Preview Newsletter
AM ACC Clips Report - July 3, 2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) Auto Plastics Supply Chain Warns Against U.S. Tariffs on Imported Cars and Components
Jul 2, 2018 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
Potential U.S. tariffs on automobiles and auto components are drawing strong opposition from some quarters of the plastics supply chain. -
U.S. Chamber Says Texas, Pennsylvania Among States Hit Hardest by Looming Trade War
Jul 2, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said six states, including major natural gas and oil producers Texas and Pennsylvania, would be hurt the most in an escalating trade war with Canada, China and the European Union (EU), which have retaliated for tariffs enacted by the Trump administration... -
EPA Extends Deadline for Comment on Cost-Benefit Rule
Jul 3, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA is extending by one month -- from July 13 to August 13 -- its deadline for public input on EPA's proposed rule overhauling the agency's cost-benefit analysis methods, after requests from environmentalists and state groups who argued that the proposed rule is complex and has the potential to affect many of other agency rulemakings. -
Former Top EPA Union Official Sees Urgent Need To Rebuild Agency Staff
Jul 2, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
John O'Grady, the recently retired head of EPA's biggest union, says there is an urgent need to rebuild the agency's dwindling workforce but fears any such effort is unlikely until the next presidential administration, adding that criticism of EPA from President Donald Trump and Congress risks discouraging younger people from working for it. -
US EPA Issues Final Toxic Substances Control Act Mercury Reporting Rule
Jul 2, 2018 | National Law Review
By Stephen A. Owens
On June 27, 2018 US EPA formally published its final rule under the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to require reporting by persons who manufacture, import or intentionally use mercury and certain “mercury-added products.” -
US EPA received 41 PMNs in March
Jul 3, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA received 41 pre-manufacture notices in March. Among these were 18 new PMNs and 23 amendments to existing ones. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Stalls Formaldehyde Study, Despite Congress' Direction, Agency Pledge
Jul 2, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA's reluctance to advance its latest draft assessment of the human health risks of formaldehyde, allegedly because political appointees have blocked its release, appears to be at odds with Congress' direction in the agency's 2017 budget for officials... -
Plastic Microbeads Bans for Soaps, Toothpaste Going Into Effect
Jul 3, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
Canada, the United Kingdom, and the U.S. have removed products containing microbeads from store shelves. -
Washington State Seeks 'Prevention Approach' on Flame Retardants
Jul 3, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Washington state's ecology department (ECY) is looking to shift its approach on managing flame retardants towards one of prevention – that is, acting before harm has occurred – a recent meeting has heard. -
Plastic Straws Aren’t Just Bad for the Environment — They Can Be Bad for Your Body
Jul 3, 2018 | Washington Post
By Christy Brissette
Just a few years ago, you automatically received a straw with any cold takeout drink and probably didn’t think twice about it. -
(ACC Mentioned) Canada's Industry Sees Opportunity in U.S. Tariffs
Jul 3, 2018 | Houston Chronicle (In E&E Energywire)
By Katherine Blunt
Incentives offered by the province of Alberta could help boost the fortunes of Canada's petrochemical industry, at a time when U.S. trade policy threatens to pare back some of the American industry's advantage. -
Breaking Tradition, PHMSA Endorses Enbridge Replacement Line
Jul 3, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
The Trump administration's top pipeline safety official has endorsed a proposed Enbridge Inc. oil sands pipeline replacement, telling Minnesota regulators that it will help prevent future accidents. -
Sabal Trail Pipeline Won't Seek Review on 2017 Climate Ruling
Jul 3, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Developers of a Southeast natural gas pipeline will not ask the Supreme Court to review a landmark 2017 ruling focused on how the government weighs climate impacts. -
Occidental Chemical Seeks to Split $250 Million Cleanup Bill
Jul 2, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
More than 100 companies, including 3M, General Electric, and Johnson & Johnson could split a $250 million bill for designing a cleanup plan for one of New Jersey’s most contaminated waterways. -
Senators Tout Bipartisan Bill To Speed Permits With Two-Year 'Goal'
Jul 2, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
A bipartisan pair of senators is touting legislation that would extend a 2015 law intended to speed environmental review and permitting of large federal infrastructure projects, aiming to broaden the number of projects that qualify for help under a special permitting council and codify a two-year “goal” for completing permits. -
After Philly Crash, Railroads Got More Time to Install a Key Safety System. Three Years Later, Some Still Lag Behind
Jul 3, 2018 | Philadelphia Inquirer
By Jason Laughlin & Jonathan Tamari
After Amtrak Train 188 derailed in Philadelphia on May 12, 2015, national safety experts said the accident that killed eight and injured hundreds could have been prevented with a safety fix Congress had mandated in 2008: Positive Train Control. -
Can Blockchain Fix the Ocean Plastic Problem?
Jul 2, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
In the ocean between Hawaii and California, some 87,000 tons of plastic and other debris float in a swelling oceanic trash dump. -
Rhode Island Climate Fight Pits Small State Against Big Oil
Jul 2, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
The fight to bring oil giants such as ExxonMobil Corp., BP plc, and Chevron Corp. to court for their contributions to climate change is no longer just a local effort—it has reached the state level. -
Utah Oil Drillers Won Pollution Break After Pruitt Joined EPA
Jul 3, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Emily Holden
Utah oil and gas producers tried for years to get the EPA to exempt them from smog rules meant to prevent ailments like asthma. -
EPA's 'Good Neighbor' Proposal Sparks Criticism
Jul 2, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
Connecticut regulators, joined by a top Senate Democrat, are panning EPA's tentative decision to stick with the status quo to satisfy "good neighbor" requirements in its 2008 ozone standard. -
EPA Help With Transported Pollution May Vary by Region, States Say
Jul 2, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid Reporter
The EPA is trying to help states struggling with poor air quality owing to interstate transport of ozone-forming pollutants, but that assistance may vary depending on where the states are. -
Top Conservative Groups Urge Trump to Reject Climate Change Agreement
Jul 2, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
Over 20 national and state conservative groups are urging the Trump administration to reject an international agreement that aims to fix climate change by limiting the use of a chemical commonly found in refrigerators. -
Industry Oversight of Michigan Environmental Policy Sparks Concern
Jul 2, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alex Ebert
Michigan’s next governor will determine whether new oversight boards will give the state’s industries more influence over environmental policy or be seen as an unconstitutional power shift, an environmental group said.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Jul 2, 2018 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
Potential U.S. tariffs on automobiles and auto components are drawing strong opposition from some quarters of the plastics supply chain.
The American Chemistry Council, for example, told the Trump administration in a government filing June 29 it would invite “swift and brutal” retaliation against growing U.S. plastics and chemical exports.
Plastics parts makers also expressed worry. The U.S. operations of Canadian injection molder Mitchell Plastics said it was “deeply troubled” by tariffs and feared they could ultimately result in higher prices that drive down auto sales.
And Japanese plastics processor Toyoda Gosei Co. Ltd., which has 10 factories in the United States, said trade barriers would hurt its 5,300 workers in the U.S. and hamper future investment.
But it wasn’t all against tariffs: The United Steelworkers union, which also represents some plastics industry employees, urged focusing on imported cars and components from Germany, Japan, Mexico and South Korea and said technologies critical to national defense have historically come from the auto sector.
Those are among more than 2,300 comments that have poured into Washington in recent days in response to a formal Trump administration investigation into tariffs on automobiles, including cars, SUVs, vans and light trucks, and on auto parts. Hearings are set for July 19-20.
President Donald Trump is pursuing the investigation under what’s called Section 232 of U.S. trade laws, which gives the president latitude to enact measures like tariffs to protect areas deemed vital to the defense industrial base, although some comments questioned the link between national security and the car industry, noting that specialized military vehicles are already made in the U.S.
The largest U.S. trade association for the auto components industry, the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, said tariffs or other restrictions would mean job losses among the 871,000 auto parts industry workers and would damage U.S. competitiveness.
“MEMA remains very concerned that the pattern of recent actions from the administration signal that tariffs are one of several tactics that would be considered and imposed,” the group said. “Counterproductive unilateral actions will place manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage to their global counterparts, erode U.S. jobs and growth, and will not protect the national security of the United States.”
MEMA, whose members include plastics component suppliers, said overall employment in the auto parts industry has risen 19 percent in the last five years, and it worried import restrictions could put that at risk.
Similarly, the head of U.S. operations for Kitchener, Ontario-based injection molder Mitchell Plastics, said he feared tariffs would raise prices, lower demand and hurt the 800 workers at company factories in Michigan, Indiana and Alabama.
“I am deeply troubled by the president’s threat to levy tariffs that will affect my company and the auto industry,” said Dennis Hayes, director of USA operations, who said the company’s auto parts are “not a threat to national security.”
“I urge the administration to continue to support pro-growth initiatives, keep our auto market winning streak going and refrain from proceeding with this misguided attack on my company and industry,” Hayes wrote.
But others supported the investigation. The USW union said that South Korea, Japan and Germany target the U.S. market for exports while limiting access to their own car markets.
And it said Mexico’s government “at the behest of large corporations” has suppressed worker rights in Mexico that in effect hold down wages in the U.S. auto industry. USW urged the administration to exempt Canada from tariffs, however, saying it is a strategic partner.
President Trump, in a July 1 television interview, said tariffs would close the trade deficit in automobile production and result in more cars being made in the United States. He said his administration is eyeing a 20 percent duty, and he suggested that the auto industry is a key target of his trade strategy.
“The cars are the big one,” he said. “They’re going to build their cars in America. ... We bring in millions and millions of cars a year and we charge 2.5 percent. Some of these countries don’t even take our cars.”
According to the European Union, the EU generally has tariffs of 10 percent on U.S.-made cars, while the United States has only a 2.5 percent tariff on imported cars. The U.S. does, however, maintain a 25 percent tariff on imported light trucks.
ACC predicted that tariffs would harm the U.S. factories making plastic parts and components for the auto industry. It estimated the sector has 1,600 factories, with 61,000 employees and an economic output in 2016 of $20.8 billion.
It estimates that each car made in the U.S. and Canada has an average of $3,000 of chemical industry inputs, including plastics.
And it worried that the stakes are higher with auto tariffs. Any retaliatory measures by other countries will be much larger than what’s happening with steel and aluminum tariffs, and will close off those markets to U.S. companies, ACC said.
“Given the much higher volumes of automotive trade, retaliation by U.S. trading partners will be swift and brutal,” ACC said. “It will take years -- possibly a generation -- to reclaim the market share lost through retaliation.”
The U.S. light vehicle market was about 17.5 million units in 2016, with about 12 million vehicles made in the United States.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20180702/NEWS/180709986
-
U.S. Chamber Says Texas, Pennsylvania Among States Hit Hardest by Looming Trade War
Jul 2, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said six states, including major natural gas and oil producers Texas and Pennsylvania, would be hurt the most in an escalating trade war with Canada, China and the European Union (EU), which have retaliated for tariffs enacted by the Trump administration on imported steel, aluminum and other goods.
Meanwhile, President Trump said in a weekend interview that while he is open to signing a renegotiated North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico, he wouldn't do so until after midterm elections in November. He also hinted that he might enact additional tariffs on Mexico, which on Sunday elected left-leaning Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who is to take office in December.
On Monday, the Chamber released a state-by-state analysis of the impacts of retaliatory tariffs enacted by Canada, China and the EU. The Trump administration imposed a 25% tariffon steel imports and a 10% tariff on aluminum imports in late May. The same tariffs have been in effect on Chinese imports since May 1.
"Tariffs are beginning to take a toll on American businesses, workers, farmers and consumers as overseas markets close to American-made products and prices increase here at home," said Chamber CEO Thomas Donohue. "Tariffs are simply taxes that raise prices for everyone. Tariffs that beget tariffs that beget more tariffs only lead to a trade war that will cost American jobs and economic growth."
According to the Chamber, $3.9 billion in exports from Texas were at risk, including iron and steel casing for oil and gas drilling to Canada, sorghum to China, iron and steel parts to the EU and pork products to Mexico.
The Chamber also cited $1.7 billion in exports from Pennsylvania, including coffee to Canada, aluminum waste and scrap to China, motorcycles to the EU and flat-rolled alloy steel to Mexico. Alabama, Michigan, South Carolina and Wisconsin were also identified as being hit hardest by the retaliatory measures. All six states went to Trump in the 2016 presidential election.
"The administration is threatening to undermine the economic progress it worked so hard to achieve," Donohue said. "We should seek free and fair trade, but this is just not the way to do it. It's time to reverse course and adopt smarter, more effective approaches for addressing trade concerns with commercial partners."
In an interview Sunday on Fox Business Network, Trump told Maria Bartiromo that he would wait to sign any renegotiated NAFTA with Canada and Mexico after the midterm elections in November.
"NAFTA, I could sign it tomorrow but I'm not happy with it," Trump said. "I want to make it more fair, OK? I want to wait until after the election."
Trump then appeared to segue to Sunday's presidential election in Mexico, and he issued a veiled threat at enacting more punitive tariffs on the country.
"You're going to have an election," Trump said. "It's going to be very interesting. I have a feeling [López Obrador] is going to be fine. And the reason is because, if they're not fine, I'm going to tax their cars coming into America, and that's the big one. You know, the cars are the big one. We can talk steel, we talk everything. The big thing is the cars."
Later in the interview, Trump called the EU "possibly as bad as China, just smaller...It's terrible what they did to us. EU -- take a look at the car situation. They send a Mercedes in; we can't send our cars in. Look what they do to our farmers. They don't want our farm products. Now in all fairness they have their farmers. So they want to protect their farmers. But we don't protect ours and they protect theirs."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114920-us-chamber-says-texas-pennsylvania-among-states-hit-hardest-by-looming-trade-war
-
EPA Extends Deadline for Comment on Cost-Benefit Rule
Jul 3, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA is extending by one month -- from July 13 to August 13 -- its deadline for public input on EPA's proposed rule overhauling the agency's cost-benefit analysis methods, after requests from environmentalists and state groups who argued that the proposed rule is complex and has the potential to affect many of other agency rulemakings.
In a notice scheduled for publication in the Federal Register July 3, EPA announces the extension of the comment period on the proposed “Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Costs and Benefits in Rulemaking Process” rule. The 30-day extension falls short of the additional 60 days for comment that some groups sought.
The proposed rule seeks to overhaul EPA's approaches to cost-benefit analyses, which the agency says is necessary to ensure consistency in its cost-benefit approaches across its programs.
While industry groups are already urging officials to make greater use of such approaches, environmentalists have argued that such plans could harm the agency's ability to justify strict rules and standards.
In comments last month, a coalition of 10 environmental and public interest groups, including the Center for Progressive Reform, Earthjustice and Public Citizen sought a total comment period of at least 90 days “to review and digest the highly technical matters implicated by the cost-benefit Analysis rule."
The Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) last month sought a 60-day comment period, noting the complexity of the far-reaching rule.
“The breadth of this request will require careful consideration by interested commenters, as it could touch upon virtually every regulatory program initiated by EPA under the Clean Air Act,” NESCAUM said in June 20 comments.
“The potential implications are large, and it will take considerable time to fully assess the relative merits of alternative approaches to benefit-cost analyses underpinning rulemakings, as well as to assess how any changes may affect previously settled case law, such as in the setting of National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” the group said.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-extends-deadline-comment-cost-benefit-rule
-
Former Top EPA Union Official Sees Urgent Need To Rebuild Agency Staff
Jul 2, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
John O'Grady, the recently retired head of EPA's biggest union, says there is an urgent need to rebuild the agency's dwindling workforce but fears any such effort is unlikely until the next presidential administration, adding that criticism of EPA from President Donald Trump and Congress risks discouraging younger people from working for it.
“Here is the problem. Congress can do nothing but speak poorly of us,” O'Grady said in an exclusive June 21 interview with Inside EPA ahead of his retirement from the agency late last month. Conservatives call agency staff the “dregs of society,” he said. “They don't want to acknowledge that people at EPA are highly educated and highly motivated,” which makes it hard to retain or recruit staff at a time of buyouts and retirements.
“When are [EPA's critics] going to wake up and realize that the environment is not a partisan issue?” he said of EPA's foes. “It is about protecting human health and the environment,” he said, adding that the criticism might spur young people to say “Do you think I am nuts?” when asked about working at EPA. “I wouldn't.”
O'Grady is retiring from EPA Region 5's Chicago office after multiple stints at the agency that began in the 1980s. His last day at the agency was June 29, but he says he hopes to continue working in the future with Save the U.S. EPA, a union-backed effort fighting proposed cuts to EPA's staff and budget.
His work at EPA included Superfund, water, and pesticide programs but recently he has been most prominent as president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) National Council #238. O'Grady has been president since 2016, representing more than 8,000 bargaining unit employees.
Since Trump's election, O'Grady has repeatedly faulted efforts under EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to undo Obama-era regulations and pursue major cuts to the agency's funding and staffing.
O'Grady during the interview tempered expectations for a quick turnaround in EPA's deregulatory agenda even if Pruitt leaves or Democrats prevail in the November election.
And he argued Democrats also need to be more aggressive than recent Democratic administrations in defending the agency's mission, given a drop in agency staff resources that predates the Trump administration.
“The agency needs better staffing, more people, more money needs to go to the states,” O'Grady said, ticking off several agenda items any future Democratic Congress or future administration should pursue.
“Look, at enforcement, enforcement is going down the tubes,” O'Grady added, citing a drop-off in enforcement activity under the Trump administration.
But O'Grady during the interview also gave a “strong shout out to all of the environmental NGOs,” which he said are “working very, very hard behind the scenes to support” EPA.
He also gave a degree of credit to some Republican lawmakers in Congress for resisting the deepest proposed Trump administration cuts to EPA programs.
And he includes in his comments a rebuke of the Obama administration, which he argues should have not acquiesced to Hill-imposed staff cuts that have only grown worse under the Trump administration.
“The environment and the agency were irreparably harmed by artificially lowering the number [of staff] to 15,000, and it has just gotten worse under this administration.”
Trump's Agenda
Inside EPA interviewed O'Grady before the Supreme Court issued its ruling last week in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees that said public sector workers cannot be required to pay labor dues, even if they benefit from any contract. The decision could undercut EPA workers' bargaining rights for benefits and employment security just as union officials battle a Trump executive order limiting their ability to organize. O'Grady in a statement after the ruling said that the decision, together with Trump administration limits on federal unions' organizing, may be a “death blow” to unions.
The interview also took place before Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement effective July 31. In a separate statement, O'Grady bemoaned Trump's power to nominate a likely more-conservative successor to the justice. “Not only have the Supremes decided against working women and men in the Janus case, but now our Twitter in Chief will have the opportunity to appoint a new Justice that will bend the pendulum of justice ever further to the right for years to come. We can only expect more and more decisions limiting the rights of American workers,” he said.”
During the interview, O'Grady acknowledged that his successor at AFGE will have their hands full in dealing with attacks by the Trump administration on federal unions, including recent executive orders that are not fully in effect but which target union activities on official time, as well as space provided for union-related activities.
And he expressed concern that the prior successes at cleaning up the environment have created something of a political problem for the agency. “People . . . forget what the environment looked like in the 1960s and 1970s."
But O'Grady added there are still pressing environmental needs today, including the need to: put substantial resources into failing drinking water infrastructure to avoid more water crises like in Flint, MI; fix the Superfund program by either re-instituting the expired Superfund tax or funding more cleanups directly; and address climate change sooner rather than later.
“For this administration to deny climate change science is really pathetic . . . Do we have to wait and see a severe catastrophe as a result of climate change [when] it might be too late?”
O'Grady stopped short of saying that he chose to leave the agency because of current political attacks on it. “I am 66 and it is time,” to go, said O'Grady, adding that the calculus may be different for younger staff for whom it arguably makes sense to “wait out” the Trump administration until the next presidential administration.
In the short term, he tempered expectations for immediately reversing the Trump administration's deregulatory bent, even if Democrats take over one or both chambers of Congress in November.
“It would slow things down, prevent a lot of outlandish things from happening at EPA” O'Grady said, adding that newly energetic oversight of the Trump EPA by Democratic committee chairs would be “good.”
But O'Grady said that the Trump administration would, still “have the authority to set the direction” of policy at EPA under such scenarios.
While Pruitt could leave or be fired in the wake of his ethics problems, O'Grady says he has few illusions on a replacement. “This administration has no intention of replacing him with someone good on the environment,” he added.
O'Grady says one of things he is most proud of during his tenure representing EPA employees is his work related to implementing a program for flexible work schedules in Region 5, known as Maxiflex, that offers flexibility for working mothers and fathers to be with families when they need to be.
He also praised the “unsung heroes” at EPA, particularly -- but not only -- in agency regions and laboratories, who work to safeguard human health and the environment.
Elaborating on his reasons for retirement, O'Grady said, “I don't know how long I am going to live and I would like to enjoy some things,” noting he has completed a masters of arts in pastoral studies from Catholic Theological Union. “I'd like to put that into practice.”
O'Grady also would “love” to continue working with Save the U.S. EPA but has more immediate plans, including a vacation.
https://insideepa.com/interview/former-top-epa-union-official-sees-urgent-need-rebuild-agency-staff
-
US EPA Issues Final Toxic Substances Control Act Mercury Reporting Rule
Jul 2, 2018 | National Law Review
By Stephen A. Owens
On June 27, 2018 US EPA formally published its final rule under the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to require reporting by persons who manufacture, import or intentionally use mercury and certain “mercury-added products.” 83 Fed. Reg. 30054 (June 27, 2018). The final rule is effective on August 27, 2018.
US EPA was required to promulgate the rule by TSCA Section 8(b)(10), which was added by the 2016 amendments to TSCA. Among other things, that section requires that “any person who manufactures mercury or mercury-added products or otherwise intentionally uses mercury in a manufacturing process shall make periodic reports to [US EPA] … including such information as [US EPA] shall determine by rule promulgated not later than 2 years after June 22, 2016.” The information collected by the rule is to be used in the preparation of “an inventory of mercury supply, use and trade” in the US. US EPA was required by TSCA to prepare the first such mercury inventory by April 1, 2017 (which it formally announced on March 29, 2017). The Agency must prepare subsequent inventories by April 1 every three years thereafter beginning in 2020.
US EPA’s final mercury reporting rule requires persons “who manufacture (including import) mercury or mercury-added products, or otherwise intentionally use mercury in a manufacturing process” to report amounts of mercury above certain amounts that are used in these activities during a designated reporting year. The reporting requirements apply to any person who manufactures or imports 2,500 pounds or more of elemental mercury or 25,000 pounds or more of certain mercury compounds in a specific reporting year, subject to certain exemptions. The final rule also requires such persons to “identify specific mercury compounds, mercury-added products, manufacturing processes, and how mercury is used in manufacturing processes, as applicable” as specified in the rule, along with other data outlined in the rule.
The submission deadline for the 2018 reporting year is July 1, 2019. The 2018 reporting period covers January, 2018 to December 31, 2018. The final rule states that subsequent reporting years are from January 1 to December 31 at a 3-year interval beginning in 2021, with the submission deadlines being July 1 in 3-year intervals beginning July 1, 2022. As such, any covered person who meets the reporting volume threshold during calendar year 2018 must report the required information to US EPA by July 1, 2019. Thereafter, any covered person who meets the thresholds during any calendar year during the next three years (2019, 2020 and 2021) must report the information to EPA by July 1, 2022, and so on.
Consistent with TSCA Section 8(b)(10), the final rule contains some exemptions to the reporting requirements. In general, the final rule provides that the reporting requirements do not apply to: persons who (i) do not first manufacture, import, or otherwise intentionally use mercury; (ii) who only generate, handle, or manage mercury-containing waste; (iii) who only manufacture mercury as an impurity; and (iv) who are engaged in activities involving mercury not with the purpose of obtaining an immediate or eventual commercial advantage. The final rule also provides exemptions from certain specific data elements in the rule for persons who already report comparable information under the TSCA Chemical Data Reporting rule and to the Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse Mercury-added Products Database.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/us-epa-issues-final-toxic-substances-control-act-mercury-reporting-rule
-
US EPA received 41 PMNs in March
Jul 3, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA received 41 pre-manufacture notices in March. Among these were 18 new PMNs and 23 amendments to existing ones.
During the same timeframe, it recorded notices of commencement (NOCs) for 11 substances.
And it received test information on ten substances. This data supports:one microbial commercial activity notice (MCAN);one significant new use notice (Snun); andeight PMNs.
The test information provided in support of the PMNs includes several 90-day toxicity studies in rats and a two-generation reproduction study, as well as analytical and monitoring reports.
The EPA reported its March updates to the new substance programme in a 28 June Federal Registernotice.
Under section 5 of TSCA, any person who intends to manufacture or import a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose must provide the EPA with a PMN before initiating the activity. The agency will review the notice, make a risk determination and take appropriate action.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68142/us-epa-received-41-pmns-in-march
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Stalls Formaldehyde Study, Despite Congress' Direction, Agency Pledge
Jul 2, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA's reluctance to advance its latest draft assessment of the human health risks of formaldehyde, allegedly because political appointees have blocked its release, appears to be at odds with Congress' direction in the agency's 2017 budget for officials to send the study to peer review and the agency's subsequent commitment to do so by Sept. 30, 2018.
It may also be at odds with the agency's Scientific Integrity Policy, which seeks to protect agency science from political interference and generally bars personnel, including political appointees, from delaying release of scientific documents.
“We continue to discuss this assessment with our Agency program partners and have no further updates to provide at this time,” an EPA spokeswoman said.
EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program has been working for years to complete its assessment of formaldehyde's risks, a document that is expected to renew a long-running and controversial debate on whether the substance poses not just nasal cancer risks but also more worrisome leukemia risks.
Once completed, the assessment will likely drive stricter regulatory requirements, including in air toxics rules for the wood products sector, which is pending, and for natural gas turbines.
An early draft that EPA released in the Obama administration identified possible leukemia risks, a finding that industry groups have strongly criticized, citing studies showing no biological mechanism by which formaldehyde could cause leukemia.
The early draft was also strongly criticized by a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel, which faulted IRIS' methodology in crafting its draft and warned of a pattern of problems in how such assessments are developed in the IRIS program, that have forced the program into years of reforms amid continuing criticisms from industry and GOP critics.
The latest draft IRIS assessment, seven years in the making, has yet to be released for public comment or peer review by the NAS -- despite signs from agency officials that it was expected to be released soon.
This prompted questions about its status from three Democratic senators last month, who alleged that political appointees were delaying release of the draft which shows that the substance causes leukemia and other types of cancer.
In a May 17 letter to Administrator Scott Pruitt, Sens. Tom Carper (DE), Ed Markey (MA) and Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) said they believe officials are delaying the latest draft because it found the substance to be “carcinogenic, presenting evidence for nasopharyngeal cancer and leukemia, among other risks to human health.”
They said they have learned that the latest draft IRIS assessment of formaldehyde was completed "during the fall of 2017," but that the agency has yet to proceed through the regular intra-agency review process normally undertaken before a document is released for inter-agency review, public comment, and peer review.
The senators charge that “EPA by now should have published the assessment for public comment,” but that it has not because “multiple political appointees within EPA have expressed reluctance to move the assessment through the agency review process, have repeatedly set up briefings on the assessment only to later cancel them, and/or have insisted that IRIS first set up briefings for industry stakeholders before completing agency review.”
The senators named Pruitt's chief of staff, Ryan Jackson, air office chief Bill Wehrum and toxics office appointee Nancy Beck as among those delaying the formaldehyde assessment's public release.
The senators asked a series of questions and sought a response from EPA by June 6. It is not clear whether the agency has responded.
New NAS Contract
The agency's failure to release the draft document comes despite a formal commitment to Congress that it will release the draft in fiscal year 2018, which ends Sept. 30.
In a report to Congress on IRIS last January, which provides details on the formaldehyde assessment, the agency noted that in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017's accompanying explanatory language, “Congress requested actions related to . . . [peer] review for the draft IRIS assessment of formaldehyde,” among other things.
EPA explains in the report that it has already “contracted the NAS to conduct the peer review of the revised draft IRIS assessment of formaldehyde. The draft report will go through the formal review process which will involve public comment before delivery to the NAS for peer review.”
The agency said IRIS “plans to deliver an External Review Draft of its Formaldehyde Assessment for public comment and peer review in FY 2018.”
The reported delay of the draft assessment also appears to violate EPA's Scientific Integrity Policy, published in 2012 to protect agency science from political interference. The policy, still located on EPA's website, states that “[t]o support a culture of scientific integrity within the Agency, this policy … Prohibits all EPA employees, including scientists, managers, and other Agency leadership, from suppressing, altering, or otherwise impeding the timely release of scientific findings or conclusions.”
Tina Bahadori, the new chief of the center overseeing IRIS, told EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) at its last meeting June 1 that the program has learned from its experience with the formaldehyde assessment.
“Really, formaldehyde was where we learned this lesson,” Bahadori said. “Had we thought about this approach, that really we do not need to reinvent everything in the IRIS program. That we could have, when you see the recommendations from [NAS], built that assessment, rather than build it from scratch like we did, take a good part of seven or eight years, and re-start the controversies around that assessment, had we worked from settled science and just worked on developing our systematic review approaches we wouldn't be in the quagmire that we are today around formaldehyde.”
Bahadori added that starting the formaldehyde assessment over from the beginning, “what it did was it lost the confidence people had in our ability to produce the assessment in a timely way. We got caught up in our own controversy. We learned from that and we are working to not make that same mistake.”
Report To Congress
EPA in its report to Congress says that the IRIS program has implemented NAS' reform recommendations, both generally and specific to the formaldehyde assessment.
In particular, the report points to IRIS' efforts to adopt systematic review, an approach to searching and analyzing research intended to be more rigorous and transparent in hazard identification. EPA notes this recommendation was included in both NAS' critical 2011 formaldehyde assessment report, as well as a 2014 followup report on the overall IRIS program, which was generally supportive of EPA's efforts to address NAS' recommendations for IRIS.
EPA last publicly addressed the formaldehyde assessment four years ago, when the IRIS program hosted a workshop intended to help address the thorny scientific issues stalling the formaldehyde assessment.
Among those who attended the May 2014 meeting was Beck, who at the time represented the American Chemistry Council trade group. According to an Inside EPA report from the meeting, Beck said she would “like to see an assessment completed in my lifetime” and pressed the speakers to discuss what EPA could do with the available formaldehyde data.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-stalls-formaldehyde-study-despite-congress-direction-agency-pledge
-
Plastic Microbeads Bans for Soaps, Toothpaste Going Into Effect
Jul 3, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
Canada, the United Kingdom, and the U.S. have removed products containing microbeads from store shelves.
In the U.S., the sale of personal care products containing microbeads is banned from interstate commerce, as of July 1. The move follows similar laws coming on line in Canada and the U.K.
Microbeads are tiny plastic particles that, until recently, were used in hundreds of products ranging from body scrubs, to cosmetics, to toothpastes. Every year, thousands of tons of plastic microbeads wash into the sea, where they harm wildlife.
“This is great news for our Great Lakes, which are so important to our economy and Michigan way of life,” said Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), one of the co-sponsors of the Microbead-Free Waters Act.
The U.S. law was passed in 2015, with an effective date of July 1, 2018, to phase out the manufacture and sale of products containing microbeads, such as shampoo, soaps, and facials.
“By implementing my law banning microbeads, we are closing the chapter on a dangerous threat to our health and our water,” Stabenow said in a statement.
Tiny Beads, Big ProblemsA microbead is any solid plastic particle that is less than 5 millimeters across—about the size of a pinhead—and are used for the purpose of exfoliating or cleansing, according to the law.
Because they are so small and don’t dissolve, they don’t get filtered out in water treatment facilities, eventually ending up in rivers, lakes, and oceans, where they have become a key driver behind the increase of microplastic pollution.
They are hard to clean up because of their size, and, researchers say, many marine species mistake the small plastic bits as food particles. Scientists are now researching whether those plastics and chemicals will transfer through the food chain, eventually ending up in humans who may eat fish contaminated with microplastic.
Canadian, U.K. BansCanada’s Minister of the Environment Catherine McKenna announced the ban on Twitter, saying the move marks the “final step” in the effort to remove microbeads from Canadian waters.
Like the U.S. legislation, the Canadian law excludes microbeads found in natural health products and nonprescription drugs, which won’t be banned until July 1, 2019.
The U.K. banned the manufacture of products containing microbeads in January 2018, with a ban on sales taking place in July 2018.
“The world’s oceans are some of our most valuable natural assets and I am determined we act now to tackle the plastic that devastates our precious marine life,” said U.K Environment Minister Therese Coffey in a statement.
The U.K. ban has been welcomed by some campaigners, while others say it does not go far enough.
“Unfortunately, the ban does not cover a long list of products, such as sun-cream, lipstick, and paints—and of course microbeads are only one part of the huge plastic pollution problem we currently face,” said Friends of the Earth waste campaigner Julian Kirby, in a comment to the BBC.
The Australian government endorsed a voluntary phaseout of microbeads in 2016, but as yet, no law or official ban is in place, and some manufacturers continue to use them.
Phaseouts Already in Place at CompaniesIn 2013, Johnson & Johnson became one of the first large companies to commit to removing microbeads from its cosmetic and personal care products globally. The first product reformulation was completed in 2015, after which the company met its commitment to remove microbeads from its products globally at the end of 2017.
In 2017, Procter & Gamble announced it would be reformulating its facial and body cleansers and toothpaste products to eliminate microbeads.
According to the company, 99 percent of its global product volume is already microbead-free with what it called an “exit plan” for the remaining uses, which is set to be completed by mid-2018.
The Estee Lauder Companies voluntarily removed water insoluble, solid plastic particles from products at the end of 2017.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/plastic-microbeads-bans-for-soaps-toothpaste-going-into-effect?context=landing-heroes
-
Washington State Seeks 'Prevention Approach' on Flame Retardants
Jul 3, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Washington state's ecology department (ECY) is looking to shift its approach on managing flame retardants towards one of prevention – that is, acting before harm has occurred – a recent meeting has heard.
The state is developing a report that will set out policy recommendations on six flame retardants: TPP, TCPP, TBPH, V6, IPTPP and TBB. The action comes as part of a 2016 law that banned five flame retardants from children's products. That regulation also directed the state to act on the latest six.
As part of this process, the state's Department of Health (DOH), in partnership with the ECY, held a 15 June stakeholder advisory committee meeting. According to draft meeting notes released by the state, the DOH described plans to produce an accurate report on the six substances, with policy options that "offer practical and meaningful improvement in safety" for consumer products.
At the meeting, Darien Rice, ECY's programme manager for hazardous waste and toxics reduction, also indicated his department is looking to "shift to a prevention approach when possible".
"Prevention intervenes higher upstream – before harm has occurred," he said, according to the meeting notes.
ECY has set as a goal to "see safer alternatives assessments play a role in breaking the historic cycle of regrettable substitutions". And the department will also look for options that address diffuse sources of flame retardants of concern.
Lauren Jenks, director of the office of environmental public health sciences at the DOH, signalled that her department is "likely to support" policy options on flame retardants that will:
· maintain or improve product and home material safety, including their fire safety;
· reduce exposure to flame retardant chemicals, especially for pregnant women and children;
· be "supported by science"; and
· be "practical", "workable" and "equitable".
Stakeholders from businesses, trade groups, firefighting associations, NGOs, academia and governmental bodies participated in the meeting.
The DOH plans to provide a written draft evaluation of the six flame retardants by mid-July for advisory committee review. Policy discussions are expected to begin at the group's next meeting in August.
The DOH and ECY anticipate finalising their report in November. They will then submit it to the legislature in December.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68154/washington-state-seeks-prevention-approach-on-flame-retardants
-
Plastic Straws Aren’t Just Bad for the Environment — They Can Be Bad for Your Body
Jul 3, 2018 | Washington Post
By Christy Brissette
Just a few years ago, you automatically received a straw with any cold takeout drink and probably didn’t think twice about it. No longer. Seattle is the latest city to join at least a dozen others across the United States in banning plastic straws. McDonald’s in the United Kingdom and KFC in Singapore have also served their final straws.
Governments and companies are taking this action because of the staggering volume of waste generated by something most people don’t need: An estimated 7.5 percent of plastic in the environment comes from straws and stirrers, according to an analysis by a group of pollution research nonprofits called Better Alternatives Now, which based its results on trash collected by volunteers around the world. A recent report by the World Economic Forum projects that by the year 2050, the plastic in our oceans will outweigh the fish.
If that’s not persuasive enough, there are lesser-known, health-related reasons to ditch the little plastic tube. Here are some of the concerns.Gas and bloating
Sipping from a straw introduces air into the digestive tract. This can cause uncomfortable digestive symptoms, such as gas and bloating. When I’m counseling clients who are experiencing these symptoms, I always ask them about lifestyle habits, such as whether they drink from a straw often. Some of my clients have experienced significant improvements by ditching straws, as well as cutting back on two other habits that introduce air into the digestive tract: drinking carbonated beverages and chewing gum.Cavities
Drinking sugary or acidic beverages through a straw can increase the likelihood of cavities. Straws send a concentrated stream of liquid toward a small area of the teeth, which can erode enamel and cause tooth decay. On the other hand, straws can also be used to lower the risk of cavities if they’re positioned behind the teeth, at the back of the throat, although this approach isn’t realistic or comfortable for most people.Chemicals
Most single-use plastic straws are made from polypropylene, a type of plastic commonly made from petroleum. Polypropylene is thought to be food-safe in amounts approved by the Food and Drug Administration. But there is evidence that chemicals from polypropylene can leach into liquids and may release compounds that could affect estrogen levels, especially when exposed to heat, acidic beverages or UV light.
More established is the fact that degraded plastics found in the ocean are ingested by marine wildlife, making their way up the food chain and perhaps winding up at the dinner table. So not only can plastics harm animals in the environment — think about the sea turtle with the straw up its nostril — but bits of them, and the toxic chemicals within, may hurt us all.Wrinkles
On a lighter note, regular use of straws can also lead to the same wrinkles that smokers get around their mouths. These “pucker lines” could persuade the masses to stop using straws.Excess sugar and alcohol consumption
It’s been argued that sipping liquids such as soft drinks through a straw could contribute to excess sugar intake. The thought is that straws cause you to gulp down a greater volume of liquid more quickly than drinking from a glass or cup. Plus, people aren’t very accurate about estimating how much liquid they’re taking in, especially if they’re distracted by a movie or smartphone screen.
The idea that drinking alcohol through a straw leads to faster intoxication is another theory that’s been repeated often. Yet much like the excess-sugar theory, it’s popular but unproven.
Blaming a straw for excess sugar consumption is like blaming a fork for weight gain. I suggest it’s less the delivery mechanism and more what’s at the other end of it that’s to blame.A caveat
For environmental reasons and because of the health implications, I’d be in favor of phasing out straws — with a caveat. They should still be available to people with disabilities who really need them.
In my work with patients with neuromuscular conditions and other difficulties, I’ve seen how drinking straws can allow for greater independence when drinking beverages. Paper straws aren’t firm enough for some of these individuals, so plastic straw bans could make their lives more difficult.
Offering plastic straws by request, as is done in some places, would permit only those who really need them to have access. For people who want to continue using straws, there are plenty of more eco-friendly options available. I’ve seen materials as diverse as bamboo, silicone, glass, stainless steel and even long tubes of pasta! Make sure your reusable straw hasn’t been chemically treated and is easily cleaned. Also keep in mind that more-rigid straws increase the risk of injury to the mouth and shouldn’t be used by children.
While the anti-straw movement is an impressive step toward reducing waste in our oceans, there is much more work to be done. Whether we like it or not, plastic is a part of us now. Chemicals from plastic manufacturing show up in our urine, blood and cells. So let’s take the conversation beyond straws and move to reduce the use of all single-use plastics in our daily lives to protect our oceans, and ourselves.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/plastic-straws-arent-just-bad-for-the-environment--they-can-be-bad-for-your-body/2018/07/02/d682fdfe-7964-11e8-aeee-4d04c8ac6158_story.html?utm_term=.4f93e0f3591a
-
(ACC Mentioned) Canada's Industry Sees Opportunity in U.S. Tariffs
Jul 3, 2018 | Houston Chronicle (In E&E Energywire)
By Katherine Blunt
Incentives offered by the province of Alberta could help boost the fortunes of Canada's petrochemical industry, at a time when U.S. trade policy threatens to pare back some of the American industry's advantage.
Petrochemical investments in Canada have been waning in recent years, partly due to better port access, lower building costs and a lack of carbon taxes on the U.S. Gulf Coast.
But in June, Alberta dangled its latest incentive package for petrochemical companies, opening up applications for multimillion-dollar incentives to process gas-derived feedstocks, like ethane and propane, into plastics and other materials. The last round of incentives brought in 16 projects worth $20 billion.
Other companies looking to take advantage of U.S. natural gas have pursued projects outside Alberta, too: Nova Chemicals Corp., for instance, has expanded its plant in Ontario to process ethane from the Marcellus and Utica shale fields.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration's 25 percent tariffs on imported steel has sent U.S. petrochemical manufacturers scrambling to figure out the cost to operations.
The American Chemistry Council, an industry association, warns the tariffs could delay new Gulf Coast projects, estimating that more than $3.2 billion in U.S. chemical exports could be affected (Katherine Blunt, Houston Chronicle, July 1)
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/stories/1060087615/search?keyword=%22american+chemistry+council%22
-
Breaking Tradition, PHMSA Endorses Enbridge Replacement Line
Jul 3, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
The Trump administration's top pipeline safety official has endorsed a proposed Enbridge Inc. oil sands pipeline replacement, telling Minnesota regulators that it will help prevent future accidents.
The unusual move surprised and irritated those opposing the new pipeline. Federal pipeline safety officials traditionally have stayed out of debates about where and whether new pipelines should be built.
oward "Skip" Elliott, head of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), jumped in after Enbridge asked him to send a letter supporting approval for replacement of its aging Line 3 pipeline.
"In the interest of pipeline safety, PHMSA supports efforts to replace Line 3 to prevent future accidents," Elliott wrote to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.
It's not clear what effect PHMSA's support had on the deliberations of the Minnesota PUC, but it doesn't appear to have hurt Enbridge's case. The commission last week approved the replacement of Line 3 and the route of the new pipeline (Energywire, June 29).
Many observers found it puzzling for PHMSA to jump into a heated debate about whether to build a new pipeline. Though Enbridge is proposing to replace a roughly 50-year-old line, critics questioned the need for it.
"They've always been careful about sticking to their knitting," said Scott Strand, an attorney who argued against Line 3 for the environmental group Friends of the Headwaters. "They always say their authority is limited. PHMSA won't even stick its nose in where it belongs."
The Sierra Club says it's another example of the Trump administration's bias in favor of oil and gas development.
"It's no surprise that the Trump administration would support a project that would enable a massive expansion of dirty fossil fuels," said Kelly Martin, director of the group's "Beyond Dirty Fuels" campaign.
Cynthia Quarterman, who led PHMSA during the Obama administration, said PHMSA hasn't historically gotten involved in discussions of where and whether pipelines get built.
Without taking a side, Quarterman cast the Line 3 debate as somewhat different from traditional pipeline development fights in an email exchange with E&E News. While she ran the agency, Line 3 had been identified in settlement agreement as one needing to be considered for rehabilitation, repair or replacement because of its history of problems.
PHMSA's Elliott pointed to that settlement, called the Lakehead Plan, to explain his support for the Line 3 replacement.
Although the settlement doesn't explicitly require replacement of Line 3, Elliott wrote, "Enbridge's proposal to replace this pipeline is consistent with the safety principles within the Lakehead Plan."
PHMSA officials were particularly concerned that a Minnesota administrative law judge had recommended that the pipeline replacement be built in the same path as the original, according to Enbridge spokesman Michael Barnes.
The agency, he said, expressed concerns about the safety of such a plan.
"We agreed with them and suggested they send the PUC a letter outlining the issues," Barnes said.
Line 3 starts in Canada's Alberta oil sands fields and runs across the U.S. border to a terminal in Superior, Wis. Enbridge wants to replace the existing line, which would increase its capacity from 390,000 to 760,000 barrels a day. More than 300 miles of the route lies in Minnesota.
The existing line runs through two reservations and is more than 50 years old. It's also had a series of maintenance issues that put it at risk of leaking. Enbridge has been running the pipeline at a reduced capacity as part of the settlement with PHMSA stemming from spills several years ago.
The administrative law judge's recommendation to build the new pipe in the existing corridor sparked protests from the Native American tribes because it would leave the pipeline on their reservations (Energywire, June 5).
Enbridge's preferred route also drew protests because it would cut through what some consider culturally significant areas and land near the reservations that the tribes historically have used for hunting and food gathering (Energywire, June 19).
Minnesota officials opted for a hybrid route. The new line will follow Enbridge's preferred pathway across most of Minnesota. As it approaches the historic hunting grounds, it will deviate to an alternate route to be chosen by leaders of the Fond du Lac reservation.
The agency's refusal to weigh in on the safety of pipeline proposals has been criticized for years by those involved in the debates, said Carl Weimer, executive director of the Pipeline Safety Trust.
It might be a good sign, he said, if the agency has become more willing to provide safety information and opinions to state officials. But he said it would be "a little disturbing" if the agency got involved only because Enbridge asked it to.
"This kind of cuts both ways," Weimer said. "I wonder if PHMSA has a policy for when they weigh in like this."
Efforts to obtain comment from PHMSA across several days were unsuccessful.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/07/03/stories/1060087595
-
Sabal Trail Pipeline Won't Seek Review on 2017 Climate Ruling
Jul 3, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Developers of a Southeast natural gas pipeline will not ask the Supreme Court to review a landmark 2017 ruling focused on how the government weighs climate impacts.
A spokeswoman for the Sabal Trail pipeline said yesterday that lawyers for the project would not file a petition for certiorari from the high court. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission had also not sought Supreme Court review by yesterday's deadline, according to the court's docket.
At issue is a major August 2017 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that ordered FERC to take a closer look at greenhouse gas emissions linked to Sabal Trail and a related network of pipelines across Alabama, Georgia and Florida.
The 2-1 opinion was hailed by environmentalists as a breakthrough in climate law, forcing FERC to weigh the indirect climate impacts of the pipeline project: the downstream emissions from Florida power plants burning Sabal Trail's gas.
FERC complied with the court order but kept its options open for an appeal, twice asking the Supreme Court to extend its filing deadline.
As of 5:40 p.m. yesterday, the Supreme Court had not received a petition from FERC. But filings are considered timely if they're postmarked by the deadline and sent by mail, so it's unclear whether the agency actually requested review. The Justice Department did not answer questions yesterday about whether it had filed a request on FERC's behalf.
Sabal Trail, meanwhile, was clear: It will not seek to reverse the D.C. Circuit ruling.
"It will not be [filing a petition,]" spokeswoman Andrea Grover said in an email. "We won't further comment as the rehearing is pending at FERC."
The decision not to challenge the D.C. Circuit ruling may cap off one round of thorny litigation over the pipeline. FERC and Sabal Trail asked the D.C. Circuit to reconsider its ruling last year. Though the court eventually declined, the legal wrangling dragged on long enough to prevent any interruption to pipeline construction while FERC completed its additional analysis.
Since then, the commission's Republican majority has instituted a new policy on measuring downstream greenhouse gas emissions, pledging to do so only in rare circumstances when specific information is known about end users of the gas. The majority has adopted a narrow interpretation of the D.C. Circuit ruling (Energywire, June 5).
The Sierra Club and other pipeline opponents, meanwhile, are asking FERC to reconsider its reauthorization of Sabal Trail. The request could pave the way for yet another legal battle (Energywire, April 16).
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/07/03/stories/1060087613
-
Occidental Chemical Seeks to Split $250 Million Cleanup Bill
Jul 2, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
More than 100 companies, including 3M, General Electric, and Johnson & Johnson could split a $250 million bill for designing a cleanup plan for one of New Jersey’s most contaminated waterways.
The Diamond Alkali Superfund site in New Jersey contains the Lower Passaic River Study Area, about 17 miles of the river and its watershed.
Occidental Chemical Corp. signed an agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency in 2016 to design a cleanup plan for part of the Lower Passaic River, at a cost of about $165 million. The company is suing 120 others in an effort to share those costs and past expenses, totaling an estimated $251.5 million.
In a lawsuit filed June 30 in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Occidental Chemical is attempting to compel the defendants to chip in for the costs of remedy design and cleanup because “no single hazardous substance, and no single source, is solely to blame,” the company’s complaint stated.
“Over the last century, hundreds of companies—among them, factories, refineries, and manufacturers of all types—polluted the Passaic River with countless hazardous substances,” the complaint stated.
Spokespeople for 3M and Johnson & Johnson didn’t immediately respond to Bloomberg Environment’s emailed request for comment. Jeff Caywood, a spokesman for General Electric, declined to comment.
This type of lawsuit is typical among companies looking to recover costs at Superfund sites, Joan P. Snyder, partner at Stoel Rives LLP in Portland, Ore., told Bloomberg Environment. Negotiations over cost allocation are often private but may also be filed in court.
Cost at $1.38 BillionThe EPA estimates it will cost $1.38 billion to clean up the part of the site for which Occidental Chemical has designed a plan.
The EPA’s selected remedy for the site includes capping toxic materials, dredging and restoring the habitat. The agency has identified more than 100 companies that may be responsible for pollution.
The river is contaminated with mercury, DDT, lead, copper, and polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs. Polychlorinated biphenyls cause a variety of adverse health effects, and can cause cancer in animals, according to the EPA.
The site is on the EPA’s National Priorities List, which are also known as Superfund sites, and are the most contaminated in the country. The list also includes the Gowanus Canal in New York, West Lake Landfill in Missouri and Tar Creek in Oklahoma.
The case is Occidental Chem. Corp. v. 21st Century Fox America, Inc. et al, D.N.J., 2:18-cv-11273, 6/30/18.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/occidental-chemical-seeks-to-split-250-million-cleanup-bill-1
-
Senators Tout Bipartisan Bill To Speed Permits With Two-Year 'Goal'
Jul 2, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
A bipartisan pair of senators is touting legislation that would extend a 2015 law intended to speed environmental review and permitting of large federal infrastructure projects, aiming to broaden the number of projects that qualify for help under a special permitting council and codify a two-year “goal” for completing permits.
Sponsored by Sens. Rob Portman (R-OH) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO), the bill, S.3017, would also remove a seven-year sunset on the permit streamlining provisions enacted in the 2015 highway bill known as the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act.
Among other things, section 41 of the FAST Act established the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council, which is intended to help certain large federal infrastructure projects navigate the permitting process by coordinating agencies' efforts on a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review and posting updates on the process on a public dashboard.
Portman and McCaskill's legislation would also codify a portion of one of President Donald Trump's infrastructure executive orders that allows the steering council to assist federal agencies on projects that do not qualify for formal help from the council.
For eligible projects, the measure would remove two current exclusions that apply to certain multi-modal transportation projects and water resources development projects that were the subject of prior permit streamlining efforts.
House Republicans have floated dozens of bills that are considered far more sweeping efforts to streamline NEPA reviews, though Democrats have sharply criticized such measures as undermining environmental protections. As such, those proposals are expected to face an uphill battle overcoming the Senate's 60-vote threshold.
In addition, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) recently launched an administrative rewrite of its NEPA implementing regulations -- a process that could undercut the need for statutory reforms.
Industry attorneys are already detailing scenarios under which CEQ could use its NEPA rule changes to advance deregulatory priorities, such as downplaying the need for rigorous climate change reviews.
Given the bipartisan backing for the FAST Act expansion, that measure could stand a better chance of enactment.
Even so, some top lawmakers have downplayed expectations for NEPA-related legislation this year. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), for instance, told reporters in early May that “we've already done” major NEPA reforms.
“We've had a lot of NEPA reforms in the FAST Act and the previous [Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)] bill, so if there's something more that can be done that hasn't been done, I can make sure that we have an amendment” to this year's WRDA legislation, he said.
Portman and McCaskill hosted a “workshop” June 27 in the Senate Homeland Security & Government Affairs Committee to tout their legislation and receive stakeholder feedback.
Witnesses representing the steering council, CEQ, a top building trades union, a major industry group and two major projects that received help under the FAST Act generally praised the legislation as a necessary step to simplify the complex bureaucracy that can often delay large projects.
Eliminating the current sunset provisions is “by far the most important” part of the Portman-McCaskill measure, according to Joseph Johnson of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, though he added that codifying a two-year goal for completing permits is a “powerful incentive to increase investment in covered projects.”
'Legislated Deadlines'
However, Christy Goldfuss, a former Obama CEQ official now with the Center for American Progress, testified that certain portions of the legislation are concerning, even though the underlying goal of improving the permitting process while maintaining environmental protections is laudable.
In particular, she fears removing the current sunset provision for a portion of the FAST Act that limits judicial review of permitting decisions, arguing that aspect of the law has not yet been sufficiently tested and that lawmakers should have to revisit it at a later point.
In addition, she said that codifying a two-year deadline for permits -- even if it is styled as a “goal” rather than a required target -- would only serve to rush resource-starved agencies and produce sub-standard NEPA reviews that would be vulnerable to a court challenge.
Such “legislated deadlines” would lead to “more court battles and additional stops and starts in permitting timelines as agencies rush reviews and communities are cut out of the process,” she said.
“Unfortunately, the administration has pushed Congress to expand its authority rather than effectively exercising all the tools you've already given them,” she added.
McCaskill at one point appeared receptive to Goldfuss' argument regarding the sunset clause for the FAST Act's judicial review provision.
“That makes sense,” the senator said, after Goldfuss called that portion an “un-tested” part of the law that Congress should be required to revisit to “see whether or not [it's] working.” She said that the parts of the law creating the steering council and the permitting dashboard should not face a sunset date because they've already shown “success.”
Permit Goal 'Critical'
However, Portman pushed back about her concern about the two-year goal to finish permits. “If agencies can't meet the goal, they've got to explain why,” he said. “Sometimes situations are out of the control of the agency. But having that goal is so critical.”
Sean McGarvey, president of North America's Building Trades Union, argued at the workshop that “predictability is the whole thing for the folks who are putting up the financing. If we could ever get to a magic two-year [deadline], that would change the whole ballgame, I think.”
Further, former Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), who is now with Van Ness Feldman representing a major wetland restoration project in her home state, said that, “I understand you may not want to put two years into the law, but it sure sounds good to people building projects."
But one environmentalist following the issue warns that now is not the time to expand the FAST Act, “particularly until we see how the issues in there play out.” Concerns include provisions that could undermine NEPA by making alternative analysis meaningless, and an over-focus on cooperation between agencies because, “At the end of the day, each agency has its own rules and responsibilities and its own resources they are safeguarding. Cooperation is great but it's not a magic bullet.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/senators-tout-bipartisan-bill-speed-permits-two-year-goal
-
Jul 3, 2018 | Philadelphia Inquirer
By Jason Laughlin & Jonathan Tamari
After Amtrak Train 188 derailed in Philadelphia on May 12, 2015, national safety experts said the accident that killed eight and injured hundreds could have been prevented with a safety fix Congress had mandated in 2008: Positive Train Control.
Railroads were supposed to have the system, which automatically controls train speeds to prevent accidents, in place by the end of 2015. But almost none had acted quickly enough to meet that requirement, so Congress voted to give them more time.
Nearly three years later, and with just six months to go before the new deadline, it’s increasingly clear that a half-dozen or more railroads are still moving too slowly to meet even the revised due date at the end of 2018. Unless they speed up the pace, another expected installation date will come and go with many rail passengers still vulnerable to the same kinds of human errors that have led to fatal consequences.
NJ Transit is among the country’s most egregious laggards, according to federal officials, congressional staffers and public data.
It was one of 12 commuter railroads that got letters from the Federal Rail Administration (FRA) this spring warning that they were “at risk” of failing to install the system by the end of 2018, or of even showing enough progress to qualify for an extension to 2020.
NJ Transit had installed just 13 percent of the required PTC hardware as of May 28. To meet the year-end deadline, it should have been at 85 percent in March, according to the FRA.
SEPTA and Amtrak have each made significant progress in installing the safety system on their tracks — but still face technical challenges.
Amtrak, which runs much of its service on tracks it does not own, has threatened to cease service on tracks that may not have operational PTC systems by 2019, which could include 300 to 700 miles of track.
An update on the railroads’ progress is expected in July or August, FRA officials said. Congressional aides estimate that eight to 10 of the 29 commuter railroads covered by the law are at risk of failing to meet the criteria necessary to avoid sanctions in 2019.
Meanwhile, more people have died in crashes that safety experts say would have been prevented by PTC. Among the incidents was an Amtrak derailment in Washington state last Dec. 18, which killed three when the engineer, as in Philadelphia’s 2015 crash, approached a curve while going too fast. In all, the National Transportation Safety Board says, 23 people have been killed and more than 300 injured in preventable incidents between the time PTC was first mandated, in 2008, and when it was supposed to be finally installed, in 2015.
Lawmakers who gave railroads more time in 2015 now say they are tired of the excuses they have heard for a decade from rail lines that haven’t moved fast enough.
“They better get it done,” Sen. John Thune (R., S.D.), chair of a Senate committee that oversees rail service, said Thursday, citing a “handful” that remain behind. “I don’t think they understand that this is serious business, and if they don’t meet that deadline, there are going to be consequences.”
Installing PTC is expected to cost $14 billion nationwide for about 60,000 miles of track. It requires 40 freight and commuter railroads to train engineers, install hardware on both vehicles and tracks, and acquire radio frequencies.
Freight railroads are performing better than passenger rail, with at least 80 percent of freight train tracks expected to have PTC in operation by the end of the year, according to the Association of American Railroads.
As of March 31, just 60 percent of passenger railroads had PTC equipment installed in all their locomotives, compared with 85 percent of freight railroads, according to the FRA. Less than half of all passenger rail tracks are equipped with PTC, and it’s only in use on 25 percent of those tracks, though the American Public Transportation Association, a public transit advocacy group, anticipated most railroads would meet statutory requirements by the end of the year to allow them to receive extensions.
The FRA can start fining noncompliant railroads in 2019, and Amtrak officials have warned that they may bar such railroads from running on their tracks, along with possibly cancelling its own trains’ routes on noncompliant tracks.
Top Republicans and Democrats said last week they won’t provide relief this time.
“It’s not going away,” said Rep. Peter De Fazio (D., Ore.), the top Democrat on the House Transportation Committee. “I don’t think anyone wants to offer a delay and then have an accident.”
Rep. Jeff Denham (R., Calif.), the chair of the House’s rail subcommittee, said, “We want no excuses. … There will be very little tolerance to the railroads’ not meeting the letter of the law on this deadline.”
The push to make railroads improve their safety system goes back a decade. After 25 people died in a 2008 collision between a Metrolink commuter train and a Union Pacific freight train in Chatsworth, Calif., Congress passed a law requiring railroads to install the system by the end of 2015.
Many railroads, however, didn’t seem to start taking the issue seriously until the 2015 deadline approached, Democratic and Republican aides said. Railroads also faced steep technical and bureaucratic challenges. Five months after the Philadelphia crash, lawmakers voted to give rail lines more time.
They are now required to have PTC active by the end of this year, but if they meet six significant installation milestones, they could qualify for an extension until 2020 to have the system fully operational.
Most railroads are on track to meet those milestones, which would keep them in line with the law. But even though they have made progress, the system still won’t be completely up and running this year.
One of the biggest challenges is that even when railroads install all the necessary equipment and get the system running, they still need to coordinate their PTC systems with other railroads that use the same tracks. That’s technically difficult, meaning that some that have made progress are still waiting on others to catch up.
SEPTA, for example, has been a national leader in PTC installation, and all its trains now run with it. But it still has to ensure its system is fully integrated with freight trains that use 42 miles of its track.
Jeff Knueppel, SEPTA’s general manager, expects the inter-operability issues will be resolved by the end of the year.
It’s unclear how many railroads will be in a similar situation, since they could wait until Dec. 31 to request an extension. So far just one railroad, BNSF, has requested an extension.
Amtrak plans to do risk analyses on all railroads it shares space with that won’t have PTC fully in place by 2019.
“Under present law, Amtrak cannot permit noncompliant equipment on the railroad,” Amtrak CEO Richard Anderson said at a March Senate hearing.
NJ Transit did almost nothing before 2015, according to five current and former congressional aides familiar with its work, though several said it has picked up the pace under a new administration in Trenton.
“Something this important was really not given the attention it required,” said State Sen. Patrick Diegnan (D., Middlesex), head of the Senate Transportation Committee.
The rail agency has scaled back its ambitions as it tries to meet the targets required for an extension under the law. It plans to outfit only half its 440 train cars, according to Diegnan. Federal officials say that would be in line with requirements but could leave NJ Transit with fewer resources to maintain reliable service. It also got approval from the FRA to limit PTC testing to less than 17 miles of the Morristown Line by the end of the year, FRA officials said. The rail service, which provides 62 million trips a year, is likely to struggle to have PTC active on the 326 route miles required to have the system even with those more lenient marks, though.
NJ Transit declined to answer detailed questions about its PTC installation process but said it was working with the FRA to meet the regulatory agency’s requirements.
Despite lawmakers’ tough talk, it will be up to the FRA to decide how to enforce the law — and it’s not clear how aggressive the agency will be in applying penalties or granting leeway. It has the power to impose fines up to $27,904 a day on railroads that miss the deadline or fail to show enough progress.
FRA has not formally said how it plans to handle delinquent railroads at year’s end, but aides in both parties said they had received assurances from FRA Administrator Ronald Batory that he would assess penalties. Agency officials have said the FRA would not seek to shut down railroads.
He told Politico this month that “we should be assessing full retail,” referring to the maximum possible fine.
Whether railroads are outright out of compliance or need an extension, the reality is that when a new year arrives, it is likely some of America’s railroads will not be protected by PTC.
The Philadelphia crash is a grim reminder of what’s at stake.
Gilda Jacobs, a former Michigan state senator, wrote to Congress earlier this year about her daughter, Rachel, who was killed in that wreck at age 39. Sen. Gary Peters (D., Mich.) read Jacobs’ words at a March hearing, recounting the husband and 5-year-old son Rachel left behind.
Seeing more people killed while the technology awaits, Jacobs wrote, “my anger is seething.”
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/philly-amtrak-crash-railroads-positive-train-control-congress-safety-deadline-20180703.html
-
Can Blockchain Fix the Ocean Plastic Problem?
Jul 2, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
In the ocean between Hawaii and California, some 87,000 tons of plastic and other debris float in a swelling oceanic trash dump.
It’s called the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch,” and it’s the most visible feature of the 8 million tons of plastic waste scientists estimate enter the oceans from land every year.
Now, a number of companies are trying to cut the problem off at the source, using blockchain to divert that plastic—before it ends up as garbage on the high seas.
“Our goal is to be the largest recycling company without assets. We want to be the Airbnb of recycling,” said Shaun Frankson, the co-founder and chief digital strategist for Plastic Bank, a Vancouver, British Columbia-based startup trying to rid the oceans of plastic waste.
Frankson told Bloomberg Environment that about 80 percent of ocean plastic originates from developing countries with little to no waste management infrastructure.
Working in partnership with IBM, Plastic Bank designed a blockchain-based app that functions as an electronic ledger, allowing people to collect plastic bottles in exchange for digital tokens that can be exchanged for goods such as food, water, school tuition, or cash.
Collector-First MentalityPlastic Bank is currently on the ground in Haiti, the Philippines, and Brazil and plans to expand into Indonesia by the end of the year.
Basically, collectors are paid to pluck plastic from beaches and unregulated dump sites. That material, called “social plastic,” is then sold to a global network of companies.
But unlike a straight commodities broker, Frankson says, Plastic Bank is able to pay an above-market rate to incentivize participation in the program.
“Instead of making maybe $1 a day, they can now make $5 or $7,” he said. “It’s a collector-first mentality, not supply chain first.”
“It makes a big difference in the quality of people’s lives, the communities where they live, and keeps a lot of plastic out of the ocean.”
Likewise, thanks to blockchain’s secure payments function, Frankson said, people who typically don’t have bank accounts can safely store their income on the recycling app, and then spend that income as they see fit.
Growing Demand for Social PlasticA rapidly growing number of companies, including some major global brands, are exploiting the heightened focus on plastic pollution as a chance to burnish their environmental credentials by selling products sourced from recycled materials.
Last year German sportswear giant Adidas AG sold more than a million shoes made out of ocean plastic, according to information provided to Bloomberg Environment. Each pair of shoes prevents the equivalent of roughly 11 plastic bottles from entering the ocean, the company said.
What started as a program using recycled ocean plastic in shoes has since expanded into sporting apparel, including soccer jerseys, currently being worn by a number of teams playing in the World Cup in Russia.
Plastic Bank plans to deliver some 44 million pounds of social plastic, with contracts for another 220 million going to companies including British retailer Marks & Spencer Group Plc, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, and Henkel AG.
“Our experts in packaging development are currently evaluating the possibility of integrating social plastic into selected packaging for our laundry, home care, and beauty products,” said Rabea Laakmann, a spokesperson for Henkel, a major German chemical and consumer goods manufacturer, said.
Laakmann told Bloomberg Environment that the company is in the process of working to establish a reliable supply chain from Haiti to mature markets in Europe and North America.
And while the company expects incorporating social plastic to result in increased packaging coasts over virgin plastic, “Those costs won’t be passed on to the consumer,” Laakmann said. “We expect the first test results and pilots in the second half of this year.”
Market vs. Policy DebateEnvironmentalists are increasingly divided over whether these types of market-based approaches to pollution problems work better than command and control policies that limit or ban certain plastics altogether.
For instance, while demand for recycled polyethylene terephthalate (PET), commonly used in plastic bottles, is quite strong, the same cannot be said for “mixed plastics,” a term that covers all non-bottle plastic films and packaging.
“Too much low-value material is going into these developing markets in the first place,” said Nicholas Mallos, director of the Ocean Conservancy’s Trash Free Seas Program.
“Things like plastic bags, films, wrappers, simply do not have any value. Even where collection opportunities exist, the end markets just aren’t there,” he told Bloomberg Environment.
“However, technology platforms, whether they’re based on blockchain or something else, do send important signals about opportunities for entrepreneurship.”
Others point out that even bans don’t often work as well as policymakers intend.
“Appealing to people’s better natures is good. Paying them is often much better,” said Gernot Wagner, a lecturer on environmental science and public policy at Harvard University.
“Incentives work, it’s as simple as that. Paying people to recycle surely motivates them to do so.”
Challenges in Building Up Supply ChainsWhile many companies claim to be interested in recycled plastics, the realities on the factory floor are often more complex.
“Virgin PET is purer and has performance specifications that can be precisely determined, whereas recycled PET is always a bit of a guessing game on purity and performance,” said Jeff Morris, an economist with Sound Resource Management, an environmental consultancy specializing in product life-cycle analysis.
Plastics for Change is a technology company based in India trying to remove that variability from the recycling sector.
“We have a small army of field coordinators, working with scrap shops and wholesalers to stabilize the price and de-risk the supply chain,” said Andrew Almack, the founder of Plastics for Change.
By using proprietary technology together with strictly enforced quality standards, Almack says the company has been able to find more buyers, which has brought consistency to the market.
“If you’re a waste picker in India today, the biggest problem is price volatility, and not knowing how much you’ll be paid for your work.”
By using a mobile payment system, instead of waiting for days or weeks for the wholesaler to get paid and he or she can pay the collectors, payments are now handled instantly, which increases collector participation.
The company charges a service fee in exchange for access to the supplier network. While not using blockchain specifically, Almack says Plastic for Change is still using technology as a way to create a kind of infrastructure for processing waste.
“For us, the technology is more about creating operating procedures, which then builds trust across the system,” he said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/can-blockchain-fix-the-ocean-plastic-problem
-
Rhode Island Climate Fight Pits Small State Against Big Oil
Jul 2, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
The fight to bring oil giants such as ExxonMobil Corp., BP plc, and Chevron Corp. to court for their contributions to climate change is no longer just a local effort—it has reached the state level.
Rhode Island is suing 21 major national and international oil companies, alleging they knowingly contributed to a warming climate that has had severe impacts on the state’s environment, economy, and citizens, state Attorney General Peter Kilmartin (D) announced July 2 in remarks at the Narragansett Sea Wall surrounding the beach town.
The lawsuit, filed July 2 in Rhode Island’s state Superior Court, is the first of its kind from a state. It mirrors litigation filed by local governments—including New York City; Boulder, Colo.; and a group of eight California cities and counties—that have sought to put pressure on oil and gas companies.
“For a very long time, there has been this perception that ‘Big Oil’ was too big to take on, but here we are—the smallest state, the Ocean State—taking on the biggest, most powerful corporate polluters in the world,” Kilmartin said. “Why? Because we have too much to lose if we do nothing, and they are responsible.”
In addition to ExxonMobil, BP, and Chevron, the lawsuit also targets Royal Dutch Shell plc, ConocoPhillips, and Marathon Petroleum, among others. The litigation asks the court to require the oil companies to pay to relieve the state’s taxpayers from economic damages they have faced from climate change.
Several of the oil companies were not immediately available for comment, but they have sharply criticized cities’ and counties’ similar cases.
“Reliable, affordable energy is not a public nuisance but a public necessity,” R. Hewitt Pate, vice president and general counsel for Chevron, said in a June 25 statement. “Tackling the difficult international policy issues of climate change requires honest and constructive discussion. Using lawsuits to vilify the men and women who provide the energy we all need is neither honest nor constructive.”
California Cities’ SuitBut the Rhode Island lawsuit comes just one week after a federal district court judge dismissed similar litigation against major oil companies brought by the cities of San Francisco and Oakland, Calif.
The judge argued public nuisance litigation such as the cities’ lawsuit was not the proper venue to deal with climate change, saying any solution should come from the executive or legislative branches.
“While it remains true that our federal courts have authority to fashion common law remedies for claims based on global warming, courts must also respect and defer to the other co-equal branches of government when the problem at hand clearly deserves a solution best addressed by those branches,” U.S. District Judge William Alsup wrote in a June 25 opinion.
The Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, a project of the National Association of Manufacturers’ Center for Legal Action, said Alsup’s opinion proves the Rhode Island lawsuit won’t be successful.
“Taxpayer resources should not be used for baseless lawsuits that are designed to enrich trial lawyers and grab headlines for politicians,” Lindsey de la Torre, the project’s executive director, said in a statement. “This abuse of our legal system does nothing to advance meaningful solutions, which manufacturers are focused on every day.”
Public Nuisance ClaimsThe Rhode Island lawsuit makes similar claims related to public nuisance and public trust as the cities’ cases, according to the July 2 compliant. But the lawsuit also argues the oil companies violated state law, the Environmental Rights Act, which provides for the protection of the state’s air, water, and other natural resources.
Kilmartin said the state will use scientific data, resilience planning, and economic analysis to back up its claims against the oil companies.
“We have a fiduciary obligation to the citizens and taxpayers to hold ‘Big Oil’ accountable for the damages they caused, and more importantly, we have a moral obligation to protect our natural resources, wildlife, our quality of life, and leave this Rhode Island a better place for future generations and put the planet before profits,” he added.
The case is R.I. v. Chevron, R.I. Super. Ct., No. PC-2018-4716, Petition 7/2/18.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/rhode-island-climate-fight-pits-small-state-against-big-oil
-
Utah Oil Drillers Won Pollution Break After Pruitt Joined EPA
Jul 3, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Emily Holden
Utah oil and gas producers tried for years to get the EPA to exempt them from smog rules meant to prevent ailments like asthma.
They finally got their relief after Scott Pruitt took charge of the agency, newly released emails show.
To groups opposed to President Donald Trump’s policies, the records are yet another sign that Pruitt has transformed an agency created to protect the environment into a tool for granting favors to industry. They say that's troubling even if it falls short of the overt collusion his critics have accused him of amid revelations about his ties to lobbyists who helped him arrange housing and travel.
"The public is being shut out of the decisions that affect the air we all breathe while polluters have Pruitt at their beck and call whenever they ask to throw out a life-saving protection," said Matt Gravatt, the associate legislative director at the Sierra Club, which obtained the emails in a lawsuit over a public records request.
EPA’s aid for the oil and gas companies in Utah came after an industry lobbyist, Marc Himmelstein, a former American Petroleum Institute executive with longstanding connections to top GOP fundraisers, enlisted help from another like-minded Republican, House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah), who has pushed legislation to promote oil and gas development and ease permitting requirements.
Himmelstein coordinated a July 2017 phone call between the Utah lawmakers and Pruitt, offering specific talking points for Bishop to use, according to the records obtained in a lawsuit by the Sierra Club.
EPA was set to declare that the tribal land in the Uinta Basin in Utah was not meeting standards for smog, or ozone pollution. Once that happened, oil and gas producers wouldn't be able to use a streamlined permitting process and would instead have to seek approval for each of the thousands of wells they aim to drill there.
"We ask the Agency to develop a streamlined permitting solution for future development of the Basin," Himmelstein's talking points for Bishop said.
In April, EPA proposed just that.
Himmelstein had also sent Pruitt’s chief of staff marked-up regulatory text that he shared with Bishop to propose. And he said EPA would receive a letter from the office of Republican Gov. Gary Herbert. Herbert, who is aiming to increase energy production in Utah, had been focused on the issue already and did convey the industry concerns to Pruitt in a letter last summer, his office confirmed.
Himmelstein is a longtime Washington lobbyist and president of the energy lobbying firm National Environmental Strategies, which was previously caught in an ethics controversy over its ties to a former Interior Department official. He told Jackson he was working with QEP Resources Inc. and Newfield Exploration Co., two of the biggest drillers in the region that includes the companies’ leases in the Uintah and Ouray Indian reservations.
Himmelstein is also treasurer of the Conservative Leadership Alliance, a 501(c)(4) that spent $1.4 million on federal elections this year, according to OpenSecrets. And he is a lobbyist for FirstEnergy Solutions, which has been influential with the Trump administration in its bid to keep coal and nuclear plants online.
Pruitt’s critics have long complained the former Oklahoma attorney general was too closely tied to the oil and gas industry. Email records show senior staffers at EPA also exchange scores of messages with top lobbyists for the fossil fuel, agriculture and chemicals industries, and the newly released messages show the consideration top agency staffers gave to energy companies, who often complained that the Obama administration ignored their concerns.
Oil and gas development has been blamed for contributing to northeastern Utah’s ozone pollution, which can affect people suffering from bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma. A 2013 study of the area found that at least 98 percent of volatile organic compounds and 61 percent of nitrogen oxides — building blocks of ozone — come from oil and gas.
Himmelstein and representatives for the two companies did not respond to requests for comment. But Pruitt’s chief of staff, Ryan Jackson, told POLITICO that EPA was eager to help them because the Obama-era requirements would have unfairly limited oil and gas production on the tribal lands compared with other nearby operations.
Jackson said the stricter permitting process for oil and gas companies in Utah would have been "entirely unnecessary and entirely unfair." EPA is likely to pursue a broader rewrite of the rule, in addition to the carve-out for the Uinta Basin, he added.
"Why are we disadvantaging Indian country?" he said, "That makes no sense."
But Jackson has it backward, said Jon Goldstein, director of regulatory and legislative affairs for the Environmental Defense Fund.
“What’s unfair is asking people to continue to breathe unhealthy air that has consequences,” Goldstein said.
While Himmelstein wanted EPA to remove the stipulation that drillers in any tribal areas that failed to meet ozone requirements must apply for source-by-source permits, EPA instead drafted an amendment specific to the Uinta basin.
The amendment would provide a “permanent mechanism for streamlining construction authorizations” on the reservation, including in areas not meeting ozone standards, EPA’s fact sheet explains. It notes that EPA is also working on a rule for the reservation to reduce ozone-forming emissions “while allowing continued development of its oil and natural gas resources.”
Himmelstein, who has long been acquainted with Jackson and met socially on several occasions with him last year, first emailed the EPA chief of staff and then-White House special assistant on energy Mike Catanzaro in June 2017 about setting up a meeting with the two companies.
“We need your help,” Himmelstein wrote. “The Uinta Basin in Northeast Utah (Rob Bishop’s district) is going to be listed as an ozone non-attainment area later this year. It is a prolific oil and gas producing area that encompasses state, tribal and federal lands.”
Pruitt had agreed to meet with QEP when he spoke at the American Exploration and Production Council in late May, Himmelstein reminded in another exchange.
Bishop’s spokesperson said the lawmaker’s phone call to Pruitt was part the Natural Resources Committee chairman’s efforts to press for changes in permitting and air quality rules in the Uinta Basin.
“This is an issue that dates back many years. The Chairman had numerous similar conversations with Pruitt’s predecessor, Gina McCarthy. The issue has not been resolved and Chairman Bishop continues to advocate for reasonable regulatory reforms that will protect and enhance the lives of the people of Utah’s first congressional district,” Bishop’s spokesperson said.
Anthony Adragna contributed to this report.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/07/utah-oil-drillers-won-pollution-break-after-pruitt-joined-epa-666916
-
EPA's 'Good Neighbor' Proposal Sparks Criticism
Jul 2, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
Connecticut regulators, joined by a top Senate Democrat, are panning EPA's tentative decision to stick with the status quo to satisfy "good neighbor" requirements in its 2008 ozone standard.
"Air pollution knows no borders, and the EPA has given a free pass to all upwind states," Chris Collibee, a spokesman for the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, said in an email today. "We will be reviewing this decision carefully to determine what action will be necessary to protect the air we all breathe."
Connecticut and New York sued earlier this year to force EPA to decide how to handle upwind ozone-forming emissions wafting in from other states; those emissions, they alleged, are making it harder for the New York City metro area to meet the 2008 ground-level ozone standard of 75 parts per billion. In a proposed determination issued Friday, however, the agency opted against issuing any new regulations, saying its existing Cross-State Air Pollution Rule update will suffice (E&E News PM, June 29).
That rule, published two years ago, is intended to cut emissions of nitrogen oxides from coal-fired power plants in 22 states that are making it harder for downwind parts of the country to meet the 75 ppb standard. Once the CSAPR update is fully implemented, most of those states "are not expected to contribute significantly" to compliance problems elsewhere for that threshold, according to EPA's draft determination.
That tentative decision added to a losing streak for Northeastern states that complain upwind pollution is handicapping their efforts to meet federal ozone regulations.
In April, EPA definitively rejected a separate request from Connecticut seeking a federal crackdown on pollution from a south-central Pennsylvania power plant (Greenwire, April 10). EPA has also rejected a bid by New York and other states to dramatically expand the territory covered by Ozone Transport Region pollution control requirements (E&E News PM, Nov. 1, 2017). Last month, the agency gave a preliminary thumbs-down to five petitions from Maryland and Delaware also seeking federal help in prodding individual power plants to reduce pollution (Greenwire, June 4). Under a court-ordered timetable, EPA must make a final decision on at least Maryland's petition by mid-September.
While Delaware was not a plaintiff in the lawsuit that led to the proposed determination released Friday, Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) portrayed it as part of a broader pattern.
"The partnership between states and EPA is critical for downwind states like Delaware that depend on EPA to ensure every state is a good neighbor when it comes to reducing air pollution," Carper, the ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a news release. Once again, he added, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt "proves that his talk of 'cooperative federalism' means absolutely nothing."
Ozone, the prime ingredient in smog, is produced by the reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in sunlight. It is linked to asthma attacks in children and other respiratory problems. In 2015, EPA further tightened the ground-level ozone limit to 70 ppb, citing added research on ozone's health effects.
A spokeswoman for the New York Department of Environmental Conservation had no immediate comment today on the proposed determination. Under a separate court order, EPA's final decision is due by early December.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/07/02/stories/1060087531
-
EPA Help With Transported Pollution May Vary by Region, States Say
Jul 2, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid Reporter
The EPA is trying to help states struggling with poor air quality owing to interstate transport of ozone-forming pollutants, but that assistance may vary depending on where the states are.
The Environmental Protection Agency hasn’t yet guided states on meeting the current 2015 national ozone standard of 70 parts per billion. Earlier this year, the agency said 56 regions, including New York City and parts of Texas and Arizona, don’t meet the standards.
Northeastern states that receive a lot of air pollution from power plants in the Midwest, Southeast, and Mid-Atlantic aren’t holding their breath for help from the EPA.
Northeastern SkepticismFor one thing, they are skeptical because the agency said in a June 29 proposal that it wouldn’t require power plants in upwind states to put on additional pollution controls for nitrogen oxides, an ozone precursor, to meet the 2008 ozone standard.
The Northeastern states—particularly Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, and New York—have repeatedly petitioned the EPA to impose more controls on these power plants to help them meet the 2008 ozone standard.
The Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, which represents eight states including Connecticut and New York, is expecting the “worst” from the EPA, Paul Miller, the interstate agency’s deputy director and chief scientist, told Bloomberg Environment.
Miller expects the EPA will treat the Northeastern states the same way in its rule to implement the 2015 standard as it has with the 2008 standard.
In contrast, states in other regions, like Arizona and Texas, anticipate the EPA will offer them some relief from cross-border pollution. They are looking to a May 9 EPA memo calling for consideration of “potential tools for regulatory relief to address background concentrations and sources of pollution outside of the control of state and local air agencies.”
“They seem sensitive to the international transport issue,” Timothy Franquist, air quality division director at the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, told Bloomberg Environment.
Cross-Border PollutionYuma, Ariz., sits on the border with Mexico and is marginally out of attainment with the 2015 ozone standard. Prevailing winds from the south bring increasingly high levels of ozone over the border, keeping the city from meeting the 2015 limit, according to air quality data from ground monitors and NASA satellites.
The city doesn’t need to install pollution controls if it’s marginally out of compliance. But even if most of its ozone-forming pollution is from international sources, the Clean Air Act requires it to install controls to demonstrate that it has done all it can to control for domestic sources before it can apply for relief from the requirements of meeting the ozone standard.
Franquist said he plans to bring up the issue of international transport as it pertains to Yuma in an upcoming call with Clint Woods, EPA deputy assistant administrator for air and radiation.
“How do we continue to protect areas and not punish recipients of international pollution and find a balance with Clean Air Act regulations?” Franquist said.
Likewise, cities in Texas, including Houston and Dallas, still aren’t meeting air quality standards because of interstate and cross-border transport of pollution. San Antonio, in particular, remains in limbo because it claims most of its pollution isn’t local but beyond its control. A decision hasn’t been made about whether it is meeting the standard.
Before the EPA designated 56 areas as not meeting the 2015 standard, top Texas environmental officials met with William Wehrum, EPA’s assistant administrator for air and radiation, to make their case about international transport and to keep San Antonio off the list of noncompliant localities, according to Wehrum’s calendar released to Bloomberg Environment under a Freedom of Information Act request.
Texas officials didn’t respond to requests seeking greater detail about these meetings, but San Antonio officials said the governor’s staff and environmental officials have been urging the agency to factor international transport in the upcoming implementation rule.
Reconciling Court’s DecisionOn the East Coast, the New York City region, which includes southern Connecticut and northern New Jersey, has been out of compliance with the 2008 ozone standard and the more stringent 2015 standards. Connecticut also isn’t expected to meet these two standards, largely because of interstate transport.
“I am waiting to see what comes out,” Ric Pirolli, standards and planning director at Connecticut’s Bureau of Air Management, told Bloomberg Environment.
Pirolli said he wants to see how the EPA will reconcile the upcoming rule with the action it took on the 2008 ozone standard and a recent federal appeals court decision.
In February, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA ruled that the EPA couldn’t exempt localities from meeting prior ozone standards even though newer standards are in effect.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-help-with-transported-pollution-may-vary-by-region-states-say-1
-
Top Conservative Groups Urge Trump to Reject Climate Change Agreement
Jul 2, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
Over 20 national and state conservative groups are urging the Trump administration to reject an international agreement that aims to fix climate change by limiting the use of a chemical commonly found in refrigerators.
In a letter sent Monday to President Trump, the groups, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and Heritage Action asked Trump to pull the U.S. out of an Obama-era agreement known as the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, which aims to reduce emissions of global warming-causing hydrofluorocarbons used as a refrigerant.
The groups argued that the agreement would increase the cost to U.S. consumers, saying it "would impose restrictions on production of the affordable refrigerants currently used in most types of air conditioning and refrigeration units and necessitate their likely replacement with more expensive alternatives."
The letter added: "The result would be higher costs for households, motorists, and businesses that rely on air conditioning and refrigeration."
The Obama administration and environmentalists alike championed the United Nations treaty negotiated in 2016, which was created to help countries meet the emissions standards put forth in the Paris climate agreement. One hundred and seventy countries signed onto the agreement, which scientists expected could on its own help prevent a nearly 1 degree rise in temperatures by 2100.
Big businesses, including the U.S. refrigerator industry, are also supportive of the agreement, urging the Trump administration to stay committed to the deal because of the business potential of new regulations.
The industry hopes to convince the administration that staying in will create U.S. jobs due to the fact that the country is a leader in refrigerant products and the pact will likely drive new demand for their expertise globally.
A joint April report from trade groups Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute and the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy say that the deal will strengthen U.S. exports.
“Without Kigali ratification, growth opportunities will be lost along with the jobs to support that growth, the trade deficit will grow, and the U.S. share of global export markets will decline,” the report read.
In June 13 GOP senators, led by John Kennedy (La.) and Susan Collins(Maine), wrote to Trump asking him to submit the treaty amendment for Senate approval. They said the Kigali amendment would increase manufacturing jobs by 33,000 and boost exports by $4.8 billion.
However, other conservatives view the treaty, which was signed in Kigali, Rwanda, as a leftover from the Obama administration that should be done away with. The letter states that the "Kigali Amendment would do far more economic harm than environmental good."
"Most studies have concluded that fully implementing the Kigali Amendment would reduce the global mean temperature by an unmeasurable amount by 2050," it said.
Myron Ebell, director of CEI's center for energy and environment, is a signatory to the letter. He previously ran Trump's Environmental Protection Agency transition team and has long been supportive of the administration's environmental deregulations.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/395194-top-conservative-groups-urges-trump-to-reject-climate-change
-
Industry Oversight of Michigan Environmental Policy Sparks Concern
Jul 2, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alex Ebert
Michigan’s next governor will determine whether new oversight boards will give the state’s industries more influence over environmental policy or be seen as an unconstitutional power shift, an environmental group said.
Three laws (S.B. 652, 653, and 654) signed June 29 by Gov. Rick Snyder (R) create boards that give state industries a say in whether regulations should be approved and permits should be issued. A third board provides environmental science policy advice to Michigan officials.
The laws take effect immediately.
While moderate Republican Snyder will get first crack at appointments, he’s prohibited from seeking a third term under the state’s constitution. So the next governor elected in November will have the ability to remove members “for cause” and install members who support his or her position.
“Absolutely for environmental groups, it raises the stakes of the next gubernatorial election,” Nick Occhipinti, government affairs director for the Michigan League of Conservation Voters, told Bloomberg Environment July 2. “A pro-conservation candidate will immediately work with the legal team to question the constitutionality of these appointments.”
The panels aren’t supposed to be a partisan force, Jason Geer, lobbyist for the Michigan Chamber of Commerce in Lansing, told Bloomberg Environment July 2.
“The reality is that this is going to be an aid for any governor, not to their detriment,” he said.
The campaigns for the two current frontrunners to succeed Snyder—Republican Bill Schuette and Democrat Gretchen Whitmer—didn’t immediately respond to Bloomberg Environment’s requests for comment.
Undue Power to Polluters?For the first time, the laws will give industry a voice in permit approvals and regulation and allow whoever sits in the governor’s mansion to select a group that doesn’t disadvantage his or her partisan affiliation. This gives undue power to polluters, environmentalists allege, while business advocates say the laws will increase transparency and create buy-in from industry.
How the next governor views the law could end the panels for good, Occhipinti said. Environmentalists contend that a permit appeal stocked by private citizens is unconstitutional.
“A subsection of the panel, a two-member majority, can overrule the director of the Department of Environmental Quality and an administrative law judge to issue a final decision on behalf of the executive branch on any [department] permit,” he said. “That’s dunes, that air, that’s floodplains. By far, we’ve had more response on this than any other package of bills in this session.”
The review panels and regulatory review board are integral to greater transparency and will be applying the same facts and law that the department’s judges currently use, according to Geer.
“Their job is to apply the law,” he said. “If these bodies decide to serve as a block to what the governor wants, they’ll cease to exist.”
Industry ReviewThe three bills establish boards to affect environmental policy but still keep enforcement power within Michigan’s executive branch.
“When state leaders make decisions impacting environmental quality, Michiganders deserve full transparency,” Snyder said in a June 29 statement. “These bills enhance opportunities for independent experts to weigh in and provide information that will help ensure new environmental processes meet the highest levels of quality and safety standards.”
S.B. 654 creates a relatively noncontroversial nine-member Environmental Science Advisory Board panel that will advise state officials on policy at the direction of the governor.
The other two bills were more fractious and raised objections from environmental groups, which named the bills the “fox guarding the hen house acts.”
S.B. 652 allows the governor to appoint 12 voting members to a regulatory review panel. Six of those voters can belong to a particular political party, and industry representatives from waste management, manufacturing, utilities, gas and oil, and agriculture have a mandatory seat at the table. Two spots are reserved for a statewide environmental organization and a statewide land conservancy organization.
Under S.B. 653, the only requirement the governor has to follow to fill a 15-member permit review board is to ensure that appointees hold subject-matter expertise or experience in scientific fields such as engineering, geology, or hydrology.
This board would serve as an appeal to state denials of environmental permits and could overrule the determinations of the environmental department.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/industry-oversight-of-michigan-environmental-policy-sparks-concern-1
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested