Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 6/25/2018
-
What Happens When Pruitt Leaves?
Jun 25, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
Scott Pruitt won't be at EPA forever. -
(ACC Mentioned) TSCA Two-Year Anniversary Marked with Rule, Guidance
Jun 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has greeted the second anniversary of the amended TSCA with the release of several statutorily required items. This includes a final mercury reporting rule; a strategy to reduce animal testing; and guidance addressing confidential business information (CBI). -
80 Years Later, Cosmetics Chemicals Still Unregulated
Jun 25, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Scott Faber
It’s been 80 years since Congress last voted to regulate cosmetics. -
New Report: Tackling Lead in Drinking Water at Child Care Facilities
Jun 25, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Lindsay McCormick
Recent crises around lead in drinking water have focused national attention on the harmful effects of children’s exposure to lead. -
Pruitt Takes Credit for Lead Regs Greens Sued to Get
Jun 25, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
EPA is proposing new lead-dust standards to significantly lower acceptable levels for the first time in 17 years. -
Echa BoA Decides on 'Monomer as Impurity' Data Request Row
Jun 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
In a finding that could be significant for industry and member states, Echa's Board of Appeal (BoA) has decided that, in certain cases, the agency can ask REACH registrants of a monomer to provide information about the substance as an unreacted impurity in polymers. -
Top N.Y. Attorney Keeps Legal Pressure on Exxon
Jun 25, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Hulac
-
Exxon Mobil, Chevron Help Form New Methane Emissions Consortium
Jun 25, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
Leading U.S. energy companies Exxon Mobil, Chevron and more said Monday they've formed a new methane emissions consortium focused on reducing greenhouse gas pollution. -
Industry Slams 'Alarmist' Methane Study
Jun 25, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By John Fialka
An oil and gas trade group is attacking environmentalists' study that suggests the industry is emitting far more methane than previously thought. -
Perry Says Economics Are "Secondary" When It Comes to Power Grid
Jun 25, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
Energy Secretary Rick Perry said Monday the threat against the power grid by hackers and others looking to hurt the United States outweighed potential increases in electricity prices brought on by government intervention in the power markets. -
Eagle Ford Holds Miles and Miles of Natural Gas and Oil, Says USGS
Jun 25, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
The Eagle Ford Group in Texas is rich in oil and natural gas, a unique feature for U.S. onshore plays and ranking among the top five in the country, according to a new assessment. -
Work Progressing on Two Gulf Coast LNG Export Projects
Jun 25, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The proposed Calcasieu Pass liquefied natural gas (LNG) export project in Louisiana has secured a draft environmental impact statement from FERC, and sponsors of a Corpus Christi export terminal in South Texas have asked for permission to begin commissioning operations for its first LNG train. -
Editorial: Congress's Action Needed to Renew Effective CFATS Program
Jun 25, 2018 | AG Professional
By Dave Wulf
Five years ago, a fire broke out at a small fertilizer plant in the town of West, Texas, sending local volunteer fire departments racing to the scene. -
A Carbon Tax Could Be the Key to Boosting Innovation and Growth
Jun 25, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Joe Kennedy
Although not everyone has acknowledged it, the central debate about climate change is over. -
EPA to Review Ozone Standard Under Pruitt's New Ground Rules
Jun 25, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
EPA is launching a review of its 2015 ozone standard under controversial new ground rules that will require consideration of potential economic and energy effects with a timetable for completion before the end of President Trump's current term. -
GOP Chairman Takes Aim at Environmental Review Law
Jun 25, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) on Monday said Congress ought to make changes to a core environmental law to make it less of a weapon against projects.
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
-
What Happens When Pruitt Leaves?
Jun 25, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
Scott Pruitt won't be at EPA forever.
So far, the agency administrator has exhibited remarkable staying power. He's weathered a storm of public outcry and federal investigations over his spending on housing, security and travel. And allegations of outlandish purchases continue to pile up. A recent example: EPA shelled out nearly $3,000 on "tactical pants" and "tactical polos" as part of its security expenditures, The Intercept reported last week.
Part of the reason Pruitt has kept his position, many observers speculate, is that President Trump likes the job his EPA chief is doing, and the administration would have a tough time getting a replacement confirmed. But it's unclear how long Pruitt will stick around. Even before the allegations against him reached a fever pitch earlier this year, Pruitt was widely expected to leave the agency before the end of Trump's term. And if Democrats take control of either chamber of Congress in this year's midterm elections, Pruitt will have even more incentive to jump ship to avoid a barrage of uncomfortable oversight hearings.
So what happens to EPA and to Trump's agenda if Pruitt goes?
In terms of leadership changes, the most likely person to temporarily replace Pruitt would be his deputy, Andrew Wheeler. A former coal lobbyist and aide to Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, he is considered to be a possible steadying force in an agency rocked by months of scandals. Those who have worked with Wheeler view him as a collaborative leader who works well across party lines — a contrast to Pruitt's polarizing reputation.
Under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, EPA's second in command is the top choice for taking over the daily functions of the agency, though the president has the authority to pick another qualified replacement either from within EPA or another federal agency.
For example, Trump could choose to follow a line of succession first outlined under the Obama administration. First in line after the deputy would be EPA's general counsel, Matt Leopold, followed by the agency's air chief, Bill Wehrum (Climatewire, April 12).
The Vacancies Act gives acting officials 210 days in office, but the speed with which the president nominates a new administrator and the Senate acts to approve or deny the nominee can stretch the time longer. The acting official can stay in the role as long as a nomination for a new administrator is still pending, for up to two nomination cycles, according to one source familiar with the law.
If the Senate rejects the first nomination, or the current congressional term comes to an end and the president has to renominate an administrator, then the acting administrator will continue in his or her role until the Senate comes to a decision on the second nomination. If at that point the Senate denies the nomination, the president would have to name a new acting administrator and the process would begin again.
What would it mean to be acting administrator during that time period?
Wheeler would have the same decisionmaking authority to act as Pruitt has now. And unlike career officials like Catherine McCabe, who led the agency during the Trump administration transition, Wheeler is a political appointee already working within the administration toward shared policy goals.
"I think Andrew and Scott Pruitt are very well in line on policy, and certainly there is an understanding of where the president is on these issues," said Matt Dempsey, who knew Wheeler from his time on Capitol Hill.
Like Wheeler, Dempsey also worked for Inhofe and the EPW Committee. Dempsey described Wheeler as someone who had worked closely with the press and ran a "strong media operation" as Inhofe's staff director.
"Everyone who works with Andrew loves Andrew. He inspires loyalty," Dempsey added.
Kenneth Kopocis, who led EPA's water office as its deputy assistant administrator during the Obama administration, said it would be unusual for an acting official to halt an action started by the previous administrator, but they do have the ability to make some modifications. Kopocis was nominated by Obama to be the office's assistant administrator but wasn't confirmed due to Senate Republicans' opposition to Obama's environmental policies.
"There is a certain amount of continuation, but part of that is things don't just happen overnight, and once they get started, they take on a certain momentum," Kopocis said.
He noted that when he was first nominated to lead the water office, he was initially reluctant to take on a high profile at the agency.
"When it became clear the Senate was not going to confirm me, there was no reason to maintain a low profile, I was in a position to put forward policies I thought were important," Kopocis said. "Whatever changes I wanted to make, we pursued those. My voice was raised in the process, mostly because there was no reason to be concerned about the Senate's perception."
Wheeler, who was just sworn in this April, has maintained a low profile at the agency as his boss has consistently commanded the attention of political media.
"I don't see him as trying to have the same level of profile that Pruitt has. The best work he's done is well behind the scenes," said Kopocis, who worked across the aisle from Wheeler as an aide to the Senate EPW Committee.
Kopocis recalled that Wheeler had "high willingness" to listen to industry concerns. Kopocis stressed the need for an EPA boss to work with a wide range of outside groups. "A lot of the things EPA does require coalition building, so you have to do coalition building," he said.
While Wheeler's leadership could mean less political drama, it could also raise new concerns for critics of the administration's focus on slashing regulations — including climate rules for vehicles, power plants, and the oil and gas industry.
"For people who don't like this agenda, having this drama is sort of helpful; having a calm, non-attention-getting person to march through could be more effective [at deregulating]," said one former EPA official.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/06/25/stories/1060086245
-
(ACC Mentioned) TSCA Two-Year Anniversary Marked with Rule, Guidance
Jun 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has greeted the second anniversary of the amended TSCA with the release of several statutorily required items. This includes a final mercury reporting rule; a strategy to reduce animal testing; and guidance addressing confidential business information (CBI).
The passage on 22 June 2016 of the Frank R Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act set the agency a number of deadlinesfor its implementation.
Last year, the first anniversary saw the release of three framework rules – on prioritisation, risk evaluation and inventory reset – and scoping documents on the first ten chemicals, subject to risk evaluation under the new law.
Now at the two-year mark, the EPA has issued:a final rule on reporting mercury manufacturing and imports. This will be used in the development of an inventory of mercury and mercury-containing products;a finalised strategy to reduce animal testing. As required by the law, the document promotes the development and implementation of alternative test methods and strategies to reduce, refine, or replace vertebrate animal testing;guidance for accessing confidential business information. This specifies the process for state and local governments, as well as medical and emergency personnel, to request CBI information;the policy for assigning unique identifiers to substances, whose identities are withheld as CBI. This is intended to allow the public to better track information on these, by linking documents concerning the same substance; andguidance on structurally descriptive generic names. This will allow the EPA to share more information with the public about the structure of substances, while protecting the confidential elements of the specific chemical identity.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said regarding the actions that the agency is meeting the statutory responsibilities and deadlines of the new law. This, he added, will "boost transparency and increase public confidence in chemical safety".
And the American Chemistry Council (ACC) commended the EPA for its "ongoing commitment to meeting important deadlines required under the law".
But NGO the Environmental Working Group marked the two-year anniversary with a blog post criticising the ways in which, under the Trump administration the law's implementation has "failed to protect Americans".
Among EWG's concerns are:the "gutting" of the 'framework rules' for conducting risk evaluation;the delayed or abandoned risk management rules for several solvents; and"rubber-stamping" the approval of new chemicals.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68016/tsca-two-year-anniversary-marked-with-rule-guidance
-
80 Years Later, Cosmetics Chemicals Still Unregulated
Jun 25, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Scott Faber
It’s been 80 years since Congress last voted to regulate cosmetics.
And a lot has changed since June 25, 1938 – the day Congress passed the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1938. These days cosmetics are a $60 billion-a-year business, and the average woman uses 12 products with 168 different ingredients every day.
The 1938 law only prohibited the sale of cosmetics with any “poisonous or deleterious substance,” or any “filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance,” so the Food and Drug Administration has so far only banned nine cosmetics ingredients for safety reasons. Members of Congress made other efforts to modernize cosmetics law, starting in the 1950s, but all of these attempts were defeated by the cosmetics industry.
By contrast, Congress has done a lot to improve the safety of other consumer products.
Congress has set safety standards for drugs, food, microwave ovens, toys, medical devices and electric blankets. Congress has regulated cars and cough suppressants. Congress has regulated laser scanners and laser pointers. Congress has taken steps to reduce water pollution and regulate waste disposal. Congress has even set safety standards for pesticides and tobacco.
But not for cosmetics.
Other than subjecting colors used in food, drugs and cosmetics to FDA review, cosmetics law has not changed in 80 years.
Even guns are more heavily regulated than cosmetics. There are more rules governing the chemicals we spray on crops than the chemicals we spray on our bodies.
After 80 years, it’s time for Congress to finally act.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Reps. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., and Leonard Lance, R-N.J., have developed bipartisan legislation that has the support of cosmetics companies, large and small. These bills would require FDA to review the most dangerous chemicals in cosmetics, require companies to tell FDA when contaminated products are in the marketplace, and give FDA the power to act to keep us safe.
But time is running out.
Unless Congress acts quickly, cosmetics law will grow even older – and consumers will remain unprotected from dangerous chemicals in products they put on their skin every day.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/06/80-years-later-cosmetics-chemicals-still-unregulated#.WzEXQ1UzbX4
-
New Report: Tackling Lead in Drinking Water at Child Care Facilities
Jun 25, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Lindsay McCormick
Recent crises around lead in drinking water have focused national attention on the harmful effects of children’s exposure to lead. While the particular vulnerability of children to lead is well understood by most – what might be surprising is that the majority of child care facilities are not required to test their water for lead.
Only 7 states and one city have such regulations on the books. And while the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has provided a voluntary guidance, the “3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water,” for schools and child care, the document has significant gaps in the child care setting – including an outdated action level of 20ppb and little emphasis on identifying and replacing lead service lines.
Given the critical need for more investigation in this area, we conducted a pilot project to evaluate new approaches to testing and remediating lead in water at child care facilities. EDF collaborated with local partners to conduct lead in water testing and remediation in 11 child care facilities in Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi, and Ohio. We have previously blogged about some early takeaways from testing hot water heaters and our preliminary findings from the project. Today, we released our final report, which provides the full results of the pilot and recommendations to better protect children moving forward.
Overall, local partners tested more than 1,500 water samples, resulting in the replacement of 26 of 294 (9%) fixtures. Additionally, we identified and replaced two lead service lines – the lead pipe connecting the main under the street to buildings – at facilities in Chicago and a suburb of Cincinnati.
While more than three out of four water samples had lead levels below 1 ppb, seven of the 11 facilities had at least one drinking water sample above EDF’s health-based benchmark for action of 3.8 ppb (see figure below). Two of these facilities had at least one sample above 80 ppb of lead: 16 times higher than the lead level allowed in bottled water. Replacing fixtures generally was effective, however, we could not always reduce lead levels below 3.8 ppb, likely due to an inadequate NSF International standard allowing new brass fixtures to leach up to 5 ppb of lead.
To succeed in testing and remediating lead in water, child care facility operators, state licensing agencies, and health departments will need support from EPA, water utilities, and NSF International, as well as the families they serve. The report provides recommendations for each of these critical audiences.
Key recommendationsReplace lead service lines in child care facilities when found through review of historical records and visual inspection.Require testing for lead in water in child care facilities for interior sources of lead.Set an interim action level of 5 ppb to investigate and remediate lead sources.Strengthen the NSF International 5 ppb leachability standard to reduce lead in new brass fixtures.
Though child care facilities are currently a major gap in the effort to reduce children’s exposure to lead from drinking water, they also present a critical opportunity for renewed progress in the future.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/06/25/new-report-lead-in-water-child-care-facilities/
-
Pruitt Takes Credit for Lead Regs Greens Sued to Get
Jun 25, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
EPA is proposing new lead-dust standards to significantly lower acceptable levels for the first time in 17 years.
The proposal would quarter the acceptable lead-dust level for floors from 40 to 10 micrograms per square foot and more than halve the acceptable levels for window sills from 250 to 100 micrograms per square foot.
Those levels would bring EPA standards in line with those at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The newly proposed standards follow a January federal appeals court ruling that EPA had illegally delayed updating its lead dust regulations, which had been unchanged since 2001 (Greenwire, Jan. 2).
But EPA credits Administrator Scott Pruitt, not the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, as being the impetus for the rulemaking.
A section of the proposal titled "Why is the Agency taking this action?" explains that Pruitt hosted a February meeting of the President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children.
"At the meeting, the Task Force members committed to make addressing childhood lead exposure a priority and to develop a federal strategy to reduce childhood lead exposures," the proposed rule says. "Today's proposal is a component of EPA's prioritizing the important issues of childhood lead exposure."
E&E News reported in February that a week after the high-profile meeting, multiple EPA staffers who work on lead issues along with officials from other agencies whose work is related to the health risks of the potent neurotoxin said they knew little about the results of the meeting (Greenwire, Feb. 22).
One said at the time, "At this point, I know what you know. I'll probably learn more when I read your article."
EPA's press release announcing the proposal does not mention the lawsuit, saying only that science has evolved since the previous standards were set in 2001.
It provides a statement from Pruitt saying, "Reducing childhood lead exposure is a top priority for EPA."
"Lead-contaminated dust from chipped and peeling lead-based paint is one of the most common causes of elevated blood lead levels in children," the statement says. "Strengthening the standards for lead in dust is an important component of EPA's strategy to curtail childhood lead exposure."
The proposed rule does mention the court case, saying it is "in compliance" with the court's order.
It also argues that the "sufficiency of the standard" was not at issue in the litigation, just the delay in revising the standard.
"It was not until EPA conducted its own analyses — during this rulemaking process — that it was in a position to express the preliminary conclusions that are set forward in this proposal," the statement says.
But the litigation in question resulted from a 2009 petition filed by environmental groups including the Sierra Club and Healthy Homes Collaborative seeking new standards.
EPA granted the petition and took some steps toward promulgating new rules, including forming a scientific advisory panel on the issue.
The groups sued EPA in 2016, arguing the agency was dragging its feet. That litigation only pertained to the lead dust and paint portion of EPA's 2001 lead regulation, which identified dangerous levels of lead in dust, paint and soil.
The proposed rule only addresses the dust and paint standards at issue in the litigation. It would lower the dust standards and leave paint standards, which are already comparable to HUD's, unchanged. It does not address the soil standards.
Doreen Cantor Paster, former branch chief for EPA's lead paint program, said she is "very disappointed" that EPA did not address lead in soil standards in its proposal.
"Lead in soil is a very significant path of exposure to children and contributes to household dust," she said. "It's a gross oversight that they did not put that in this standard."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/06/25/stories/1060086341
-
Echa BoA Decides on 'Monomer as Impurity' Data Request Row
Jun 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
In a finding that could be significant for industry and member states, Echa's Board of Appeal (BoA) has decided that, in certain cases, the agency can ask REACH registrants of a monomer to provide information about the substance as an unreacted impurity in polymers.
The 6 June Decision, which relates specifically to evaluation, emphasises that although polymers are exempt from registration and evaluation under REACH, they are not beyond the scope of the legislation.
Furthermore, the exemption does not extend to monomers, the individual units from which polymers are made.Contested Decision
During evaluation, Echa is permitted to ask registrants for further information to clarify a concern. In 2016 the agency asked registrants of the monomer nonylphenol to provide information on the substance as:an unreacted impurity in polymers manufactured from it; anda degradation product from those polymers.
A group of 12 companies contested the Decision and appealed, arguing that Echa cannot ask for information on polymers when evaluating a monomer. But the BoA has now rejected this argument.
"At the outset, it must be noted that a monomer ceases to be a monomer upon polymerisation, and becomes a different substance within the meaning of Article 3(1), namely a polymer," the BoA said in its Decision.
The polymer exemption – Article 2(9) – must be interpreted strictly, it added, and the appellants' proposed interpretation would not be a strict one. "On the contrary, it would expand the scope of the exception by exempting from evaluation not only polymers per se, but also preventing any information requests on polymers following the evaluation of a monomer."Downstream users
The agency also required the registrants to obtain some of this information from their downstream users who manufacture polymers from nonylphenol. This part of the contested Decision was annulled by the BoA, which also said the appeal fee should be refunded.
"The BoA decision recognises that the information requirements went too far," said the SI Group, one of the appellants and lead registrant for nonylphenol. "Registrants cannot be required to provide data they don't have, and can't legally obtain from downstream companies on the presence of impurities in polymers, or polymer degradation products."
The group added "the appellants are currently considering the Echa BoA decision regarding substance evaluation and are about to agree on a common path forward shortly".
The BoA rejected the appeal insofar as it concerned information about nonylphenol and polymers made by the registrants. The contested Decision had asked for a range of information relating to:tonnages;environmental toxicity endpoints;impurity concentrations; andexposure scenarios.
The registrants now have until 14 December 2019 to provide this information.
Nonylphenol was originally scheduled for evaluation by the UK competent authority, the Health and Safety Executive, in 2014.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67979/echa-boa-decides-on-monomer-as-impurity-data-request-row
-
Top N.Y. Attorney Keeps Legal Pressure on Exxon
Jun 25, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Hulac
The New York attorney general is urging a state judge to force Exxon Mobil Corp. to turn over records related to its finances and a federal investigation.
In court filings, Attorney General Barbara Underwood (D) proposed that New York Supreme Court Judge Barry Ostrager order Exxon to produce internal documents about its financial and climate calculations for 26 facilities worldwide, including in the Canadian oil sands region.
Underwood also requested the court compel Exxon to produce records it gave to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC is investigating Exxon separately over accounting practices and climate change policies.
Underwood — who took over the probe of Exxon from former Attorney General Eric Schneiderman after he resigned following physical abuse allegations — signaled last week she intends to pursue the climate investigation Schneiderman began three years ago.
Lawyers in her office submitted dozens of documents last week in a case the state brought against Exxon and its accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers.
New York said Exxon has refused to comply with two subpoenas it served — the original, which began the inquiry in 2015, and a second filed in May 2017.
When he was in office, Schneiderman said Exxon may have for years deceived investors and the public about how stringently it tests its business against the economic risks of climate change, in turn inflating its value. And the new salvo of documents indicates Underwood is continuing that line of attack.
For about a decade, Exxon has used "proxy costs" in its financial calculations to simulate the effect carbon taxes could have on its business and specific projects, according to the company.
But in court papers, the state said Exxon analysts and planners have haphazardly used its proxy cost system to see how projects would fare under such taxes, and that the company has used a lower cost than it told investors.
"The evidence shows," the state said, "that Exxon maintained an undisclosed internal corporate policy ... which directed its business units to use a second set of proxy costs."
Those costs "were significantly lower and less protective against climate change risk," John Oleske of Underwood's office said in court filings.
Former Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson may have known about this mismatch in 2014, according to Oleske. "It appears that Mr. Tillerson had known about and expressly approved this discrepancy for at least the prior three years," he said.
Investigators for the attorney general's office have examined at least 12 Exxon witnesses in their inquiry, including greenhouse gas analyst Jason Iwanika, an employee of Imperial Oil Ltd., a Canadian subsidiary of Exxon's.
Exxon attorneys sought last year to shield Iwanika from testifying. Schneiderman said at the time the company had directed him not to "apply a proxy cost to Exxon's Canadian oil sands projects" (Climatewire, July 17, 2017).
The state said Tuesday it wants to see "cash flow spreadsheets" for 26 Exxon "projects" and "assets" worldwide in order to understand whether and how the company implements its proxy costs.
Facilities in question include four Canadian oil sands projects; two upstream projects in Russia; six petrochemical projects in Europe, the United States and Canada; and three projects run by XTO Energy Inc., Exxon's natural gas arm, in the United States.
Despite scientific warnings that greenhouse gas emissions must decrease to protect the planet, and indications — such as the Paris climate accord — that governments are growing serious about limiting the release of heat-trapping gases, Exxon thought carbon prices would stay flat, according to the state.
"Exxon frequently acted in a manner directly contrary to its representations by assuming that carbon policies would not become more stringent, but instead would remain the same decades into the future," Oleske said.
A New York federal judge in March tossed a lawsuit Exxon filed to block the New York probe and a similar probe by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey (D) (Greenwire, March 30).
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/06/25/stories/1060086247
-
Exxon Mobil, Chevron Help Form New Methane Emissions Consortium
Jun 25, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
Leading U.S. energy companies Exxon Mobil, Chevron and more said Monday they've formed a new methane emissions consortium focused on reducing greenhouse gas pollution.
The new Collaboratory for Advancing Methane Science, nicknamed CAMS, will pursue focus on scientific research and solutions to reduce methane emissions from oil and gas drilling through the refining and petrochemical processes.
Methane, the main component of natural gas, is a potent greenhouse gas that traps considerably more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, helping to accelerate climate change.
The announcement comes less than a week after a new academic research report found that U.S. oil and gas operations are releasing far more methane into the atmosphere than the federal government estimates, causing more harm to the environment and hurting the case for cleaner-burning natural gas as a bridge fuel to a carbon-free future.
The six-year study on methane found that annual emission rates from energy companies are about 60 percent higher than what the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports. The Environmental Defense Fund-led study was published in the prominent academic journal Science.
The new CAMS group will be managed by the Iowa-based Gas Technology Institute with the founding participants including Irving-based Exxon Mobil, California's Chevron, Houston-based Cheniere Energy, Dallas-based Pioneer Natural Resources and Norway's Equinor, which recently changed its name from Statoil.
"As a leading energy company, we are committed to continually reducing methane emissions," said Sara Ortwein, president of Exxon Mobil's U.S. shale subsidiary, XTO Energy. "The right partnerships are critical for success, and participating in CAMS will expand industry learning on solutions that can make a difference."
Exxon Mobil said it already has reduced its U.S. onshore methane emissions by 9 percent since 2016.
Most of the previously unreported emissions come from infrequent malfunctions at oil and gas wells that release large amounts of methane into the air without detection for prolonged periods of time.
That means the emissions can be reduced or eliminated if companies invest more in methane sensing and capture technologies at oil and gas wells to prevent these leaks or, at least, quickly detect and fix them. The study argued that more stringent state and federal regulations are needed to require these extra measures.
Dramatically reducing methane emissions is considered critical to the energy industry, which is investing billions of dollars in natural gas production and liquefied natural gas processing as it faces tighter climate change rules around the world. Booming U.S. natural gas production is expected to surge by another 60 percent during the next 20 years, according the research firm IHS Markit.Already, some of the nation's biggest oil and gas companies are moving to curb methane emissions. For instance, Exxon Mobil, the nation's largest natural gas producer, said last fall it would stem its methane emissions from its U.S. onshore activities. In May, it pledged a broader effort to reduce methane emissions by 15 percent worldwide by 2020.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Exxon-Mobil-Chevron-and-more-form-new-methane-13023787.php
-
Industry Slams 'Alarmist' Methane Study
Jun 25, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By John Fialka
An oil and gas trade group is attacking environmentalists' study that suggests the industry is emitting far more methane than previously thought.
The Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), which represents many of the companies involved in natural gas drilling and processing, is criticizing an Environmental Defense Fund report that concluded last week that the industry leaks 60 percent more methane that past studies have shown. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas that has a major impact on global warming.
EDF responded on Saturday, asserting that after five years of cooperating with the industry, it also used aircraft that sampled methane emissions over facilities and over entire natural gas basins without consulting the companies. The point was to remove any potential industry bias from the findings, said David Lyon, an EDF scientist who worked on the study.
"We have a bias," Lyon said. "We want to reduce emissions."
The clash between the influential New York-based environmental group and the trade association that represents the booming U.S. natural gas industry will play out this week starting tomorrow, when the World Gas Conference, which represents the global industry, opens its annual conference in Washington, D.C.
Speakers from EDF, which has spent five years trying to measure methane leaks from the U.S. industry, will appear in at least three sessions. The group's study estimates the leaks cost industry investors $2 billion a year in losses. Fred Krupp, EDF's president, and other representatives will argue that stopping industrial leaks of methane — a major component of natural gas — will be one of the quickest and cheapest ways to slow climate change.
According to Seth Whitehead, a spokesman for the IPAA on the leakage issue, his group will respond that the EDF report is "alarmist" and "raises a number of red flags" that should be part of the discussion about the amount of leakage and how easy it might be to fix.
"EDF has worked with industry in the past, but that wasn't the case at all on this report," Whitehead said in an interview. The IPAA critique of EDF's study, which he helped write for a "research outreach" team, asserts that EDF never found any cases of industry bias in reporting leakage statistics.
In an interview, Lyon said that one study done by EDF and scientists at Colorado University found that companies that agreed to partner with EPA on its leakage estimates had fewer emissions than companies that didn't.
While EDF had permission to work with companies on their property to measure leakage of specific facilities, it also used surveys from aircraft or collected emissions while driving on nearby public roads to see whether the data matched, he explained.
Whitehead said that EDF's leakage findings were "outliers" not only with previous methane studies, but also with previous EDF studies that found lower leakage rates. He said that the finding that a 2.3 percent annual leakage made the natural gas industry's emissions more potent in terms of global warming than emissions from U.S. coal-fired power plants was untrue.
"EDF has never gone there before. Frankly the [natural gas] industry sees that as not reflecting the science, but as reflecting more of a political motivation," he said.
Lyon said EDF hopes in the future to continue collaborating with the industry, but the environmental group has also been raising funds to launch a space satellite called MethaneSAT that, it hopes, will be ready by 2021 to measure methane emissions from any facility or area on Earth.
Whitehead argued the current flap over leakage rates should be settled first. "Generally speaking, the industry thinks that EDF definitely needs to get this right before they go on to the next step with the satellite. It's clear that there are some red flags here that at least deserve scrutiny."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/06/25/stories/1060086249
-
Perry Says Economics Are "Secondary" When It Comes to Power Grid
Jun 25, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
Energy Secretary Rick Perry said Monday the threat against the power grid by hackers and others looking to hurt the United States outweighed potential increases in electricity prices brought on by government intervention in the power markets.
"The economics is secondary from my perspective," he said, during a meeting with reporters in Washington Monday. "You have the potential to have some really chaotic events in the country. That is the Department of Energy's responsibility to make sure that does not happen. I look at this not unlike the decisions that get made at [the Department of Defense]."
The Trump administration is currently weighing options to halt or slow down the high number of U.S. coal and nuclear plants closures in recent years. Earlier this month President Donald Trump ordered Perry to "prepare immediate steps," at the same time as the leak of an Energy Department memo describing an unprecedented use of national security powers in potentially ordering power grid operators to buy electricity from a list of struggling coal and nuclear plants for two years.
In his comments Monday, Perry said no decision had been made yet but indicated the administration was looking to move quickly, stating approximately 50,000 megawatts of coal and nuclear plants are scheduled to close over the next two years.
"We're looking at the all contingencies," he said. "Once you take a nuclear plant offline, shut down a coal plant, it's very difficult to get it back."
The administration's efforts to save coal and nuclear plants through higher rates have soured many U.S. business leaders, perhaps none more so than the natural gas drillers in Perry's home state of Texas.
During the meeting, which was scheduled ahead of the former Texas governor's scheduled appearance at the World Gas Conference in Washington on Tuesday, Perry repeatedly praised the U.S. natural gas industry's exponential growth over the past decade and referred to himself as "a pretty successful LNG salesman," referring to his efforts to get other world leaders to build import facilities to take U.S. liquefied natural gas.
But Perry said an advancing cyber threat was forcing the administration hand, and in the event of widespread blackouts no one would take comfort in having paid less for electricity.
"Historically, we have looked at power more through the lens of the market. What was fine and good. I have a history of being in that camp," he said. "The world has really changed, particularly from the standpoint of cyber."
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Perry-says-economics-are-secondary-when-it-13023834.php
-
Eagle Ford Holds Miles and Miles of Natural Gas and Oil, Says USGS
Jun 25, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
The Eagle Ford Group in Texas is rich in oil and natural gas, a unique feature for U.S. onshore plays and ranking among the top five in the country, according to a new assessment.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimated the play holds undiscovered, technically recoverable resources totaling 8.5 billion bbl of oil, 66 Tcf of natural gas and 1.9 billion bbl of natural gas liquids. The updated estimateconsists of resources in continuous accumulations.
“This assessment is a bit different than previous ones, because it ranks in the top five of assessments we’ve done of continuous resources for both oil and gas,” said USGS scientist Kate Whidden, the report's lead author. “Usually, formations produce primarily oil or gas, but the Eagle Ford is rich in both.”
Continuous oil and gas is dispersed throughout a geologic formation rather than existing as discrete, localized occurrences, such as those in conventional accumulations. Because of that, continuous resources commonly require special technical drilling and recovery methods, such as hydraulic fracturing.
“Texas is so well known for its history of oil and gas production that it’s almost synonymous with petroleum,” said USGS Director Jim Reilly. “Texas continues to remain in the forefront of our nation's energy supply chain with remarkable increases in production and reserves due to the revolutionary unconventional techniques used to release previously unrecoverable resources.”
The “Eagle Ford Group,” as USGS describes it rather than only as a “shale” play, stretches from the Texas-Mexico border to the west, across portions of South and East Texas to the Texas-Louisiana border to the east. The play is comprised of mudstone, with varying amounts of carbonate.
The Eagle Ford long has been known to contain oil and gas, but it was not until 2008 that production in the formation ramped up in the East Texas portion of the play, which many producers refer to as the Upper Eagle Ford and Eaglebine.
“Seven continuous assessment units (AU) were defined for the Eagle Ford Group and associated Cenomanian–Turonian strata across the study area, based on lithology, stratal thickness, thermal maturity, regional geologic features, and spatial distribution of productive fairways,” the report said.
AUs within a total petroleum system are defined by strata that share similar structural and petroleum-charge histories along with lithology and stratigraphy.
The USGS assessed oil and gas resources for six continuous AUs in the Eagle Ford Group and associated Cenomanian–Turonian strata in the Gulf Coast region of Texas. The assessment determined the Eagle Ford is one of the top five largest continuous resources for both oil and gas assessed in the United States.
“The Eagle Ford Group contains one of the most prolific continuous accumulations of oil and gas in the United States; its composition is predominantly mudstone and calcareous mudstone (marl) with organic-rich intervals,” according to the report.
Undiscovered resources are those that are estimated to exist based on geologic knowledge and statistical analysis of known resources, while technically recoverable resources can be produced using available technology and industry practices. Whether or not it is profitable to produce the resources was not evaluated.
The USGS provides “unbiased assessments of U.S. and global energy resources,” said Reilly. “We regularly reassess potential resources, as we have for the Eagle Ford in this report, in response to changes in estimated ultimate recovery as new techniques or productive horizons are pioneered.”
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114829-eagle-ford-holds-miles-and-miles-of-natural-gas-and-oil-says-usgs
-
Work Progressing on Two Gulf Coast LNG Export Projects
Jun 25, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The proposed Calcasieu Pass liquefied natural gas (LNG) export project in Louisiana has secured a draft environmental impact statement from FERC, and sponsors of a Corpus Christi export terminal in South Texas have asked for permission to begin commissioning operations for its first LNG train.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said that while the Calcasieu Pass project would create adverse environmental impacts, most would be temporary or short-term and the remainder "would be reduced to less than significant levels" if the project's backers adhere to a list of mitigation measures.
Meanwhile, Cheniere Energy Inc. filed a request with FERC earlier this month for authorization to introduce fuel gas to commission Train 1 at its Corpus Christi Liquefaction (CCL) Project in South Texas.
In a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) issued Friday, FERC said Calcasieu Pass, a project proposed by Venture Global Calcasieu Pass LLC (VGCP) and TransCameron Pipeline LLC, would impact the environment. But Commission staff added that a list of 118 recommendations, if adopted by the project's backers, "would appropriately and reasonably reduce the environmental impacts resulting from construction and operation of the project.
"Therefore, we are recommending that our mitigation measures be attached as conditions to any authorization issued by the Commission." FERC will accept public comments on the DEIS until August 13.
The Calcasieu Pass Project, which would be built on a 930-acre site in Cameron Parish, LA, calls for construction of liquefaction facilities with a design production capacity of 12 million metric tons/year (mmty) of LNG. It also includes two 200,000 cubic meter LNG storage tanks; two LNG berthing docks, designed to handle carriers of 120,000-210,000 cubic meter cargo capacity; and a 1,500-foot by 3,000-foot turning basin adjacent to the Calcasieu River Ship Channel. All would be built and operated by VGCP, a subsidiary of Venture Global LNG [CP15-550].
The project also calls for constructing 23.4 miles of 42-inch diameter pipeline to bring feed gas to the terminal site. The pipeline, which would have interconnections with ANR Pipeline Co., Texas Eastern Transmission LP and Bridgeline Holdings LP --and associated infrastructure would be built and operated by TransCameron [CP15-551].
VGCP and TransCameron filed a joint application for FERC authorization of Calcasieu Pass in September 2015. The project is tentatively scheduled to begin operations in 2022.
Last month, VGCP secured a 20-year sales and purchase agreement (SPA) with BP plc for 2 mmty of LNG on a free-on-board basis. VGCP also has 20-year SPAs with Shell NA LNG LLC (2 mmty), a Royal Dutch Shell plc subsidiary; Italy's Edison SpA (1 mmty); and Portugal's Galp (1 mmty).
CCL’s Train 1
In a June 7 filing, CCL asked FERC for permission to introduce fuel gas to commission Train 1. It requested the Commission make a decision on the authorization by Friday (June 29) [CP12-507].
Last month, Cheniere made a final investment decision (FID) to build a third train at the CCL Project. It also issued a notice to proceed to engineering, procurement and contractor firm Bechtel Oil, Gas and Chemicals Inc. to ramp up construction of the facility.
Each train of the CCL Project is expected to have a nominal production capacity of about 4.5 mmty. The first two trains are scheduled to begin service in 2019; an LNG train takes about four years to build. The move to expand the Corpus Christi facility is the country's first natural gas export-related FID in three years.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114830-work-progressing-on-two-gulf-coast-lng-export-projects
-
Editorial: Congress's Action Needed to Renew Effective CFATS Program
Jun 25, 2018 | AG Professional
By Dave Wulf
Five years ago, a fire broke out at a small fertilizer plant in the town of West, Texas, sending local volunteer fire departments racing to the scene. Twenty minutes later, the plant exploded, fatally injuring 12 emergency responders and 3 members of the public, sending a cloud of smoke up over the town, and causing more than 260 injured residents to seek medical care. The force of the explosion blew out windows and destroyed walls. During the years of recovery that followed, more than half of the damaged buildings nearby– including two schools, an apartment complex, a nursing home, and hundreds of houses – had to be demolished. Who was responsible for the fire remains unsolved, with an outstanding reward of $50,000 being offered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). While the 2013 incident was not considered a terrorist attack, it serves as a stark reminder that the very workplaces that drive our economy could also, if unprotected and targeted by an adversary, be the source of death and destruction.
Terrorists have a long history of being attracted to the use of chemicals in an attack, and facilities with chemicals continue to be targeted by terrorist groups around the world seeking to cause releases onsite or acquire materials to be used in attacks elsewhere. The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) regulatory program was born in 2006, when Congress, recognizing the continued threat, acted to close security gaps at high-risk facilities.
After more than 11 years, the CFATS program has worked with companies to implement tens of thousands of security measures that reduce the risk posed by more than 300 potentially dangerous chemicals. The program focuses on preventing chemicals from being stolen, diverted, sabotaged or deliberately released by terrorists or other bad actors. CFATS currently covers approximately 3,400 chemical facilities that have been assessed to present a high risk of terrorist attack or exploitation, and California is home to approximately 350 of them.
Chemicals are essential to a broad swath of American businesses, and with few exceptions, the CFATS regulation and its initial reporting requirements apply to any facility holding threshold amounts of designated "chemicals of interest." The universe of high-risk facilities is accordingly diverse---ranging from chemical manufacturers and refineries to universities, laboratories, and agricultural retailers---and is not limited to those traditionally considered part of the chemical industry. Take the wine industry in California, for example. While your glass of merlot may not spring to mind as a potential terrorist weapon, some wineries use high-risk chemicals to sanitize and disinfect equipment or to facilitate refrigeration. When used properly, these chemicals are an important part of commerce—in the wrong hands, they can be deadly.
From perimeter controls to cyber security measures, CFATS has been very successful in enhancing security at high-risk chemical facilities. The program is targeted at the highest-risk facilities and, importantly given the diversity of the chemical sector, it is a flexible regulatory framework, providing a non-prescriptive set of standards that can be tailored to a company’s operating environment. We have built a regulatory environment grounded in continuous, constructive dialogue with industry stakeholders--a cooperative approach that is on display this week in Oakland as government and industry stakeholders gather to discuss security-related best practices and CFATS policies. This culture of security we have worked together to foster is the envy of the world, having made a truly hard target of America's highest-risk facilities and serving as a deterrent to adversaries.
Unfortunately, we are at risk of losing ground and rolling back the progress we've made in securing our nation's highest-risk chemical facilities. Congressional authorization for CFATS is set to expire in January 2019, and legislative action is needed to reauthorize this vital national security program. Seventeen years after 9/11, we continue to live in a dynamic threat environment, and the threat that gave rise to CFATS is as real as it has ever been. We at the Department of Homeland Security are committed to working with Congress to reauthorize CFATS for the long term and to working with our stakeholders to continue to protect our communities and our nation from the threat of chemical terrorism.https://www.agprofessional.com/article/editorial-congresss-action-needed-renew-effective-cfats-program
-
A Carbon Tax Could Be the Key to Boosting Innovation and Growth
Jun 25, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Joe Kennedy
Although not everyone has acknowledged it, the central debate about climate change is over. For some time, there has been broad scientific consensus that the earth is warming, that emissions of greenhouse gases associated with economic activity are a partial cause, and that, if nothing is done, the earth is likely to suffer from catastrophic environmental costs in the distant future. Denial of climate change is no more scientifically valid than opposition to vaccines or genetically modified crops.
This scientific consensus leaves many questions unanswered, however, including what to do about the impending rise in temperatures. It doesn’t mean countries should impose drastic measures that would dramatically slow economic growth. But it does mean the United States and other nations will eventually take actions to slow greenhouse emissions. A carbon tax should be a key policy tool they use.
Properly implemented, a carbon tax will induce additional innovation in both efficiency and cleaner sources of energy, which will lower the costs of reducing carbon emissions. Moreover, it will generate revenues, that if recycled to increase tax incentives for further research and capital equipment investment could lead to a net boost to growth.
A carbon tax addresses a clear market failure. When firms emit carbon dioxide, they increase global warming, which increases the costs of global warming. But because the connection between their individual emissions and the environmental cost is infinitesimal, these costs do not influence their decisions. Instead, they use carbon-based fuel until its cost exceeds the economic benefit of burning it. They also do not devote many resources to generating clean energy innovations.
By raising the cost of carbon-intensive energy, a carbon tax makes companies consider environmental costs, spurring both the development and adoption of cleaner technologies. But what should the tax rate be? The optimal rate would be one that reflects the total societal cost from emitting carbon into the atmosphere. Most models estimate that this would be somewhere between $15 and $25 per ton of carbon, rising over time. To put that in perspective, a $25 per ton carbon tax would mean that the price of a gallon of gasoline would rise by 22 cents.
A rise in the price of “dirty” energy will cause organizations and consumers to use relatively less of it. But it will also cause companies to invest more effort in coming up with innovations that improve energy efficiency and make low-carbon fuels cheaper, reducing the economic impact of the tax. One model shows that such induced innovation could reduce the economic cost of a carbon tax by as much as 30 percent.
Most economists believe a carbon tax is the most efficient way to reduce emissions. Traditional command and control regulation tends to be too complex and slow to change, making it ill-suited to control the myriad activities that emit carbon.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a carbon tax of $25 per metric ton rising in real terms by 2 percent annually would produce $977 billion in the first decade. These revenues are critical to addressing a second market failure that limits growth.
Virtually all taxes reduce economic growth to some extent. Although a carbon tax would mainly affect consumption, not investment, it would still lower GDP from what it otherwise would be. This would be true even if the environmental benefits outweighed the social cost. However, recycling the tax revenues wisely can restore much of this growth. Numerous studies show that both research and capital equipment investment play a large role in boosting economic growth, but only a portion of the economic benefit from research or capital investment is captured by the company that makes it. A large portion goes to the rest of society. Unfortunately, companies do not take these benefits into account when deciding how much to invest. Because of these spillovers, society would be much better off if companies conducted more research and boosted investment in machinery and equipment.
Using carbon tax revenues to lower the after-tax cost of research and capital investment would boost economic growth, offsetting most, if not all, of the effects of the tax increase. To do so, Congress could increase the research and development tax credit. It could make permanent the expensing of capital equipment, which is now scheduled to expire in five years. It could also implement an innovation box, whereby companies pay lower taxes on profits derived from intellectual property, provided that the research and most production occur in the United States.
Despite progress on clean technology, including solar power and wind, we are still a long way from where clean energy costs less than dirty energy. And if we are to have any hope of reducing the rate of climate change, clean energy has to be truly affordable, absent government subsidies. Speeding this transition requires policies that address the market failures that lead to environmental degradation and inadequate investment. Done right, it is quite possible that this strategy could not only reduce emissions but increase GDP growth while also placing the United States at the forefront of some of the future’s most promising technologies.
http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/393748-a-carbon-tax-could-be-the-key-to-boosting-innovation-and-growth
-
EPA to Review Ozone Standard Under Pruitt's New Ground Rules
Jun 25, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
EPA is launching a review of its 2015 ozone standard under controversial new ground rules that will require consideration of potential economic and energy effects with a timetable for completion before the end of President Trump's current term.
Set to be formally announced in tomorrow's Federal Register, the move will be the first to be conducted under the terms set last month by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in what was described as a "back-to-basics" memo.
Among other features, the memo calls for all reviews of air quality standards for ozone and five other common pollutants to be completed within the statutory five-year schedule set by the Clean Air Act.
Pruitt is also ordering an outside panel, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, to provide feedback on any "adverse public health, welfare, social, economic or energy effects" that may result from the setting of a new standard or compliance with an existing one.
Critics have denounced the latter provision as a ploy to sidestep the requirement that public health be the sole benchmark in setting air quality standards.
In a letter to Pruitt earlier this month, Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) and 70 other House Democrats had blasted the requirement as a "highly objectionable" attempt to put potential compliance costs into play and urged Pruitt to drop it. In a statement this afternoon, Beyer labeled the new ozone standard review "illegal and immoral."
"Undermining clean air standards will expose people to pollution, and make them sick and unhealthy," Beyer said.
EPA rarely, if ever, meets the five-year deadline for reviewing air quality standards. Because the agency is beginning the new assessment of the ozone threshold almost three years after completion of the last review in October 2015, Pruitt's memo means the new review must be completed by October 2020, an abbreviated timetable that has no recent precedent.
Apart from confirming that the review is beginning, an EPA spokeswoman had no comment this morning.
The new review will begin as EPA is still locked in a court battle over the 70 parts per billion ozone standard set three years ago.
Environmental and public health groups argue scientific evidence warrants setting the standard even tighter. Industry organizations like that American Petroleum Institute contend that the standard should have been left at its previous level of 75 ppb.
"We need science-based polices that make sense," API spokesman Reid Porter said in an interview this afternoon when asked whether the institute would see a return to the 75 ppb threshold as a desirable outcome of the new review.
At the Trump administration's request, legal proceedings in the litigation before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit have been on hold since April 2017 while EPA ponders whether to continue its defense of the 70 ppb standard; in a recent filing, the agency asked the court to give it until the beginning of August to chart its next step administratively (Greenwire, June 11).
Ozone, the main ingredient in smog, is spawned by the reaction of volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides in sunlight. It is linked to asthma attacks in children and aggravated breathing problems in people with emphysema and other chronic respiratory diseases. In tightening the standard to 70 ppb, EPA cited the need to protect the public in light of mounting evidence on ozone's health effects.
The Federal Register notice set for publication tomorrow begins a 60-day comment period on the plan that will guide the review, as well as the "integrated science assessment" that is essentially a roundup of all the research that will be considered.
In a separate notice, EPA is allowing four months for feedback to "facilitate" the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee's consideration of the potentially adverse effects related to implementation and maintenance of air quality standards.
Under the Clean Air Act, the five-year review requirements apply to the standards for ozone, particulate matter, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and lead.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/06/25/stories/1060086349
-
GOP Chairman Takes Aim at Environmental Review Law
Jun 25, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) on Monday said Congress ought to make changes to a core environmental law to make it less of a weapon against projects.
Bishop, the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said on Hill.TV’s “Rising” that the National Environmental Policy Act’s (NEPA) permitting process is the main roadblock standing in the way of projects like oil and natural gas drilling on federal land and building more infrastructure.
“The country passed NEPA ... decades ago, in order to ensure that people have the right to have their voices heard. It is now being misused to ensure people have the right to sue continuously to slow projects down,” Bishop told “Rising” host Buck Sexton.
“So projects that can be leased, did all the requirements they need to do, can wait up to 10 years before they can actually get a permit to start being in production. And that does no good for the industry, and it doesn’t do any good for Americans.”
Bishop and his committee have repeatedly acted to try to streamline the environmental review process, with promises that it would not hurt environmental protections.
Environmentalists and Democrats say the GOP is trying to dismantle important environmental protections and opportunities for public input before projects are undertaken.
“Republicans have a personal vendetta against NEPA or any bedrock environmental law that favors the American people over money-hungry, big corporate developers,” Rep. Raul Grijalva (Ariz.), the Natural Resources Committee’s top Democrat, said in April when the panel held a hearing on “weaponization” of NEPA.
Bishop said letting states take over permitting for some federal land actions would greatly improve the situation.
“The federal government can establish the standards for development, let the states do the permitting process,” Bishop said Monday. “They can do in a matter of months what it takes us, federal government, years to actually accomplish. And states are not going to be litigated against as much as the federal government will.”
http://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/393924-bishop-takes-aim-at-environmental-review-law
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