Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 4/10/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemicals Held Hostage in China-U.S. Trade Spat
Apr 9, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jean-François Tremblay
Groups representing the U.S. chemical industry are expressing alarm at the potential impact of a trade war between the U.S. and China. The two countries have both proposed lists of goods, each worth $50 billion annually, that will be subject to a 25% import tax if trade negotiations fail in the coming months. -
Mission impossible: Replacing Scott Pruitt
Apr 9, 2018 | Politico
By Burgess Everett and Anthony Adragna
There’s one big reason Senate Republicans are standing staunchly with Scott Pruitt: Confirming a replacement might be impossible. -
Some Republicans Are Rallying Around Pruitt
Apr 9, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Key Republican lawmakers are lining up to support embattled Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt amid numerous controversies about his spending and management. -
As Trump Backs Pruitt, Opponents Question His Deregulatory Effectiveness
Apr 9, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's job seems safe for now, after President Donald Trump strongly came to his defense over the weekend, largely dismissing ethical concerns in favor of his “bold actions at EPA,” but others are questioning just how effective Pruitt -- often called one of Trump's most accomplished Cabinet members -- has actually been. -
EPA Overhauls OPPT Leadership
Apr 9, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA has announced a significant re-shuffling of leaders within its toxics office, which is being reorganized just as officials are working to establish a new program to meet the ambitious deadlines Congress set for implementing the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
Two Things You Can Do Right Now to Protect Your Family from Toxic Chemicals
Apr 9, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Leah Segedie
In her new book Green Enough, Mamavation blogger Leah Segedie uncovers the truth behind the food and household products that are misleadingly labeled “all-natural” and healthy but are actually filled with toxic chemicals. -
Chemical Reviews Delayed as EU Puts Off 2020 Sustainability Goal
Apr 10, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Union's chemicals agency is going to miss a looming milestone for managing chemicals in an environmentally sustainable way because companies aren't giving the agency enough information. -
Brexit: What Do You Think?
Apr 10, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Warmington
Brexit is a huge concern for UK manufacturers, importers and users of chemicals – and no wonder. -
Norway Bans 'Slime' Toy Products Containing Lead, Arsenic
Apr 10, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The Norwegian Environmental Directorate has removed some slime-like toy products from the market after it found they contained high levels of lead and arsenic. -
Saudis See Chemical, Oil-Refining Bonanza Along U.S. Gulf
Apr 10, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Lucia Kassai and Jack Kaskey
Saudi Arabia signaled its intent to expand chemical production along the U.S. Gulf Coast and potentially double the size of North America's biggest oil refinery. -
Permian Pipelines Trade Hands in $1.75B Private Equity Deal
Apr 9, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
A private equity fund managed by Morgan Stanley is paying $1.75 billion in cash to buy big into Permian Basin pipeline assets. -
Ohio Power Company Has Few Allies in Bailout Bid
Apr 10, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Erin Ailworth and Russell Gold
FirstEnergy Corp. FE -0.18% is waging a lonely fight as it seeks to persuade the Trump administration to bail out its struggling coal and nuclear-power plants through an unprecedented emergency action that experts say would effectively end America’s largest competitive electricity market. -
Agencies Sign MOU To Streamline NEPA Reviews For Infrastructure Projects
Apr 9, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
The White House has released a long-awaited memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed by EPA and 11 other agencies that seeks to limit National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews to two years and to assign a “lead agency” to each review in order to give it greater authority than in the past to direct the analysis. -
FERC, Interior, EPA, DOE, Others Agree to Faster Infrastructure Permitting
Apr 9, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Eight months after President Trump called for the federal government to expedite its review and permitting of major infrastructure projects, 12 agencies agreed Monday to follow permitting timetables designed to complete such reviews within two years. -
Opinion: The Infrastructure Plan Is Like Our Roads. Both Are Falling Apart
Apr 10, 2018 | Roll Call
By Michele Nellenbach and Jake Varn
Congress is beginning to give up on the idea of a sweeping infrastructure bill, pointing to the looming midterm elections and the funding boosts that passed in the recent omnibus package. -
EAB Remands Permit Case Claiming Air Toxics Rule 'Rewrite'
Apr 9, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA's Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) has approved EPA Region 5's motion for a voluntary remand of an air permit the region issued for incinerators owned by waste disposal firm Veolia ES Technical Solutions, LLC, ending a case in which the company had claimed the agency used a permit to “rewrite” its waste combustor air toxics rule. -
California ‘Actively’ Considers Challenge to EPA on Vehicle Emissions
Apr 9, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Mike Spector
California officials are weighing a lawsuit to challenge the Trump administration’s decision to ease vehicle emissions standards, though the state remains open to negotiations, the head of California’s air-pollution regulator said.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemicals Held Hostage in China-U.S. Trade Spat
Apr 9, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jean-François Tremblay
Groups representing the U.S. chemical industry are expressing alarm at the potential impact of a trade war between the U.S. and China. The two countries have both proposed lists of goods, each worth $50 billion annually, that will be subject to a 25% import tax if trade negotiations fail in the coming months.
China is one of the U.S. chemical industry’s most important trading partners, importing 11%, or $3.2 billion, of all U.S. plastics in 2017,” said Cal Dooley, CEO of the American Chemistry Council, which represents large chemical firms. “We are particularly concerned that 40% of the products to which China has assigned new tariffs are chemicals.”
The Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Associates (SOCMA), a trade group for specialty chemical producers, also expressed concern. “Many of the proposed targeted products will impact the business of specialty chemistry, from vital upstream building-block materials to the dozens of downstream market segments,” CEO Jennifer Abril said. SOCMA members will be doubly burdened, Abril noted, by paying more for Chinese inputs while also facing import taxes when selling in China.
Released first, the U.S. list of targets contains 1,300 items, many of them relatively obscure. The U.S. Trade Representative explained that it selected goods benefiting from Chinese government support but excluded ones that would disrupt the U.S. economy or harm consumers.
Much narrower, with 106 items, the list of retaliatory tariffs proposed by China includes immediately recognizable goods like cars, airplanes, and soybeans. The chemicals targeted are also major ones, such as low-density polyethylene, other large-volume polymers, the fiber intermediate acrylonitrile, adhesives, and catalysts.
Analysts at the investment firm Jefferies said the tariffs, if implemented, would not necessarily cause major harm to U.S. chemical firms because many have production facilities in China.
https://cen.acs.org/policy/trade/Chemicals-held-hostage-China-US/96/i15
-
Mission impossible: Replacing Scott Pruitt
Apr 9, 2018 | Politico
By Burgess Everett and Anthony Adragna
There’s one big reason Senate Republicans are standing staunchly with Scott Pruitt: Confirming a replacement might be impossible.
Even as the embattled EPA administrator faced another day of difficult headlines on Monday, there is no push from the Senate GOP to shove Pruitt out. Instead, Republicans are gently rapping him for his ethical transgressions and praising his deregulatory regime.
There’s no question that GOP senators are growing tired of defending Pruitt. But turning on him would likely backfire, as the shrunken Republican majority would struggle to confirm any EPA administrator, let alone another one as conservative and driven to overturn former President Barack Obama’s environmental rules and regulations.
“I don’t think that would be easy, let me put it that way,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).
“I assume it’d be very difficult,” said Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.).
Pruitt barely got through the confirmation process last time — opposed by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) but lifted to a majority through the support of a pair of red state Democrats. Since then, Republicans have lost a Senate seat in Alabama and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is recovering from cancer treatment, giving the GOP effectively a 50-49 majority that makes any controversial confirmation a risky bet.
“Anything is going to be hard right now at 50-49 to confirm, especially if it’s a high profile position,” said Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, the No. 3 GOP leader.
And now the midterms are in sight. Republicans are particularly eager to avoid putting the vulnerable Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) in the position of being the deciding vote on a new EPA chief in the mold of Pruitt. Heller has faced a backlash in increasingly-blue Nevada for confirming some of President Donald Trump’s nominees, and a vote on a conservative EPA administrator would offer Democrats another opportunity for outrage.
Apart from the political concerns, there are also practical ones. Senate Republicans are already facing an unwelcome trio of Cabinet confirmations that are all dicey on their own: Mike Pompeo to be secretary of state, Gina Haspel to lead the CIA and Ronny Jackson to helm the Veterans Affairs department.
There are also dozens of lower-level nominees that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is hoping to confirm over the course of the year. Adding a fourth Cabinet confirmation would sap time from the Senate calendar and Republicans of their political capital in a tough election year.
“Our most precious quantity is time. We’re pretty well booked. We don’t need any extra confirmations,” said Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), a McConnell ally.
Trump has mounted a strong defense of Pruitt, saying over the weekend he’s doing a “great job.” The president’s allies in Congress said that they believe Pruitt is safe, for now.
“There’s no vacancy yet,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas). “The president has gone out of the way to say he has confidence in him. So I just have to assume he’s sticking around.”
Of course, ousted Cabinet secretaries from Tom Price to David Shulkin to Rex Tillerson know that the president’s support can turn on a dime. And Pruitt’s big problem is that the bad headlines keep coming. On Monday, the Atlantic reportedon emails that showed Pruitt personally ordered a raise for an aide over the White House’s objections.
Moreover, he’s faced ethical and management criticisms from the early days of his tenure. Pruitt’s been hit for his frequent first-class flights, use of an unprecedented 24/7 security detail, spending $43,000 on a private phone booth and a $50-per-night lease on a Washington condo owned by a lobbyist couple, among other issues.
Those events prompted a federal ethics watchdog Monday to demand the agency’s top ethics official closely examine Pruitt’s behavior — and a mild rebuke from some Republicans.
“I don’t appreciate the way he seems to have abused taxpayer dollars,” said Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa).
But supporters say Pruitt had made honest mistakes and deserves a second chance.
“He’s had a few troubles. It’s hard for anybody who’s a mover and shaker not to have some troubles,” Hatch said.
Pruitt has used his time atop EPA to launch a sweeping deregulatory push, beginning the process of wiping away Obama-era regulations on everything from power plant emissions to fuel efficiency standards to chemical safety rules for industrial facilities. He’s pushed to trim his agency’s budget by a third and overseen the reduction in staff to Reagan-era levels.
And he’s questioned the scientific consensus that human activity drives climate change, urging a scientific debate on the work underpinning that conclusion.
“I feel that my reservations about Scott Pruitt have proven to be validated over and over. And the policies that he has pursued are antithetical to the agency,” said Collins, the lone GOP senator to oppose Pruitt. Still, she would not say he should go: “It’s really up to the president.”
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee, said he would refrain from judging Pruitt until the White House completes its probe into his activities.
“In terms of what he’s been doing, in terms of rolling back regulations and doing the key administration issues, I’m supportive of his activities,” Barrasso said. “We have a lot of other people that need to be confirmed. This is not the time to add another opening on top of that.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/09/scott-pruitt-senate-epa-replace-511100
-
Some Republicans Are Rallying Around Pruitt
Apr 9, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Key Republican lawmakers are lining up to support embattled Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt amid numerous controversies about his spending and management.
The support comes as President Trump signaled he’s in no hurry to replace Pruitt, and as conservative commentators offer support on television and social media for an EPA chief who has sought to roll back regulations pursued by the Obama administration.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), who chairs the committee that oversees the EPA, indicated that he’s proud of Pruitt’s work at the agency and said he would hold off on any comment until the White House has thoroughly examined the issues at hand.
“Certain questions have been raised about internal operations of the agency and the administrator’s actions,” he said. “The White House has indicated it has taken on a formal review of these questions. I will wait for the outcome of that process.”
Barrasso, who was accompanied by Pruitt and Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) last week on a tour of a massive coal mine in Wyoming, also said the EPA chief had been “instrumental in returning the agency to its original mission.”
“American workers are benefiting from his reversal of punishing regulations,” he added.
“He’s following through with what the policies the president said he wanted to implement,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Rounds said the criticisms of Pruitt amount to nitpicking.
“Oh, he has too big of a security detail? Is that suddenly the reason why you fire someone?” he asked.
That he uses a large security deal is just one of the issues for which Pruitt is under scrutiny.
Pruitt is under fire for renting a room from the wife of an energy lobbyist for $50 per day, a sum he only paid for the nights when he actually slept in the Capitol Hill condo.
His agency also gave raises to two top aides despite the White House rejecting Pruitt’s request, and Pruitt allegedly punished five officials for objecting to his spending and management decisions.
On Monday, The Atlantic reported that Sarah Greenwalt, Pruitt’s senior counsel, sent an internal email last month saying Pruitt wanted her to get a significant pay raise.
That contradicted what Pruitt told Fox News's Ed Henry last week, which was that he did not know that the EPA used a provision of the Safe Drinking Water Act to increase her pay after the White House didn’t approve it.
Those are in addition to months-long criticisms about his spending, including that he took frequent first-class flights and kept a security detail costing millions of dollars.
Toward the end of last week, it appeared Pruitt’s time at the EPA might be coming to an end. But that was before Trump offered public support, something that has been noted by Republicans in Congress.
“It looks like the president has gone out of his way to say he has confidence in him, so I just have to assume that he’s sticking around until we hear to the contrary,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas).
The president tweeted Saturday that Pruitt’s security costs are justified, his rent was “about market rate” and his travel expenses are “OK.” “Scott is doing a great job,” he concluded.
Even before Trump’s weekend tweet, allies of Pruitt were offering support.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who worked with Pruitt in his home state, heaped praise on him.
“Since being sworn in, Administrator Pruitt has been instrumental in carrying out President Trump’s deregulatory agenda at the EPA — ending the war on fossil fuels, repealing [the Clean Water Rule], exiting the Paris agreement and announcing new fuel emissions standards,” he said in a statement. “He’s been an effective member of the president’s team, and I look forward to continuing to work with him to restore the EPA to its proper size and scope.”
Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), James Lankford (R-Okla.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) also put out supportive statements.
Pruitt still faces criticism and scrutiny.
The head of the Office of Government Ethics has scolded the EPA for its handling of the various potential ethical breaches.
“The American public needs to have confidence that ethics violations, as well as the appearance of ethics violations, are investigated and appropriately addressed,” acting Director David Apol wrote.
Apol doesn’t have the ability to punish Pruitt. But he said it is imperative that the EPA thoroughly investigate the controversies.
Three House Republicans have called for Pruitt to resign or be fired: Reps. Carlos Curbelo (Fla.), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.) and Elise Stefanik (N.Y.).
And on Sunday, three GOP senators added to the criticisms.
Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), the only Republican to vote against Pruitt’s nomination last year, said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that Pruitt, “on policy grounds alone ... is the wrong person to head the EPA.”
“Stop acting like a chucklehead,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) implored on NBC’s “Face the Nation.”
“Why do you want to rent an apartment from a lobbyist for God’s sake? Stop leading with your chin. Now these are unforced errors. They are stupid,” Kennedy continued.
“I think he’s done a good job, but I’m looking to see what the [House] Oversight Committee is going to say,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said ABC’s “This Week,” referring to Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy’s (R-S.C.) investigation into Pruitt’s rental. “The one thing I can say, if you’re the EPA administrator and two lobbyists change the locks, you’ve got a problem. The bottom line is this doesn’t look good.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/382360-some-republicans-are-rallying-around-pruitt
-
As Trump Backs Pruitt, Opponents Question His Deregulatory Effectiveness
Apr 9, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's job seems safe for now, after President Donald Trump strongly came to his defense over the weekend, largely dismissing ethical concerns in favor of his “bold actions at EPA,” but others are questioning just how effective Pruitt -- often called one of Trump's most accomplished Cabinet members -- has actually been.
Steve Milloy of E&E Legal wrote an April 5 op-ed on Fox News, “Trump and the US Need Scott Pruitt to Stay at EPA,” touting Pruitt's successes and his support for industry.
“Industries long aggrieved by the pre-Trump EPA, especially during the Obama years, now have an EPA administrator eager to listen to their side of the story,” Milloy writes, citing a pending repeal of vehicle greenhouse gas limits on glider trucks -- but omitting that the rest of the trucking industry staunchly opposes the repeal.
“There is much more EPA reform to come from Pruitt, as he is just hitting his stride. Now is not the time to change horses.” He referred to the ethical issues as “partisan attacks over trivialities.”
But Think Progress writes April 9 that Pruitt “hasn't saved taxpayers anything” because his claims of $300 million in regulatory rollback savings “overstate” his effectiveness in finalizing the rollbacks and “conflate monetary costs saved by industry with public health and environmental costs borne by the American public.”
Pruitt is seeking a massive rollback of Obama-era rules, in particular those addressing climate change, but none has been finalized much less subject to judicial review.
In addition, his preliminary efforts to halt or delay final Obama rules for a rewrite have been met with some judicial losses, including a court ordering implementation of an EPA methane rule for oil and gas that Pruitt hoped to halt and then repeal.
Other efforts by Pruitt to delay taking action on mandatory Clean Air Act duties have also been rejected by courts, which are imposing strict deadlines. For example, when EPA delayed addressing an ozone petition by Connecticut, a federal appellate court ruled that EPA had to take final action in just weeks, and now EPA's rejection of the petition request is undergoing court review.
In total, Pruitt has finalized 22 regulatory rollbacks, with 44 pending, according to Think Progress.
Six of the 22 -- including the oil and gas methane limit along with rules governing pesticides, lead paint, and renewable fuels -- have been struck down by courts. Many challenges over the remaining 16 are in court, including over rules governing power plant effluent limits, while EPA has abruptly dropped other efforts, such reversing an Obama “veto” of Alaska's Pebble Mine and abandoning a rollback of a landfill methane rule.
But the group notes that many of the rollbacks were hastily put together and may not survive substantive court challenges. “The speed with which Pruitt has pursued” them “has left the agency little time to amass the body of evidence usually required.”
Sub-Regulatory Policy
Pruitt and other administration officials have also been forced to implement their deregulatory policies by issuing memorandum and guidance documents that are not subject to the lengthy notice-and-comment requirements that rolling back regulations require.
For example, Pruitt issued a directive seeking to halt the so-called “sue-and-settle” practice. While that document is a guidance, its implementation has gone to court in specific cases where courts have, several times, rejected EPA's refusal to take a non-discretionary action, again imposing tight deadlines.
Further, Pruitt is making significant administrative changes to who reviews agency science and what types of science can serve as the basis for rulemakings. However, the sub-regulatory actions can easily be reversed by a new administration, just as the Trump administration is undoing Obama-era guidance and memos.
Where perhaps Pruitt is having an immediate and likely lasting impact is on the culture at EPA, where upwards of 700 staffers have left in the last year and morale is at a low.
Rank-and-file employees feel under siege and are trying to keep their heads down so they are not noticed. Many are exploring options to move to other federal agencies, though hiring across the government is limited.
Those that are staying say management decisions that limit flexibilities that make work bearable, such as telework, are occurring or expected. “They play dirty,” one veteran staffer who sees few options to leave in the coming years complains.
This source adds that when the administrator's ethical scandals were breaking -- sometimes on an hourly basis last week -- staff were trying not to get their hopes up that Pruitt would be forced out, though also noting that while the administrator's job appears secure for now, the scrutiny over his behavior is not going away.
For example, Pruitt will soon have to face Congress at a budget hearing later this month. Democrats and three Republicans have called for his resignation.
Also Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who chairs the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, has said he is investigating Pruitt's unusual housing arrangement where he rented a room at below-market rates in a Capitol Hill townhouse owned by the wife of a prominent energy lobbyist who has business before the agency.
Pruitt's ethics are also being investigated by the White House, the Government Accountability Office and the EPA Inspector General, with probes into his reported $3 million spending on personal security at the detriment of EPA criminal investigations, his lavish first-class travel habits that totaled more than $168,000 in his first year, his $43,000 sound-proof phone booth, his circumventing the White House to grant large pay raises to two close staffers and more.
The eventual results of those probes, as well as any adverse court rulings, combined with any new revelations about Pruitt's ethics could quickly change Trump's mind, particularly because top Trump staffers, including Chief of Staff John Kelly and chief domestic energy adviser Mike Catanzaro, want him gone, multiple sources say.
But Trump largely dismissed Pruitt's ethical lapses, tweeting April 7, “While Security spending was somewhat more than his predecessor, Scott Pruitt has received death threats because of his bold actions at EPA. Record clean Air & Water while saving USA Billions of Dollars. Rent was about market rate, travel expenses OK. Scott is doing a great job!”
Court Challenges
Nonetheless, Democrats, environmentalists and their allies are loudly questioning Pruitt's accomplishments and question whether his actions will stand up in court.
When Pruitt last week moved to weaken the Obama-era vehicle GHG rules for model years 2022-2025, he did it in a 38-page notice that experts marveled at for its lack of depth. Half of the document quotes from automaker comments, prompting James McCargar, a former EPA vehicle program analyst, to call it “an incredible lack of numbers,” By comparison, the Obama administration rule justification was 1, 217 pages.
“If this gets challenged in court, I just don't see how they provide anything that gives a technical justification to undo the rule,” McCargar told the Independent Recorder April 7, though it remains an open question as to whether the action is final and eligible for judicial review.
Similarly Richard Lazarus, an environmental professor at Harvard, told the same paper that, “In their rush to get things done, they’re failing to dot their i’s and cross their t’s. And they’re starting to stumble over a lot of trip wires They’re producing a lot of short, poorly crafted rulemakings that are not likely to hold up in court.”
Also former Obama EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told CNN April 6 that none of the rules Pruitt claims to have revoked “are gone. None of them. And I highly suspect the way he's locked himself in a room and not engaged the career staff, or fundamentally looked at . . . the law correctly, that when you go to court you will see that we will continue to move these rules forward because we did them right, and all he is looking at is reducing costs to business owners.”
Additionally David Hayes, a former deputy Interior secretary under Obama who now runs the State Energy & Environmental Impact Center, strongly questioned Pruitt's effectiveness in an April 9 email. He argues that Pruitt has “actually made desired rollbacks less likely to happen, thanks to hasty efforts that lack sufficient rigor to survive court challenges brought by state attorneys general.”
“You can't just govern by press release. You have to do the hard work of developing a rule that can withstand judicial scrutiny, even though it isn't sexy. Pruitt hasn't been willing to do that.”
While Trump rejected calls from many to fire Pruitt, some critics are calling for him to stay, signaling they believe he provides a potent message for Democratic voters heading into the November election.
Pruitt is a “great symbol” of the Trump administration's corruption, which could in the end help Democrats, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA), said in an April 7 tweet. “Please don't fire @EPAScottPruitt. He's such a great symbol of the corruption, fraud, waste & abuse in your Administration.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/trump-backs-pruitt-opponents-question-his-deregulatory-effectiveness
-
Apr 9, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA has announced a significant re-shuffling of leaders within its toxics office, which is being reorganized just as officials are working to establish a new program to meet the ambitious deadlines Congress set for implementing the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Maria Doa, who has served since 2011 as director of the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics' (OPPT's) Chemical Control Division (CCD) is moving to new position in EPA's research office (ORD).
Her deputy at CCD, Lynn Vendinello, “will serve on an interim basis” as acting director, an EPA official says.
Doa, “will move to [ORD's] Office of Science Policy,” according to an April 5 blog post from the environmental law firm of Bergeson & Campbell.
The EPA official says that “also this month,” Tanya Mottley, who has been serving as acting deputy director of OPPT “will be resuming her leadership role as director of OPPT's National Program Chemicals Division (NPCD).
The official adds that Tala Henry, director of OPPT's Risk Assessment Division (RAD), will be coming up to the OPPT immediate office for the next acting [OPPT] deputy director detail assignment.”
“OPPT very soon will issue announcements for competitive details to back fill the positions of [Vendinello] and [Henry],” the official adds.
The law firm's post says that Henry's deputy at RAD, Cathy Fehrenbacher, has been tapped as RAD acting director.
“These are significant leadership changes and are likely intended to maximize OPPT efficiency,” Bergeson & Campbell's blog states. “We applaud OPPT’s continuing efforts to implement TSCA and the changes occasioned by” the TSCA reform statute.
The moves come as OPPT has been struggling to meet new responsibilities Congress has given it in reformed TSCA. OPPT has tried to bring in additional staff to assist through the use of details -- perhaps most notably its efforts to pull in professional staff to help to address the backlog of applications to bring new chemicals to market after changes Congress made to relevant portions of the statute without providing any phase-in time period.
OPPT leaders in February announced they are moving staff from the pollution prevention program to new roles in the TSCA program, citing the struggle they face to keep up with the workload created by the reformed statute's mandates.
It is unclear if the changes relate to OPPT's ongoing efforts to reorganize to better meet its new mandates under reformed TSCA. OPPT leadership announced last fall that they were beginning the reorganization process, and have been gathering input from staff on a series of straw proposals about how best to reorganize OPPT. Some initial comments, however, suggested that the reorganization plans did not alter OPPT's RAD, which some staff viewed as the source of OPPT's difficulties in meeting the new TSCA responsibilities.
“It's well-known that RAD is responsible for many bottlenecks and other inefficiencies when it comes to chemical reviews,” states a summary of staff comments on the proposed reorganization Inside EPA obtained last December.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-overhauls-oppt-leadership
-
Two Things You Can Do Right Now to Protect Your Family from Toxic Chemicals
Apr 9, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Leah Segedie
In her new book Green Enough, Mamavation blogger Leah Segedie uncovers the truth behind the food and household products that are misleadingly labeled “all-natural” and healthy but are actually filled with toxic chemicals. From furniture to packaged food, Leah guides you through detoxifying your home, diet, and lifestyle. In celebration of her recent book release, we’re giving you a sneak preview of what you can find inside.
1: SAY “HELL, NO” TO SYNTHETIC FRAGRANCE
This here’s the No. 1 monster hazmat to take down if you want to green up your family’s grooming. Synthetic fragrances are made with a slew of endocrine-disrupting chemicals. These chemicals are typically not listed on ingredient labels because, although the Federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act of 1967 requires cosmetics companies to list all ingredients on their labels, there’s an exception to that rule (gargantuan loophole alert!) when an ingredient is listed as a “fragrance.” With one little word, manufacturers legally bypass all the full disclosure rules because fragrances are considered proprietary “trade secret” formulas. Sussing out whether a personal care product contains chemical fragrance is a good way to evaluate its overall ingredient safety—where there’s fragrance, you’ll also often find other chemicals of concern.
HOW TO DEAL
KEEP YOUR SHOPPING CART FRAGRANCE-FREE.
Before you embark on the enterprise of destinkifying the products your family is already using, set yourself up to shop smarter so you don’t inadvertently add to the problem by bringing home even more artificially scented products. When you shop, make it a matter of course to check the ingredient label. And if you see the word “fragrance”—or “perfume” or “parfum”—put it right back on the shelf. Any one of those three words is a dead giveaway. That advice also goes for multilevel marketing products. Learning to be just a little bit label literate is a great way to prevent further fragrance hazmats from weaseling their way into your family’s grooming routine. You can make it extra easy on yourself by using the “Naming Names” lists (pages 273 through 291) to note particular brands you’re looking for—and the ones you need to avoid.
FERRET THE FRAGRANCE OUT OF YOUR FAMILY’S GROOMING ROUTINE.
When it comes to dealing with the products you already have, I recommend taking the same approach as we did with processed food: Focus on the front row—the products that are most constantly in use, such as shampoos, soaps, lotions, toothpaste and various other oral care products, hair gel and such, deodorants; plus your personal items, including everyday makeup, facial moisturizers and cleansers, and feminine hygiene products.
Gather that daily stuff together, take a deep breath, and log some label-reading time, keeping a sharp lookout for one of these three buzz-kill words: fragrance, perfume, or parfum. Set aside any products that flunk the fragrance test; they likely contain phthalates. Then do a little soul-searching. It is quite possible that there are more ingredients listed under the blanket term “fragrance,” outnumbering those that you see on the ingredient label.
If some of the flunkies feel like items you just cannot live without, or if you spent a ton of money on them and it makes you sick to think of chucking them, then put ’em back on deck until you find something better. (One big caveat here: If you discover that there is fragrance of any kind in any of your time-o’-the-month products, please, for the love of all things good and holy, kick it to the curb immediately. Then turn straight to page 272 for important info about the tender topic of how best to care for the goods down there, and get yourself some safer supplies next time you leave the house. Seriously. There’s a whole lot more to fem care than just fragrance, but we will cover that soon.)
2: STREAMLINE AND SIMPLIFY
Try this concept on for size: If you’re using more products on a daily basis than you have fingers to count, that’s too much.
A consumer survey by the Environmental Working Group found that women use an average of 12 personal care products daily (containing up to 168 chemical ingredients). For men, the number of products was six (with 80-plus chemical ingredients). The group with the highest risk for off-the-charts exposure levels: adolescent girls, using on average 17 personal care products per day (with up to 180 unique chemical ingredients). But get this: A related study in California followed a group of teenage girls and found the level of several dangerous chemicals in their bodies measured 25 percent to 45 percent lower after only three days of switching to fragrance-free products.
So the point is this: If you can knock it down to 10 products (or less), you’ll be making a huge difference in the toxic toll being taken by personal care products—especially if most of those products are fragrance-free.
HOW TO DEAL
TAKE INVENTORY.
Take a mental spin through your daily grooming drill. Is there room to simplify? Do you really need to use a half dozen products on your hair every morning? Hey, far be it from me to judge.
CUT WHAT YOU CAN AND SWAP OUT WHATEVER SUCKS.
Okay. So what’s your count? Can you nominate a few candidates for elimination? For me, it turned out to be way easier than I thought to vote a few things off the island altogether, like the seven-step skin regime . . . who needs all that? But others I just couldn’t do without, like my dry shampoo (that shit is the bomb diggity)—so some swaps had to be found. When I first looked at cutting back, one of my big concerns was budgetary; I just could not handle the prospect of trashing a bunch of high-end but hazmat-riddled beauty products. Once I narrowed down what I really needed, I purchased some better options and figured out how to make the others myself. This process took me almost a year, so don’t worry if it takes you some time.
One thing I can tell you not to do: It’s really not a good idea to try to replace everything at once because personal care products are, well, very personal; replacing them will be a trial-and-error process, and you don’t want to strand yourself with bad hair/greasy skin/stinky pits, for crying out loud. And different products work better for different people, so you gotta find what’s right for you.
Instead, switch out one product at a time. When it comes to finding non-toxic products, check out Madesafe.org, which vets a wide range of product ingredients for carcinogens, endocrine disruptors, flame retardants, high-risk pesticides, toxic solvents, or harmful volatile organic compounds. Then they screen more deeply with a chemist for bioaccumulation, environmental degradation, aquatic toxicity, and animal harm.
HOW TO GO GREENER
Okay, so you get the gist here—many, if not most, of the products being sold to us for the very purpose of taking care of ourselves and our loved ones are laced with endocrine disruptors or other chemicals that are potentially hazardous to human health. The next step is to take a closer look at the items you want to keep in your routine, identify the ones that might need to go bye-bye, and find better replacements. Doing that just requires a bit of homework—and I’ve done a bunch of that work for you.
Whether you switch brands or go homemade, bear in mind that formulations may feel different because they are made with more natural ingredients than the commercial products you’re leaving behind. And remember that you are trading way up healthwise.
http://saferchemicals.org/2018/04/09/two-things-you-can-do-right-now-to-protect-your-family-from-toxic-chemicals/
-
Chemical Reviews Delayed as EU Puts Off 2020 Sustainability Goal
Apr 10, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Union's chemicals agency is going to miss a looming milestone for managing chemicals in an environmentally sustainable way because companies aren't giving the agency enough information.
The agency hoped to meet the goal by on substances covered by the EU's REACH regulation by 2020. Instead, it will take until 2025 before chemicals subject to REACH have been assessed for their hazards and decisions have been taken about how best to manage them, the agency said in a draft strategic plan.
The shift in focus to 2025 means that “companies need to actively take up their REACH obligations” and continue updating data to improve the quality of information on chemicals, the chemicals agency told Bloomberg Environment.
The EU chemicals agency has been working toward a nonbinding goal in overall EU legislation that hazardous chemicals should be evaluated and, if appropriate, listed for possible bans under REACH by 2020. That objective aligns with the aim—which the United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development agreed on in 2002—that by 2020, chemicals should be produced and used in an environmentally sustainable way.
But due to “deficiencies in the quality and compliance of the current REACH registration dossiers, continued efforts are needed” beyond 2020 to identify and take decisions on the management of substances of concern, the European Chemicals Agency said in the draft strategy for 2019-2023, published April 4.
The European Chemical Industry Council said the international chemicals goal was set in 2002 when “a lot of things could not have been predicted,” the council told Bloomberg Environment in an April 9 statement.
It was “not all surprising to discover that the ambitious goals set at that time might take a little longer,” and “the implementation of REACH has turned out to be more complex than anticipated,” the council said.
The objective of taking decisions on the management of all hazardous chemicals by 2020 “was probably unrealistic,” Anthony Bochon, an attorney with Squire Patton Boggs in Brussels who focuses on European law and Belgian economic law, told Bloomberg Environment April 5.
If the European Chemicals Agency had stepped away from the 2020 objective earlier, however it would have “removed pressure” for measures to be taken in pursuit of the goal, Bochon said.
New Goal
The European Chemicals Agency's draft strategy set a new goal under which “by 2025, all substances of concern are identified and regulatory action initiated.” Comments on the draft strategy can be submitted through May 4.
Companies that sell chemicals in the EU are required by REACH (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation, and authorization of chemicals) to submit to the European Chemicals Agency registration dossiers with substance identity, hazard, and risk management data. This data is supposed to form the basis for regulatory decision-making about which substances to phase out or limit in the EU.
EU regulators have regularly complained about data gaps in REACH registration dossiers. Most recently, in a review of the implementation of REACH published in March, the European Commission, the EU's executive, said that in 2019, it would propose “improvements” to the REACH registration process to ensure that companies provide sufficient information for the assessment of the chemicals they sell.
Bayer AG ensures for its REACH registrations that “all relevant substance information is updated constantly,” Dirk Frenzel, spokesman for the German chemicals giant, told Bloomberg Environment April 9.
“But ECHA's criticism should take into consideration that the request for updating non-priority data should not generate bureaucratic overload,” Frenzel added.
Ursula von Stetten, a spokeswoman for BASF SE, the company with the greatest number of REACH registrations, and Richard Scrase, spokesman for Exxon Mobil, referred questions to the European Chemical Industry Council. Sue Breach, Europe director of communications for DowDuPont, told Bloomberg Environment April 9 she was unable to comment.
Highest Concern Substances
The European Chemicals Agency has so far formally identified 181 chemicals as “substances of very high concern” under REACH, a designation that may trigger a prohibition decision. Decisions have been taken to prohibit use in the EU of 43 of the substances. Continued use of the substances is allowed in the EU in certain circumstances if specific authorizations are sought and granted.
However, in the draft strategy, ECHA said it would now aim to assess all substances registered under REACH by 2025 to see if they needed to be added to the substance of very high concern list, or if other regulatory measures should be taken to manage their risks.
Registration dossiers have been filed for 18,618 chemicals according to the European Chemicals Agency website April 6. More substances are expected to be registered by a May 31 REACH deadline, by when all chemicals sold in the EU in an annual volume above one metric ton should be registered with the agency.
Worrying Postponement
It was “worrisome” that the European Chemicals Agency wanted to “simply postpone the goal by five years without stating any clear and detailed sub-goals along this timeline,” Sonja Haider, a policy adviser with ChemSec in Sweden, which campaigns for the phaseout of toxic substances, told Bloomberg Environment April 5.
In addition to ongoing work to identify and manage hazardous substances, the European Chemicals Agency would through 2023 do more to push companies to use chemicals more sustainably in their supply chains, according to the draft strategy.
This would include more work to push for substitution of hazardous chemicals and to manage hazardous chemicals in products when they are recycled, it said.
But the draft strategy “lacks a horizontal, transversal approach to the legal issues it raises” in relation to how EU chemicals legislation would work alongside other EU legislation, for example, on recycling of products, Bochon said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=131435400&vname=dennotallissues&fn=131435400&jd=131435400
-
Apr 10, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Warmington
Brexit is a huge concern for UK manufacturers, importers and users of chemicals – and no wonder. In January, a leaked cross-departmental briefing showed that any Brexit scenario will shave at least 2% and up to 15% off projected economic growth over the next 15 years. The chemicals industry was identified as among those likely to be hit hardest.
However, Brexit is also a concern for EU and non-EU companies. Many have manufacturing sites, integrated supply chains and/or REACH registrations in the UK. Only the most zealous Brexiters think that the EU-27 has more to lose than the UK but it certainly cannot escape the impact either.
In November 2017, the Chemicals Industries Association (CIA) and the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) jointly said that reintroducing import duties on chemical trade between the EU-27 and the UK under WTO rules could generate additional input costs of €1.5bn/year for the industry as a whole. This did not include costs from losing duty-free access and from customs divergence.
Industry mainly wants clarity about where the UK will sit in regulatory terms. Theresa May’s government is divided between those favouring a ‘soft Brexit’, in which the UK remains basically aligned with the EU as far as is legally and practically possible, and those who want a ‘hard Brexit’ in which all EU regulations are thrown off and competitive advantage is sought through lighter regulation.
The latest official word came on 2 March, when Mrs May, during a speech in London, announced that the government would seek "associate membership" of Echa and some other European agencies. A week earlier, opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn – like her, a lukewarm ‘Remainer’ who now backs Brexit – said that there was "no sense" in leaving Echa, the European Food Safety Association (Efsa) or the customs union.
Whether such a thing as associate membership is feasible remains to be seen. A document issuedby the European Council in late March reiterated the EU27 position that the UK cannot play a role in EU agencies, including Echa, once it becomes a ‘third country’, that there can be no single market access on a sector-by-sector basis and that the role of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) will be "fully respected". The German Chemical Industry Association (VCI) soon after warned of "immediate and particularly serious consequences" for the whole European chemicals industry if no trade deal is reached.
This broad approach could be reconsidered if the UK’s current ‘red lines’ change. British ministers still say they want UK registrations to remain valid and that REACH will be incorporated into UK law, but they have not committed to indefinite regulatory convergence.
Associations weigh in
Mrs May’s speech will have been welcome to most UK industry associations, which are nearly unanimous in wanting to stay in the EU chemical regulatory framework. They also reacted positively to the conditional agreement reached on 19 March on a transition period until the end of 2020, during which the UK will continue adhering to all EU chemicals regulations, including REACH, and remain a member of Echa bodies with observer status.
On 1 March, the CIA published a guide, setting out the critical issues for the industry leading up to Brexit. This repeated that the UK must secure access to the EU market by remaining "fully within REACH" or as close as possible, and that existing compliance commitments must be protected to avoid duplication of costs and help in negotiating trade deals.
Earlier, the Chemical Business Association, which represents UK chemical distributors, UK cosmetics body the Cosmetics, Toiletries and Perfumery Association and the pan-industry association the Confederation of British Industry had all supported continuing regulatory alignment. And, in a show of pan-European unity in an industry, the European Plastics Converters and the British Plastics Federation called for mutual acceptance of REACH post-Brexit.
Many UK NGOs agree. On 7 March, the Environmental Policy Forum (EPF) a network of bodies promoting environmental sustainability, sent an open letter to the House of Lords, backing an amendment to include REACH in the government’s Brexit Bill. A separate regulatory system without access to the existing database of chemical safety information, the EPF argued, would be "very expensive to establish and operate" for government and industry alike.
Survey: who took part?
And what about the individuals and companies who deal with chemical regulation every day? Chemical Watch has conducted a survey of their expectations on the business impacts, split into different sections according to where respondents were located (UK, EU-27 and non-EU). The survey assumed that Brexit will happen and asked firms which outcome would give them the greatest confidence of maintaining business stability and growth.
Respondents were mainly in chemicals manufacturing (37% of the total), ‘other manufacturing’ (19%) and service providers (12%). Most (57%) were UK-based, with a quarter in the EU-27 and 8% from the US.In terms of roles, there was a good spread of respondents between regulatory affairs (54%), business management (13%), board members (11%) and EHS (9%). Most (64%) worked for large companies with over 250 employees, with the rest spread evenly between medium-sized, small and micro businesses.
Overall, the mood captured was one of serious concern. Two-thirds of respondents, did not think Brexit offers any opportunities to improve on the regulatory mechanisms of REACH (Figure 1).
"We’ll still have to comply with REACH, so it’ll be duplication if we diverge from REACH," one UK respondent said. Another added: "REACH is not perfect, but staying within REACH and improving that is better than leaving it."
Of companies with REACH obligations in any location, 58% expect business disruption as a result of upstream UK registrations ceasing to be valid. Most still believe, however, that their registrations will still be recognised under future UK rules post-Brexit.
"We can only hope that the UK becomes a member of European Economic Area (EEA) to minimise impact or reverses the decision to leave the EU. Otherwise registrations will have to be relocated outside the EU, with extra costs that this will involve," one respondent commented. Another said, mordantly: "Retirement is an option."
Nearly 90% of respondents saw a transition period as either business-critical or very important (Figure 2). The main concerns mentioned in terms of impacts on REACH-registered substances were: additional regulatory burdens (cited by 82%); supply chain confusion (69%); additional regulatory burdens under REACH (58%); and loss of a registered supplier (46%).
Regional responses
Most UK (58%) and EU-27 respondents (55%) were not yet actively moving operations out of the UK, but a third of UK-based respondents are actively planning or organising to do so.
Most strikingly, nearly half of the UK firms were planning to create additional legal entities in the EU for business continuity or considering it (Figure 3). The most common reasons were: regulatory uncertainty (71%); tariff barriers (45%); economic uncertainty (40%); and additional chemical-specific regulatory red tape (34%).
https://chemicalwatch.com/65772/brexit-what-do-you-think
-
Norway Bans 'Slime' Toy Products Containing Lead, Arsenic
Apr 10, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The Norwegian Environmental Directorate has removed some slime-like toy products from the market after it found they contained high levels of lead and arsenic.
It tested the products following a notification from the UK to the EU’s Rapid Alert System (Rapex) for dangerous non-food products in February. British authorities said they had removed the ‘gold’ and ‘blue’ Magnetic Putty product from the national market as they had 32.9mg/kg of arsenic and 29mg/kg of lead.
This is eight times the level of arsenic permitted by Norwegian toy regulations and twice that of lead, the directorate says.
After the Rapex notification Norway investigated "pre-mixed" products sold online and in shops. It has requested information from one supplier by the end of the month on how many products it has imported and sold.
The directorate has also sent 20 other types of pre-mixed slime products for analysis, head of product supervision Mathieu Veulemans told Chemical Watch.
Arsenic and lead are added to the slime for a magnetic effect. Both substances are restricted under Annex XVII of REACH – arsenic is toxic and exposure to lead is harmful for human health and can cause developmental neurotoxicity.
The directorate also warned individuals not to make their own slime products, as they may contain pure borax, which is classified as reprotoxic. Sale of the substance to individuals is banned and the directorate says it has removed advertisements for chemicals containing pure borax.
Last month a European Commission annual Rapex report found that, for a second year running, hazardous chemicals in products, such as toys, remained the second biggest risk to health and safety on the EU and EEA market.
Norway has conducted other tests on toys recently. During an inspection in October 2017 it foundtoys that contained the phthalate DEHP, which is on the REACH candidate list because it has reprotoxic properties and is suspected of being an endocrine disruptor for human health and the environment.
https://chemicalwatch.com/65807/norway-bans-slime-toy-products-containing-lead-arsenic
-
Saudis See Chemical, Oil-Refining Bonanza Along U.S. Gulf
Apr 10, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Lucia Kassai and Jack Kaskey
Saudi Arabia signaled its intent to expand chemical production along the U.S. Gulf Coast and potentially double the size of North America's biggest oil refinery.
The kingdom's state-owned crude producer is joining with U.K. oilfield-services firm TechnipFMC Plc to assess the potential for producing ethylene, a key component in plastics, Saudi Aramco's Motiva Enterprises LLC unit said in a statement April 7. A second accord with Honeywell International Inc. could lead to the construction of a new manufacturing complex in the heart of the U.S. petrochemicals industry.
In a separate presentation at a lavish reception for Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Houston, Motiva said it's considering doubling the size of its refinery in Port Arthur, Texas.
The announcement comes less than a year after Aramco paid $2.2 billion to Royal Dutch Shell Plc to gain sole control of the Port Arthur plant and some other Motiva assets the two companies controlled as part of a joint venture.
The investment is estimated between $8 billion and $10 billion, but no formal decision on the chemical projects is expected until 2019, Motiva said in the statement.
Still, the kingdom has already hired longtime Dow Chemical Chief Executive Officer Andrew N. Liveris to act as an adviser after he departs the DowDuPont Inc. unit on July 1, said Saudi Basic Industries Corp. CEO Yousef al Benyan in an interview in Texas.
Vision 2030
“These agreements signal our plans for expansion into petrochemicals,” Motiva CEO Brian Coffman said in the statement. “We are excited to work more closely with these leaders in the industry to further assess our opportunities for investment.”
Bin Salman, heir to the throne of the world's largest oil exporter, is wrapping up a three-week tour of the U.S. to promote his effort to open up the Saudi economy through his “Vision 2030” plan.
Saudi Basic, the Middle East's dominant chemical maker, said April 7 that it wants to build a Houston headquarters for its Western Hemisphere operations as the company capitalizes on the surge in cheap natural gas supplies from North American shale fields.
In a late March stop in New York, the prince signed a memorandum of understanding with Softbank Group Corp. to build at $200 billion solar power development.
Moving Downstream
Investments in the U.S. were announced as Aramco plans an initial public offering for as soon as the second half of this year. Proceeds from the share sale should be used to expand the company's footprint in refining and petrochemicals, rather than in oil exploration and production, Aramco CEO Amin Nasser said in a March 26 Bloomberg television interview in New York.
Nasser also said Aramco is looking at a two- to three-fold expansion of its petrochemicals business from a “huge” global capacity, now that the Sadara joint venture with Dow Chemical is complete.
Total SA, the French energy major, and Aramco are due to sign a non-binding agreement on April 10 to develop the petrochemical site at their refinery in Al-Jubail, a person familiar with the matter said April 6.
TechnipFMC declined comment. A voicemail left with Honeywell outside of normal business hours wasn't immediately returned.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=131435417&vname=dennotallissues&fn=131435417&jd=131435417
-
Permian Pipelines Trade Hands in $1.75B Private Equity Deal
Apr 9, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
A private equity fund managed by Morgan Stanley is paying $1.75 billion in cash to buy big into Permian Basin pipeline assets.
Morgan Stanley Infrastructure Partners is acquiring Fort Worth-based Brazos Midstream and its pipeline network from Boston-based private equity outfit Old Ironsides Energy. The deal is through a Morgan Stanley investment fund called North Haven Infrastructure Partners II.
Brazos owns a network of pipeline, processing and storage assets in the Permian's Delaware Basin in West Texas, specifically in Reeves, Ward and Pecos counties.
The Permian is booming more than any other oil and gas region in the world and everything from acreage to pipelines located in the Permian's sweet spots are selling for premiums. With a lot of publicly traded companies skittish to overspend after the recent oil bust, a lot of new private equity money is flowing to help fill the void.
Brazos Chief Executive Brad Iles said his young business accomplished a lot through its growth in just three years. Brazos owns about 350 miles of oil and gas gathering pipelines, about 50,000 barrels of crude storage, and a natural gas processing complex that's still growing with new facilities currently under construction.
"We have built best-in-class assets in one of the most prolific and economic oil and gas producing regions in the United States," Iles added. "We are thankful for [Morgan Stanley's] commitment to our team and, with their support, we will continue to aggressively expand our business to serve our customers' rapidly growing needs."
The sale is expected to close by the end of June.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Permian-pipelines-trade-hands-in-1-75B-private-12818766.php
-
Ohio Power Company Has Few Allies in Bailout Bid
Apr 10, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Erin Ailworth and Russell Gold
FirstEnergy Corp. FE -0.18% is waging a lonely fight as it seeks to persuade the Trump administration to bail out its struggling coal and nuclear-power plants through an unprecedented emergency action that experts say would effectively end America’s largest competitive electricity market.
The Ohio-based utility doubled down on coal and nuclear power in 2010 when it struck a deal to purchase Allegheny Energy Inc. for $8.5 billion, just as fracking in the nearby Marcellus Shale formation started to unleash a gusher of cheap natural gas that made gas-fired power plants a potent rival.
Now a FirstEnergy subsidiary in bankruptcy protection is calling on Energy Secretary Rick Perry to save it and other hobbled coal and nuclear generators in the Midwest from closure by forcing the operator of a 13-state competitive power market to take their electricity, regardless of whether it is the most financially sensible option.
Emergency orders have been used lightly—almost surgically—in the past to keep one or a few plants running. The emergency order requested by FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., if approved, would affect a whole class of power generators across a large, multistate region and set an important precedent.
The request poses a test for the Trump administration, which has pledged to resuscitate the nation’s coal industry. Several power companies supplying the market oppose the proposal, with some arguing FirstEnergy’s distress is of its own making.
While other power generators have closed uneconomic facilities and diversified to include more gas and renewables, FirstEnergy Solutions remains heavily dependent on coal and nuclear power, which combined make up 88% of its generation mix.
“FirstEnergy doesn’t want to evolve,” said Abraham Silverman, vice president of regulatory affairs at NRG Energy Inc., which operates several coal plants in the competitive power market and opposes the FirstEnergy request. Mr. Silverman added: “They’d rather go to the regulators and ask for a bailout.”
FirstEnergy Solutions declined to comment. Its lawyers pleaded with Mr. Perry for intervention March 29, saying, “We find ourselves at a crisis point.” Parent FirstEnergy via email defended its Allegheny Energy purchase as a “beneficial and logical step” at the time. In an emailed statement, it said costly environmental regulations, flawed markets that undervalue its assets, and the rise of gas have all contributed to its current problems.
Reliability and national security are the top concerns for federal officials when evaluating whether the power grid faces an emergency, Mr. Perry said Monday at the Bloomberg New Energy Finance Future of Energy Summit in New York.
“The [emergency request] may not be the way that we decide that is the most appropriate, the most efficient way to address it,” he said, adding that his department is considering FirstEnergy’s request and other options.
If the request is granted, it would have significant consequences for the power market overseen by PJM Interconnection LLC, which serves an estimated 65 million customers from New Jersey to Illinois. Started in 1997, the competitive electricity market is now the world’s second-largest by customers served, behind one in the European Union.
If the Energy Department “does go forward with that, what they’ll essentially have done is completely destroyed the competitive power market in PJM,” said Katie Bays, senior vice president for energy at research firm Height Securities LLC. “It’ll be like saying this huge, competitive market experiment was a complete failure and we never should have done it,” she added.
Andrew Ott, chief executive of PJM, said that while FirstEnergy raises “a legitimate question” about whether the closure of coal and nuclear plants threatens fuel security and energy reliability, the issue hasn’t become a crisis.
A March PJM report found most of the nuclear-power plants in the region were economically viable at current prices, and that while a large number of coal-fired power plants were at risk of retirement, there was more than enough existing and planned generating capacity to meet anticipated demand.
Granting FirstEnergy’s request, Mr. Ott said, would only do one thing: “It would cost consumers more money.” It would also undercut rival energy generators and crowd out those producing electricity from gas and renewables, such producers say.
Kathleen Barron, senior vice president of federal regulatory affairs and wholesale markets at Exelon Corp. , a major owner of nuclear power in the U.S., said that while it “is devastating” to see FirstEnergy filing notices to deactivate multiple nuclear plants, an emergency order wasn’t the right first step to save the industry.
“What we really have is a flaw in the market rules and this remedy is not going to provide a long-term solution to the problems facing the nuclear fleet,” Ms. Barron said, indicating Exelon would prefer to see lawmakers address that issue, perhaps by passing laws that taxed greenhouse-gas emissions and rewarded producers with emissions-free power, before considering an emergency order.
That approach, however, would only address some of the FirstEnergy’s problems, which can be traced back to its purchase of coal-heavy Allegheny. FirstEnergy’s CEO at the time, Anthony Alexander called it “one of those transactions that clearly makes sense.”
Since then, natural gas has grown into the biggest source of electricity generation in the U.S., accounting for 32% of the total in 2017, up from 24% in 2010. Coal’s share last year was 30%, down from 45% over the same period.
On March 28, FirstEnergy said it would close three struggling nuclear-power plants in Ohio and Pennsylvania by 2021 if it couldn’t sell them, then made its urgent appeal to the Energy Department. On March 31, FirstEnergy Solutions filed for bankruptcy protection.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ohio-power-company-has-few-allies-in-bailout-bid-1523286867?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1
-
Agencies Sign MOU To Streamline NEPA Reviews For Infrastructure Projects
Apr 9, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
The White House has released a long-awaited memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed by EPA and 11 other agencies that seeks to limit National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews to two years and to assign a “lead agency” to each review in order to give it greater authority than in the past to direct the analysis.
The April 9 MOU, follows up on a list of actions the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) released last September to “enhance and modernize the NEPA review process,” as well as an Aug. 15 executive order on streamlining NEPA.
CEQ said it would provide a framework for implementing “one federal decision” and other steps, and that it would also review all existing CEQ rules to identify needed changes.
The MOU will further implement the streamlining, with a focus on the one federal decision approach, which could potentially limit EPA's role in reviewing other agencies' NEPA analyses. However, the MOU does not directly reference EPA's role in this respect. The agency has a statutory duty to review and rate other agencies' NEPA reviews.
The administration has provided few details about the MOU since it began working on it early this year when it was to have included 17 agencies.
In a statement, EPA praised the document, noting that it was one of the signatories and noting that the MOU establishes a coordinated and timely process for environmental reviews of major infrastructure projects.
“President Trump's leadership on this issue is the reason we're making strides to improve the nation's crumbling infrastructure. Today's MOU will streamline permitting processes and position EPA as a partner, not an obstacle, to making much-needed infrastructure improvements as quickly and safely as possible,” Administrator Scott Pruitt said in the release.
EPA adds that the MOU streamlines “burdensome environmental review and permitting process that serve as a barrier to major infrastructure projects.”
The MOU's lead agency approach directs agencies to agree on a permitting timeline, with a goal of two years, and to work together to conduct the review and decisions concurrently, developing a single record of decision.
EPA says it and the other agencies “have agreed to an unprecedented level of cooperation,” and that the process will eliminate duplication and costly delays.
Other agencies signing the MOU are the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Housing & Urban Development, Transportation, Energy, Homeland Security, Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council.
EPA also touts prior agency actions it says are consistent with the “one federal decision” policy, including establishing a goal that by Sept. 30, 2022, all permitting decisions will be made within six months; clarifying new source review and prevention of significant deterioration permitting program requirements through a December 2017 memo regarding how emissions are to be counted; withdrawing the “once in/always in” air toxics policy; directing the policy office last month to oversee an agency-wide review of permitting policies to accelerate decisions without sacrificing environmental quality; and re-delegating NEPA responsibilities to the policy office.
Trump when signing the MOU said, “No longer will we allow the infrastructure of our magnificent country to crumble and decay. While protecting the environment, we will build gleaming new roads, bridges, railways, waterways, tunnels and highways.”
Industry Reaction
Business groups and Republican lawmakers praised the MOU, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce saying in a statement that it is important to bring infrastructure projects to completion quickly and efficiently, and that it should not take longer to approve a project than to build it.
House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA) said, “Time is money. Reviewing and approving infrastructure projects in the most efficient way possible is critical.”
And former FERC attorney Fred Jauss, now in private practice, said in a statement that the MOU “has the potential to speed up federal review of infrastructure projects” because a “delay in one agency's review can hold up FERC's issuance of a pipeline certificate indefinitely.”
However, one NEPA law expert has argued that neither the MOU nor any of the other administrative efforts to streamline NEPA will hold sway in court. “I don't know what 'binding' two-year environmental permitting process means. No MOU could override judicial review of an [environmental impact statement (EIS)] that determine[s] the EIS was inadequate.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/agencies-sign-mou-streamline-nepa-reviews-infrastructure-projects
-
FERC, Interior, EPA, DOE, Others Agree to Faster Infrastructure Permitting
Apr 9, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Eight months after President Trump called for the federal government to expedite its review and permitting of major infrastructure projects, 12 agencies agreed Monday to follow permitting timetables designed to complete such reviews within two years.
Seven cabinet-level departments including the Department of Interior (DOI) and the Department of Energy, as well as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, signed the memorandum of understanding (MOU) to coordinate their environmental review of projects, which should include oil and natural gas pipelines.
Other signatories of the MOU include the Agriculture, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation and Homeland Security departments, plus the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council.
"No longer will we allow the infrastructure of our magnificent country to crumble and decay," Trump said. "While protecting the environment, we will build gleaming new roads, bridges, railways, waterways, tunnels, and highways."
DOI Secretary Ryan Zinke said his department "understands the importance of having an efficient permitting process. I am 100% committed to ensuring that the DOI does its part to collaborate and work together with other federal agencies to complete the necessary reviews in accordance with the permitting timetable."
Under the MOU, one federal agency is to serve as the lead agency responsible for steering a project through the entire federal environmental review and permitting process. Trump put forth the lead agency concept in an executive order (EO) he signed last August. At the time, the EO received praise from several trade associations representing the oil and gas industry.
The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) reacted cautiously to the news.
"We appreciate the guidance given to all permitting agencies to work cooperatively on reviewing infrastructure projects," INGAA spokeswoman Cathy Landry told NGI. "By law, FERC is already designated as the lead agency for interstate natural gas projects. We view better cooperation and concurrent review by participating agencies as important to the timely review of proposed pipeline projects."
U.S. Chamber of Commerce Executive Vice President Neil Bradley said streamlining the permitting process for infrastructure projects "is critical for generating economic growth...Simply put, it shouldn't take longer to approve a project than to build it. Environmental reviews are crucial to ensuring clean air and water, but it's possible and necessary for the reviews to be completed in a more timely manner."
Association of Oil Pipe Lines spokesman John Stoody said "two years is more than enough time for a reasonable review of the environmental impacts of a project."
Trump also touched on speeding up the permitting process last February, when he unveiled a $4.4 trillion budget proposal to fund the federal government in fiscal year 2019. The budget proposal included $137.2 million for DOI's Bureau of Land Management to "expedite permitting to facilitate increased environmentally responsible energy development."
The MOU was issued under a joint memorandum by Mick Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Mary Neumayr, acting chair of the Council on Environmental Quality. Both are offices within the White House.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/113970-ferc-interior-epa-doe-others-agree-to-faster-infrastructure-permitting
-
Opinion: The Infrastructure Plan Is Like Our Roads. Both Are Falling Apart
Apr 10, 2018 | Roll Call
By Michele Nellenbach and Jake Varn
Congress is beginning to give up on the idea of a sweeping infrastructure bill, pointing to the looming midterm elections and the funding boosts that passed in the recent omnibus package. Even President Donald Trump seems to have accepted that one of his principal campaign proposals has stalled once again, admitting recently that infrastructure will “probably have to wait until after the election.”
Lately it seems that infrastructure is always the “next” item on the agenda — the one Congress will tackle as soon as it gets beyond the latest crisis. As our roads and water systems continue to deteriorate, it is now the infrastructure plan itself that needs immediate repair.
Ironically, the plan has been plagued by delays, like most construction projects. While many in Washington hoped to see Trump’s proposal within the first 100 days, it wasn’t released until this February. A year behind schedule, the president backed several promising ideas, including regulatory reform and programs for both rural infrastructure needs and transformative projects. Now lawmakers disagree over how to proceed.
Though Speaker Paul Ryan called for the infrastructure plan to be delivered across “five or six” different bills, only three infrastructure-related vehicles are currently on deck for 2018: the farm bill; Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization; and the Water Resources Development Act, or WRDA. While each of these has infrastructure-related components, none is a coherent infrastructure plan.
“Infrastructure is always the ‘next” item on the agenda — the one Congress will tackle as soon as it gets beyond the latest crisis.”
This fragmentation reflects the disjointed nature of how our nation handles infrastructure today. With funding administered by a host of agencies overseen by multiple congressional committees, a piecemeal approach was always to be expected. But before we can transform our infrastructure, we must change this siloed process.Going to pieces
Without a comprehensive strategy, huge swaths of infrastructure will be left out, including roads, bridges, rails, and municipal water and wastewater systems.
While the 2018 omnibus made a much-needed down payment of $21 billion, it wasn’t enough. There is still an inconceivably large gap between what we spend and what we should spend. And filling that trillion-dollar gap is just a start.
Solving infrastructure problems isn’t just about more money. We also need to make forward-looking investments to competitively position America’s economy for growth in the coming decades. Given the nation’s current deficit projections, enhancing our infrastructure financing tools will be increasingly important. Credit programs like TIFIA and WIFIA stretch limited public resources further and leverage the expertise of the private sector.
This discussion needs to be part of a comprehensive proposal instead of being forced into a series of fractured debates and spread across several pieces of legislation.Those who wait
Admittedly, the midterms are already pulling legislators back to their home districts. Many pundits say the window for Congress to achieve anything significant this year has already closed. But 72 percent of Americans agree we need more infrastructure investment. Surely lawmakers will want to point to a list of their accomplishments when facing voters this fall, and what better one than fixing the nation’s crumbling infrastructure?
The alternative is, as the president said, putting off a real infrastructure debate until mid-2019 at the earliest, after the new Congress gets organized and new members have a chance to put their marks on a bill. Can we really wait another 18 months?
At the very least, if politics prevents a vote on an infrastructure bill before November, the coming months should be used to solidify the foundation of a bipartisan package.
As the Bipartisan Policy Center has outlined, any comprehensive approach must include dedicated funding for all types of infrastructure, expanded financing tools and responsible permitting reform.
Though the Trump proposal has faced criticism from both sides of the aisle, Congress is not starting from square one. The omnibus funding proves that bipartisan consensus can be found on infrastructure, and the Problem Solvers Caucus has already started to lay down a framework.
Infrastructure can’t simply wait until after the election, and it can’t trickle through Congress in “five or six” different bills.
Typically, even the most-delayed construction projects are completed, and an infrastructure package should be no different. The plan is in need of repair, but this summer Congress can build on existing bipartisan support and fill in the remaining potholes.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/opinion/infrastructure-plan-like-roads-both-falling-apart
-
EAB Remands Permit Case Claiming Air Toxics Rule 'Rewrite'
Apr 9, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA's Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) has approved EPA Region 5's motion for a voluntary remand of an air permit the region issued for incinerators owned by waste disposal firm Veolia ES Technical Solutions, LLC, ending a case in which the company had claimed the agency used a permit to “rewrite” its waste combustor air toxics rule.
EAB Judge Mary Beth Ward in an April 3 order granted the voluntary remand, which will allow Region 5 to revise the contested permit in line with a settlement negotiated by the Trump EPA and Veolia. The firm filed its EAB appeal Feb. 15, 2017, challenging the Jan. 18, 2017, Clean Air Act Title V air operating permit issued for its three Sauget, IL, incinerators.
EPA Region 5, which covers Illinois and five other Midwest states, took over issuance of air permits for the company following decades of litigation from environmentalists who said the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency failed to use its delegated air law authority to issue the necessary permits.
But Veolia claimed that the permit that the Obama administration issued in its final days is flawed because it imposes substantially stricter monitoring requirements than the applicable air toxics regulation.
Veolia in its case claimed the Obama-era permit “rewrites” the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) rule for hazardous waste combustors by requiring stricter monitoring terms than the MACT calls for. The permit required “continuous emissions monitoring” of some metals, going beyond the MACT, Veolia claims.
Under the settlement, Veolia agrees to install two activated carbon injection systems to control mercury emissions from its incinerators, but will only be required to use operating perimeter limits (OPLs), in line with the MACT, once these are established for the new systems.
OPLs are technical specifications that govern the operation of hazardous waste incinerators to assure compliance with emissions limits -- but do not actually measure emissions. Until the OPLs are established by EPA, Veolia must comply with certain technical standards specified by the settlement.
EPA has disregarded one adverse comment from environmental organization the American Bottom Conservancy, which claims the settlement agreement is insufficiently tough.
“The proposed settlement agreement and Draft Permit do not adequately address the concerns that Region 5 has repeatedly expressed regarding the sufficiency of Veolia’s [OPLs] to ensure continuous compliance with applicable [air law] requirements, including its emission limits for mercury and low and semi-volatile metals,” the group wrote in its Dec. 15 comments.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/eab-remands-permit-case-claiming-air-toxics-rule-rewrite
-
California ‘Actively’ Considers Challenge to EPA on Vehicle Emissions
Apr 9, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Mike Spector
California officials are weighing a lawsuit to challenge the Trump administration’s decision to ease vehicle emissions standards, though the state remains open to negotiations, the head of California’s air-pollution regulator said.
A lawsuit challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to revise tailpipe emissions rules covering 2022-2025 is “actively under consideration,” California Air Resources Board Chairwoman Mary Nichols said in an interview Monday. She said legal action, also recently threatened by California’s attorney general, isn’t guaranteed. A lawsuit would be designed in part to preserve the state’s legal rights and wouldn’t foreclose a settlement, she said.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt earlier this month said a 2017 Obama administration determination that rules calling for auto makers to cut emissions enough so vehicles sold average more than 50 miles a gallon by 2025 “didn’t comport with reality.”
He backed industry arguments that the future rules are too tough to meet as low gas prices boost sales of less-efficient trucks and sport utilities. Sales of those vehicles now make up more than 60% of the U.S. market.
“We have to decide whether to challenge that finding and when and how,” Ms. Nichols said. She pointed to auto makers suing to overturn the Obama administration’s decision on the standards, a lawsuit that effectively became moot when President Donald Trump reopened a review of the regulations.
At the same time, Ms. Nichols said she wants to preserve uniform nationwide regulations capping emissions from vehicles and would entertain proposals from auto makers and Trump administration officials on potential revisions. A precondition for revisions would be some indication from auto makers that they are committed to meeting stringent emissions-reduction targets beyond 2025, she said.
California and the dozen states that follow its standards represent more than a third of the U.S. auto market, so car companies are keen to keep those regulations consistent with federal rules. California has a waiver under federal law to set tougher emissions standards than U.S. rules and has historically pushed for more stringent regulations.
California and Trump administration officials have held talks but haven’t exchanged detailed proposals.
Most auto makers have said they are committed to meeting stringent emissions regulations so long as there are tweaks to ease compliance, and many have invested billions of dollars in the development of electric vehicles.
“EPA intends to make a fact-based decision as to how the current standards can be improved,” an agency spokeswoman said. “We have had a productive dialogue with California and hope that our programs will remain aligned.”
Auto makers contend the current rules, which equal roughly 36 mpg in real-world driving by 2025 under complex government calculations, are too tough in an era of cheap gasoline. California regulators were aligned with the Obama administration’s determination that regulations now on the books were appropriate and achievable.
California environmental regulators are “open to talking about changes in those standards,” Ms. Nichols said. “The one precondition we laid down that is still applicable is that if there is going to be any change to the overall stringency of the program, it needs to be done in the context of where we’re headed after 2025.”
Ms. Nichols said California officials likely wouldn’t start work on those future rules until 2019 at the earliest. Until then, she said she wanted to see more detailed plans from auto makers demonstrating a commitment to reducing emissions even further after 2025.
Ms. Nichols said she would be open to considering credits for auto makers that would make achieving the current standards easier. Under current regulations, credits for electric vehicles and other technologies can be banked and applied by auto makers to meet standards when they would otherwise fall short.
She said auto makers “might…deserve some help” in part because of a lack of consistency between EPA emissions rules and fuel-economy standards set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Ultimately, California officials want to see auto makers gravitating toward zero-emission vehicles such as electric cars, she said.
She noted that pickups that fuel profits for some car companies are already subjected to less stringent rules than passenger cars.
Ms. Nichols said she had received indications from some U.S. officials that they aren’t fixated on revoking California’s waiver. The EPA said it was “reexamining” the waiver in its announcement last week on plans to ease vehicle emissions standards.
Auto makers want vehicle-emissions standards relaxed but also want to keep California on board with any changes, lest they face conflicting regulations across state lines that push up compliance costs and wreak havoc with design plans for cars and trucks laid out years in advance.
California’s rules were in line with those set by the Obama administration, and officials decried the Trump administration’s move in March 2017 to reopen a review of them. Ms. Nichols said California might simply proceed under its waiver to set its own standards and await a lawsuit from the Trump administration should U.S. officials decide the waiver should be revoked.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-actively-considers-challenge-to-epa-on-vehicle-emissions-1523309090
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested