suggests an approach that would require a different UID for data submitted by different companies. "API does not support the third option," the group says in March 12 comments. "It does not offer enough protection against CBI disclosure, because application of the same identifier to CBI and non-CBI, and/or to information submitted by different companies, could create inadvertent linkages and enable others to discern CBI."
'Plain Text'
By contrast, EDF argues in its comments that the approach does not go far enough in ensuring adequate disclosure of data in health and safety studies, and urges EPA to adhere to the plain language of the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which requires each chemical identity to receive a single identifier.
"All three of EPA's proposed alternatives for implementing unique identifiers make the system more complicated than if EPA simply follows the statutory language and honors Congress' intent," EDF says. "EPA should follow the plain text of TSCA [section] 14(g)(4) and honor the public's right to know."
Such criticisms from API and EDF stand in contrast to those from other industry groups, which generally back EPA's approaches.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) "supports EPA's approach outlined in Alternate 3 as being the preferred approach of the three identified in that it seeks to balance appropriately the competing interests of public transparency and strong protection of [confidential business information (CBI)], but it is not without risk," the group says in recent comments to EPA.
While supporting EPA, ACC notes the approach carries risk of inadvertent disclosure and "recommends that EPA exercise caution when making these evaluations and implement a robust system of quality control and quality assurance to mitigate any risk of error."
In recent comments, numerous industry groups agree that EPA's third proposed alternative would result in fewer inadvertent disclosures than other approaches, though they urge caution, arguing that inappropriate application of the UID could lead to disclosures.
The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers supports the approach but asks "EPA to establish a quality control system that minimizes cases where CBI could be disclosed when publishing related non-confidential information."
And the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates argues that "It is critical that EPA avoid any risk of error by systematizing its review approach and instituting quality assurance measures to fully categorize all scenarios where a UID should not be applied to public information."
But API contends such precautions fail to adequately prevent risk of inadvertent disclosures of CBI, and that EPA's proposed approach fails to comply with the law. "It is inherently problematic to apply the same UID to CBI and non-CBI information about the same chemical, and/or to information from different companies," the group says. "API does not think that the statute intended the same UID to be applied to information from different companies, or contemplated the consequences of doing so."
Alternative Approach
API suggests an alternative approach that is a modified version of one of EPA's earlier proposed alternatives.
"Submissions from a different company concerning the same substance would be assigned a different identifier. This is warranted because associating the same chemical identifier with information from different companies would create a link that inherently undermines the claim of the company that originally flagged the chemical identity as CBI."
EDF faults EPA's approach as failing to adequately adhere to the revised TSCA, though the environmental group recommends an approach that would allow the public to link all non-confidential data related to a single substance.
"TSCA's text requires that EPA create a single, unique identifier for each specific chemical identity and then apply that identifier 'consistently to all information relevant' to the chemical substance," EDF says.
"EDF acknowledges that the third alternative -- if implemented narrowly as promised in the Federal Register -- would result in substantially fewer violations of the statute as compared to the earlier alternatives proposed by EPA," the group says. "Nonetheless, EDF urges EPA to adopt the straightforward approach of following the statutory language set forth in" TSCA.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/api-edf-clash-over-new-epa-option-protecting-cbi-data-under-tsca
-
(ACC Mentioned) 'Significant' Food Packaging Guide Goes Beyond Regulatory Minimums
Apr 5, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie Miller
The new Food Safety Alliance for Packaging (FSAP) guidelines are significant, and potentially controversial, because they go beyond regulatory requirements, and are based primarily on preferences of brand owners.
Published by an informal technical committee of the Institute of Packaging Professionals (IOPP), the guidelines urge suppliers to avoid using certain chemicals in food packaging.
"This is a way to improve transparency as well as harmonisation," said Stephen Klump, global head of packaging quality and safety at Nestle and a key contributor to the document.
He told Chemical Watch: There’s "nothing really new in this document, just that it’s out in the public sphere". The recommendations it contains are typically those shared under confidential agreements between suppliers and the supply chain, he added.
But Tom Neltner, chemicals policy director at NGO Environmental Defense Fund, said he thinks the document is "significant", as it represents "a statement by these packaging professionals about what food manufacturers think is expected."
"I would hope it would change the marketplace," he added.
He told Chemical Watch he thinks the recommendations may gain traction because they are publicly backed by two large companies in Nestle and Mars.
In addition, he said, "I think a lot of packaging companies have been waiting for this."
However, Mr Klump said some brand owners would not let it be publicly known that they contributed to the document. And he said the group received negative feedback about recommendations exceeding regulatory requirements.
Mr Klump said about 75 people, representing 20 companies throughout the supply chain, participate in its discussions to develop the guidelines.
When asked to comment on them, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) issued a statement saying that packaging suppliers "should follow FDA’s guidance on appropriate use of specific materials in food packaging".
Chemical considerations
Mr Klump said some chemicals are listed due to "quality considerations". Other entries intend to warn about substances that are becoming the subject of concern for regulators, brand owners or consumers.
For example, he said, "there is a lot of consumer interest" and regulatory activity at the state level around perfluorinated (PFAS) chemicals.
"This is a ‘watch out’ for the food packaging industry," Mr Klump said. While the chemicals are thus far not prohibited beyond Washington state’s impending ban, "someone four steps up the supply chain probably doesn’t know this is starting to become a hot button issue."
And he pointed to the example of bisphenol A (BPA) where, despite the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) maintaining its safety for use in food packaging, pressures have compelled action.
The substance is listed as a reproductive toxicant under Proposition 65 and is a SVHC in the EU. But more importantly, Mr Klump said, consumers have become aware of it and brand owners have demanded it not be used in their products, as presenters noted at Chemical Watch's recent Food Contact Regulations US conference.
"When BPA exploded, it seemed like the supply chain was scrambling to find an alternative," Mr Klump said. "There was a lot of press about regrettable substitution. The more heads up we can give the supply chain, the better."
https://chemicalwatch.com/65268/significant-food-packaging-guide-goes-beyond-regulatory-minimums
-
Senator to Introduce Bill in US Removing Phthalates from FCMs
Apr 5, 2018 | Chemical Watch
US Senator Dianne Feinstein (D–California) has signalled her intention to introduce legislation removing phthalates from food packaging materials.
In a press release, she announced plans to introduce a bill that would phase out the plasticisers from food contact materials over the next five years. It came in the wake of a study showing increased phthalate levels in individuals who regularly eat meals out.
Ms Feinstein noted risks to pregnant women and lower testosterone levels for men, as well as learning and behaviour problems in children, from the substances. But she said despite those concerns, "it’s nearly impossible for families to avoid some level of exposure. These chemicals can be found throughout the food supply chain, from the plastic gloves worn to handle food to the containers used for packaging."
"Families have the right to know that their food wasn’t packaged using plastic that contains harmful chemicals," she added.
Phthalates were among substances recommended not to be used intentionally, where suitable alternatives exist, in a recent guidance document from the industry group Food Safety Alliance for Packaging (FSAP).
https://chemicalwatch.com/65738/senator-to-introduce-bill-in-us-removing-phthalates-from-fcms
-
Dining Out May Increase Phthalate Exposure, Study Suggests
Apr 5, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Dining out may increase exposure to phthalates, according to a US study using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (Nhanes), collected between 2005 and 2014.
Led by Ami Zota from George Washington University and Julia Varshavsky from the University of California, Berkeley, researchers focused on anti-androgenic phthalates, for which diet is the main exposure route. The phthalates are found in food contact materials and processing equipment and are likely to accumulate in fatty foods such as meat and dairy.
In 2016, Professor Zota and colleagues found an association between fast food intake with higher phthalate exposure. The latest study suggests that other sources of food away from home, such as full-service restaurants and cafeterias, may also be significant phthalate sources.
The team pulled out data for nine urinary metabolites to estimate cumulative exposure to six phthalates, including DEHP and DiNP. The cumulative exposure calculations take into account evidence that some phthalates are more toxic than others.
They then linked the data to dietary information collected from over 10,000 Nhanes participants the day before samples were taken.
The analysis suggests a positive association between dining out and cumulative daily intake of phthalates. The strongest association shows up for adolescents, with those who ate out regularly having 55% higher androgen-disruptor levels than those who only consumed food at home.
The researchers suggest that future studies should look into alternative production practices to remove phthalates from the food supply. They also recommend looking into the "effectiveness" of preparing and eating food at home to reduce phthalate exposures, "with continued emphasis on less processed and packaged store-bought foods".
As with every Nhanes study, the researchers point out the limitations of its cross-sectional nature, with samples collected at one point in time. Despite the limitations, the researchers say they are confident that their study "provides important information about dietary sources of cumulative phthalates exposure across age groups in the US general population".
The US Coalition for Safer Food Processing and Packaging said it was "not surprised" by the findings, "although they are greatly concerning".
"Food prepared outside the home is at the end of a long supply chain where phthalates may be found at every point: in materials used on the farm, in processing, in packaging, and in food preparation," it said in a statement.
https://chemicalwatch.com/65729/dining-out-may-increase-phthalate-exposure-study-suggests
-
EPA Publishes Earlier Formaldehyde Deadline
Apr 5, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has published the updated formaldehyde emissions rule compliance deadline arising from a recent court ruling, in the Federal Register.
The ruling, Sierra Club and A Community Voice-Louisiana v Scott Pruitt, resulted in the compliance date for emission standards, record keeping and labelling in manufactured wood products being brought forward to 1 June, from 12 December. The case had challenged an earlier extension to the date.
https://chemicalwatch.com/65726/epa-publishes-earlier-formaldehyde-deadline
-
Oil and Gas Industry Faces Microplastics Scrutiny
Apr 5, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The oil and gas industry has been named as an area for investigation in Echa’s recent call for evidence on the use of products with intentionally added microplastics.
The consultation, which has a deadline of 11 May, follows a European Commission request to investigate the need for a restriction on such particles. The scope, Echa said, is "intentionally wide" and is not limited to intentional uses in consumer and professional products.
The European Oilfield Speciality Chemicals Association has warned its members, as well as non-members, that the consequences could be "heavy controls or even bans being placed on the marketing and use of products containing microplastics".
Eosca has requested by 13 April the name of products used offshore in the North Sea and whether they contain any microplastics, as defined by the Commission’s original definition rather than Echa’s "broader ‘catch-all’ definition" for the consultation, secretary Nik Robinson told Chemical Watch.
The size limit was originally communicated as <5mm in the largest dimension, Mr Robinson said. Echa’s new definition of <5mm in any dimension "would include all thin plastic films, such as plastic bags, and would also include plastic sheeting up to 5mm thickness – which obviously are not microplastics", he adds.
Use and discharge
It is "hard to say" how microplastics are intentionally used in the offshore industry, Mr Robinson said, as "they have never had to be labelled".
However, he said Eosca is aware they are used in some loss circulation materials in drilling and can also be used for viscosity modification.
While the Commission and public are concerned about solid plastic in water, Mr Robinson said it is likely that many of the polymers that may be used in the oil and gas industry "are actually in organic solvents and in the process they will probably stay in the oil phase".
In the offshore industry, microplastics can only be discharged intentionally in two main ways.
There is "some suggestion", he said, that microplastics may be in cement used in metal linings of well bores and when wells are capped off. "But those microplastics aren’t likely to enter the water column because they are in the cement."
The only other way is in production, he said. Production chemicals are used to help process the produced fluids – oil or hydrocarbons – and they will also be sent down the hole. "If there were microplastics in those some might come back to the topside".
At the top a separation process tries to remove as much water from the organic fluids – the oil – as possible. If the microplastics, or the polymers, went in organic solvents "they are likely to stay in the oil phase, but the water that is stripped out from the oil is discharged overboard to the marine environment". Yet, Mr Robinson said, there are "strict controls on the oil and water that is discharged. We think that would most probably limit the amount of microplastics being discharged."
Collation
Each of the regulatory authorities or contracting parties under Ospar – the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic – have to collate and report use and discharge volumes.
Eosca will put together two data sets to generate "summary figures" on the quantity of microplastics used and the amount of them discharged. These sets are:
percentages of microplastics used in products and the product names from the suppliers; and
the use and discharge volumes from regulatory bodies.
The general feeling, Mr Robinson said, is that the quantity of microplastics used and the amount of them discharged "is likely to be very small".
https://chemicalwatch.com/65720/oil-and-gas-industry-faces-microplastics-scrutiny
-
Vermont Advances Bill Reducing Hurdles to Banning Children's Products
Apr 5, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Vermont's legislature has approved a bill that would give the state's health commissioner increased authority to ban or restrict children's products. The governor's signature is all that stands in the way of the controversial measure becoming law.
In the spotlight among several provisions in S103 are changes to the state's existing children's products reporting scheme (Act 188). Current law requires manufacturers to report specific brand and product model information to the state for products containing any of 66 chemicals of concern.
But the bill would modify the requirements around imposing bans or restrictions on products found to be of concern to children's health.
More specifically, it would amend the exposure criterion for proposing product restrictions from "children will be exposed" to "may be exposed". And it seeks to strike text requiring there be a likelihood that the exposure could cause or contribute to an adverse health impact.
"The existing law makes the health commissioner jump through unnecessary bureaucratic hoops in order to take action," Paul Burns, executive director of Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG), told Chemical Watch. The legislators intend to give the commissioner "reasonable authority to act once a credible threat has been identified", he added.
Further changes to Act 188 include:
codifying the types of information that must be reported, to include brand name, product model and a universal product code (UPC); and
removing the requirement that weight of scientific evidence be used when adding chemicals to the programme, relying instead on "independent, peer-reviewed scientific research".
The measure also calls for codifying an interagency committee on chemical management, in line with the one formed through an executive order last year. The committee is tasked with making recommendations around reporting processes and regulatory requirements for substances that pose potential risk to human health and the environment.
The Associated Industries of Vermont wrote to legislators urging opposition to S103. It warned it would "critically undermine the integrity and credibility" of Act 188 by "eliminating key scientific and health criteria, making it easier to arbitrarily require testing and reporting on additional chemicals and to ban or otherwise restrict products in Vermont without appropriate scientific or health-based justification".
And a statement from the Toy Association said the bill would "eliminate important procedural mechanisms for regulating children's products". Without these it said the ability to sell "safe and fun toys in Vermont" could be compromised.
It remains unclear whether Phil Scott, the Republican governor, will sign the measure into law. Representatives from the Health Department have testified against S103. But it was not included in a recent letter from Mr Scott to state legislators about bills he does not support because they contain new or higher taxes, fees or expenses.
https://chemicalwatch.com/65681/vermont-advances-bill-reducing-hurdles-to-banning-childrens-products
-
Crumb Rubber PAHs Transfer to Water and Air, Study Suggests
Apr 5, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in rubber crumb, used in synthetic turf for sports pitches, quickly transfer into rain water and air, according to research by scientists in Spain.
Transfer to other media increases the geographic range over which exposures might occur and potentially opens up new routes of exposure.
The safety of rubber crumb is under consideration by regulators in the US and the EU, with major publications expected on the subject in the next few months. The Spanish research could bolster the case for stricter controls on use of the material, which is produced by grinding up old vehicle tyres.
The scientists, led by Maria Llompart Vizoso at the University of Santiago de Compostela, constructed a list of 40 target substances based on previous work. The list comprised:
16 PAHs;
15 phthalates;
three adipates;
three vulcanisation additives;
two antioxidants; and
bisphenol A.
They collected rubber samples from 15 synthetic turf football fields, built between 2009 and 2011, in the Santiago de Compostela region. They then used ultrasound assisted extraction (UAE) and gas-chromatography, mass spectrometry (GC-MS) to separate and measure the component substances. They also analysed the transfer of substances to rain water and air, using samples from two of the sites.
The material samples contained 24 of the target substances, and 13 transferred to the rain water, with vulcanisation additive BTZ detected at a concentration of 120milligrammes per litre (mg/L). And several transferred to the air. The scientists also found heavy metals, including cadmium, chromium and lead, in the material samples.
Three US federal agencies, including the EPA, launched a joint action plan on the safety of rubber crumb in 2016. That plan is due to deliver its draft report for external peer review this spring, followed by a final report mid-year.
Meanwhile in the EU, the Netherlands is preparing a proposal to restrict the use of 8 PAHs in rubber crumb for synthetic turf under REACH. A submission to Echa is expected by 20 July. Professor Llompart Vizoso says that that EU-level action on the material, such as the intended Dutch proposal, is urgently needed.
https://chemicalwatch.com/65682/crumb-rubber-pahs-transfer-to-water-and-air-study-suggests
-
Methane Whiplash: Enviros Prep Appeal as Court Ices Rule
Apr 5, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
On-again, off-again Obama-era standards for methane emissions on public lands are off, again.
A federal court in Wyoming yesterday halted core parts of the Bureau of Land Management's methane venting and flaring rule, which had been fully revived by a different court six weeks ago.
"Obviously we are disappointed, and we think the ruling just simply disregards fundamental legal principles," Earthjustice attorney Robin Cooley said.
A coalition of environmental groups represented by Earthjustice is planning to appeal the decision.
Supporters of the Obama rule are feeling whiplashed after notching a major victory in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in February, when that court revived the regulation in full.
Oil and gas companies, meanwhile, are breathing a sigh of relief. They've spent the past month pushing the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming — which has been managing industry challenges to the rule since 2016 — to pause the newly revived provisions.
BLM is working on a bigger rollback of the rule, and companies should not be forced to comply in the meantime, they argued.
"It's a commonsense ruling," said Dan Naatz, who handles government affairs for the Independent Petroleum Association of America. "Not only are our members not able to comply, the agency is not ready to try to tackle all this."
The Trump administration has repeatedly tried but failed to kill the Obama standards, which aim to reduce methane venting, flaring and leakage on public and tribal lands. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and escaped quantities cost taxpayers money in the form of lost royalties.
Drillers and several Western states have argued that the rule exceeds BLM's authority and requires costly upgrades. That burden is even worse now, they argue, because they spent most of last year assuming that the Trump administration's initial efforts to sideline the rule would succeed.
But Judge Scott Skavdahl, an Obama appointee to the Wyoming court, agreed with industry that it "makes little sense" to force them to comply with the standards when the agency is in the middle of crafting a broader revision of the rule that would roll back the key provisions opposed by industry.
"To force temporary compliance with those provisions makes little sense and provides minimal public benefit, while significant resources may be unnecessarily expended," he wrote.
Environmental groups expect to file their appeal soon at the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The offices of California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas, both Democrats who have also defended the Obama standards in court, did not respond by publication time to questions about whether they plan to appeal.
Naatz said he wasn't surprised about environmentalists' planned appeal, given the regulation's long and litigious history: "It's never over."
'That is deeply problematic'
Cooley, the Earthjustice lawyer, said the Wyoming court's decision is flawed because it amounts to an injunction of the methane standards, but the court did not apply the standard legal test for such a move.
Courts typically consider four injunction factors: whether a party is likely to win on the merits of the case, whether a party will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction, whether an injunction would be an undue hardship for one side and whether an injunction would serve the public interest.
"We have standards for issuing injunctions, and they're there for a reason," she said. "You can't just set aside a duly promulgated regulation" without applying the standards.
Skavdahl referenced the injunction factors in the opinion but said the Administrative Procedure Act gives courts room to "issue all necessary and appropriate process ... to preserve status or rights pending conclusion of the review proceedings."
The court's decision does not wade into the merits of the methane rule itself; the judge said nothing about whether the Obama standards are lawful.
Environmental Defense Fund attorney Peter Zalzal says that's an issue.
"That is deeply problematic because the standards at stake are rooted in BLM's duty to minimize waste, save extensive amounts of natural gas, reduce harmful pollution, and deliver economic benefits to people across the West," he said in a statement.
Bethany Davis Noll, litigation director at New York University's Institute for Policy Integrity, said the decision raises broader legal issues, too.
"I think it's really important to keep in mind what the Administrative Procedure Act envisions here," she said. "We need to be able to assume these rules are final when an agency finalizes them."
Here, she said, the court is letting industry off the hook because of the Trump administration's unlawful efforts to delay the rule.
"Those actions were judged illegal, and so industry's really supposed to be in compliance," she said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/04/05/stories/1060078195
-
Scrapping Obama Rule Perpetuates Royalty Losses — Report
Apr 5, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
Federal officials charged royalties on just a tiny fraction of natural gas lost by energy firms extracting hydrocarbons from public lands, a new nonpartisan report has found.
The Interior Department's Office of Natural Resources Revenue collected royalties on 16.3 percent of lost gas in 2016, down from 29.6 percent in the previous year, according to an analysis yesterday from Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Obama-era standards for gas emissions from energy operations on public lands would have curbed those losses, said the group, a chief supporter of the 2016 Bureau of Land Management Methane and Waste Prevention Rule.
"As the BLM moves forward to amend that rule, it must change course and address the underlying problems with the process of approving and recording lost gas," the Taxpayers for Common Sense report says. "Enshrining old policies or further incentivizing wasteful practices will only cost taxpayers for years to come."
The Trump administration has tried to quash the regulation through congressional review and administrative delays. In February, BLM proposed revisions that would effectively scrap many of the rule's provisions.
A district court in Wyoming yesterday ruled that BLM does not need to enforce the 2016 rule as those changes are considered (see related story).
In the meantime, federal officials will default to guidance provided under Interior's "Notice to Lessees 4A," which the Taxpayers for Common Sense report called "ineffective" and "inconsistent."
"Our own analyses since 2014 reveal the existing oil and gas management practices led to the dramatic under collection of royalties owed to federal taxpayers," the analysis says.
The Trump BLM's own analysis of its proposed rule revisions indicates at least $26.4 million in royalty payments would be lost as a result of the changes. The bureau calculated a net benefit of $1 billion over 10 years for its rule. Those benefits are mostly the result of savings incurred by oil and gas companies that would have had to pay to comply with the Obama rule (Energywire, Feb. 15).
Interior and ONRR did not respond to a request for comment on the Taxpayers for Common Sense report.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/04/05/stories/1060078183
-
Attorneys General Sue EPA Over Methane Regs
Apr 5, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
A coalition of attorneys general sued U.S. EPA today, bidding to force the regulation of methane emissions from existing oil and gas sources.
Led by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D), the lawsuit argues that EPA has "unreasonably delayed" issuing the regulations in violation of the Clean Air Act. The suit is among several that Democratic attorneys general have filed challenging the Trump administration's deregulatory agenda.
"The EPA has a clear legal duty to control methane pollution from oil and gas operations, one its largest sources," Schneiderman said in a statement. "Its continued refusal to do so is not only illegal, but threatens our public health and environment."
During the Obama administration, EPA took steps toward limiting emissions of the potent greenhouse gas from the oil and gas industry. In 2016, the agency finalized standards to control new sources and issued an "information collection request" as a prelude to regulations for existing facilities.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, though, withdrew the information request in March 2017 and signaled that he does not intend to issue a rule. The agency has also proposed to delay the new source rule by two years. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in July 2017 threw out an initial 90-day stay of the rule.
The new lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia argues that EPA had a "mandatory obligation" to issue regulations covering existing sources once it established the performance standards for new sources.
"EPA's failure has harmed and continues to harm plaintiffs by delaying the adoption and implementation of methane standards ... that would result in cleaner and healthier air in the states and that would reduce and delay the harmful impacts from climate change," the lawsuit says.
Joining New York in the suit are California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, the District of Columbia and Chicago.
The states and cities notified EPA in June that they would be filing the lawsuit (E&E News PM, June 29, 2017).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/04/05/stories/1060078257
-
New Regional Emissions Study Offers Insights into New Mexico’s Oil and Gas Emissions Problems
Apr 5, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Hillary Hull
A new study from the Western Regional Air Partnership — a collaboration of state, tribal, and local air agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency, federal land managers, and other local stakeholders — finds methane emissions from New Mexico’s oil and gas facilities are higher than previous estimates and notes regulations could help address the problem.
The research draws on data reported by states, tribes, and the oil and gas industry, and finds oil and gas companies emitted 816,980 tons of methane and smog-forming pollution in 2014 – significantly more than what the industry reported to the EPA.
Why so high?
Other peer-reviewed research across the country has shown us that official government inventories often do not accurately represent the full scale of emissions by not taking into account emissions from certain activities or sources, rapid changes in equipment operations, evolving practices by operators, and changes in production with oil and gas price swings.
To combat this problem, WRAP analyzed data from a variety of sources, including operator surveys in the San Juan Basin, previously published peer-reviewed scientific research, and emissions data reported to various entities.
Why it matters
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas responsible for about a quarter of current global warming, and research shows us the oil and gas sector is the largest industrial source of methane in the U.S.
It’s also the main ingredient of natural gas – making these emissions an energy waste problem in addition to a climate concern. Based on WRAP’s emissions study, EDF estimates that New Mexico companies are letting over $150 million worth of natural gas escape into the air each year, more than enough to meet the annual needs of every home in New Mexico. And the report does not include information about natural gas that is wasted through flaring, meaning the total value of the gas companies are wasting is even larger, and in line with estimates EDF released last fall.
A silver lining?
While this analysis makes it clear New Mexico’s methane pollution is drastically higher than previous estimates, it does offers solutions for driving down pollution. The study projects that over the next decade, New Mexico’s emissions could decline as a result of federal rules that require companies to reduce emissions.
The challenge for New Mexico is the federal emissions standards are in danger of being repealed by the Trump Administration. In 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency and Bureau of Land Management issued new policies requiring operators to regularly check their facilities for leaky equipment and other mechanical problems that lead to high emissions. However, due to pressure from some of the worst operators in the oil and gas industry, the Trump Administration is trying to roll back these commonsense protections. A proposal to rescind the BLM rule is currently out for public comment and EPA has reported they are reconsidering their standards as well.
This new analysis of industry emissions data underscores the important role regulations can play in reducing methane. If New Mexico is going to achieve meaningful pollution reductions, it will require the efforts of state and federal regulators to prevent methane waste and protect air quality in New Mexico.
http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2018/04/05/new-regional-emissions-study-offers-insights-into-new-mexicos-oil-and-gas-emissions-problems/
-
Shale Boom is in the 3rd Inning; Investors to Decide How Game Plays Out
Apr 5, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By William Arnold
Recent media attention questions the future of shale oil production in the U.S. Will capital discipline put a brake on growth or will domestic production rise to the point of undermining prices again? As so often in business, it’s the investors who will make the call.
In the first inning of the shale boom, from 2009 to 2014, the mostly small players raced to lock up prospects by leasing land and drilling — but not necessarily completing — wells. These are the “DUCs” (drilled but uncompleted) described in many articles.
It was a land grab of epic proportions, the energy equivalent of “shooting the moon” in a card game of hearts. But even before the oil price collapse in late 2014, that strategy caused problems for overextended companies, such as Oklahoma’s Chesapeake Energy Corp.
In the second inning, from early 2015 to mid-2017, bravado turned into bankruptcy for hundreds of players and there was incessant pressure on suppliers to reduce costs. But the collapse of market prices also provided the focus that was missing in the early years.
Companies had to concentrate on their best prospects and exert cost discipline in all operations. Good operators found, sometimes to their surprise, that they could operate profitably with prices in the range of $40 to $50.
We are in the third inning now, with apparent oil price stability of $60 to $65 in the U.S. and topping $70 for North Sea-based Brent. Investors won’t tolerate backsliding to the practices of the first inning and will demand that producers, well, produce. They can complete those DUCs and use the cash flow to finance further activity.
Performance in future innings will depend on geology, technology, operational efficiency, OPEC and capital availability.
Mother Nature was fickle in how she placed resources. To deal with that, companies continuously develop and apply technology to compensate. Horizontal drilling and fracking enabled production from rock-hard, linear formations rather than the “straw in the glass of Coke” that many people understand oil production to be.
While there are concerns about rising costs from equipment and service suppliers, the industry continues to innovate with more wells on a single platform and increasingly apply sophisticated data analytics.
They have even found they don’t need to import trainloads of fracking sand from Michigan; there is plenty of sand in West Texas that meets specs.
Saudi Arabia has made disproportionately large cuts to its production to balance markets and persuade even non-OPEC countries such as Russia to participate. This is in contrast to the end of the first inning, when OPEC thought a price collapse would kill off the shale revolution in the U.S.
For more than a year, Saudi Aramco has been in discussions for an initial public offering (IPO) that reportedly might cover about 5 percent of its reserves, for about $100 billion. That has been postponed until 2019.
Saudi has a stake in keeping prices high to get the best valuation for that IPO. The question is the extent Saudi Arabia and OPEC are willing to be the swing producers to accommodate unprecedented levels of U.S. production.
Capital availability is the final element, and it covers a lot of actors. Traditionally, investors bought shares in the majors because of their long-term record, potential upside from exploration and portfolio balancing from the midstream (pipelines) and downstream (refining and marketing).
This model came under attack in 2011 when activist investors persuaded ConocoPhillips and Marathon to break up into separate companies focused on either exploration or refining. Investors increasingly want to develop their own risk portfolios, not have company management do it for them.
The shale play brought in new investors who wanted to stake qualified management teams who were unencumbered by legacy assets. They sought returns that were closer to 20 percent than the more modest returns of the majors.
What we now have is a wider range of investors with risk profiles along a spectrum. Some want steady income, stock buybacks and reliable dividends. Others want even less volatility and may settle for utility returns, which they see as possible as domestic oil production takes on manufacturing characteristics. Still others want to support higher-risk return investments, whether in West Texas or East Africa.
The reality is that market conditions, attitudes of investors and operational performance will determine U.S. oil production in the next few innings. OPEC can accept this or make a “lose-lose” decision; again.
William Arnold is a professor in the practice of energy management at Rice University’s Jones Graduate School of Business. He held a White House appointment as senior vice president of the Export Import Bank of the United States from 1983 to 1988 and was Royal Dutch Shell's Washington director of international government relations and senior counsel for the Middle East, Latin America and North Africa.
http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/381678-the-shale-revolution-is-only-in-the-3rd-inning
-
Crude Oil Spills into Bay Jacques
Apr 5, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
A crude oil storage tank leaked 4,200 gallons into Bay Jacques in Louisiana, according to the Coast Guard.
Coast Guard officials were made aware of the leak at 11:54 a.m. CDT Tuesday. An oil spill response team and incident management personnel remain at the site.
The cause of the spill is under investigation. Containment and sorbent boom and pads were deployed at the site to contain and collect the oil, according to a news release from the Coast Guard.
The crude oil storage tank is owned by Summit Oil and Gas LLC.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/04/05/stories/1060078231
-
Pruitt has Made Environmental Injustice the Norm at EPA: 5 Shocking Examples
Apr 5, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Felice Stadler
As Scott Pruitt’s ethical woes mount, we must not lose sight of the profound damage he has done to environmental safeguards in just one year – and how disproportionally that affects people in our country.
Pruitt’s legacy will mean growing threats for people of color and low-income Americans who tend to live closer to sources of toxic pollution than the rest of our population, directly affecting the health of millions of families and children nationwide.
This at a time when his own U.S. Environmental Protection Agency researchers continue to report that vulnerable Americans bear the brunt of pollution.
Decades of slow progress at the EPA, under the administrations of both parties, had been seeking to ensure that policies are fair to everyone.
That all changed last year when Pruitt stepped into his role as EPA administrator and made environmental injustice the norm at the agency he runs. Here are five egregious examples.
1. He’s undermined plans to cut smog, climate pollution
African-American children are twice as likely to be hospitalized for asthma as whites, and are more likely to die from asthma. Latino children are 40 percent more likely to die from asthma than white children.
Pruitt’s sweeping efforts to roll back critical rules to slow climate change and reduce smog pollution would, if he succeeds, directly increase the threat of lung disease for these children.
The EPA administrator has targeted the Clean Power Plan, clean car standards, and efforts to reduce methane emissions from oil and gas operations in blatant disregard of public health.
2. He tried to eliminate EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice
In his first months on the job, Pruitt tried to do away with the office dedicated to tackling pollution exposure disparities among Americans. Now he wants to fold the Office of Environmental Justice into another office managed by one of his key counselors – a bureaucratic maneuver meant to weaken policy initiatives.
In another remarkable example of poor optics, Pruitt also appointed to a key EPA environmental justice advisory panel a man who runs a company tied up in a major contamination scandal involving cancer-causing plutonium in Washington state.
3. He wants to weaken protections against toxic coal waste
Coal ash is the second-largest source of industrial waste in the United States. More than 1.5 million people of color live near coal ash waste pits that have been found to taint the air and water in surrounding communities.
And yet, Pruitt recently proposed to weaken federal rules governing such toxic waste, which is generated by coal-fired power plants and contains harmful chemicals such as lead, mercury and arsenic.
His decision to weaken these long-fought-for rules came on the heels of EPA’s decision to reject an Alabama civil rights claim by rural African American residents over a landfill containing toxic coal ash.
4. He’s targeting safeguards against toxic air pollution
Factories, incinerators, power plants and other polluting industrial sites have long been concentrated in neighborhoods where residents have historically lacked the resources to fight back.
Nevertheless, Pruitt approved rollbacks of critical policies limiting toxic air pollution. These actions are allowing chemical factories, steel mills and other industrial facilities to expose adjacent communities to higher concentrations of lead, benzene and other dangerous pollutants.
The communities that will be most affected by this action have a disproportionate number of low-income, African-American and Latino residents.
5. He sought massive cuts to lead risk program
More than half a million kids in the U.S. – a large number of whom are poor – have elevated lead levels in their bodies, mostly from lead paint and old pipes.
But despite Pruitt’s rhetoric about a war on lead, he wants to eliminate the Lead Risk Reduction Program. He has also proposed a 33-percent cut in grants to states for use in supervising public water systems and training lead removal contractors.
Two decades of environmental justice work – erased?
The EPA chief’s slash-and-burn ethos can set back more than 25 years of work to address the link between race, poverty and pollution – advanced through executive orders, dedicated funding, expert advisory committees and grass roots movements.
So now, more than ever before, we must remain vigilant in the courts to fight these rollbacks. We must share our personal stories of the public health and environmental harm Pruitt’s actions are inflicting.
And we must remind Congress at every turn that they have the authority and obligation to stand up for healthy families and safe communities. Remaining silent cannot be an option; the stakes are too high.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2018/04/05/pruitt-has-made-environmental-injustice-norm-epa-5-shocking-examples
-
Southern California Regulators Have a Chance to Rein in Freight Pollution. Will They Take It?
Apr 5, 2018 | LA Times
By Tony Barboza
Over and over in their decades-long war on smog, Southern California regulators have failed to use a powerful tool against ports, warehouses and other freight and logistics hubs that are magnets for air pollution.
Now, the South Coast Air Quality Management District is considering a proposal to regulate warehouses, rail yards and large development projects as indirect sources of pollution due to the droves of diesel trucks, locomotives and construction equipment they attract.
But the district's governing board again appears poised to reject much of its staff's proposal at a public meeting Friday.
Key appointees have voiced reluctance to crack down on an industry that is both the lifeblood of the Southern California economy and responsible for much of the region's harmful emissions. Business groups and the city-owned ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach oppose such rules, saying they will hinder growth in a sector that employs hundreds of thousands of people across the region.
One opponent is Los Angeles Councilman Joe Buscaino, a Democrat whose position against regulations on warehouses and development projects makes it unlikely those proposals will win majority support of the 13-member board. The panel consists of elected officials and other appointees from Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties: six Republicans, six Democrats and one unaffiliated member who is an environmentalist.
The decision follows more than a decade of air district proposals to use its authority under state law to regulate indirect sources of pollution, including at the ports and new development projects. None have made it past the drawing board.
At the same time, an increase in goods moving through the ports is helping drive a dramatic sprawl of new warehouses and distribution centers in the Inland Empire — and with them more pollution-spewing diesel trucks.
"There doesn't seem to be any end to these warehouses continuing to push closer to our neighborhoods," Kathleen Dale of Moreno Valley told regulators last month. "We need your help to fix this problem."
A failure to pursue rules would mark another setback in the air district's obligations to clean the nation's worst smog and ease rates of asthma, lung cancer and other illnesses suffered by those hardest hit by freight emissions.
Following decades of improvement, efforts to reduce ozone, the lung-damaging gas in smog, have faltered in recent years, with the number of bad air days ticking up. Cargo ships, trucks, trains and other diesel engines are the biggest polluters in Southern California and the greatest obstacle to residents breathing clean air.
Buscaino acknowledged at a public hearing last month the importance of addressing truck pollution, but asked why the air district would "potentially negatively impact the development of warehouses" and suggested state regulators "do their part to step up" emissions requirements. "It's important that we stay in our lane."
Buscaino, whose district includes the L.A. port, also expressed reservations about imposing fees on development projects "while we're in the middle of a statewide housing crisis."
Though an air district legal memo concludes that the board has the authority to regulate rail yards, Dwight Robinson, a Republican Lake Forest city councilman on the air district board, said he remains "concerned about federal preemption issues as they relate to indirect source rules we may create for warehouses and rail yards that would likely impact interstate commerce."
The proposal comes a year after the panel adopted a 15-year smog-reduction plan that did not include rules for ports, warehouses and rail yards. Instead, the board opted for a voluntary approach that asked those facilities to devise their own pollution-cutting measures, but pledged to return in a year and pivot to regulation if progress wasn't made.
Now, the air district has proposed entering into voluntary agreements, rather than rules, for the region's ports and airports. But staff recommended drafting regulations for three types of facilities they say have not made sufficient progress: warehouses and distribution centers, rail yards, and new and redevelopment projects.
The California Air Resources Board, meanwhile, has declined to pursue statewide rules on indirect pollution from freight facilities that its governing board recommended last year.
State air board chair Mary Nichols said at a meeting last month in Riverside that she is "pretty well convinced that the authority to adopt an indirect source review rule lies with the districts and must be exercised by them."
Instead, the state over the next several years will seek to tighten rules on port trucks, cargo-handling equipment, rail yard locomotives and other freight operations as part of a push toward lower-polluting and zero-emission technologies.
Industry has fought the South Coast district's attempts to regulate freight-handling facilities, saying they should not be held responsible for pollution from trucks and other vehicles they cannot control.
"Any facility-based measures on warehouses, rail yards or ports will harm the entire supply chain," said Thomas Jelenić, vice president for the Pacific Merchant Shipping Assn., which represents marine terminals and ocean carriers at the ports.
Other business representatives point to past improvements in air quality as reason to shelve the proposals.
"Respect the steady progress that has been made to date by our sea and airports, and thousands of truck owner-operators using voluntary measures," Bill La Marr, executive director of the California Small Business Alliance, told regulators. "They've shown the pathway to clean air doesn't have to be through a minefield of rules."
Local smog regulators, whose jurisdiction is generally limited to stationary facilities such as oil refineries and factories, complain they lack authority over vehicles and other mobile sources that generate more than 80% of smog-forming emissions. But air districts is several other regions of the state have already used their authority to regulate indirect pollution at new development projects, according to a South Coast district staff report.
Environmentalists say that creates an obligation to act under state law, which says air districts must work quickly to meet air quality standards using "every feasible measure."
"If the agency doesn't adopt mandatory regulations to clean up warehouses and other large freight facilities, they can't claim they've done everything possible to solve our air pollution crisis," said Adrian Martinez, an attorney for the environmental nonprofit Earthjustice.
San Joaquin Valley air quality officials have regulated indirect pollution sources since 2006 through a rule requiring many new developments, including warehouses, retail centers and housing projects, either use cleaner equipment during construction or pay a mitigation fee to fund emissions reductions elsewhere.
The program has reduced more than 12,000 tons of smog-forming nitrogen oxides, according to the Valley Air District, much of that achieved through $31 million in mitigation fees that have paid for emissions-reduction projects such as cleaner farm tractors and electric vehicle rebates.
But in Southern California, efforts to control indirect sources of pollution proved unpopular even a generation ago when smog was dramatically worse.
In the late 1980s the South Coast district adopted an indirect source rule that required many employers to implement ride-share programs and mass transit incentives to reduce pollution from solo commutes. The measure generated a stream of complaints from businesses, and its carpooling mandates were killed by state lawmakers in 1995.
To meet looming federal deadlines to clean ozone pollution, the South Coast basin must slash nitrogen oxide emissions an additional 55% by 2031. To do so, the district says it must increase funding for cleaner vehicles to $1 billion a year, but so far is falling short.
Trade and logistics growth has complicated the equation. In the last five years more than 100 million square feet of new industrial construction has gone up in Southern California, most of it warehouses and distribution centers in the Inland Empire, according to research by Los Angeles-based real estate services firm CBRE Group Inc.
Responding to residents urging rules at a meeting last month, Nichols said the proliferation of warehouses has "not gone unnoticed. It's a really serious problem," and the Air Resources Board was watching the South Coast district very closely and "hoping that they will do the right thing."
"And if some reason they don't," Nichols said, "then we will have to take action."
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-freight-air-quality-20180405-story.html
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested