Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 4/24/18
-
Pruitt to Unveil Controversial 'Transparency' Rule Limiting What Research EPA Can Use
Apr 24, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt is expected to propose a rule Tuesday that would establish new standards for what science could be used in writing agency regulations, according to individuals briefed on the plan. It is a sweeping change long sought by conservatives. -
White House Said to Deter Republicans from Defending EPA Chief
Apr 24, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy and Jennifer Jacobs
White House officials are cautioning Republican lawmakers and other conservative allies to temper their defense of Scott Pruitt, according to two people familiar with the discussions, in a sign that administration support for the embattled EPA chief may be waning. -
Pruitt Support in Senate Erodes as GOP Lawmakers Seek Hearings
Apr 23, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Anthony Adragna
Scott Pruitt’s wall of GOP support developed some new cracks on Monday, with three key Senate defenders calling for hearings into the embattled EPA administrator's recent controversies. -
New York Governor Pushes to Ban Plastic Bags
Apr 23, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) is asking state lawmakers to ban single-use plastic bags at stores and restaurants. -
Pompeo Survives Committee Vote; Next Stop Senate Floor
Apr 24, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Arianna Skibell
After parliamentary acrobatics and vote switches, the nomination of CIA Director Mike Pompeo to replace Rex Tillerson as secretary of State now heads to the Senate floor for a vote. -
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA Asked to Extend Consultation of Alternative Tests Strategy
Apr 24, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The Environmental Defense Fund has requested that the US EPA extend the public comment period for its draft plan to promote the development of alternative test methods under TSCA. -
EPA Sees TSCA Fee Increase If It Adopts New 'Small Business' Metric
Apr 23, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA says it might have to hike the fees it charges companies for approving new and existing chemicals under the revised toxics law if it adopts one of two employee-based size metrics it is considering for defining “small businesses” that are charged lower fees. -
EPA to Provide Supplemental Analysis of Alternative Small Business Size Standard Definitions in User Fees Rulemaking Docket and Extend User Fees Rulemaking Comment Period
Apr 23, 2018 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham
On April 24, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is scheduled to publish a notice in the Federal Register that it will be adding a supplemental analysis, “Supplemental Analysis of Alternative Small Business Size Standard Definitions and their Effect on TSCA User Fee Collection,” to the rulemaking docket for the User Fees for the Administration of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) proposed rule published on February 26, 2018. -
US Body Abandons Plans for New Flammability Standard
Apr 24, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The National Fire Protection Association in the US has voted to halt development of a new flammability standard for residential upholstered furniture. -
Agencies Wrestle With Lead Exposure Goals Ahead Of Strategy's Release
Apr 23, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Two months before the planned release of a federal strategy for reducing children's lead exposures, EPA and other agencies are wrestling with key policy goals, including a planned schedule for eliminating exposures, whether the strategy will complement pending EPA rules and if EPA plans to account for stricter federal health standards that are slated to be adopted later this year. -
EU Enforcers Find Toxic Chemical Products Sold with No Warnings
Apr 24, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
Most European Union online vendors of cleaning agents, glues, insect sprays, and other products containing hazardous chemicals are failing to comply with the bloc's labeling rules. -
Turkey Adds Benzyl Cyanide to Substances Subject to Import Control
Apr 23, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Turkey has added phenylacetonitrile (benzyl cyanide) to the list of hazardous chemicals and mixtures subject to import controls. -
(ACC Mentioned) Americas Petrochemicals Outlook, W/C Apr 23
Apr 23, 2018 | Platts
...While producers entered April attempting to implement a 3 cents/lb increase that had been pushed from March, sources have suggested buyers would push for a decrease amid historically low feedstock pricing and a building in US and Canada stocks, based on preliminary industry data from the American Chemistry Council. -
Taiwan Company Plans $9.4B Chemical Complex in Louisiana
Apr 24, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
A company based in Taiwan plans to build a $9.4 billion chemical manufacturing complex on a 2,400-acre (970-hectare) site in Louisiana, officials announced Monday. -
Groups Call on EPA to Keep Obama Oil and Gas Guidelines
Apr 23, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
A coalition of 56 environmental groups is urging EPA to leave Obama-era pollution control guidelines for existing oil and gas operations in place. -
Renewables, Not Natural Gas, Should Replace Shuttered Nuclear Plants
Apr 23, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Grant Smith
Across the nation, utilities continue to announcethe planned shutdown of nuclear power plants. -
New York Again Shuts the Door on Natural Gas, Denies Transco Expansion
Apr 23, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
New York regulators are once again threatening to strand 400 MMcf/d of natural gas in Pennsylvania by denying Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co. LLC’s (Transco) Northeast Supply Enhancement Project a water quality certification (WQC). -
Congress Must Act Soon to Protect High-Risk Facilities
Apr 23, 2018 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Eric R. Byer
Ensuring terrorists don’t have access to high-risk chemicals should be a no-brainer priority for Congress. But if they don’t take action soon, the situation could be dire. -
Practitioner Insights: Once in is Not Always in With Updated EPA Pollution Policy
Apr 24, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Lianne Mantione and John Lazzaretti
On Jan. 25, Bill Wehrum, the new EPA assistant administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation, issued a memorandum to all regional air division directors rescinding the agency's historic “Once In, Always In” policy for major sources under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants program. -
California Air District Seeks Rehearing of EPA Ozone Rule Decision
Apr 23, 2018 | Inside EPA
California's South Coast Air Quality Management District, the local air regulator for greater Los Angeles, is seeking a narrow rehearing of a federal appeals court ruling that scrapped large parts of EPA's rule for implementation of federal ozone standards, targeting what they say is a problem with the “baseline year” used for measuring ozone reductions. -
Pruitt Declares That Burning Wood Is Carbon Neutral
Apr 23, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared Monday that burning trees is carbon neutral.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Pruitt to Unveil Controversial 'Transparency' Rule Limiting What Research EPA Can Use
Apr 24, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt is expected to propose a rule Tuesday that would establish new standards for what science could be used in writing agency regulations, according to individuals briefed on the plan. It is a sweeping change long sought by conservatives.
The rule, which Pruitt has described in interviews with select media over the past month, would only allow EPA to consider studies for which the underlying data are made available publicly. Advocates describe this approach as an advance for transparency, but critics say it would effectively block the agency from relying on long-standing, landmark studies linking air pollution and pesticide exposure to harmful health effects.
In an interview Sunday with radio host John Catsimatidis on 970 AM in New York, Pruitt described the change as a way to let the public judge “the data, the methodology, the analytics” behind any scientific analysis presented to the EPA as it drafts regulations.
“That’s transparency,” he told Catsimatidis. “It gives people the opportunity in real time to peer review. It goes to the heart of what we should be about as an agency.”
The individuals briefed on the rule, which will be subject to a 30-day comment period, spoke on the condition of anonymity in advance of the announcement.
Many scientists argue that applying a standard to public health and environmental studies that is not currently required by peer-reviewed journals would limit the information the EPA could take into account when crafting federal limits on everything from power-plant emissions to which chemicals can be used in agriculture and in homes. Some researchers collect personal data from subjects but pledge to keep it confidential — as was the case in a major 1993 study by Harvard University that established the link between fine particle air pollution and premature deaths. That practice would not be allowed under the new rule.
House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) sought to establish a requirement similar to the one Pruitt will propose through legislation, but it failed to pass both chambers.
On Monday, 985 scientists signed a letter organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists urging Pruitt not to forge ahead with the policy change.
“There are ways to improve transparency in the decision-making process, but restricting the use of science would improve neither transparency nor the quality of EPA decision-making,” they wrote. “If fully implemented, this proposal would greatly weaken EPA’s ability to comprehensively consider the scientific evidence across the full array of health studies.”
Under the proposed rule, third parties would be able to test and try to replicate the findings of studies submitted to EPA. But, the scientists wrote, “many public health studies cannot be replicated, as doing so would require intentionally and unethically exposing people and the environment to harmful contaminants or recreating one-time events.”
Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Center for Science and Democracy, said in an email that Pruitt’s move would expand on his earlier decision to change the standards for who can serve on EPA’s advisory committees. Last year, Pruitt barred any scientists from serving if they received EPA grants for their work. Researchers funded by industries regulated by the agency to continue serving, however.
“First, they came after the agency’s independent science advisers, and now, they’re going after the science itself,” Rosenberg said. “What is transparent is the unabashed takeover of EPA leadership by individuals who have demonstrated disinterest in helping communities combat pollution by using the best available science.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/04/24/pruitt-to-unveil-controversial-transparency-rule-limiting-what-research-epa-can-use/?utm_term=.18b0ee186792
-
White House Said to Deter Republicans from Defending EPA Chief
Apr 24, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy and Jennifer Jacobs
White House officials are cautioning Republican lawmakers and other conservative allies to temper their defense of Scott Pruitt, according to two people familiar with the discussions, in a sign that administration support for the embattled EPA chief may be waning.
The warnings come as several top GOP lawmakers have stepped forward to publicly criticize Pruitt in recent days, marking a dramatic turn of fortune for one of the most conservative members of President Donald Trump's cabinet who has been heralded for dismantling Obama-era regulations.
Republicans are now sharpening their criticisms about Pruitt amid a revelation that he met at least once with the lobbyist whose wife rented him a bedroom on Capitol Hill.
Pruitt's performance in front of two congressional committees this week could be key in determining how long he remains at the agency's helm. The back-to-back House hearings scheduled for April 26—nominally on the EPA budget—are set to be Pruitt's first public appearance on Capitol Hill since the deluge of damaging revelations that began late last month.
The scrutiny also coincides with the arrival of a deputy administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency who could take Pruitt's place: former coal lobbyist Andrew Wheeler, who was hurriedly installed as the EPA's No. 2 official after being confirmed by the Senate 11 days ago.
Questions Aren't Going Away
It's the “president's decision to make” whether Pruitt should stay, said Sen. John Thune, of South Dakota, the third-ranking Republican in the Senate. “They have to resolve this and get those questions answered,” he added. “I don't think they're probably going away.“
White House officials have discouraged lawmakers from vigorously defending the administrator, said the two people, who asked for anonymity because the discussions weren't public.
Pruitt is under fire for his unorthodox $50-per-night rental of a Capitol Hill bedroom from a lobbyist, frequent travel to his home state of Oklahoma, questionable spending decisions at the EPA, raises for two top aides, and allegations that employees who challenged the administrator's decisions were sidelined.
There are at least a half dozen formal investigations now targeting Pruitt and even more informal inquiries, including requests by Republican lawmakers seeking documents and information.
“We're reviewing some of those allegations,” White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters in an April 23 briefing. She added that while Pruitt has done a good job of implementing Trump's policies, “the other things are certainly something that we're monitoring.“
Trump has been clear that Pruitt hasn't done anything wrong, Sanders said, but the White House was “continuing to review a number of the reports” about him.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=132723147&vname=dennotallissues&fn=132723147&jd=132723147
-
Pruitt Support in Senate Erodes as GOP Lawmakers Seek Hearings
Apr 23, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Anthony Adragna
Scott Pruitt’s wall of GOP support developed some new cracks on Monday, with three key Senate defenders calling for hearings into the embattled EPA administrator's recent controversies.
The three, including staunch Pruitt ally Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla), all said they supported hearings by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to look into the former Oklahoma attorney general's actions.
“I think that a couple of us on the committee think it’s appropriate to have a hearing in so far as any accusation having to do with his office is concerned,” Inhofe told POLITICO.
Inhofe said he was troubled by a reportover the weekend in The New York Times detailing a sweetheart deal Pruitt received on an Oklahoma City home previously owned by a lobbyist while serving in a state government. The Oklahoma Republican declined to discuss which allegations he found disturbing, but said “there are some things in there that I’d like to check out and see.”
Joining his call for a Senate hearing were two other senior GOP members of the EPW panel, Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.) and John Boozman (Ark.).
“Most people have concerns about some of the allegations,” Boozman said. “At some point he’ll be before the committee and we’ll dig deeper and see exactly what’s going on."
EPW Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) told reporters he expected Pruitt would come to testify at some point, but he stopped short of providing a specific timeframe or stating his intention to call a hearing.
To date, four House Republicans have called on Pruitt to resign, along with scores of elected Democrats. And Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), has said Pruitt was "the wrong person" to lead the agency based on his policies.
Pruitt has drawn criticism about his ethics and lavish spending in recent months. Three Congressional committees, the White House and EPA’s inspector general are all probing his behavior, ranging from his security expenses, high pay raises for aides, first-class travel and meetings with a coal group.
The House Oversight Committee has requested interviews with five senior agency aides and the White House said it would formally investigate Pruitt’s expenses after the Government Accountability Office last week found EPA broke the law by failing to notify Congress about a $43,000 privacy booth Pruitt had built in his office.
Pruitt will go to the Hill on Thursday to testify before a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee in the morning and at a House Appropriations subpanel in the afternoon. Those appearances will mark his first time before Congress since the recent allegations broke.
Both Inhofe and Capito said they thought those House hearings would prove pivotal for Pruitt’s long-term future in the administration.
“It’s really important,” Capito said. “He’s going to have to answer some tough questions. I’m sure they’ll be put to him by both sides and we’ll see what his response is.”
Meanwhile, EPW ranking member Tom Carper (D-Del.) said he had a good conversation with House Oversight Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) regarding Pruitt, but he said there was no formal bipartisan agreement to work together on an investigation.
“I just gave him plenty of encouragement that he’s doing the right thing,” he said.
But the mounting public criticism from Republicans suggests GOP lawmakers' patience in defending the EPA chief's behavior is waning.
"Some of the things that he’s done and that he’s been alleged to do are just indefensible," Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said. "You just can’t put lipstick on those pigs. You can’t."
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/04/pruitt-support-in-senate-erodes-as-gop-lawmakers-seek-hearings-500389
-
New York Governor Pushes to Ban Plastic Bags
Apr 23, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) is asking state lawmakers to ban single-use plastic bags at stores and restaurants.
Cuomo introduced legislation to that effect Monday, saying it would cut down on plastic pollution in waterways, on streets and elsewhere.
“The blight of plastic bags takes a devastating toll on our streets, our water and our natural resources, and we need to take action to protect our environment,” Cuomo said in a statement.
“As the old proverb goes: ‘We did not inherit the earth, we are merely borrowing it from our children,’ and with this action, we are helping to leave a stronger, cleaner and greener New York for all.”
Cuomo’s bill comes as he runs for reelection amid criticism from some environmentalists that he is not doing enough to protect the state’s environment.
Cuomo faces a primary challenge from activist and actress Cynthia Nixon. Nixon rolled out a climate platform on Friday with a goal of moving the state to 100 percent renewable energy, pledged to reject all fossil fuel infrastructure and implement laws to better hold companies accountable for their contributions to climate change.
Green activists are protesting in Albany Monday to push Cuomo to stop approving any fossil fuel infrastructure, including natural gas power plants, and to expand renewable energy in the state.
The plastics industry criticized Cuomo’s proposal, saying it would be counterintuitive and costly.
“Unfortunately, this misguided proposal would result in a massive, multi-million-dollar hidden tax on hardworking New York families,” Matt Seaholm, executive director of the American Progressive Bag Alliance, said in a statement. The alliance is a project of the Plastics Industry Association.
“Bans tried elsewhere have made it harder for families to pay for groceries while also incentivizing shoppers to use bags that are worse for the environment than 100 percent recyclable, highly reused plastic retail bags,” he said.
A handful of towns and cities in New York currently ban plastic bags, and California is the only other entire state to have such a policy. Puerto Rico and American Samoa also have bans, and Washington, D.C., has a tax on the bags.
Numerous other municipalities and counties around the country have either bans or fees on disposable plastic bags.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/384445-new-york-governor-pushes-to-ban-plastic-bags
-
Pompeo Survives Committee Vote; Next Stop Senate Floor
Apr 24, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Arianna Skibell
After parliamentary acrobatics and vote switches, the nomination of CIA Director Mike Pompeo to replace Rex Tillerson as secretary of State now heads to the Senate floor for a vote.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday favorably reported Pompeo's nomination on a 10-9 vote, with one member voting "present."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/04/24/stories/1060079877
-
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA Asked to Extend Consultation of Alternative Tests Strategy
Apr 24, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The Environmental Defense Fund has requested that the US EPA extend the public comment period for its draft plan to promote the development of alternative test methods under TSCA.
The EDF's call comes after it was revealed that the agency has yet to release a stakeholder analysis that could "significantly influence" its consideration of issues raised in the plan.
The EPA published its Strategic plan to promote the development and implementation of alternative test methods in early March. It outlines the move towards making TSCA determinations with new approach methodologies (NAMs) in place of vertebrate animal testing.
But, at a 10 April hearing, Nancy Beck, deputy assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention at the EPA, "prominently highlighted" the stakeholder-submitted analysis it is yet to release. The former American Chemistry Council staffer reportedly described the analysis as "robust and extensive".
The EPA said it would release it in the public docket, according to the EDF. But this has yet to happen.
The organisation has requested the agency make the document public and then extend the consultation by 30 days from this date.
"Given the importance that EPA itself publicly attributed to the analysis it received from a stakeholder, EPA should provide the public with sufficient opportunity to review and comment on that analysis," it says.
The comment period is currently set to close on 26 April.
https://chemicalwatch.com/66146/us-epa-asked-to-extend-consultation-of-alternative-tests-strategy
-
EPA Sees TSCA Fee Increase If It Adopts New 'Small Business' Metric
Apr 23, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA says it might have to hike the fees it charges companies for approving new and existing chemicals under the revised toxics law if it adopts one of two employee-based size metrics it is considering for defining “small businesses” that are charged lower fees.
According to analysis the agency has conducted, switching from a revenue-based metric to an employee-based metric would lower the revenue the agency would be able to collect below statutory levels and as such would have to be offset by increased fees on general industry.
"In order to ensure that EPA meets the statutory requirement that fees are sufficient to defray 25 [percent] of the estimated Agency costs, EPA would need to recoup the revenue loss resulting from moving to one of the two employee-based small business definitions presented in the analysis by increasing the TSCA section 5 proposed general industry fees," the agency says in a Federal Register notice scheduled for publication April 24.
The notice also announces that EPA will extend by one month -- from April 27 to May 27 -- its deadline for public input on its proposed rule for collecting fees under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
EPA's Feb. 26 proposed rule allows the agency to collect industry fees to support actions under the revised TSCA, including reviewing new and existing chemicals under sections 5 and 6, issuing test orders under section 4, and weighing confidential business information claims under section 14.
Industry officials and environmentalists, who both agree the rule is necessary to speed reviews, have sparred over details of the proposal. While industry sources have told Inside EPA that the fees appear high and that the proposed rule fails to clarify how the money will be used, environmentalists have argued that the agency has underestimatedthe costs of its reviews, thereby undercutting the proposed industry fees.
Under the revised TSCA, EPA must collect up to 25 percent of the costs of implementing several key chemical safety programs, or up to $25 million, whichever number is lower.
EPA's Feb. 26 proposal includes steps to ease burdens on processors and small businesses. For example, the agency limited fees on processors, and sought comment on a proposed approach for expanding the number of small businesses that would qualify a business for reduced fees based on a threshold revenue level.
But the agency also sought input on an alternative approach that would define a small business using an employee-based size standard.
In the new notice, EPA seeks comment on its additional analysis of such an employee-based standard, and says that the deadline extension is needed to allow input on that document in the context of the overall rule.
“EPA requests comment on this analysis and whether an employee-based size standard would be more appropriate than a receipts-based size standard and what that employee level should be,” the notice says.
“The supplemental analysis estimates the impact on fee amounts should an employee-based size standard be used to determine eligibility for reduced fees,” the statement adds.
SBA Approval
The notice comes after EPA officials March 30 attended a U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) roundtable that focused in part on the agency's plan to revise the traditional revenue-based definition of small businesses.
In a presentation to the roundtable, Samuel Castilla, an economist with SBA's Office of Size Standards, outlined a three-step process for agencies to seek SBA approval of an alternative size standard in a rulemaking.
According to the presentation, agencies must send an initial proposal to SBA's Office of Size Standards, take public input on the proposal, and then provide the office with a justification and comments on the proposed change.
The presentation cites both company receipts and the number of employees as “primary factors” in the SBA's size standards methodology. Secondary factors include technological changes, industry growth trends, and an industry's unique history, among others.
While EPA has sought input on small business definitions based on both size and receipts, one industry group in early comments to the agency cautioned that any approach should not be too complex.
In April 13 comments, the International Lubricant Manufacturers Association (ILMA) backed EPA's proposal to raise the receipts threshold requiring companies to pay full fees, but cautioned that considering too many factors in defining small businesses would be unwieldy.
“In order to more easily administer the statute, adoption of the Agency's increased receipts threshold of a three-year average of $91 million in revenue is appropriate,” ILMA says. “Attempting to craft multiple tests based on a variety of factors would create administrative headache for the Agency and undue confusion for the industry.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-sees-tsca-fee-increase-if-it-adopts-new-small-business-metric
-
Apr 23, 2018 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham
On April 24, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is scheduled to publish a notice in the Federal Register that it will be adding a supplemental analysis, “Supplemental Analysis of Alternative Small Business Size Standard Definitions and their Effect on TSCA User Fee Collection,” to the rulemaking docket for the User Fees for the Administration of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) proposed rule published on February 26, 2018. EPA will also be extending the comment period for the proposed rule for an additional 30 days “to give interested parties the opportunity to consider this additional analysis and prepare meaningful comments.” Comments will be due within 30 days of publication (by May 24, 2018). The original comment deadline was April 27, 2018.
Regarding the supplemental analysis, EPA states that it “provides additional estimates for the impact of setting the small business definition based on an employee-based threshold.” More information on the proposed rule is available in our February 9, 2018, memorandum “Administrator Pruitt Signs TSCA User Fee Proposal.”
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-to-provide-supplemental-analysis-alternative-small-business-size-standard
-
US Body Abandons Plans for New Flammability Standard
Apr 24, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The National Fire Protection Association in the US has voted to halt development of a new flammability standard for residential upholstered furniture. The vote came amid stakeholder concern around the toxicity of the flame retardant chemicals that may have been needed to meet it.
Since 2014, a technical committee and two task groups at the NFPA have been working to develop a method to evaluate upholstered residential furniture subjected to a flaming ignition source. They were responding to a "significant fire issue" posed by burning upholstered furniture, according to Christian Dubay, NFPA vice president and chief engineer.
But the organisation received "numerous comments in opposition" to the draft – NFPA 277. Among these, many raised concerns that its implementation could increase the use of flame retardant chemicals in the furniture.
The NFPA’s Standards Council voted to end development of the standard, citing a "fundamental lack of consensus on how to test and evaluate residential upholstered furniture flammability, exposed to a flaming ignition source."Standards driving flame retardant use
The NFPA develops codes and standards through an open, consensus-based process. Although its standards are voluntary, many are adopted by local governments or firms.
Its work on standard 277 came though there has been a move away from ‘open flame’ flammability standards in favour of ‘smoulder’ tests in recent years.
Prior to 2014, California had in place an open-flame test for upholstered furniture. Many manufacturers used added chemical flame retardants in furniture sold nationwide to meet this.
Amid concerns of the possible harmful effects to human health and the environment of exposure to the substances, Governor Jerry Brown approved a new standard in November 2013 – Technical Bulletin(TB) 117-2013. This replaced the open-flame test in the original TB 113 with a smoulder test, which could more readily be met without added flame retardants.
Following that change, many foam suppliers and furniture manufacturers began removing flame retardants from products. Several US states have since acted to ban or restrict the substances’ use in those applications.Stakeholder opposition
The Polyurethane Foam Association is opposed to the standard. In comments to the NFPA, it said that, among other concerns, furniture assemblies would probably include the use of flame retardants to "score" well with NFPA 277.
And because some jurisdictions have restricted or prohibited them in furniture, "without the availability of such substances (either ethically or legally), it may be impossible for many furniture designs to achieve acceptable NFPA 277 performance," it said.
Dr Donald Lucas, a retired Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory scientist who served on the NFPA 277 secondary task group, welcomed the decision to halt the standard’s development. "Too many questions remain about […] the health and environmental effects surrounding how flammability standards would be met to develop a meaningful method at this time," he said.
And Bifma, a trade group for commercial furniture, said it supports existing ‘smoulder test’ flammability standards as "appropriate regulation".
The Green Science Policy Institute (GPSI) – a longtime critic of flame retardant usage – also welcomed the decision.
But the NGO’s executive director, Arlene Blum, told Chemical Watch she is concerned that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may be considering adopting a similar standard.
"Historically, the largest driver of the addition of flame retardant chemicals to furniture in the US was the open-flame flammability testing required by California’s Technical Bulletin 117," said Dr Blum. "I question why the [CPSC] is still considering such a standard."
The CPSC is set to meet on 16 May to discuss furniture fire standards. The GSPI agrees with a coalition ofpetitioning furniture trade groups that the agency should adopt California’s updated TB 117-13 as the national standard.
https://chemicalwatch.com/66142/us-body-abandons-plans-for-new-flammability-standard
-
Agencies Wrestle With Lead Exposure Goals Ahead Of Strategy's Release
Apr 23, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Two months before the planned release of a federal strategy for reducing children's lead exposures, EPA and other agencies are wrestling with key policy goals, including a planned schedule for eliminating exposures, whether the strategy will complement pending EPA rules and if EPA plans to account for stricter federal health standards that are slated to be adopted later this year.
EPA officials April 20 told a Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) meeting in Washington, D.C., that federal agencies will soon seek White House Office of Management & Budget approval of a “Federal Strategy to Reduce Childhood Lead Exposures and Associated Health Impacts” that they hope to release in late June.
But Ruth Etzel, director of EPA's Office of Children's Health Protection, told CHPAC that while the new strategy will call for eliminating children's exposures to lead, federal agencies collaborating on the document are still wrestling with a time frame to set for achieving that objective.
“We definitely have the word 'eradicate' [exposures] in the vision” statement, Etzel said. “The question is how long will it take us to do that and what can we commit to in the next five years.”
In addition, EPA's National Lead Coordinator Hayley Hughes was unable to answer an advisor's question on how the new interagency lead strategy would address two pending EPA rules to limit exposures to lead based paint and drinking water. Hughes said she was in her first week on the job and would reply later.
Such responses prompted concern from CHPAC members, who were seeking answers as they worked to strengthen March 2017 advice to Administrator Scott Pruitt on how to eliminate lead exposures.
Among other things, they had urged Pruitt to tighten standards for lead-based paint hazards, including in dust and soil, and to overhaul its lead and copper rule to reduce lead in drinking water as EPA's National Drinking Water Advisory Council called for in 2015.
But CHPAC advisors said during the meeting that while Pruitt's May 2017 response said that the new federal strategy for reducing children's exposure to lead “will broadly address your recommendations to protect children from health risks posed by lead,” the agency's efforts so far appear mixed.
Tom Neltner, a CHPAC panelist who works for the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), noted that EPA had initially refused to commit to a deadline for updating its hazard standards for lead-based paint in residential buildings until a federal court intervened.
He also noted that Pruitt, in a recent op-ed in the Washington Times on infrastructure priorities, declined to call for reducing lead in housing, schools and childcare facilities as CHPAC had previously recommended.
After noting during the first day of the April 19-20 CHPAC meeting that Pruitt's response said the strategy would address CHPAC recommendations, Neltner asked staff how the forthcoming strategy would incorporate updates to the lead paint hazard standards and lead and copper rules.
Although officials were unable to answer the question, Hughes promised to provide a future response.
CDC Standards
On the sidelines of the meeting, Hughes also referred to the agency's press office a question from Inside EPA on how agency officials expect the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) plan to tighten its reference level for lead in blood -- the level at which CDC recommends public health actions be initiated to protect children from harmful exposures -- from 5 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) to 3.5 ug/m3 may affect the agency's lead reduction efforts.
EPA press officials did not provide an answer by press time.
Pruitt and other administration officials have called reducing children's lead exposures a significant priority.
Pruitt co-chaired a Feb. 15 cabinet-level meeting on collaborating on the federal strategy to lower childhood lead exposures. The effort continues a presidential task force first formed under the Clinton administration on tackling environmental health and safety risks to children. The task force in 2000 issued a first-time national strategy to address childhood lead exposure by focusing mainly on lead paint hazards.
The administration has taken steps to solicit public input on its strategy. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) sought comment for 30 days through Nov. 24 to inform the new strategy.
In an Oct. 24 notice in the Federal Register, HUD said the strategy would seek to ensure “children live, learn and play free from the harmful effects of lead exposure” and includes goals of reducing exposures, identifying and treating exposed children and supporting research on the effects of exposure, among others.
When panelists asked if they could provide input on the strategy, Etzel noted that public input had already been sought on the strategy document but suggested there would be additional opportunities to inform agencies broader lead reduction efforts. She also said agencies received more than 700 comments and are working to incorporate that input into the latest draft.
But environmentalists, including EDF, have questioned whether Pruitt's so-called "war on lead" is more talk than action, noting that the push for an updated strategy comes as the Trump administration is pushing a fiscal year 2019 budget request that seeks to significantly reduce EPA's work on lead.
EDF has argued that Pruitt's actions on lead "must be ambitious, practical, well-funded, and legally sustainable," and cautioning that "Words, meetings, white papers, and photo ops aren't enough.”
Mixed Record
During the CHPAC meeting Hughes reiterated that EPA and other federal agencies have made reducing childhood lead exposures a priority. She noted that on April 4, Pruitt made available $5.5 billion in loans through the agency's Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program that supports state efforts to reduce lead in drinking water.
Hughes said that in her new role she is responsible for coordinating between EPA headquarters and regional efforts on lead reduction efforts, as well as with states, tribes, municipalities and others.
But Neltner gave EPA a mixed report on its efforts in response to CHPAC's 2017 recommendations for reducing lead exposures.
Neltner noted that EPA declined to commit to a rule updating its lead hazard standards until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit Dec. 28 ruled that the agency had unreasonably delayed updating its lead standards after accepting a 2009 rulemaking petition, and required the agency to take action.
As a result of the case, A Community Voice, et al. v EPA, the agency is expected to issue a proposed rule in June on standards for lead in dust and paint. Neltner reiterated his concerns that while the agency is moving toward updating its standard for lead in dust, its unclear whether they agency will be able to propose by June a new definition of how much lead paint may contain.
He also told the meeting that EPA appears to be lagging on other CHPAC recommendations included in the March 2017 letter, including a call for a standard for lead in soil.
CHPAC members expressed interest in reiterating past recommendations on reducing lead exposures in public comments in forthcoming rulemaking dockets, such as proposals expected this summer to update the lead-based hazard standards and lead and copper rule.
But federal rules preclude the panel from providing unsolicited input to the agency. Given the restriction, CHPAC Chairwoman Barbara Morrissey said individual panelists may choose to write comments to the agency, but the advisory panel will not provide comments unless it receives a request from EPA.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/agencies-wrestle-lead-exposure-goals-ahead-strategys-release
-
EU Enforcers Find Toxic Chemical Products Sold with No Warnings
Apr 24, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
Most European Union online vendors of cleaning agents, glues, insect sprays, and other products containing hazardous chemicals are failing to comply with the bloc's labeling rules.
More than 82 percent of online advertisements for hazardous chemical mixtures failed to mention the potential risks the products pose, as they are required to do by the EU Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) Regulation, the European Chemicals Agency said in an April 23 report.
The rule for online disclosure of chemical mixture hazards affects thousands of companies—from major online retailers such as Amazon.com Inc. and Tesco Plc to specialized small-scale distributors.
Under the CLP Regulation—where a website allows a consumer to buy a hazardous chemical mixture without necessarily having sight of the label of the product—the possible health and safety hazards should be shown online. Noncompliance could be punished by sanctions up to and including criminal prosecutions, depending on the EU country where the noncompliance is discovered.
To improve compliance, industry groups should get involved to “develop common strategies to clarify what is a lawful sale on the internet,” the agency said in its report.
British home improvement retailer B&Q Plc—which sells products including paints, sealants, and adhesives via its website—is “committed to health and safety across the supply chain and is vigilant in the implementation of the CLP regulation,” the company told Bloomberg Environment in an April 23 email.
Amazon was unable to comment April 23. Tesco did not respond to a request for comment.
Coordinated Enforcement
The European Chemicals Agency report summarized a coordinated enforcement review of online sales of hazardous chemical mixtures, covering 14 EU countries and Norway, which is not an EU country but participates in the EU single market.
The report found an overall compliance rate with the CLP Regulation of just 16 percent, with 82 percent of online offerings noncompliant, and 2 percent not resolved at the time the report was prepared. The report did not name any of the companies or products checked.
The enforcement project covered web shops including online supermarkets, the European Chemicals Agency told Bloomberg Environment April 23.
Product categories included household cleaning products, motor products such as sprays and lubricants, garden products such as insecticides, and do-it-yourself products such as paints and solvents, the report said.
The project covered 1,314 online product offerings, of which 1,083 were found to be noncompliant. Sanctions in most cases involved verbal or written warnings, but in 280 cases fines were issued and in four cases criminal prosecutions were started. The chemicals agency did not give details of specific enforcement measures.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=132723152&vname=dennotallissues&fn=132723152&jd=132723152
-
Turkey Adds Benzyl Cyanide to Substances Subject to Import Control
Apr 23, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Turkey has added phenylacetonitrile (benzyl cyanide) to the list of hazardous chemicals and mixtures subject to import controls.
The substances on the list are deemed harmful to human health and require special permission from the Ministry of Health before they can be imported into the country.
The amendment was published in Turkey's Official Gazette on 14 April. It became effective immediately.
Echa says the substance is fatal if inhaled, toxic if swallowed and toxic in contact with skin, according to the classification provided by companies in REACH registrations.
It is used as an intermediate for a variety of compounds, including pharmaceuticals and other types of drugs.
https://chemicalwatch.com/66132/turkey-adds-benzyl-cyanide-to-substances-subject-to-import-control
-
(ACC Mentioned) Americas Petrochemicals Outlook, W/C Apr 23
Apr 23, 2018 | Platts
US AROMATICS: US aromatics prices rose on the week amid talk of an unplanned production issue at Shell's Deer Park, Texas, facility. Details and confirmation surrounding the outage were not available at time of publication. Prompt spot toluene prices rose roughly 6 cents week on week, closing Friday at 278 cents/gal FOB USG. The gains, coupled with relative softness in benzene, continued to negatively impact disproportionation margins and TDP and MSTDP margins were last estimated at near $5 and minus $3/mt, respectively. Margins were not expected to improve in the near term, sources said. Toluene's blend value was last estimated at near 257 cents/gal. Mixed xylene prices were stronger on a bump in buy interest sources said was associated with the Deer Park facility. Prompt spot mixed xylene prices were up near 16 cents on the week, closing Friday at 284 cents/gal. At that level, and considering spot paraxylene prices at $905/mt FOB USG, the prompt spot PX-MX spread was estimated at near $40/mt, a level sources said was unsustainable. One source noted that if paraxylene prices did not rise quickly, spot mixed xylene prices were likely to plummet. In contract news, April paraxylene contracts were heard settled down a half cent at 48 cents/lb, sources said.
US BENZENE & STYRENE: The US benzene market has been quiet as derivative styrene turnarounds have been ongoing. While this is the last week of trades being used in the formula for contract settlements, market participants expect a mostly quiet week. US benzene has not been correlated with crude and there have been no real drivers lately, sources have said. April and May benzene was last assessed Friday at 293 cents/gal DDP USG and 294 cents/gal FOB. US styrene has shown a little more volatility lately because of a producer being short. However, there is an expectation for US styrene pricing to hover at the netback to Europe once short positions are covered. US styrene was last assessed Friday for prompt-month pricing at 59.85 cents/lb ($1,320/mt) FOB USG and at 58.95 cents/lb ($1,300/mt) FOB US for forward-month pricing.
US OLEFINS: April propylene contracts began settling down 1 cents/lb late Friday with a market-wide settlement expected early Monday, sources said. The 1-cent/lb decrease would put polymer-grade contracts at 46 cents/lb and chemical-grade products at 44.50 cents/lb. The settlement, if accepted market-wide, would be in line with market expectations, which had been talked at a decrease of 1 cents/lb to a rise of 2 cents/lb. The decline in prices is due to thin demand, sources said. Meanwhile, Spot ethylene continues to hover near record lows as supply length persists. Prompt-month ethylene was heard traded at 14.25 cents/lb MtB Nova, 0.25 cents higher than a trade Friday at 14 cents/lb MtB Nova.
US PE: Pressure for lower polyethylene pricing in both the US domestic and export markets appeared to be mounting entering the final full week of April. While producers entered April attempting to implement a 3 cents/lb increase that had been pushed from March, sources have suggested buyers would push for a decrease amid historically low feedstock pricing and a building in US and Canada stocks, based on preliminary industry data from the American Chemistry Council. Some market participants suggested late last week that a multi-cent drop for domestic contracts could happen for April, though May also could be a possibility. On the export side, trader sources have noted that volumes for some grades appear to be more available, and while some price reduction has occurred for certain resins, additional drops would be warranted to make US PE more competitive in key global markets. There were some expectations lower pricing could find its way into the export market as soon as this week, particularly if producers begin feeling pressure to export to impact monthly inventory levels. However, recent upticks in crude over the past month, as well as talk of increased tightness in some key global markets, has led to some belief that US resin could become more competitive even without a significant cut in pricing.
US PVC: US polyvinyl chloride producers were expected to nominate May pricing this week or next, and traders have pushed for declines ranging from $35/mt to $55/mt from April levels. However, some producers have indicated May offers may come at rollovers to April pricing, or $840/mt FAS Houston, but some traders say producers can swallow a significant drop for May and do rollovers in June, or spread declines across the next two months before pricing reaches bottom. Last week a major PVC producer in Taiwan announced fresh offers for May that were $50-$60/mt lower than April settlement values, higher than the expected $40/mt decline, but US producers noted that April US prices were assessed $50-$55/mt lower from March, so the global market could be catching up with US pricing in those latest announcements. US trader sources said producers may try to hold pricing at April levels, but that could be difficult given market pressure to further reduce pricing unless they have no pressure to move volumes. Last week traders were heard selling PVC around $800/mt FAS Houston in some instances, with other deals heard in a range of $820-$840/mt FAS Houston. Among feedstocks, Asian traders were heard moving US-origin ethylene dichloride cargoes to Thailand or India instead of China after China announced plans to impose 25% tariffs on 106 US items, including EDC and PVC. While China-bound PVC is re-exported upon arrival because of anti-dumping duties, China is the top market for US EDC exports, having received 370,844 mt in 2017, according to US trade data.
LATIN POLYMERS: Buying activity could pick up for polyethylene this week should CFR import pricing continue to fall as distributors who normally carry imported resin restock after spending much of April taking on only minimal volumes while waiting out a price floor. On the polypropylene front, buyers are likely to encounter stable-to-higher pricing amid dwindling availability from Asia and the Middle East, with sources pointing to strong buying in China as a key factor. Brazilian producer Braskem enters the week with stable pricing on PE and PP sold in the domestic and Pacific markets, a company source confirmed late last week, adding that any adjustments would be related to corresponding movements in key global export markets such as Asia and the US.
https://www.platts.com/latest-news/petrochemicals/houston/americas-petrochemicals-outlook-wc-apr-23-10378587
-
Taiwan Company Plans $9.4B Chemical Complex in Louisiana
Apr 24, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
A company based in Taiwan plans to build a $9.4 billion chemical manufacturing complex on a 2,400-acre (970-hectare) site in Louisiana, officials announced Monday.
Gov. John Bel Edwards and Formosa Petrochemical Corp . Executive Vice President Keh-Yen Lin announced the plans for the plant in St. James Parish, between Baton Rouge and New Orleans.
The project is expected to provide 1,200 permanent jobs with average salaries of $84,500 and up to 8,000 construction jobs, according to a state news release.
The plant will be the parish’s largest industry, Parish President Timmy Roussel said.
It will add about $28 million a year in property taxes once the exemption offered as an industrial incentive expires, Roussel told The Advocate . The parish now gets about $60 million a year in various taxes, he said.
Part of Louisiana’s standard incentive package is, with local approval, a full property tax exemption for five years, followed by an 80-percent exemption for three years. That alone would add up to about $207 million in tax breaks over eight years.
Gary Perilloux, spokesman for Louisiana Economic Development, said he was working to get dollar figures for the exemptions.
Construction is expected to take 10 years, possibly beginning as soon as 2019 if all permits are approved. The work would be in two phases, with the first permanent jobs expected to be filled in 2021. That hiring would trigger the first of four $3 million installments of a performance-based grant to offset infrastructure costs, the news release said.
The complex downriver from Donaldsonville would take natural gas and make ethylene, propylene, ethylene glycol and associated polymers used in many plastic products. It’s the latest big petrochemical expansion in Louisiana motivated by cheap natural gas produced by the American fracking boom.
At least one such project, however, has been dropped. South African energy and chemical company Sasol called off plans last year for an $11 billion to $14 billion plant to convert natural gas to liquid fuels. Sasol continued with plans for an $11.1 billion ethane cracking plant in southwest Louisiana.
Formosa has 410 employees at three existing Louisiana facilities.
Three U.S. subsidiaries agreed to pay $12.8 million in remediation costs and fines in 2009 after a long-running battle over air, water and hazardous waste violations at two petrochemical plants in Texas and Louisiana.
The proposed plants would be run by a Louisiana-registered subsidiary of Formosa, called FG LA LLC, with Lin as its CEO.
Since the site is just downriver from the Sunshine Bridge, Formosa has dubbed it the Sunshine Project.
The bridge — opened in 1964 in what was then a sparsely populated area and described by detractors as a bridge to nowhere — got its nickname from then-Gov. Jimmie Davis’ song, “You Are My Sunshine.” These days, it is heavily used.
“For more than 50 years, the Sunshine Bridge has connected the river parishes in a strategic fashion that has enabled tremendous industrial growth and thousands of new jobs along both sides of the Mississippi River in Louisiana,” Edwards said. “The new Sunshine Project continues that bridge into a brighter economic future for Louisiana.”
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/04/23/us/ap-us-formosa-petrochemical-louisiana.html
-
Groups Call on EPA to Keep Obama Oil and Gas Guidelines
Apr 23, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
A coalition of 56 environmental groups is urging EPA to leave Obama-era pollution control guidelines for existing oil and gas operations in place.
In a letter today to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, the coalition urged him to drop plans to withdraw the control techniques guidelines, intended to reduce emissions of ozone-forming volatile organic compounds in parts of the country particularly at risk from the lung irritant.
Despite improved air quality around the United States as a whole in recent decades, "many areas that are ground zero for the nation's expanding oil and gas industry have seen a concerning increase in dangerous pollution," the groups wrote. "These communities need more protection, not less."
Signers include national organizations like the Clean Air Task Force and the National Wildlife Federation, along with a host of state and regional advocacy groups.
EPA published its plans for withdrawing the 2016 guidelines last month (Energywire, March 2). Air chief Bill Wehrum, whose clients included the American Petroleum Institute when he was an attorney in private practice, said in a news release that withdrawal is needed to avoid unneeded compliance costs and "provide regulatory certainty to one of the largest sectors of the American economy."
Today is the deadline for written comments on the proposal to be submitted; today's letter will also be filed in the regulatory docket, according to the Clean Air Task Force.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/04/23/stories/1060079841
-
Renewables, Not Natural Gas, Should Replace Shuttered Nuclear Plants
Apr 23, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Grant Smith
Across the nation, utilities continue to announcethe planned shutdown of nuclear power plants.
Early retirement of these crumbling, outrageously expensive and dangerous plants is long overdue. But will they be replaced by polluting natural gas plants, or can clean, renewable energy be brought on line quickly enough to fill the gap?
As New York Times columnist Brad Plumer recently noted, the fear is that replacing suddenly retired nuclear plants, which don’t emit carbon, with natural gas would increase the greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change.
Timing is the critical variable here. At what pace can nuclear plants be replaced and does natural gas have to play a role in that transition?
Three recent studies show how we can bypass natural gas when replacing nuclear power plants:A Stanford University and German Aerospace Center study in November 2016 found that a combination of wind, solar and energy efficiency in various scenarios could replace three nuclear plants in New York in the near term. This would produce a savings of $800 million to nearly $8 billion, and reduce carbon emissions by 32.5 million tons, compared to keeping the plants running. A study by the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Technologies estimated that a combination of renewable and energy efficiency investments would be up to $5 billion cheaper than extending operation of Diablo Canyon, the last remaining nuclear plant in California. This cost convinced Pacific Gas & Electric to commit to closing Diablo’s twin reactors in 2024 and 2025.A 2017 report by Strategen Consulting said a combination of wind and solar power, storage of the electricity, and increased energy efficiency could replace the Indian Point nuclear plant near New York City more cheaply than natural gas, saving $315 million over five years.
Besides the cost of the energy itself, there are other reasons to quickly move away from nuclear power. For years, analysts have warned the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or NRC, about the danger of nuclear fuel pools, where high-level nuclear waste is stored. Because the fuel rods are packed too closely, the pools are vulnerable to catastrophic fires or terrorist attacks.
A recent paper by Princeton University and Union of Concerned Scientists found that moving older fuel rods from the pools to safer dry cast storage “could reduce radioactive releases from pool fires (in the event of an emergency) by 99 percent.” This would cost the industry $50 million for each pool. But NRC has ignored the warning.
“The agency has been pressured by the nuclear industry, directly and through Congress, to lowball the potential consequences of a fire because of concerns that increased costs could result in shutting down more nuclear power plants,” Frank Von Hippel, a research physicist at Princeton and the paper’s co-author, told Science Daily.
The true costs of natural gas and nuclear safety must be included in any assessment of our future energy mix. Ease of deployment, declining costs, and minimal impacts on health and climate make renewables, efficiency and storage technologies the clear choice for replacing nuclear power plants.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/04/renewables-not-natural-gas-should-replace-shuttered-nuclear-plants#.Wt7bLvlubX4
-
New York Again Shuts the Door on Natural Gas, Denies Transco Expansion
Apr 23, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
New York regulators are once again threatening to strand 400 MMcf/d of natural gas in Pennsylvania by denying Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co. LLC’s (Transco) Northeast Supply Enhancement Project a water quality certification (WQC).
Transco vowed Monday to resubmit its application. But similar decisions by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) have left more than 1 Bcf/d of Appalachian pipeline projects in regulatory limbo.
DEC said Transco’s application, which was filed in June 2017, was incomplete. It also said that FERC’s ongoing environmental review could result in changes to the project. About a month after the application was filed last year, DEC told Transco that its application was administratively incomplete, pending the project’s draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
FERC issued a favorable DEIS last month, but DEC said it has until May 14 to comment on the document. The department also said it would not ultimately have the information it needs to make a determination about the application within the one-year statutory deadline because a final environmental impact statement won’t be issued until September 2018.
Transco parent Williams said it’s been working closely with the DEC for the last year to satisfy requirements for a WQC. Prior to the denial, DEC “informed the company that it required additional time to complete its review of potential water quality impacts beyond the statutory permit review period,” spokesperson Christopher Stockton said. “Williams, with the support of our customer National Grid, fully intends to resubmit the project’s 401 WQC application so that the agency can continue its permit evaluation and provide the clearances ncessecary to construct this critical piece of pipeline infrastructure.”
The nearly $1 billion project would expand Transco to increase natural gas deliveries to National Grid -- the largest distributor of natural gas in the Northeast. The project is designed to create 400 MMcf/d of incremental firm capacity to Northeast markets, primarily to feed demand for gas in New York City, which is phasing out the use of No. 4 fuel oil to help curb emissions.
Williams said National Grid estimates that the Northeast Supply Enhancement Project could displace more than 3 million gallons of heating oil and help reduce annual emissions. The utility is already investing more than $200 million per year to convert its customers from oil to natural gas in New York City and Long Island, Williams said.
The expansion would include 10 miles of pipe in Pennsylvania, three miles in New Jersey and 23 miles of pipe offshore New Jersey and New York in addition to a compressor station in Franklin Township, NJ, and more horsepower at an existing station in Pennsylvania. It would link gas from Transco’s compressor station 195 in York County, PA, to its offshore Rockaway Transfer Point, an existing interconnection between the underwater Lower New York Bay Lateral and the Rockaway Delivery Lateral in New York waters.
Of particular concern to the project's opposition is the 23-mile segment of new pipeline that would cross Raritan Bay from Old Bridge, NJ, to Rockaway Point in Queens.
In its denial letter, the DEC said that part of the project “could have significant water quality impacts in New York state.” The agency also added that construction could also impact Atlantic sturgeon and other protected species.
Transco was targeting a December 2019 in-service date, but it’s unclear how Friday’s decision would affect the timeline. It’s also unclear how long another application review would take. The agency noted Monday, however, that it has up to one year from receipt of an application to make a decision.
The DEC said other portions of the current application, including those for endangered/threatened species and excavation permits are also incomplete “pending the receipt of specified additional information by the department.”
Friday’s decision was the fourth time the agency has denied a WQC application for a natural gas pipeline project. It has rejected applications for the Constitution Pipeline, which Williams is also sponsoring; National Fuel Gas Co.’s Northern Access expansion project; and Millennium Pipeline Co. LLC’s Valley Lateral project.
Only the Valley Lateral was allowed to proceed, after Millennium challenged the state’s decision. The other projects are still battling to advance in federal courts. The Northeast Supply Enhancement project will similarly need a WQC before it can proceed.
The denial also comes at a time when Gov. Andrew Cuomo is running for a third term. Late last year, environmental organizations unsatisfied with his climate protection efforts, which include a ban on high-volume hydraulic fracturing, launched a campaign pressuring the governor to do more. His Democratic primary opponent, actress Cynthia Nixon, has already called for a ban on natural gas pipelines and power plants, as well as a carbon tax and an emissions-free economy by 2050.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114127-new-york-again-shuts-the-door-on-natural-gas-denies-transco-expansion
-
Congress Must Act Soon to Protect High-Risk Facilities
Apr 23, 2018 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Eric R. Byer
Ensuring terrorists don’t have access to high-risk chemicals should be a no-brainer priority for Congress. But if they don’t take action soon, the situation could be dire. A critical program that sets the standards for protecting and securing facilities that use, manufacture, store or handle certain high-risk chemicals – the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program – will sunset in January if Congress doesn’t move quickly to reauthorize it. While nine months may seem like plenty of time to secure another long-term bill, one hallmark of the 115th Congress has been nudging right up to or blowing past deadlines for critical legislation.
For example, spending bills like the one signed last month at the final possible moment after multiple extensions and one government shutdown are historically fraught with competing priorities. Other legislation, like long-term Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization, is centered around complex issues that have engendered years of study, discussion and debate. Still other critical legislative deadlines have become embroiled in politics, like the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which expired Sept. 30, 2017 and was finally reauthorized in January 2018.
Closer to home for the chemical distribution industry, even other programs have suffered from competing congressional priorities and distractions. The bipartisan Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), which saved American businesses $730 million in tariffs in 2016 and passed the House by an overwhelming margin of 400-2, is a good example. GSP renewal lapsed, languishing in the Senate for nearly three months until being included in the March 23 spending bill. For the sake of our nation’s security, we can’t let this happen to CFATS.
The CFATS program was created in 2007 to help prevent terrorist attacks on high-risk chemical facilities. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) administers this important program that requires impacted chemical facilities to prepare Security Vulnerability Assessments and implement Site Security Plans (SSPs) that must satisfy the risk-based performance standards outlined in the rule. The National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD) was the first chemical industry association to include security in our environmental, health, safety and security management system known as NACD Responsible Distribution®. From the outset, we welcomed CFATS as an important security and counterterrorism effort. But the CFATS program had a slow start, suffering from departmental turnover and a severe backlog in authorizing and approving SSPs, exacerbated by one-year and partial-year extensions.
In 2014, Congress passed the Protecting and Securing Chemical Facilities from Terrorist Attack Act. It granted a four-year reauthorization to the program, ensuring a coordinated effort between government and industry to secure the nation’s high-risk chemical facilities through smarter and more efficient security investments. Today, CFATS is a success story. Illustrating House Homeland Security Subcommittee Chairman John Ratcliffe’s (R-Texas) statement that, “security of high-risk chemicals is not an issue that government can solve on its own,” the program has grown and strengthened as DHS and industry collaborate to keep facilities secure.
Major sectors of the American economy, including industries ranging from chemical production, distribution and storage, oil and gas refining, manufacturing, agricultural goods and services and more, are impacted by CFATS. As Chairman Ratcliffe reiterated in a hearing earlier this year, “The need for Congress and DHS to get this program right is both a national security and economic imperative.” Fortunately, getting it right is very simple: we call upon Congress to reauthorize the CFATS program prior to its Jan. 19, 2019 expiration. This straightforward, bipartisan act will provide industry with the certainty needed to make long-term facility security investments and enable DHS to continue running the CFATS program efficiently, ensuring it properly protects against security threats at covered NACD facilities and the tens of thousands of other facilities across our nation.
We all know that our leaders in Washington face a long to-do list. There are thousands of competing priorities, each with their own implications for the people of our country. With mid-term elections right around the corner, even the most critical of issues can be undermined by distraction or political gamesmanship. I join with other industries that together help drive all aspects of our economy in reminding Congress that the clock is ticking, and a bipartisan issue like CFATS that helps ensure the security of our nation must not be lost in the political shuffle.
Eric R. Byer is president of the National Association of Chemical Distributors, an association of more than 440 companies that provide products to over 750,000 end users in industries as diverse and essential as construction, health care, electronics, pulp and paper, water treatment and many others.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/384491-congress-must-act-soon-to-protect-high-risk-facilities
-
Practitioner Insights: Once in is Not Always in With Updated EPA Pollution Policy
Apr 24, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Lianne Mantione and John Lazzaretti
On Jan. 25, Bill Wehrum, the new EPA assistant administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation, issued a memorandum to all regional air division directors rescinding the agency's historic “Once In, Always In” policy for major sources under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants program. Under the policy, once major sources became subject to Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards, they were prohibited from reclassification that would allow them to escape those standards and the additional requirements that go with them, even if subsequent emissions drop well below the program's thresholds. Effectively, once in the program, always in.
The new EPA policy retracts that position. As Administrator Scott Pruitt testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, this updated guidance presents an opportunity to reward major emission sources that have invested the time and money to significantly reduce hazardous air pollutants and that now fall below the major source threshold.
The EPA anticipates publishing a document in the Federal Register to take comment on adding regulatory text that will reflect its current legal interpretation; a move that, if successful, will help solidify and address the bounds of this new policy. Of course, we expect that legal challenges to both the updated policy and any subsequent rulemaking will occur. The EPA's proposal is already receiving pushback from a group of 16 Senate Democrats. In a March 14 letter to Pruitt, the senators urged the EPA to reinstate its prior Once In, Always In policy, at least until the agency has performed a thorough analysis of the policy change and received public comment.
Background
The EPA hazardous air pollutants program applies emission limitations, work practices, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to sources that emit any of 187 listed air pollutants (the so-called “hazardous air pollutants”). The hazardous pollutant program divides covered sources into two categories—major sources and area sources. While the administrator can establish different criteria in certain circumstances, in general, major sources are sources that emit, or have the potential to emit, in the aggregate, 10 tons per year or more of any hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of hazardous air pollutants (42 U.S.C. § 7412). Generally, any source that is not a “major source” is treated as an “area source.” Once the EPA determines that a source category is to be regulated under Clean Air Act Section 112, maximum achievable control technology (MACT) is required for all major sources of hazardous air pollutants in that category. Area sources in that category are typically subject to lesser controls or even no controls. In addition, whether a facility is a major or area source of hazardous air pollutants may affect the applicability of other Clean Air Act requirements, such as when or whether the facility is required to obtain a Title V operating permit. Major sources must obtain operating permits.
Shortly after the EPA began establishing maximum achievable control technology standards, questions arose whether a source category could accept federally enforceable emission limitations below the major source threshold. That would allow the source to avoid being categorized as a major source and instead become a so-called “synthetic minor” source. Under the EPA's prior policy, memorialized in a 1995 guidance memorandum from the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, facilities could become synthetic minor sources but only “until the ‘first compliance date’ of the standard.” In that memorandum, the EPA recognized that the Clean Air Act itself did not establish a deadline for sources to avoid being categorized as “major.” In fact, it was reasonable to presume that “Congress intended a source to have some opportunity to avoid a standard by becoming an area source once it has been identified as subject in a promulgated standard.” Despite this, the EPA determined that once a source was subject to a maximum achievable control technology standard, it must always be subject to that standard. Otherwise, “facilities could ‘backslide’ from MACT control levels by obtaining potential-to-emit limits, escaping applicability of the MACT standard, and increasing emissions to the major-source threshold.”
The EPA's New Policy
Emphasizing the absence of any statutory limit on reclassification of major sources to area sources, the EPA's new guidance memorandum concludes that, contrary to its prior policy also issued in 1995, “the plain language of the definitions of ‘major source’ in CAA section 112(a)(1) and of ‘area source’ in CAA section 112(a)(2) compels the conclusion that a major source becomes an area source at such time that the source has taken an enforceable limit on its potential to emit (PTE) HAP below the major source thresholds (i.e., 10 tons per year (tpy) of any single HAP or 25 tpy of any combination of HAP).” Under these circumstances “a source that was previously classified as major ... will no longer be subject either to the major source MACT or other major source requirements that were applicable to it as a major source under CAA section 112.” As the EPA reasons, “Congress placed no temporal limitations on the determination of whether a source emits or has the PTE Hap in sufficient quantity to qualify as a major source. To the extent the [Once In, Always In] policy imposed such a temporal limitation (i.e., before the ‘first compliance date’), EPA had no authority to do so under the plain language of the statute.”
The latest guidance memorandum explicitly supersedes and withdraws its prior Once In, Always In policy.
What are the Practical Implications?
The new policy is intended to afford “meaningful incentives” for sources to undertake projects that reduce hazardous air pollutant emissions below the major source thresholds. Facilities that have already reduced their emissions below the major source threshold, either through the installation of pollution controls or by accepting production or process limitations, may be able to reduce their regulatory burdens and gain new flexibility by reclassifying themselves from major sources to area sources. Moreover, those sources close to the major source threshold may benefit from new voluntary pollution control projects or permit restrictions that will allow them to operate as area sources rather than major sources.
Four categories of sources in particular should closely consider the potential benefits of the EPA's new policy:
1) Sources that have changed process or product since becoming major sources
Sources that have switched inputs, revised their process, or reformulated their products may find their potential to emit today is much lower than it was when applicable maximum achievable control technology standards went into effect. For those sources that have significantly reduced or eliminated the hazardous pollutants that made them a major source in the first place, the benefits of the new policy may be significant.
2) Sources that have accepted operational limits after becoming major sources
Sources that accepted operational limitations, such as annual restrictions on operating hours or annual production limits, to avoid major source thresholds before the hazardous pollutant standards took effect are already treated as area sources. Facilities that triggered the thresholds and subsequently accepted similar restrictions, however, were stuck in the major source category for maximum achievable control technology purposes. Operators that accepted a recent operational limit, for example became a limited use boiler or process heater under Boiler MACT, or for an emergency generator under RICE MACT, may find their testing, reporting, and recordkeeping burdens reduced now that they are an area source.
3) Sources with potential to emit above the major source threshold, but actual emissions below it
As the EPA pointed out in 1995, a source with the potential to emit hazardous air pollutants above the threshold was still a major source even if it subsequently reduced its emissions to a fraction of the major source criteria. Facilities will want to be careful in accepting new limitations that reduce their future growth potential. But a facility that has a significant gap between its potential to emit and its actual emissions now has the opportunity to accept federally enforceable emission limits that will allow the facility to continue to operate without the burdens associated with a major source standard.
4) Sources unduly constrained by their current hazardous air pollutant standards
Maximum achievable control technology standards tend to apply on a short timescale, imposing restrictions on an hourly or even minute-by-minute basis. The major source threshold, on the other hand, is on a tons-per-year basis. As a result, even for sources whose actual emissions are close to the major source threshold, there can be a significant benefit in moving from a restrictive set of short-term pollution control standards to a set of federally enforceable annual emissions limitations tracked on a monthly basis that ensure the facility is no longer a major source.
Are There Any Drawbacks?
The interaction of Clean Air Act programs can be complex and make what seems like a straightforward permit amendment either much more difficult or even inadvisable. An emission limit that has been incorporated into a state implementation plan, for example, may be much more difficult to remove due to anti-backsliding provisions that apply to plan revisions. Similarly, a source that may benefit from relaxed maximum achievable control technology standards should also consider the effect of such relaxation on the potential to emit for other pollutants and whether easing hazardous air pollutant standards could trigger new obligations under other Clean Air Act programs. For this reason, it is important to carefully consider the implications of any change to the emission limits in a source's operating permit before proceeding toward reclassification.
So What Now?
Permit holders who are regulated as major hazardous pollutant sources should review their current emission profiles to see if they have fallen below the major source thresholds or are close enough to the threshold to make further investigation worthwhile. If a source is now below the threshold or can become so without great cost, it may well be worth a close look to see whether a permit amendment will help make life easier by cutting back on recordkeeping, reporting, and in some cases, operational or emissions limitations that are no longer necessary under the EPA's current Once In, Always In policy.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=132723164&vname=dennotallissues&fn=132723164&jd=132723164
-
California Air District Seeks Rehearing of EPA Ozone Rule Decision
Apr 23, 2018 | Inside EPA
California's South Coast Air Quality Management District, the local air regulator for greater Los Angeles, is seeking a narrow rehearing of a federal appeals court ruling that scrapped large parts of EPA's rule for implementation of federal ozone standards, targeting what they say is a problem with the “baseline year” used for measuring ozone reductions.
In an April 20 filing, the district petitions the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that heard its case, South Coast Air Quality Management District, et al. v. EPA, et al, for rehearing with respect to the “baseline year” from which states must measure “reasonable further progress” (RFP) in curbing air pollution.
The consolidated litigation combined South Coast's challenge to an Obama EPA rule implementing the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) of 75 parts per billion (ppb) with environmentalists' suit against the same rule, in which groups claimed various parts of the rule were too weak.
In the case, South Coast primarily challenged EPA's policy that prohibits areas from counting “out of area” emissions reductions toward their targets for RFP, arguing that some Southern California areas would struggle to attain the NAAQS and demonstrate RFP if they can't count emissions reductions in neighboring areas. Neighboring jurisdictions' air pollution impacts such areas, South Coast argued.
Environmentalists primarily attacked provisions in the Obama-era rule for revoking the prior ozone NAAQS expressed as 84 ppb, dating from 1997, warning that EPA would allow for unlawful “backsliding” in air quality.
In his complex opinion for the court, Judge David Sentelle found that EPA's choice of 2011 as the baseline year for RFP was reasonable, but vacated EPA's allowance for use of alternative baseline years by states, between 2008 and 2012. Sentelle said, “EPA based its creation of the alternative baseline year option on the convenience of allowing nonattainment areas to receive credit for emissions reduction measures adopted prior to the baseline year."
He rejected environmentalists' arguments that the baseline year must be 2012 -- the year EPA issued designations of “nonattainment” for the 2008 NAAQS -- in order to make states' air quality plans as ambitious as possible.
But South Coast now argues that it must be allowed the option of using 2012 in order to avoid unintended conflicts with other regulatory requirements.
The rehearing petition says, “when the court vacated EPA’s rule allowing a range of base years, the court did not realize it was vacating the ability to use 2012, which had a proper statutory basis, i.e., it was the year of designation. The South Coast District respectfully submits that this court should grant panel rehearing for the limited purpose of clarifying that the use of the designation year (2012) is consistent with statute and is therefore allowable.”
Further, “at least in the South Coast District, 2012 was consistent with the most recently available emissions inventory information since South Coast District was required to use the transportation inventory numbers from the 2012 base year for the Regional Transportation Plan.” Shifting to a 2011 base year would entail “unnecessary additional work” that “provides no air quality benefits,” the air district says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/california-air-district-seeks-rehearing-epa-ozone-rule-decision
-
Pruitt Declares That Burning Wood Is Carbon Neutral
Apr 23, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared Monday that burning trees is carbon neutral.
The announcement, made by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt during a meeting with Georgia forestry leaders, signals an administrative policy shift that will treat all burning of biomass as carbon-neutral "when used for energy production at stationary sources," according to an EPA statement.
The administration likened the new policy decision to a clarification, saying it will help streamline regulations for forest and paper industries.
"Today’s announcement grants America’s foresters much-needed certainty and clarity with respect to the carbon neutrality of forest biomass,” Pruitt said in a statement. “Managed forests improve air and water quality, while creating valuable jobs and thousands of products that improve our daily lives. This is environmental stewardship in action.”
Members of Congress have made similar legislative pushes to recognize wood burning as carbon neutral. In 2016, a group of Senators tried to pass the policy change through larger bipartisan energy bill. More recently, a provision included in the fiscal 2018 federal spending bill unveiled in March urged the heads of the EPA and Energy Department to “reflect the carbon-neutrality of forest bioenergy and recognize biomass as a renewable energy source.”
Donna Harman, president of the American Forest and Paper Association, said the policy decision reflects "long-standing scientific principles and Congressional direction."
“We are one of the largest manufacturing sectors in the nation, eager to strengthen the economy and boost U.S. job creation with the support of public policy that levels the playing field with competitors around the globe," Harman said in a statement. "This new EPA policy is an important milestone in implementing the Congressional directive to produce clear and simple policies and acknowledges the scientific record on the carbon neutrality of forest-based, renewable biomass."
The debate over the emissions for burning wood took center stage during the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan discussions, as they considered how to treat wood-burning power plants.
Scientists have long thought that burning biomass, including wood, does emit carbon dioxide pollution and that labeling it carbon neutral is not only inaccurate but could have long-standing negative effects on regulations meant to thwart climate change. But foreign countries have more recently looked toward wood-burning as alternative energy sources that could help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
“Scott Pruitt’s scorched-earth approach at the EPA continues unabated ... Pruitt is once again rewarding his industry pals," said Sami Yassa, senior scientist for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “This will lead to more destruction of our treasured forests and more dangerous carbon pollution.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/384441-pruitt-declares-that-burning-wood-is-carbon-neutral
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested