Preview Newsletter

AM ACC 4/13/2018

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Execs Tell House Panel Trade War Would Be Crippling
Apr 12, 2018 | Courthouse News Service
By Brandi Buchman

Executives for the chemical, manufacturing and agricultural industries told the House Ways and Means Committee Thursday that a U.S. trade war with China would almost certainly cripple their revenues and raise prices for consumers.
(ACC Mentioned) Senate Confirms Wheeler as EPA Deputy Chief
Apr 12, 2018 | Inside EPA

The Senate has confirmed Andrew Wheeler, a former GOP Senate staffer and energy industry lobbyist, as EPA deputy administrator, ensuring that the Trump administration has a Senate-confirmed deputy who could lead the agency should Administrator Scott Pruitt...
Here's Why Friends and Foes of EPA Chief Pruitt Are So Adamant
Apr 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Christopher Flavelle, Ari Natter, and Jennifer A. Dlouhy

Supporters and detractors of Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt agree on this much: He matters.

LCSA News

(ACC Mentioned) Upsurge in EPA Chemical Data Requests May Be at Odds With Law
Apr 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

The EPA's new chemicals program is asking manufacturers for more toxicity information since Congress overhauled the nation's primary chemicals law, according to an advocacy group's recent analysis.
(ACC Mentioned) Companies See Ambiguity in Animal Tests as Chemical Law Unfolds
Apr 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

The EPA aims to reduce animal tests as required by the nation's amended chemicals law.
Chemical List From EPA to Help Companies Meet October Deadline
Apr 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

A list of chemicals that the EPA released April 12 should help paint, cleaning, and other companies that combine chemicals know if they need to notify the agency by Oct. 5 of the components of their mixtures.
EPA Updates TSCA Inventory with Active Designations
Apr 12, 2018 | Inside EPA

EPA has for the first time updated its inventory designating which chemicals are considered “active” and “inactive,” a requirement of the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that will help the agency prioritize chemicals for evaluation and possible regulation.
Downplaying Chemical Risks Invites Lawsuits Against EPA: Critics
Apr 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

The EPA is downplaying chemical risks under the nation's amended chemicals law in a way that sets the stage for future legal challenges, environmental attorneys said.

Chemical Management News

Learning and Developmental Disabilities Groups Urge Lowe’s to Protect Babies from Toxic Paint Strippers
Apr 12, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Beth Kemler

Today a group of leading public health organizations, including the Learning Disabilities Association of America and Autism Society, publicly called on Lowe’s to protect kids from toxic paint strippers.
Military to Share Scope of Water Contamination Near Bases
Apr 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan

The Defense Department will disclose the scope of drinking water contamination on and around military properties to Congress after being pressed by lawmakers to release those findings.

Energy News

Permian Boom Set to Drill More Oil Than Pipelines Can Carry Away
Apr 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Wethe, Kevin Crowley and Sheela Tobben

The hottest U.S. oil field is nearing its limit for delivering crude, and it'll be another year before relief is on the horizon.
Whitehouse Bill Would Create Demand Response Pilot Program
Apr 13, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Sam Mintz

A new bill from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) would direct the Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to create a natural gas demand response pilot program.
Opinion: When Trump Dreams About Our National Parks, He Sees Oil
Apr 12, 2018 | Roll Call
By Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva

For most Americans, the mention of national parks brings to mind the scenic vistas of the Grand Canyon and Yosemite Valley or contemplative memorials like the Statue of Liberty and Pearl Harbor.
BLM Taking Comments for Proposed XTO Natural Gas Project in Uinta
Apr 13, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on Wednesday launched a 14-day public comment period for XTO Energy Inc.'s proposed Horsebench Natural Gas Development Project in part of the Uinta Basin, 36 miles north of Price, UT.

Chemical Security News

Environmentalists Urge OMB to Retain RMP Rule in Face of Likely Rollback
Apr 13, 2018 | Inside EPA

Environmental, labor and public interest groups are urging White House officials to preserve and quickly implement the Obama-era rule bolstering EPA's facility accident prevention program, even as the Trump administration prepares to issue a plan that is widely expected to scale back the regulation.

Transportation and Infrastructure News

T&I Committee Sees Senior Staff Changes
Apr 12, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Maxine Joselow

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is seeing a staff shake-up.
GOP Targets Environmental Lawsuits, But Path Ahead Unclear
Apr 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz

House Republicans want to make it harder to block infrastructure projects with lawsuits, but it's unclear how they'll surmount Democratic opposition in the Senate.

Environment News

Trump Order Aims to Accelerate Permitting
Apr 12, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly

President Trump directed EPA today to streamline permitting for industrial projects, scale back federal involvement in writing regional haze reduction requirements and review the process for setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Republicans Have a Climate Bill That Might Woo Democrats
Apr 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith

Senate Republicans have a plan to expand climate change policy that could make it to the president's desk—they're just not calling it that.
EPA Wants Consistent Cost Analyses of Its Rules
Apr 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu

The EPA's methods for determining the costs of its water and air pollution regulations should be consistent across its offices, the agency said as it took its first step toward standardizing that process.
'Climate Silence' in 5-Hour Pompeo Hearing
Apr 13, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Arianna Skibell

While advocates for action on climate change see CIA Director Mike Pompeo as a catastrophic choice to replace Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the former Kansas lawmaker's views on that issue are unlikely to be a major factor for Senate Democrats weighing whether...

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Execs Tell House Panel Trade War Would Be Crippling

Apr 12, 2018 | Courthouse News Service

By Brandi Buchman

Executives for the chemical, manufacturing and agricultural industries told the House Ways and Means Committee Thursday that a U.S. trade war with China would almost certainly cripple their revenues and raise prices for consumers.
As President Donald Trump prepared Thursday to meet with leaders on trade, the House committee heard testimony from Kevin Kennedy, president of Kennedy Fabricating, a Texas-based steel fabrication plant.
The White House’s proposed tariff on Chinese goods worth $50 billion has already cut into Kennedy’s business, causing fellow domestic steel producers to increase their prices by 40 percent.
“We employ 350 people in a town of less than 2,000. We produce parts for drilling rigs, cell phone towers, commercial buildings … we are the ones who buy the steel our U.S. mills produce,” Kennedy said.
The obstacles that come with tariffs put manufacturers like him in a position, “no one should have to face,” he said, sharing concerns that the government is subsidizing foreign manufacturers.
“It eliminated steel imports overnight. Without competition, U.S. steel producers have upped prices by 40 percent. Now a company in China can buy raw steel beams at a 40 percent discount, drill holes in it, and ship it to the US as a fabricated beam without paying the tariff. China is still going to make beams, they’ll just use a loophole to get them here,” Kennedy said.
The same problem exists in Canada, he said.
“Canada went from losing projects to the U.S. to winning them at our expense. They can import the same steel from China without a tariff and buy it cheaper than we can from our own domestic shippers…. This isn’t a hypothetical. It’s happened and it’s cost us millions,” Kennedy said.
Some may argue the pinch isn’t felt on products that have a small steel component, like canned beverages or Boeing 777s but the same doesn’t apply for fabricators like Kennedy.
“The raw steel targeted for these tariffs makes up half the cost of these products,” he said. “Our lack of new orders confirms it. [Some will say] tariffs have already increased demand. It sounds nice, and everybody feels great, but that’s definitely temporary.”
That demand spike is from companies like his who wanted to scoop up steel before the prices skyrocketed, he said.
With an uncertain market, not many want to invest.
Kennedy tells customers they’re paying the cost for the hike on steel and can’t bear it. His customers, he said, tell him they can’t bear it either.
American Soybean Association president John Heisdorffer didn’t find the prospects any less bleak for soybean farmers.
In 2017, they produced 4.4 billion bushels of soybeans, exported 2.3 billion bushels at $27 billion – the single greatest agricultural contributor to the U.S. trade balance, he said.
China is the world’s largest soybean importer: consuming 93 million metric tons in 2016 and 1.4 billion bushels – or 62 percent of total U.S. exports – in 2017.
“Our fears were confirmed when tariffs were announced on $50 billion in Chinese imports… the prospect of an escalating trade war has created uncertainty in the market,” he said.
A Purdue University study recently found that the impact of tariffs would cause soybean exports to fall 65 percent. Total exports could drop by 37 percent. Production would decline by 15 percent.
“It’s argued that trade in agricultural products is fungible; the loss of one market to a competitor, will be replaced by another competitor that will be replaced by other markets which that competitor will no longer sell to,” Heisdorffer said. “[With] soybeans, this argument fails to recognize that our largest competitor is continuing to expand production on new lands.”
Lawmakers and executives agreed China should be penalized for its abuse of loopholes in the market but if that punishment is tariffs, surgical precision and strategy is required.
Rep. Peter Roskman R-Ill., said a tariff on foreign steel is effectively a tax on U.S. manufacturers.
“[Their impact] could have this really perverse effect of creating an incentive for more imports of finished products that are created outside the U.S.,” Roskman said.
California Democrat Rep. Mike Thompson wasn’t opposed to tariffs – if used strategically.
“This administration is doing anything but using strategy. Their trade policies are all over the place. First they renegotiate [the North American Free Trade Agreement] then walk away. Then trade wars are good. Then they say no trade wars. One thing for sure, this [talk] is bad for producers and consumers,” he said.
At the White House Thursday, the president echoed some of the uncertainty.
“We’re renegotiating NAFTA, I have no timeline…I keep reading from the fake news media that we’re pushing it, we’re not pushing it … There’s no timeline … In the meantime nobody is moving into Mexico, as long as NAFTA is in flux no company is going to spend a billion dollars to build an automobile plant, I told the Mexicans we can negotiate forever, as long as we have this negotiation going nobody is going to build billion dollar automobile plants,” Trump said. “”We’re getting pretty close to a deal, it could be 2 weeks it could be 3 months it could be 5 months, I don’t care.”
In California, 90 percent of the state’s top nut and fruit producers are suffering, Thompson said.
The Chinese already had a 48.2 percent tariff on wine. As a result of “Trump’s trade war,” he said, the state’s wine industry could face an “unsustainable” 67.7 percent tariff.
Chemical manufacturers, like the American Chemistry Council, will also take a wallop.
According to the Department of Commerce, in 2016 and 2017, almost half of all investment and manufacturing in the U.S. was accounted for by the U.S. chemical industry, with 850,000 new jobs created in that time period.
“Today, American chemical manufacturing accounts for 14 cents of every dollar of exports from the U.S.,” said Cal Dooley, the former California representative who now serves as president and CEO for the American Chemistry Council.
“The tariffs are intended to reduce trade deficit but when we impose tariffs in hopes of protecting domestic industries, we just invite retaliation,” Dooley said.
https://www.courthousenews.com/execs-tell-house-panel-trade-war-would-be-crippling/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Senate Confirms Wheeler as EPA Deputy Chief

Apr 12, 2018 | Inside EPA

The Senate has confirmed Andrew Wheeler, a former GOP Senate staffer and energy industry lobbyist, as EPA deputy administrator, ensuring that the Trump administration has a Senate-confirmed deputy who could lead the agency should Administrator Scott Pruitt leave due to ongoing ethics scandals.
The Senate voted 53-45 to confirm Wheeler. Three Democrats -- Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Joe Donnelly (IN) and Joe Manchin (WV), who all face tough re-election races in November in states won by President Donald Trump -- all voted to support the nomination.
Environmental groups and many Democrats have opposed Wheeler's nomination, cautioning that if Pruitt were forced from office it would leave a former energy lobbyist running the agency, potentially for a lengthy tenure.
“It is critically important that the public understand Wheeler's career as a lobbyist for some of the worst actors in the energy industry,” the Environmental Defense Fund said in an April 9 statement.
“Andrew Wheeler running EPA would go far beyond having an administrator overly influenced by lobbyists -- the head of EPA would be an energy industry lobbyist.”
EDF notes Wheeler has lobbied for Murray Energy, which has paid millions in fines and penalties for polluting waterways with coal slurry and discharge, has allegedly coerced its employees to donate to Republicans, and was accused by federal regulators in 2015 of attempting to silence whistleblowers including those making confidential safety complaints about conditions in coal mines.
But industry groups have urged senators to support Wheeler, arguing he brings critical skills to the agency.
“His leadership and expertise, combined with the vital work already being done by Administrator Pruitt and the dedicated staff at EPA, will help the agency continue its implementation of the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act and help ensure sound science is at the heart of its regulatory decision making,” the American Chemistry Council has said.
In a statement, Pruitt welcomed the vote, echoing the industry on Wheeler's skills. “Andrew Wheeler has spent his entire career advancing sound environmental policies and I look forward to him bringing his expertise and leadership to the agency," he said. “I look forward [to] working with Andrew to implement President Trump’s environmental agenda,” Pruitt added.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/senate-confirms-wheeler-epa-deputy-chief

Return to headline | Return to top
Here's Why Friends and Foes of EPA Chief Pruitt Are So Adamant

Apr 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Christopher Flavelle, Ari Natter, and Jennifer A. Dlouhy

Supporters and detractors of Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt agree on this much: He matters.
Pruitt, whose continued tenure has been put in doubt by a series of ethics controversies, has attracted an extraordinary outpouring of support among conservative boosters who say he's the most effective member of President Donald Trump's cabinet. Likewise, the organizers of a “Boot Pruitt” movement see him as a serious risk to the environment he's supposed to be protecting.
Yet it is hard to assess Pruitt's tenure by traditional standards. Many of his high-profile initiatives, such as overturning the Obama administration's plan to curb carbon emissions from power plants, face years of legal challenges.
Nor can Pruitt's significance be tied to a roster of regulatory actions—including those designed to jettison old rules. Federal data show that since Trump's inauguration, the agency has submitted nine “economically significant” rules, defined as those with likely economic impact of at least $100 million, to the White House for review. By comparison, the Department of Health and Human Services has produced 31 such rules, the Department of Labor six, and the Department of the Interior five.
Narrow that list to the new rules that have actually been issued, and Pruitt's impact is even harder to spot. Of the 24 economically significant regulations that have been approved by the White House under President Donald Trump, just one was issued by the EPA, according to data posted by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. And that rule set the amount of renewable fuels that must be used in 2018—a regulation the EPA must issue every year, regardless of who's in charge.
Those figures don't include regulations that were in the works when Pruitt arrived in Washington and that he has blocked.
EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox cited the agency's work to repeal Obama-era rules governing carbon dioxide emissions and water pollution as evidence Pruitt is advancing Trump's agenda.
“From advocating to leave the Paris Accord, working to repeal Obama's Clean Power Plan and [a rule defining] Waters of the United States, declaring a war on lead, and cleaning up toxic Superfund sites, Administrator Pruitt is focused on advancing President Trump's agenda of regulatory certainty and environmental stewardship,” Wilcox said in an emailed statement.
A fuller assessment of Pruitt's 14 months in office shows that he's laid the groundwork for a wholesale revision of environmental policy, one that delights anti-regulatory groups and frightens environmentalists.
“Without a doubt, Scott Pruitt has been the single most effective appointment of the president of the United States,” said Tim Huelskamp, president of the Heartland Institute, an industry-funded nonprofit that advocates for less regulation.
Vera Pardee, senior counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity, shared that view, albeit from the opposite direction. “The deregulatory agenda of Trump finds its most destructive expression in Mr. Pruitt,” she said.
That shared view of Pruitt's importance helps explain the effort that advocates have poured into keeping him in his job—or getting him removed. The outpouring is far greater than was expended on behalf of other embattled cabinet members, such as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson or Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin who both ended up losing their jobs.
Recent Controversies
Pruitt has been dogged by a series of controversies, including expensive first-class tickets and 24-hour security details, hefty raises for aides, and renting a Capitol Hill bedroom from a lobbyist for $50 a night. In response, environmentalists have mounted a campaign to seek Pruitt's ouster; advocates of smaller government, meanwhile, have set up a coordinated effort of their own to retain him at the EPA.
Both sides put Pruitt's effort to reduce the influence of academic scientists within the EPA near the top of their list of reasons why he matters. Pruitt has removed many of those scientists from advisory boards, replacing them with people who reflect the concerns of industries the EPA regulates.
Those boards are important. The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, for example, helps establish ozone standards that the agency is required to implement.
JunkScience.com
Steven Milloy, publisher of the website JunkScience.com and a senior fellow at the Energy and Legal Institute, praised Pruitt for installing as chairmen of the Science Advisory Board and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee “people I consider to be very strongly grounded in science.“
Michael Halpern, deputy director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, echoed Milloy's point about the importance of those boards—although he characterized Pruitt's appointments as “stacking” them.
Another point of agreement is Pruitt's changing the rules on so-called “secret science.” He has directed the EPA to use only research whose underlying data is publicly available. Environmental advocates say that prevents the EPA from issuing air and water regulations supported by health research, since the identities of patients studied in those papers is kept private.
Huelskamp, of the Heartland Institute, praised that change. Halpern criticized it.
Pruitt also has made major policy pivots outside the formal rulemaking process. That includes the EPA's decision not to ban the commercial use of the pesticide chlorpyrifos and methylene chloride used in paint strippers. The EPA also has relaxed air pollution requirements via memos and internal opinions—navigating around the federal rulemaking process in a way that has already drawn at least one legal challenge.
Environmental advocates also argue that Pruitt has restrained the EPA's willingness to fine polluters for violating the law.
“If you look at his enforcement record, it is disastrous and terrifying,” said Lukas Ross, climate and energy advocate for Friends of the Earth. “It's not just the number of cases lodged, but it's also the amount of money that's been captured through lodging those cases.“
Equally consequential, Ross added, are Pruitt's efforts to change the mission of the agency, in a way that will drive away staff who care about protecting the environment.
“There is a very real threat of brain drain because of the morale crisis being created by Scott Pruitt,” Ross said. “If I worked at the EPA, I would be thinking about quitting too.“
On that point as well, Milloy, the Junk Science publisher, agreed.

“Are these people sad?” Milloy asked. “The rest of America is happy.“

Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

(ACC Mentioned) Upsurge in EPA Chemical Data Requests May Be at Odds With Law

Apr 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

The EPA's new chemicals program is asking manufacturers for more toxicity information since Congress overhauled the nation's primary chemicals law, according to an advocacy group's recent analysis.
The number of toxicity tests that use laboratory animals, and which the EPA's new chemicals program required or requested from companies, also increased. They went from 21 in 2015 under the original law to 331 in 2017 after Congress revised the law, Joe Manuppello, a senior research associate with the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, said at a recent Environmental Protection Agency meeting.
Two chemical manufacturing trade associations and several attorneys working on behalf of chemical manufacturers echoed PETA's findings.
Their members and clients also report a significant upsurge in testing required or requested by the EPA's new chemicals program since Congress amended the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 2016, they said.
‘Costly’ Requirements
The American Chemistry Council's “members have had significant challenges with the new chemicals program since the TSCA amendments were enacted,” Christina Franz, a senior director at the council, told Bloomberg Environment.
Members also reported an increase in animal testing requests by the EPA, Franz said. “It is clear that EPA wants more data and information on chemical substances,” she said by email.
Yet, “there have been cases where EPA appears unwilling to rely on modeled information, even when it is generated from agency-recommended programs,” Franz said. Computer programs that predict, or “model,” chemical toxicity and behavior in the environment are a type of nonanimal test.
The Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Associates “is extremely concerned about the unnecessary testing EPA is seeking because it is both extremely costly and it further slows down the already bogged down process,” Robert Helminiak, a vice president with SOCMA, told Bloomberg Environment.
The phrase “bogged down process” reflects a sentiment often expressed by the chemical industry. Since TSCA was amended, it's taking far longer for the agency to complete its review of new chemicals and the subsequent EPA-manufacturer negotiations that result in a new chemical being deemed safe enough to be made and sold, chemical manufacturers and their representatives said.
“The agency is specifically requesting an inordinate number of inhalation tests,” Helminiak said by email.
EPA Failures Alleged
The number of animal-based tests the agency's new chemical program seeks combined with its “failure” to explain why those animal tests are needed violates the TSCA amendments, Manuppello said.
PETA provided its analysis, complete as of Feb. 15 and based on public data, and a letter from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine to the agency, which is developing a strategy mandated to reduce, refine, and replace the use of vertebrate animals. The TSCA amendments require the EPA to issue that strategy by June 22.
The EPA's chemical office “is not adhering to the congressional requirement to reduce animal use, and it is imperative that steps be taken immediately to correct this situation in order to save as many animal lives as possible,” Manuppello said.
He spoke during an April 10 meeting discussing the EPA's animal-testing reduction strategy. The agency is accepting comments on that strategy through April 26.
Human Versus Animal Lives
Saving animal lives isn't the agency's sole mission, Kristi Pullen Fedinick, science and data director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said at the same meeting.
NRDC urged an incremental adoption of computer models, cellular tests, and other chemical toxicity, fate, and exposure prediction methods that do not use laboratory animals.
A carefully implemented strategy can slowly build public confidence that the alternative test methods protect health, Fedinick said.
“The long-term goal of the agency should not be to primarily protect animal lives by eliminating animal testing, but to protect the human lives that depend upon EPA to keep themselves and their families safe,” she said.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=131638913&vname=dennotallissues&fn=131638913&jd=131638913

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Companies See Ambiguity in Animal Tests as Chemical Law Unfolds

Apr 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

The EPA aims to reduce animal tests as required by the nation's amended chemicals law.
But there's a long way to go before the agency, or outside organizations, will be comfortable with new types of data that come from alternatives to those tests, trade association officials, attorneys, and nonprofit organizations say.
The groups have been analyzing similarities and changes in the agency's approach to getting toxicity, exposure, and other data since Congress amended the nation's primary chemicals law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, in 2016.
Chemical manufacturers have experienced “a fair amount of ambiguities and confusion about required testing and analytical methods” as the agency has begun to implement the new law, Tom Berger, a partner with Keller and Heckman LLP, told Bloomberg Environment.
The one consistent trend is that the agency is requiring or requesting more information about new chemicals, and the tests it seeks require animals, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, chemical manufacturing trade associations, and attorneys representing manufacturers say.
The requirement for more animal tests is likely to increase as the agency implements TSCA's requirements on existing chemicals in commerce, James Votaw, also a partner with Keller and Heckman, said during an April 11 webinar on new approaches to testing chemicals.
No Trend Toward Alternatives
In 2016, soon after chemicals law was overhauled, almost all requests to make new chemicals “were met with a requirement to submit the results of a 90-day mammalian oral or inhalation toxicological study,” Berger said in an email.
Since then, “we have seen a trend towards requiring or suggesting that certain physical or chemical property tests be conducted prior to conducting mammalian studies,” Berger said.
But “we have yet to see a significant trend towards using or requiring the types of new approach methodologies (NAMs) on which EPA is currently working,” he said.
Berger referred to a strategy the agency is developing to reduce, refine, and eventually replace the use of vertebrate animals in chemical toxicity, exposure, and other tests.
The EPA's strategy uses the term NAMs to refer to both the new types of computer, genetic, and other tests available to study chemical properties and behaviors, and the variety of testing strategies that can be used based on initial screening information.
Inviting New Approaches
The American Chemistry Council's members also report an increase in the new chemical program's requests for new, animal-based toxicity information, Christina Franz, a senior director at the council, told Bloomberg Environment.
“We have been working constructively with the agency to address these issues,” she said. Increasing its acceptance of information from NAMs in lieu of animal tests is one way forward, Franz said.
Kristie Sullivan, vice president of research policy at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, also said the agency could do more to invite computer-modeled, cellular, and other data. The committee works with chemical and other manufacturers on alternative tests.
Chemical manufacturers tell her organization they don't think the EPA is truly committed to alternative approaches, Sullivan said at an April 10 EPA meeting.
“I don't think that's true,” Sullivan said. But an active effort to invite more non-animal data could address the misconception, she said.
Evolving, ‘Aspirational’ Goal
Berger, with Keller and Heckman, and Martha Marrapese, a TSCA attorney with Wiley Rein LLP, each described the agency's approach to new types of chemical information as “evolving.”
The EPA is trying to get comfortable with new chemical testing methods, Marrapese said.
It may take some time for the EPA to get comfortable, John Gustafson, an associate with Keller and Heckman, said during a webinar on alternative tests the law firm hosted April 11.
On the one hand, a policy the agency issued April 10 shows the agency's interest, he said. That policy allows the use of non-animal tests that can determine whether a chemical would cause skin allergies.
Yet the agency's proposed, broader strategy is largely aspirational, Gustafson said.
It omits critical issues such as how much money it needs to implement the plan and how companies that have developed new testing approaches could get the use of those methods approved, Gustafson and Votaw said.
The EPA's proposed strategy, which remains open for comment through April 26, says: “At this time, it is not possible to identify a time frame when vertebrate animal testing will be eliminated, but it is an important—and ultimately achievable goal.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=131638914&vname=dennotallissues&fn=131638914&jd=131638914

Return to headline | Return to top
Chemical List From EPA to Help Companies Meet October Deadline

Apr 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

A list of chemicals that the EPA released April 12 should help paint, cleaning, and other companies that combine chemicals know if they need to notify the agency by Oct. 5 of the components of their mixtures.
The Toxic Substances Control Act amendments of 2016 require the EPA to divide its official inventory of chemicals into two parts: a list of chemicals that are active in commerce and a list of those that once were, but are now dormant.
The agency April 12 released information that will help companies that mix compounds comply with TSCA. The first registry is of particular interest to chemical processors—companies that make mixtures of chemicals such as cleaning products, car polish, and paint.
Live and in Commerce
That registry lists chemicals the agency believes to be active in commerce based on information chemical manufacturers provided earlier this year.
Chemical processors can check that list to make sure the chemicals they use are on it. If they are, no further action is required.
But if the chemicals these companies need are not on the provisional list, processors have until Oct. 5 to let the agency know they use the compound. The agency would then add the chemical to a final active-in-commerce list it is expected to release in 2019.
Under TSCA, only chemicals that are on the final active list can continue to be sold, used, or imported into the U.S.
The second chemical list the agency released is an update of its TSCA inventory, which lists all chemicals that have been made in or imported into the U.S. since the early 1980s. This larger inventory includes many chemicals that are no longer made or used.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=131638897&vname=dennotallissues&fn=131638897&jd=131638897

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Updates TSCA Inventory with Active Designations

Apr 12, 2018 | Inside EPA

EPA has for the first time updated its inventory designating which chemicals are considered “active” and “inactive,” a requirement of the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that will help the agency prioritize chemicals for evaluation and possible regulation.
The TSCA inventory has been the prime marker of U.S. chemicals management since the original TSCA was enacted in 1976, delineating chemicals that are considered “existing,” which were largely grandfathered from regulation, from those deemed “new,” which must undergo EPA review before entering the market.
The TSCA reform law required EPA to craft a trio of “framework rules” within one year of the statute's June 2016 enactment, including the inventory rule, which required companies to report chemicals manufactured or processed in the U.S. over the decade ending in June 2016, with a reporting deadline of Feb. 7, 2018.
Processors have a later reporting deadline of October 5 by which to provide EPA with this information, which will be included in future TSCA inventory updates, according to EPA's April 12 press release.
The agency publishes updates to its inventory database about twice per year.
EPA explains on its website that the new active/inactive “reporting will be used to identify which chemical substances on the TSCA Inventory are active in U.S. commerce and will help inform the prioritization of [existing] chemicals for risk evaluation.”
Under original TSCA, existing chemicals were generally grandfathered from regulation, a situation which eventually led to calls for TSCA's reform. The reformed statute directs EPA to conduct risk evaluations on existing chemicals, with specified work load and deadlines to ensure compliance.
EPA's inventory rule remains under a legal cloud, however, as environmentalists have challenged it as well as the other final framework rules in federal court.
The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) in March filed suit over the rule, claiming that confidential business information (CBI) provisions the Trump EPA added to the final rule violate both TSCA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
They urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to partially vacate and remand the rule.
“In promulgating the final rule, EPA repeatedly violated the statutory text and erred in favor of concealment instead of disclosure,” the brief says. “The resulting rule will not disclose some information that EDF would otherwise use to learn more about chemicals and their uses, exposures, and health and environmental effects.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-updates-tsca-inventory-active-designations

Return to headline | Return to top
Downplaying Chemical Risks Invites Lawsuits Against EPA: Critics

Apr 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

The EPA is downplaying chemical risks under the nation's amended chemicals law in a way that sets the stage for future legal challenges, environmental attorneys said.
Advocacy groups could challenge in lawsuits the Environmental Protection Agency's chemical risk assessments slated for completion by 2020 for consistently underestimating health risks, Eve Gartner, an attorney with Earthjustice, said April 12.
“The Trump administration approach will result in risk evaluations that systematically exclude pathways of exposure and therefore understate risks, especially the risks to vulnerable populations like pregnant women and children,” Gartner said.
Future “lawsuits can challenge risk evaluations if they don't include all the exposure pathways and vulnerable populations,” she added.
Gartner represents environmental, health, and labor organizations in lawsuits challenging two final rules the agency issued in last June in Safer Chemicals Healthy Families v. EPA. Those rules lay out the EPA's procedures to decide which chemicals warrant risk evaluations and how the agency would conduct those reviews.
Next Steps
The agency's initial plans to evaluate asbestos and nine other chemicals would fail to examine all the exposure pathways and potentially at-risk populations the statute requires, she said at an April 12 briefing on the Toxic Substances Control Act.
The University of California, San Francisco's reproductive health and the environment program and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists organized the briefing on Capitol Hill.
Gartner urged concerned parties to watch for include the imminent release by the EPA of more detailed plans to assess the risks of asbestos, pigment violet 29, seven solvents, and a cluster of flame retardants.
The agency will accept comments on these more detailed plans called “problem formulation” documents.
Three attorneys that often work with chemical manufacturers and track TSCA didn't immediately respond to Bloomberg Environment's request for comment on whether or not the EPA's interpretation of the law could increase litigation.
Congressional Oversight Sought
In addition to potential lawsuits, the speakers at the April 12 briefing urged Congress to hold oversight hearings on the agency's implementation of a law that sailed through both houses of congress nearly unanimously.
“We need action from congress to make sure TSCA benefits people who suffer from chemicals on daily basis,” said Monique Harden, an attorney for the Deep South Center for Environmental Justice.
Nathaniel DeNicola, an obstetrician speaking for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said his organization welcomed the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, which amended TSCA.
But, “passage of the law is just step one. EPA must implement the law to its fullest extent, as Congress intended,” he said.
“Chemical exposures must consider exposures from multiple sources,” DeNicola said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=131638892&vname=dennotallissues&fn=131638892&jd=131638892

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

Learning and Developmental Disabilities Groups Urge Lowe’s to Protect Babies from Toxic Paint Strippers

Apr 12, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families

By Beth Kemler

Today a group of leading public health organizations, including the Learning Disabilities Association of America and Autism Society, publicly called on Lowe’s to protect kids from toxic paint strippers. The four national and 23 state learning and developmental disabilities organizations sent a letter to Lowe’s urging the retailer to stop selling paint strippers containing the toxic chemicals methylene chloride (also known as dichloromethane or DCM) and N-methyl pyrrolidone (NMP).
The groups warned that parents’ exposure to these toxic solvent chemicals has been linked to a host of health problems for their children, including low birth weight, impaired motor and verbal skills, attention deficit hyperactivity behaviors and increased risk of brain tumors.
The groups wrote:
We are especially concerned with exposures to pregnant women and children from NMP and DCM in paint strippers. During the prenatal period, the developing brain is extremely vulnerable to harm from even low-level exposures to toxic chemicals.[i],[ii] Scientific evidence from multiple studies shows that both men’s and women’s exposures to toxic solvents including DCM and NMP are linked to lasting problems with brain development, cognition and behavior in their children…
Since the EPA is now backpedaling on its commitments to protect the public from DCM and NMP,we ask that you take action now to help protect people’s health and lives, especially those of childbearing age, by phasing out the sale of these toxic products within six months or less. When preparing a nursery, no expectant parent should have to worry that the chemicals in the paint strippers they are using might do irreparable harm to their baby’s developing brain.
For more information, read their press release.
On top of the learning and developmental effects of NMP, the Environmental Protection Agency’s analysisfound that it can cause fetal death (miscarriage or stillbirth) from just one day of use.
Our Mind the Store campaign first sent a letter calling on Lowe’s to stop selling these dangerous products in February of 2017. The company has yet to make a public commitment to ban these harmful chemicals.
Two weeks ago, teaming up with the family of a man who died using a methylene chloride-based paint stripper he bought at Lowe’s, we launched a public campaign calling on the retailer to take action.
We thank the Learning Disabilities Association of America, ANCOR (American Network of Community Options and Resources), Autism Society, The Arc, and their state chapters for joining us and publicly calling on Lowe’s to do the right thing.
Through petitions on Change.org, NRDC.org, and other coalition partner sites, more than 80,000 people have called on Lowe’s to stop selling these dangerous products over the past two weeks.
If you aren’t among them, please take action now!
https://saferchemicals.org/2018/04/12/learning-and-developmental-disabilities-groups-urge-lowes-to-protect-babies-from-toxic-paint-strippers/

Return to headline | Return to top
Military to Share Scope of Water Contamination Near Bases

Apr 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Sylvia Carignan

The Defense Department will disclose the scope of drinking water contamination on and around military properties to Congress after being pressed by lawmakers to release those findings.
The department's 2017 study found that 401 military properties may be contaminated with polyfluorinated and perfluorinated compounds that were often used in fire-fighting foams. That contamination may be seeping into nearby residents’ drinking water. Two dozen of the department's drinking water systems are contaminated with the compounds—also known as PFAS.
Lucian Niemeyer, assistant secretary of defense for energy, installations, and environment, promised to provide Congress with details after Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), chair of the House Appropriations Committee's military construction subcommittee, requested a list of the affected properties and how the department is paying for cleanup.
Once the department provides that information, Dent told Bloomberg Environment, the subcommittee will “see what the need is and what the costs are, and see if we can further address the problems.”

The Environmental Protection Agency has provided water quality guidance for two widely found compounds in the PFAS family, but does not yet regulate them with soil or water standards. Some states have set their own standards for the compounds as they find them in the environment.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=131638894&vname=dennotallissues&fn=131638894&jd=131638894

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

Permian Boom Set to Drill More Oil Than Pipelines Can Carry Away

Apr 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By David Wethe, Kevin Crowley and Sheela Tobben

The hottest U.S. oil field is nearing its limit for delivering crude, and it'll be another year before relief is on the horizon.
The 3.3 million barrels produced daily in the Permian Basin in West Texas and New Mexico almost equals the capacity of pipelines now carrying crude to the nearest refineries and ports, some 500 miles (805 kilometers) away.
Meanwhile, the amount of production over pipeline capacity could grow to about 900,000 barrels a day in the year ahead, according to Samir Kayande, a director at RS Energy Group in Calgary.
No significant new pipelines are set to open there until the second half of 2019, when two separate conduits are scheduled to add a combined daily capacity of 1.2 million barrels. The result: Higher costs for moving any added crude by rail and trucks.
“Our experience suggests that the oil will figure out a way to flow either by truck or by rail, it's just that producers won't like the price,” Kayande said by telephone. “It's a possibility that production growth gets deferred. This is part of the uncharted territory we're in.”
Railroading a barrel of crude from the Permian to the Gulf Coast costs about $8 a barrel, compared to $10 a barrel to truck it, according to Bernstein analyst Jean Ann Salisbury. Every 100,000 barrels of oil shipped over the road requires about 250 trucks running two round trips a day across the Lone Star State.
Rising Costs
That could send trucking costs even higher, “especially since trucking labor costs are already rising sharply in Texas,” Goldman Sachs analysts wrote this week in a note to investors.
Higher costs could start slowing the Permian boom as early as this summer, according to Damien Courvalin, head of energy research at Goldman.
“The Permian is facing a challenge for the next 12 months,” Courvalin said in a telephone interview. “Because of the fast pace of production growth we've seen this year, we are hitting that bottle neck probably at some point this summer. At that point, it will become much harder to see the same pace of production growth we've seen the last six months.”
Plains All American Pipeline LP and EPIC Midstream LLC have both said their pipes—set to carry 585,000 and 590,000 barrels daily—will open around the same time next year. By the end of 2019, five new conduits are scheduled to begin flowing, according to company forecasts, adding more than 1.5 million barrels of daily capacity.
In the meantime, the pipe problem will bleed profits for explorers who haven't already reserved space on existing lines because they'll have to resort to far more costly railcars and trucks to haul their oil away. Local barrels of crude booked in the Permian's unofficial capital city, Midland, are selling for almost $9 less than those priced at the coast, the widest discount in a year and a half.
That discount “screams that the pipes are full,” Neil Earnest, president of industry consultant Muse Stancil & Co., said in a phone interview. “Once those pipes are full, then you have to go use rail or truck.”
But even those aren't easy solutions. That's because rolling transport already is in high demand to carry frack sand to drilling sites, where it's used to crack and prop open subterranean fissures in oil-saturated rock.
PDC Energy Inc. Chief Executive Officer Barton Brookman lamented earlier this week that pipeline scarcity will push drillers to ship more crude by rail. He told investors at a conference in New York that could ultimately interfere with sand deliveries that fracking crews are depending on to finish new oil wells.
Still, there could be some solutions that would help in the short term, Greg Armstrong, the Plains All American CEO, told investors in February. These include reducing the drag oil faces as it sloshes through the pipes and strategically emptying storage tanks at selected points along the line.
And there may be some unexpected consequences, according to Goldman's Courvalin. The bigger producers are better able to commit to the sizeable capacity needed to fill the pipelines. And the smaller, more fragmented number of producers may find a greater need to merge.
“You need scale,” Courvalin said. “I think the midstream may in fact be the catalyst that really starts that concentration in the Permian.“
—With assistance from Alex Nussbaum.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=131638910&vname=dennotallissues&fn=131638910&jd=131638910

Return to headline | Return to top
Whitehouse Bill Would Create Demand Response Pilot Program

Apr 13, 2018 | E&E Daily

By Sam Mintz

A new bill from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) would direct the Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to create a natural gas demand response pilot program.
In a news release, the Democrat said demand response can guard against price spikes for natural gas consumers and reduce the need to expand natural gas infrastructure.
"Incentives to use energy more wisely benefit everyone. Customers save on energy costs, we get more out of our infrastructure, and less pollution ends up in our atmosphere to drive climate change," Whitehouse said. "Utilities are already succeeding with these programs. My new legislation will help spread that success around the country."
Under the S. 2649, utilities, distribution companies and other stakeholders would be able to develop demand response programs. DOE would also be directed to study the benefits and challenges of using demand response in the natural gas sector.
The bill earned praise from the Conservation Law Foundation.
"We commend Senator Whitehouse for introducing this important bill. For years, demand response has reduced carbon emissions and saved ratepayer dollars in the electricity markets, and it is time we used demand response to reduce carbon emissions and save money on the natural gas side as well," said Jerry Elmer, a senior attorney for the organization.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/04/13/stories/1060078953

Return to headline | Return to top
Opinion: When Trump Dreams About Our National Parks, He Sees Oil

Apr 12, 2018 | Roll Call

By Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva

For most Americans, the mention of national parks brings to mind the scenic vistas of the Grand Canyon and Yosemite Valley or contemplative memorials like the Statue of Liberty and Pearl Harbor. Few people think of the tremendous amount of infrastructure — from roads and bridges to visitors centers and sewer systems — that supports 330 million annual visitors and $34.9 billion in annual economic output.
The National Park Service manages a broad network that requires routine repairs, rehabilitation and maintenance. Due to chronic underfunding and the age of our iconic parks, much of the infrastructure that supports park visitation needs serious upkeep.
Fortunately, there is bipartisan agreement in Congress that we need a dedicated funding stream to address the more than $11.6 billion in deferred maintenance projects at our national parks. The bad news is that the Trump administration, which wants to eliminate nearly 2,000 ranger and park professional positions, would rather scapegoat important conservation priorities and shortchange park operations in favor of expanded oil and gas drilling on public lands.
The administration plans to eliminate the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a broadly popular program that, for the past 53 years, has reinvested a small portion of revenue derived from offshore oil and gas development to protect open space and promote outdoor recreation opportunities. The program will expire Sept. 30 unless Congress reauthorizes it.
Trump officials want to replace it with a program that incentivizes more drilling on public lands, arguing that the increased revenue would be invested in national parks. Proponents make this plan sound like a simple expansion. They don’t mention the major differences or their huge implications.
The LWCF is funded with the first $900 million raised in offshore drilling revenues each year, a small fraction of the $7 billion total raised on average.
As long as at least $900 million is raised, the conservation fund receives its full share — or would if Congress agreed to use that money for its intended purpose. It has rarely done that, leaving the program with an authorized but unspent balance of $18 billion.
The administration’s proposal, on the other hand, as embodied by the “National Park Restoration Act” currently being debated by Congress, relies on taking money from energy development above and beyond what we already expect to receive. There are only three ways to generate this extra money. Two of them — pray for higher oil and gas prices or charge companies more in royalties — are either out of this administration’s hands or out of its character. The third — develop more oil, gas and coal in new and unexpected places — is the essence of Trump’s energy policy. The administration proposes to hold the upkeep of our parks hostage to acceptance of its drill-everywhere “energy dominance” schemes.
Whatever money this effort raises each year would be spent automatically, which sounds appealing until you realize lawmakers would use it as an excuse not to spend money on the LWCF, which is not mandatory. It’s unclear exactly how much this plan would even raise, since the last two lease sales the Department of the Interior held generated 43 percent less than the administration’s publicly stated expectation. Presumably these two sales will generate no funding for parks. Tying the future of our national parks to factors beyond our control is a recipe for failure.
The administration’s “plan” incentivizes DOI to manage public lands to maximize revenue rather than balance multiple uses. Trump officials will argue that more of our oceans and public lands need to be open for drilling to maximize revenues, but it’s important to remember that no matter how much property they “open up,” industry decisions and the market price of oil will dictate the amount parks receive. It’s entirely possible that the administration’s proposal would lead to widespread energy development without any new money going to parks.
None of these shenanigans are necessary. Republicans have controlled the House of Representatives for nearly a decade. Just two years after the National Park Service celebrated its 100th anniversary, they refuse to invest in what’s been called America’s best idea.
Republicans are willing to push aside concerns about a balanced budget and the national deficit to advance special-interest tax cuts, but when it comes to finding money for parks and public lands, they aren’t interested in real solutions. Park funding shouldn’t require a budget gimmick or accounting trick; it should be treated as a straightforward investment in the future of our shared heritage
Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat, has been a member of Congress since 2003. He has served as ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee since 2015.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/opinion/trump-demanding-ransom-national-parks

Return to headline | Return to top
BLM Taking Comments for Proposed XTO Natural Gas Project in Uinta

Apr 13, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence

By Richard Nemec

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on Wednesday launched a 14-day public comment period for XTO Energy Inc.'s proposed Horsebench Natural Gas Development Project in part of the Uinta Basin, 36 miles north of Price, UT.
XTO proposes to develop gas resources in the Horsebench area, envisioning up to 19 potential well pads that could accommodate up to 175 wells. The ExxonMobil Corp. subsidiary plans to apply for rights-of-way to construct, operate and maintain co-located access roads and gathering pipelines within linear corridors that would support the proposed wells. Interim reclamation would be conducted in areas not used for production purposes.
The wells would be within the project area contained in the environmental impact statement for the West Tavaputs Plateau Natural Gas Full Field Development Plan, which was signed in July 2010.
During the past eight years, XTO has been one of several exploration and production (E&P) companies targeting the Uinta. BLM over the period has approved, among others, Gasco Energy Inc.'s plans for up to 1,300 wells over 3,600 acres, and XTO's 2012 Riverbend gas project.
In early 2015, BLM started the public scoping period for a proposed gas drilling project on federal lands in northeast Utah’s Duchesne County in the Uinta Basin. As part of its drilling work for Denver-based Gasco, Houston-based Wapiti LLC obtained BLM's approval to construct one well pad, including roads and pipelines in the area that is part of the larger 10,000-acre Riverbend Project.
Written comments regarding XTO’s plan may be mailed to the BLM Utah Price Field Office at 125 S. 600 W, Price,UT 84501 (Attention Horsebench Project c/o BLM) or emailed to Marc Johnson at mkjohnson@blm.gov.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114010-blm-taking-comments-for-proposed-xto-natural-gas-project-in-uinta

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

Environmentalists Urge OMB to Retain RMP Rule in Face of Likely Rollback

Apr 13, 2018 | Inside EPA

Environmental, labor and public interest groups are urging White House officials to preserve and quickly implement the Obama-era rule bolstering EPA's facility accident prevention program, even as the Trump administration prepares to issue a plan that is widely expected to scale back the regulation.
In an April 10 meeting with White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) officials, the groups' representatives argued that scaling back EPA's January 2017 final rule strengthening its Risk Management Plan (RMP) program would increase the risk of accidents and put workers and communities near facilities at risk.
And they urged officials to quickly implement the requirements.
Advocates sought “to impress upon [OMB officials] the importance of getting the chemical disaster rule in place immediately,” a source familiar with the meeting tells Inside EPA.
The source says advocates pointed OMB to an April 3 report issued by groups including Earthjustice, the BlueGreen Alliance and the Union of Concerned Scientists, listing more than two dozen industrial accidents that have occurred since EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in June delayed the RMP rule's effective date by nearly two years, or until Feb. 19, 2019.
“There is strong evidence showing that these rules would make a difference in saving lives and reducing injuries,” the report says. “Pruitt’s refusal to follow the Clean Air Act, and his foot-dragging on needed safety measures based only on his speculation that some part of the rule might one day be changed, run afoul of the law.”
A chemical sector attorney said that industry groups are also meeting with OMB this week on EPA's draft revision rule, but declined to provide further details.
EPA March 12 sent for White House review the draft proposal that is widely expected to significantly scale back the agency's Obama-era RMP update rule. OMB review generally takes 90 days but can take more or less time.
EPA's January 2017 RMP update rule responds to former President Barack Obama's August 2013 Executive Order on improving facility safety, issued after an explosion at fertilizer facility in West, TX, killed 15 people, including first responders. The rule brought new requirements for certain facilities to conduct independent audits and analyze safer alternatives, and included provisions aimed at streamlining disclosure of facility data.
Although details of the Trump administration's draft revision rule have not been publicly disclosed, the proposal follows petitions from industry groups and Republican-led states charging that the 2017 update is unnecessary and that the disclosure provisions could increase facilities' security risks.
While OMB is reviewing EPA's draft revision rule, the agency is defending Pruitt's June delay of the update rule against environmentalists and Democratic-led states' lawsuit claiming that delaying the rule is unlawful and dangerous.
In a recent filing in the case, Air Alliance Houston, et al., v. EPA and E. Scott Pruitt, Justice Department attorneys cited more than two dozen rules, spanning 30 years, that EPA and other agencies delayed for purposes of revision.
The list responded to an order from a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Substantive Findings
While petitioners have until April 16 to respond to the agency's list seeking to show precedent for significant delays, an environmentalist attorney tracking the litigation says that some of the cited rules were delayed after a federal agency made a substantive finding that a rule was impracticable, making those cases not directly analogous to the RMP delay.
“The vast majority of cases on that list are not examples of a new administration coming in and wanting to reconsider a rule and staying it without making substantive findings based on the record and the statute that the delay is appropriate,” the source says.
But the chemical sector attorney argues that the wide breadth of delays shows the court that Pruitt's delay is consistent with actions taken by numerous agencies under several administrations, including Obama's. The source also notes that the list includes lengthy delays, some even open-ended, of rules for purposes of reconsideration.
While the list does not detail the reasons for every delay, the industry attorney argues that EPA does not need to make a preliminary determination that a rule should be changed to issue a delay, and that identifying issues that warrant further consideration is sufficient.
“EPA fits right into a long venerable tradition” of agencies delaying rules, the source says. “If the court was worried that this hasn't happened very often, or was just one agency, or was just the Trump administration, this filing shows, no, it's happened a lot, over a long period of time, and not just EPA, and not just this administration.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/environmentalists-urge-omb-retain-rmp-rule-face-likely-rollback

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation and Infrastructure News

T&I Committee Sees Senior Staff Changes

Apr 12, 2018 | E&E News PM

By Maxine Joselow

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is seeing a staff shake-up.
Committee Staff Director Matt Sturges is leaving to become deputy administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration, Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) announced today.
As No. 2 at the agency, Sturges will help enforce requirements for safety features such as positive train control after recent Amtrak crashes in South Carolina and Washington state.
Sturges will replace Heath Hall, who resigned in February after Politico reported he was cited as a spokesman for a Mississippi county sheriff while serving as the agency's acting chief (Greenwire, Feb. 12).
"Matt joined the Transportation and Infrastructure staff when I became Chairman in 2013, and he has been instrumental in the passage of every major piece of Committee legislation over the last three congresses," Shuster said in a statement.
"From the FAST Act and the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act, to the PIPES Act, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act, the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, and more, Matt has served the Members of this Committee with tremendous expertise and skill."
Shuster announced the promotions of Chris Vieson to the position of committee staff director and Geoff Gosselin to the position of deputy staff director.
Vieson has been committee deputy staff director since December 2016. Prior to that, he was a partner at Public Strategies Washington, director of floor operations for former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), floor assistant and policy adviser on appropriations for Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), and legislative analyst for House Republican Conference Chairs Deborah Pryce and Adam Putnam.
Gosselin has served as senior professional staff on the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit and senior adviser to Shuster since December 2016.
Shuster said at a committee meeting this afternoon that Ward McCarragher was leaving his post as chief counsel. The Democratic staffer was the panel's longest-serving staff member, Shuster said.
In addition, the White House said last night that President Trump intends to nominate Jennifer Homendy to be a member of the National Transportation Safety Board (E&E Daily, April 12).
Homendy now serves as Democratic staff director for the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/04/12/stories/1060078909

Return to headline | Return to top
GOP Targets Environmental Lawsuits, But Path Ahead Unclear

Apr 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By David Schultz

House Republicans want to make it harder to block infrastructure projects with lawsuits, but it's unclear how they'll surmount Democratic opposition in the Senate.
Republicans are specifically taking aim at suits filed over a federal agency's environmental review of an infrastructure project. They introduced legislation April 11 that would reduce the statute of limitations for these suits from six years to six months. It would also allow judges to require the plaintiffs in these suits to post a $5 million bond, which they would get back only if they win.
Reducing the length of delays caused by environmental reviews has been a top priority for Republicans in this Congress, with dozens of bills and hearings addressing this issue.
The bill, H.R. 5468, is about “reforming America's outdated, slow-moving permitting process,” Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said. Currently, opponents of infrastructure projects can “lie in wait for up to six years before suing.”
Environmental advocacy groups often sue over errors in federal agencies’ reviews of projects such as dams and highways. But Democrats warned at an April 12 Judiciary Committee subcommittee hearing that the bill would also hurt states, cities, and even small businesses that want to stop a project from moving forward.
But first the sponsors need to find a path forward in the Senate, where Democrats have consistently denied Republicans the 60 votes necessary to move bills along.
Senate Path Needed
Rep. Tom Marino (R-Pa.), the bill's primary sponsor, told Bloomberg Environment he is optimistic it can advance in the House, with Goodlatte's support. It is also backed by one Democrat, Texas’ Rep. Henry Cuellar, a moderate who votes with Republicans more than many of his Democratic colleagues do.
Marino said he's spoken with Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) about introducing a companion bill in the Senate. Portman's office did not respond to requests for comment.
Ultimately, Marino said he's not concerned with what goes on in the other chamber and that he has never limited himself to introducing only bills that have a chance of passing over there.
“My concern is doing my job here in the House,” he said.
‘A Terribly Scary Thing’
The $5 million bond provision is one of the more aggressive measures yet proposed to discourage lengthy legal fights. It would only apply to plaintiffs asking a court for an injunction to stop a project and would give judges the discretion to waive it if they choose.
The provision “is indeed a terribly scary thing” that would discourage many valid lawsuits, Emily Hammond, a law professor at George Washington University, said.
However, Donald Elliott, a professor at Yale Law School who was general counsel at the EPA under President George H.W. Bush, said it's too easy for plaintiffs to get an injunction using environmental review statutes.
“When judges somewhat capriciously stay projects through injunctions, there are real economic costs,” Elliott said. “I think it's important to make challengers think twice about the real economic harm. They can still file suit, but they don't need to get an injunction that puts people out of work.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=131638906&vname=dennotallissues&fn=131638906&jd=131638906

Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

Trump Order Aims to Accelerate Permitting

Apr 12, 2018 | E&E News PM

By Sean Reilly

President Trump directed EPA today to streamline permitting for industrial projects, scale back federal involvement in writing regional haze reduction requirements and review the process for setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
"Today, I'm directing the EPA to cut even more red tape on our manufacturers, to that they can expand and continue to hire and to grow," Trump said at a Rose Garden announcement to showcase his presidential memorandum and other initiatives.
Among other provisions, the memo, "Promoting Domestic Manufacturing and Job Creation — Policies and Procedures Relating to Implementation of Air Quality Standards," directs EPA to:
·        Act within a year on completed applications for preconstruction permits for new plants.
·        Review all federal implementation plans issued in recent years under the regional haze program, which is intended to restore natural visibility to 156 national parks and wilderness areas by 2064.
·        Examine the process for setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) "and develop criteria to ensure transparency in the evaluation, assessment and characterization of science in such reviews."
The memo — which does not supersede the Clean Air Act — also orders EPA to allow consideration of the impact of international emissions on air quality throughout the United States, not just for states bordering Canada and Mexico.
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to review — and, if needed, tighten — standards for ozone, particulate matter and four other "criteria" pollutants every five years in light of available scientific evidence on their impact on human health and the environment.
While the combined potential impact of the memo's requirements was not immediately clear, they could make it easier for states to meet the air quality standards for those pollutants. They could also give a White House stamp of approval to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's ongoing efforts to effectively cede more control to state regulators.
The requirement to ensure "transparency" in NAAQS reviews, which Pruitt had already said he's pursuing, could directly affect a closely watched review of the existing particulate matter standards that's now in its early stages.
"Today the administration has taken a tremendous step forward in helping manufacturers navigate the maze of federal air permitting regulations," said Ross Eisenberg, vice president for energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers. "Too often, the one thing standing between job seekers and well-paying manufacturing jobs has been a yearslong federally mandated air quality modeling study. By simplifying and streamlining all of this, we can build even more manufacturing facilities in the United States."
But Paul Billings, senior vice president for advocacy at the American Lung Association, called the memo a "polluters' wish list" intended to undermine implementation of the NAAQS and the public health protections that go with the standards.
At the National Parks Conservation Association, which is closely involved with the regional haze program, senior counsel Stephanie Kodish described the added emphasis on background emissions related to international pollution as illogical.
"EPA just revised the regional haze rule to help improve the consideration of those issues in a technically sound way," she said.
Under the Obama administration, the haze program was a flash point between EPA and regulators in Texas and other Republican-leaning states who accused the federal government of overreach in requiring new pollution controls on older coal-fired power plants.
Pruitt, who fought a losing court battle on the issue as Oklahoma attorney general, had already retreated from Obama-era haze plans that had not been fully implemented.
Under the memo, EPA will now have to reconsider any federal haze reduction plans promulgated in recent years and substitute state replacements if requested.
The memo released today appears to be what Pruitt referred to in a Washington Times podcast last week as an "executive order" (Greenwire, April 5). While Pruitt had said the order was supposed to be released last Friday, the White House never confirmed that.
Pruitt, who is battling allegations of ethical impropriety and questionable spending, was not at today's Rose Garden ceremony.
Reporter Hannah Northey contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/04/12/stories/1060078931

Return to headline | Return to top
Republicans Have a Climate Bill That Might Woo Democrats

Apr 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Abby Smith

Senate Republicans have a plan to expand climate change policy that could make it to the president's desk—they're just not calling it that.
Now the trick is to get skeptical Democrats, who fear the legislation could derail climate change regulations, to get on board.
The bill sponsored by Senate environment committee Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) would boost research and deployment of technologies that capture greenhouse gas emissions.
That would provide a significant boost to carbon capture technology, which has been repeatedly tried at commercial power plants with limited success. Carbon capture is vital to meeting the international climate change agreement to keep global temperatures from increasing more than 2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial times, advocates say.
John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) during an April 11 hearing on the bill (S. 2602) pledged to work with Democrats “to ensure any amendments to this bill are built on bipartisan consensus as we work to move it through committee, and ultimately to the president's desk.”
The technologies at issue capture carbon dioxide from power plants and industrial facilities, thus avoiding the release of the greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. Large-scale commercial projects have faced challenges, in large part due to cost.
Democratic Concerns
Some Democratic lawmakers, including the committee's ranking member Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), raised concerns that the bill, if not carefully crafted, could break down along political lines and become a vehicle for attacks on existing climate and environmental regulations.
“We need to be very careful that we're making sure when we're talking about regulatory efficiencies, we are really talking about regulatory efficiencies,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said. “When that becomes a code for undoing environmental protections, I'm out.”
Nonetheless, the bill appears to have picked up the backing of at least two additional Democrats. Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) offered support for the bill at the hearing—though stressing that they shared some of their colleague's concerns.
But the legislation—introduced in March by Barrasso and Whitehouse, along with Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W. Va.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.)—could help to pave the way for greater deployment of carbon capture projects, several experts told lawmakers at the April 11 hearing.
The same four senators pushed forward an extension and revision of tax credits for carbon capture projects that were enacted as part of the February budget deal. The latest legislation is the next step, to “make sure we can commercialize the work that's being done,” Heitkamp said.
Breaking Down Regulatory Hurdles
The bill would direct the Environmental Protection Agency, through a narrow amendment of the Clean Air Act, to use existing authority to beef up research and development of technologies to utilize captured carbon.
It also would take several steps to streamline permitting and reviews of carbon capture projects, as well as improve federal and state coordination on the build-out of pipelines to transport carbon dioxide.
The latter serves as a “proactive way to get ahead of” carbon capture projects and ensure there's a pipeline infrastructure to support them, Brad Crabtree, vice president for fossil energy at the Great Plains Institute who staffs the Carbon Capture Coalition, told Bloomberg Environment.
Carbon capture specialists also stressed policymakers should ensure regulatory barriers don't impede developers’ ability to take advantage of the financial incentive the tax credit extension offers.
The deployment of carbon capture projects is in the beginning stages, and the existing state and federal regulatory structures haven't been “tested or coordinated,” Julio Friedmann, who served as principal deputy assistant energy secretary for fossil energy during the Obama administration, told lawmakers.
“If people can overcome the financial hurdle but then see a regulatory hurdle behind it that they think will limit the chance of them being able to take advantage of these tax credits or take advantage of the opportunities [carbon capture] projects and technologies provide, then it will just limit the pool of applicants, it will limit the projects, and it will limit deployment,” Friedmann said.
North Dakota Storage
Carbon capture advocates also praised an April 10 decision by the EPA allowing North Dakota to regulate underground wells used for long-term storage of captured carbon dioxide.
The state will be the first in the nation to govern its own carbon dioxide injection well to ensure geologically stored carbon wouldn't enter into groundwater.
North Dakota's efforts to advance geologic storage goes back years, Crabtree said. The Carbon Capture Coalition doesn't take a position on the EPA's April 10 decision, but Crabtree, a North Dakota resident, spoke about the issue in his personal capacity.
The state applied for jurisdiction over its program, which requires it to show its regulations are equivalent to the EPA's, in 2013. But EPA officials in the Obama administration had been “unresponsive,” largely without justification, Crabtree said.
The EPA's decision could pave the way for projects in the power and industrial sectors. For example, North Dakota is interested in pursuing carbon capture projects on ethanol facilities, Bruce Hill, chief geologist with the Clean Air Task Force, told Bloomberg Environment.
“They've done their homework, and this could help get those storage projects off the ground,” he added.
More broadly, the state's experience could open the door for other coal states interested in carbon capture, such as Wyoming, to seek similar jurisdiction over their programs.

“North Dakota has deep expertise in doing this, and so the extent to which this can be a robust framework for environmental protection, but also expeditious permitting that makes these businesses viable, is really essential,” Noah Deich, executive director for the Center for Carbon Removal, told Bloomberg Environment.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=131638887&vname=dennotallissues&fn=131638887&jd=131638887

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Wants Consistent Cost Analyses of Its Rules

Apr 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Jennifer Lu

The EPA's methods for determining the costs of its water and air pollution regulations should be consistent across its offices, the agency said as it took its first step toward standardizing that process.
The White House Office of Management and Budget began reviewing April 11 the Environmental Protection Agency's initial efforts toward issuing a rule (RIN:2010-AA12) that would standardize how it determines the regulatory costs across its divisions. OMB review is typically one of the last steps before a proposal is released to the public.
The rule also seeks to increase transparency in developing regulatory actions. Developing a standard process through rulemaking would give the regulatory community “consistent application of [a] statute,” the EPA said in the semiannual regulatory agenda.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=131638904&vname=dennotallissues&fn=131638904&jd=131638904

Return to headline | Return to top
'Climate Silence' in 5-Hour Pompeo Hearing

Apr 13, 2018 | E&E Daily

By Arianna Skibell

While advocates for action on climate change see CIA Director Mike Pompeo as a catastrophic choice to replace Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the former Kansas lawmaker's views on that issue are unlikely to be a major factor for Senate Democrats weighing whether or not to oppose his confirmation.
As CIA chief Pompeo has more or less avoided talking about climate change. But as a House Republican, he consistently downplayed the severity of global warming, opposing the Clean Power Plan and criticizing President Obama for joining the Paris climate deal.
At State and as the top U.S. diplomat, Pompeo would be responsible for representing the Unites State in international climate discussions and be responsible for dealing with global conflicts linked to climate change.
Yet his climate record is receiving little attention on Capitol Hill.
"In effect, there is a 'climate silence' in America," said Edward Maibach, director of George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication.
"Most Americans understand that our climate is changing, but they see the consequences are distant — in time (not yet), in space (not here) and in species (polar bears, not us)," he wrote in an email. "These are serious misperceptions because climate change is happening here, now, and it's harming us in many ways."
During Pompeo's almost five-hour confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday, Sens. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) were the only lawmakers to raise the issue of climate change. Cardin asked about the Paris Agreement.
Cardin earlier this week said it's important that Pompeo urge President Trump to remain in the Paris Agreement. "That's what Secretary Tillerson did," Cardin told reporters. "Not effectively, but that's what he did."
While Pompeo demonstrated he had shifted his hardline stance on climate, he remained strongly in agreement with President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris climate deal (E&E News PM, April 12).
Hundreds of environmentalists and progressive groups blasted Pompeo ahead of the hearing for his ties to the pro-fossil-fuel Koch brothers and his stance on the Clean Power Plan and the Paris accords (E&E Daily, April 10).
But Democrats seem unlikely to decide on Pompeo's fate based on those issues.
Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) said climate change wasn't discussed in his meeting with Pompeo.
"We talked about a lot of other things, but that one didn't come up," he told E&E News this week. "I think his overall record will influence my decision. I'm not going to decide on one issue."
Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), a climate hawk and frequent sponsor of carbon tax legislation, yesterday announced on Twitter that he would oppose Pompeo but did not reference climate change as a reason.
"I voted YES on Pompeo for CIA on the theory that he would be the 'adult in the room.' I was wrong," Schatz wrote. "I am voting NO on Pompeo for Secretary of State because our top diplomat should believe in diplomacy. He has an alarming tendency towards military provocation and brinkmanship."
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) also said he would oppose Pompeo, mentioning climate change as the last item in a laundry list of reasons, including his positions on the Iran nuclear agreement, refugees and torture.
Susi Moser, who directs her own climate change research and consulting firm, said while it's difficult to keep climate change in the national dialogue at the "appropriate level of urgency" because it's "overwhelming," "big" and "scary," a lack of recognition by lawmakers is damaging.
"We know the public looks to leaders for signals as to whether or not something is important," she said in a recent interview. "If no one in Washington is talking about it, it can't be that important."
Reporter Geof Koss contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/04/13/stories/1060078969

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested