Preview Newsletter
AM ACC Clips Report - July 10, 2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) Automakers Fear Trump's Efforts to Protect Their Industry Will Crush It
Jul 10, 2018 | Washington Examiner
By James Langford
President Trump exudes complete confidence that his threat to charge tariffs of 20 percent or more on automotive imports will pay off handsomely for the American economy generally, and carmakers in particular. -
Wheeler Pledges Continuity On Trump Agenda As Some Seek 'Reset'
Jul 10, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
Andrew Wheeler, who took over as acting EPA chief July 9, says he will continue efforts to implement the Trump administration's agenda to roll back a host of Obama-era rules even as industry and other groups are hoping for a new opportunity to push the agency to reconsider prior stances adopted by his predecessor, Scott Pruitt. -
Conservative High Court Could Change Course of Environmental Cases
Jul 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Fatima Hussein
As President Donald Trump trims his list of potential judges to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court, environmental lawyers speculate on how a conservative bench could reshape national policy. -
Deadline Nears for US EPA TSCA Nanomaterials Reporting Requirement
Jul 9, 2018 | The National Law Review
By Stephen A. Owens
The August 14, 2018 deadline for reporting under US EPA’s nanomaterials reporting rule is rapidly approaching. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Stalls Release of Carcinogen Report
Jul 9, 2018 | The Scientist
By Sukanya Charuchandra
The Environmental Protection Agency is delaying the release of a draft assessment on formaldehyde that finds the chemical causes nasal and oral cancer and leukemia, according to Politico. -
BASF to Stop Making Cosmetic Chemical in U.S.
Jul 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam McQuillan
The U.S. will no longer be a manufacturing base for a chemical commonly found in soaps and makeup. -
Norway's EPA Recommends Two Substances for Phase-Out List
Jul 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Norway’s EPA has recommended adding two substances to the national priority list of contaminants it intends to phase out. -
Danish Study Finds Cans of Tomatoes with BPA Lining
Jul 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Testing of cans of chopped tomatoes by the Danish Consumer Council's THINK Chemicals initiative has found some are still coated on the inside with an epoxy lacquer containing bisphenol A (BPA). -
Efsa Elects Chairs of FCM Panel
Jul 10, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Vittorio Silano has been re-elected chair of the European Food Safety Agency (Efsa) expert panel on food contact materials, enzymes and processing aids (CEP). -
NGO Calls for 'Ambitious' French Strategy on EDCs
Jul 10, 2018 | Chemical Watch
France should spur EU action on endocrine disrupting chemicals, by making its second national strategy on regulating the substances "as ambitious as possible", NGO Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) has said. -
Monsanto 'Bullied Scientists' and Hid Weedkiller Cancer Risk, Lawyer Tells Court
Jul 10, 2018 | The Guardian
By Sam Levin
Monsanto has long worked to “bully scientists” and suppress evidence of the cancer risks of its popular weedkiller, a lawyer argued on Monday in a landmark lawsuit against the global chemical corporation. -
First Trial Over Roundup Weed Killer Cancer Claim Under Way
Jul 9, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
By Sudhin Thanawala
Lawyers for a school groundskeeper dying of cancer asked a San Francisco jury on Monday to find that agribusiness giant Monsanto's widely used weed killer Roundup likely caused his disease. -
Permian Pinch Spurs a Pipeline Binge, and Fears of Overbuilding
Jul 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Adams-Heard
The pipeline crunch threatening the world’s hottest shale play won’t be solved until at least the back half of next year. But then, the floodgates will open. -
Energy Transfer Partners Gets Win in Louisiana Pipeline Battle
Jul 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
Energy Transfer Partners can begin construction of a $750 million pipeline to carry oil across southern Louisiana after a federal appeals court lifted an injunction on the project. -
Graham Awarded Petrochemical Orders
Jul 10, 2018 | Hydrocarbon Engineering
By Anna Nicklin
Graham Corp. has received two orders of a total of approximately US$6.6 million for the petrochemical industry in the US Gulf Coast. -
(ACC Mentioned) Companies Make Moves to Go Green, but Texas Says No to Bag Bans
Jul 9, 2018 | KTRK-TV
By Keaton Fox
Starbucks is dropping plastic straws. Dunkin Donuts is ditching Styrofoam. But despite corporate moves to be more environmentally-friendly, Texas is proudly bucking the trend. -
Kavanaugh Could Be Obstacle to Major Climate Action at Supreme Court
Jul 9, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillen
President Donald Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court is likely to be skeptical of any EPA attempt to take major action on climate change without the backing of the sharply divided Congress. -
Petroleum Refineries Get Breathing Room to Meet Toxic Air Limits
Jul 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Petroleum refineries built before July 1, 2014, will have more time to meet toxic air pollution limits for maintenance vents used when operations are started up or shut down for inspection or routine repairs. -
EPA Sends NSR 'Project Aggregation' Rule for OMB Review
Jul 9, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA has sent for White House pre-publication review a final rule governing when industrial projects may be “aggregated,” or combined, for the purposes of determining whether new source review (NSR) air permits are required, likely another step in the Trump administration's push to ease NSR permitting. -
Conservative Groups Push for House Vote on Anti-Carbon-Tax Measure
Jul 9, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Conservative groups are pushing GOP House leaders to allow a vote on a non-binding resolution to condemn carbon taxes. -
Starbucks Swears Off Single-Use Plastic Straws for 2020 Deadline
Jul 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Uliana Pavlova
For Starbucks Corp., the year 2020 will be the final straw.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Automakers Fear Trump's Efforts to Protect Their Industry Will Crush It
Jul 10, 2018 | Washington Examiner
By James Langford
President Trump exudes complete confidence that his threat to charge tariffs of 20 percent or more on automotive imports will pay off handsomely for the American economy generally, and carmakers in particular.
But the industry and its suppliers have nothing but doubt and communities where their plants are located, many of which supported the president's 2016 campaign, share those fears.
The industry has sent dozens of submissions to the Commerce Department to air concerns, which is part of the investigation required by law before the duties can be imposed.
The proposed automotive tariffs, threatened on national security grounds through Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, "will harm a thriving sector of both Alabama's economy and the nation's as a whole," said William J. Canary, president of the Alabama Business Council, which represents employers in a state where Trump captured 62 percent of the vote.
Carmakers from General Motors, the American icon behind the Chevrolet Camaro and the Cadillac Escalade, to foreign manufacturers like BMW, Honda and Volvo that build autos in the U.S. warn that the duties will push up their supply costs, curb American exports and, ultimately, cost well-paying jobs that the president has promised to increase.
"Import tariffs could lead to a smaller GM, a reduced presence at home and abroad," and risk less — not more — manufacturing positions, said the Detroit-based carmaker, which has a U.S. payroll of 110,000. The potential risk from the duties grows , the company said, when combined with Trump's widening trade disputes with China as well as with traditional U.S. partners like Europe, Canada and Mexico.
The White House has demurred, with Trump saying "people who happen to be smart" have no uncertainty about the positive effects of his stance.
"We're very close to making some very good trade deals, fair trade deals," the president said last week in a meeting with Netherlands Prime Minister Mark Rutte, arguing that Europe was eager to negotiate. "We're just thinking about those cars that pour in here."
Should the threats and counter-threats instead spur an all-out trade war; however, economists say the benefits of last year's GOP-led tax cuts may be lost and the world might topple into recession.
Across the U.S. auto industry, a 25 percent tariff would trim output by 1.5 percent and cost 195,000 U.S. workers their jobs over a period of one to three years, according to figures cited by the Auto Alliance, a trade group for companies behind 70 percent of U.S. auto sales. Buyers of imported cars would pay an average of $5,800 more, costing American consumers about $45 billion, based on 2017 sales data.
"If imports of automobiles and auto parts are subjected to tariff increases or other restrictions or adjustments, U.S. consumers and the American economy as a whole will pay a heavy price," noted Katherine Yehl, vice president of government affairs in the Americas for Volvo, which recently opened its first U.S. manufacturing plant.
The $1.1 billion project by the Gothenburg, Sweden-based company was the first brand new automobile factory in the U.S. in almost a decade, Volvo said. Spanning 2.3 million square feet and capable of building up to 150,000 cars a year, the plant will begin commercial production in August and employ about 1,500 workers by the end of 2018, the company said.
Volvo, which expects to expand that workforce to 4,000 over the long term, pointed out that its ability to do so depends on using a global production system that enables shipment of parts and finished vehicles without “burdensome” tariffs.
“The U.S. benefits from open markets, and half of what we build in South Carolina will be exported,” Yehl wrote. “Thus, half of the 4,000 direct jobs at the factory that we aim to create are related to exports and if we cannot trade freely, those U.S. jobs may not be created at all."
BMW, like many of the automakers and trade groups weighing in on the proposed tariffs, noted that car production has no “apparent correlation” with U.S. national security.
“It appears that the purpose of threatening to impose these duties is to achieve certain economic objectives, under the theory that enhancing U.S. economic competitiveness will enhance U.S. national security,” Lisa Errion Saums, BMW Group’s vice president for government and external affairs for the Americas, wrote to Ross. “The problem with this line of reasoning is that imposing duties is not conducive to increasing U.S. growth and enhancing competitiveness.”
Further, she said, BMW isn't a national-security risk. The company has worked with the U.S. on a variety of security-related matters, including supplying electric vehicles to the Los Angeles Police Department and developing a workshop and training program for military technicians at Camp Pendleton, the Marine Corps base in southern California.
As for the Trump administration’s goal of reducing European Union tariffs, she said, BMW has long supported removing it. The company pays duties on more than 100,000 cars produced at its South Carolina plant and shipped to Europe each year.
“Removing both U.S. and EU automotive duties entirely is in the best interest of German auto manufacturers, as it would save them an estimated 1 billion euros a year,” she wrote.
“We expect that if the U.S. sets its sights on removing that barrier to trade, it might very well be able to negotiate for such an outcome in a free trade agreement for industrial goods without having to threaten such significant harm to the global automotive industry,” Saums added.
The effects of the tariffs would stretch far beyond the auto industry itself, however. The sector represents a large market for U.S. chemical companies, which would also be hurt, according to the American Chemistry Council, a trade group. One-fifth of an automobile's weight comes from chemicals, including plastics, coatings and fluids, worth a combined $3,013.
"We don't think imports of automobiles and auto parts are a threat to national security," said Ed Brzytwa, the group's director of international trade and a former policy adviser to the U.S. Trade Representative on Asia Pacific issues. If the administration is simply using that as a tactic to level the economic playing field, it's not likely to work, he added.
"Creating barriers to trade is not going to address barriers to trade; as a former negotiator, I can tell you that that is just shooting yourself in the foot," Brzytwa said. "The best way to resolve these issues is through negotiation, not through blackmail or extortion or trying to change the global supply-chain world in which we live."
The potential damage from Trump's tariffs isn't limited to global corporations; carmakers and business leaders warn that it will be evident at very local levels, too.
The proposed duties could “greatly harm Alabama’s auto-manufacturing sector and threaten the tremendously positive impact that automotive manufacturers and suppliers have had," according to the Business Council of Alabama, a state that's home to a Mercedes plant.
The council, whose members employ nearly 1 million Alabama residents, cited the 40,000 auto workers there as well as the $9.5 billion in cars and parts shipped from the state in 2017.
The numbers will only grow with a Toyota-Mazda project slated to employ 4,000 people, said Canary, the council's president, but “that all could be put at risk” through what he called “unnecessary interference” by the federal government.
Adding trade duties to automobiles and their components would also increase prices for consumers, leading to a slowdown in vehicle sales in the U.S. as car owners keep their current vehicles longer, warned the Chamber of Commerce in Chattanooga, Tenn.
The city is home to a Volkswagen plant while Tennessee, where Trump carried 61 percent of the 2016 vote, also boasts two Nissan factories.
“It makes sense to keep American-made automobiles affordable," the Chattanooga chamber said, "by leaving the tariff rates that currently apply to imported automobile parts at current levels."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/business/automakers-fear-trumps-efforts-to-protect-their-industry-will-crush-it
-
Wheeler Pledges Continuity On Trump Agenda As Some Seek 'Reset'
Jul 10, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
Andrew Wheeler, who took over as acting EPA chief July 9, says he will continue efforts to implement the Trump administration's agenda to roll back a host of Obama-era rules even as industry and other groups are hoping for a new opportunity to push the agency to reconsider prior stances adopted by his predecessor, Scott Pruitt.
In addition, Wheeler is pledging more transparency regarding agency activities than Pruitt, and is pushing back against renewed criticism of his prior job lobbying for a major coal producer, noting he also represented several other energy, food and manufacturing firms and has recused himself from issues directly involving those entities for two years.
“I would say that the agenda for the agency was set out by President Trump,” Wheeler told the Washington Post in an interview posted July 6. “And Administrator Pruitt has been working to implement that. I will try to work to implement the president’s agenda as well. I don’t think the overall agenda is going to change that much, because we’re implementing what the president has laid out for the agency.”
Nevertheless, some groups that had been at odds with Pruitt are sensing an opportunity to make their case anew with Wheeler, who is expected to take a more methodological approach to setting policy in part to improve the agency's chances of defending its work in court.
“It is almost like a reset . . . regardless of what the issue is,” one industry source says. Wheeler “doesn't have a boss he has to go along with now. He is the boss.”
This source is interested in setting up a meeting with Wheeler, but says “there are probably 1,000 other groups with 1,000 other issues trying to line up to get similar meetings. I don't know how long it's going to take to get time on the calendar.”
Examples of issues that could fall into this “reset” category include the future of EPA's renewable fuel standard, its forthcoming proposal to roll back Obama-era vehicle greenhouse gas rules, a long-pending proposal to scrap production limits on high-emitting “glider” trucks and Superfund cleanups, which had been a particular focus of Pruitt's.
Similarly, Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), the ranking member on the Senate environment committee, used Wheeler's elevation as an occasion to press him to take a range of transparency- and policy-related steps to “restore the American people's confidence in the agency's mission,” which he says was tarnished by Pruitt's behavior.
Among Carper's policy asks in a July 6 letter were maintaining limits on high-emitting “glider” trucks, scrapping a proposed science transparency rule, abandoning a draft plan to freeze vehicle GHG and fuel economy limits, implementing the new Toxic Substances Control Act in a tougher manner, and abandoning efforts to weaken existing air quality rules.
The biggest immediate shift appears to be regarding transparency. Politico reports that Wheeler will announce his travel schedule in advance, will “frequently” publish his full calendar and will hold media briefings for major new policies.
None of those things occurred under Pruitt, prompting criticism from environmentalists and others, as well as Freedom of Information Act lawsuits to force release of the former administrator's calendars.
“The more open we are, the better it is for everyone,” Wheeler told the Post, while also saying he would not criticize Pruitt. “That's how I cut my teeth on environmental law. And that's been part of my core beliefs in the agency and how I look at environmental issues. The more transparent we are, the better understood our decisions will be.”
'Diverse' Lobbying Clients
Wheeler is already facing criticism from some environmentalists over his prior lobbying work, charges they similarly leveled against him during his lengthy confirmation to be deputy administrator.
Many news stories refer to the new EPA chief as a former coal lobbyist -- given that one of his main clients was coal producer Murray Energy, a fierce critic of most EPA climate and air rules affecting the power sector.
But the agency's press office in a July 6 email said Wheeler had a “diverse group of clients, including those in manufacturing, energy, solar, trade associations, ethanol production, food production, and other vital American industries.”
“I get frustrated with the media when they report I was a coal lobbyist,” Wheeler told the Hamilton (OH) Journal-News. “Yes, I represented a coal company, but I also represented a cheese company. I represented a lot of different businesses, a lot of different interests.”
Other clients included utility Xcel Energy, Sargento Food, ethanol trade group Growth Energy, International Paper, Martin Farms, certification company Underwriters Laboratories and uranium supplier Energy Fuels Inc. (EFI).
Wheeler told the Post that he does not believe he is “biased” on any EPA issue, given that he represented a range of clients, did not specifically lobby EPA for more than the past two years and previously worked for Sens. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and George Voinovich (R-OH), who “didn't agree on every issue.”
The agency also released Wheeler's May 24 ethics memo, in which he recuses himself for two years from issues related to his prior clients and does not seek waivers from Trump's executive order on ethics. The recusals extend until April 28, 2020.
The only EPA-related issue Wheeler is recused from addressing is the Energy Star appliance efficiency program, given that he recently lobbied on that program in an effort to defeat a GOP senator's amendment that would scrap the program's third-party certification requirement.
Nevertheless, CNN reports about environmentalists' concerns about Wheeler's past client EFI, which is seeking EPA contracts to clean up depleted uranium mines in the Four Corners region of the Southwest.
“He started off in the Senate, then went to a lobbying firm. Now he will be at a very high-ranking position at the EPA, where he will be in a position to make lots of decisions that could benefit his former clients,” Chris Saeger of the Western Values Project told the channel.
The agency cited Wheeler's recusal memo that says he will not participate in any issues related to EFI for two years. Wheeler has also recused himself from any discussions regarding the Energy Department's controversial plan to aid economically struggling coal and nuclear plants using the Federal Power Act and a Cold War-era defense statute.
'Statutory Directives'
During his interview with the Post, Wheeler signaled little change from Pruitt on some issues. For instance, he endorsed Pruitt's policy that members of the influential Science Advisory Board cannot serve if they have accepted an EPA grant. Pruitt and Wheeler both said the policy aims to eliminate conflicts of interest by board members.
Wheeler also charged that the “statutory directives” for EPA to address climate change under the Clean Air Act are “very small,” and said that limited interpretation of the agency's authority would be reflected in its forthcoming proposal to replace the Clean Power Plan utility GHG rule with a much narrower version.
However, he did offer a stronger dismissal than Pruitt of hard-line conservatives' call to scrap the 2009 GHG endangerment finding that forms the basis of all of EPA's climate rules.
“I consider that to be settled law,” he said, noting it was upheld by an appellate court and the Supreme Court declined to review that ruling. “There would have to be a major, compelling reason to try to ever reopen that. I don't think that's an open question at this point.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/wheeler-pledges-continuity-trump-agenda-some-seek-reset
-
Conservative High Court Could Change Course of Environmental Cases
Jul 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Fatima Hussein
As President Donald Trump trims his list of potential judges to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court, environmental lawyers speculate on how a conservative bench could reshape national policy.
“I think a tremendous amount is at stake with the new appointment,” William W. Buzbee, an environmental professor at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, said on a phone call with Bloomberg Environment July 5.
“The U.S. has quite powerful and effective environmental laws and, frankly, they have not been weakened for decades. But a new Supreme Court can act as a resistant” against upholding precedent, Buzbee said.
Seventh Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett, Third Circuit Judge Thomas M. Hardiman, D.C. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh, and Sixth Circuit Judge Raymond Kethledge are on Trump’s SCOTUS shortlist.
Kavanaugh is the only shortlisted judge with a lengthy environmental record. During his time on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the former clerk for Kennedy and President George W. Bush staff secretary earned the reputation for thwarting the Obama administration on climate change issues.
Trump is expected to announce his choice the evening of July 9. Confirmation hearings can last days or span months.
Legal professors argue a predominately conservative court could have implications not only on national environmental policy, but also on how the federal government and states interact on the issues for decades to come.
Clean Water ActOne prime area in which the Supreme Court could weaken environmental law would be narrowing the scope of the Clean Water Act, said Neal McAliley, an environmental law attorney at law firm Carlton Fields in Miami.
Kennedy’s concurrence in the 2006 case Rapanos v. U.S. is the most significant environmental opinion of his Supreme Court career, according to attorneys.
In Rapanos, the court split 4-4-1 over the scope of the “waters of the U.S.,” with Kennedy in the middle.
A water or wetland is considered “navigable waters” under the Clean Water Act if it has a “significant nexus” to “waters that are navigable in fact or that could reasonably be so made,” Kennedy wrote.
“With a new person in his seat, that seems to be a case where the court could go in a different direction,” McAliley said. “Presumably, more in the direction of the plurality opinion written by Justice Scalia.”
If that were to happen, he said, “The geographic scope of the Clean Water Act could be limited substantially, because the four justice plurality in Rapanos would have limited the waters of the U.S. to those with a relatively permanent surface water connection to truly navigable waters.”
Sarah Peterman Bell, a partner with the San Francisco office of Farella Braun & Martel LLP, said in an email to Bloomberg Environment that she could see a scenario in which a more conservative Supreme Court makes it harder for plaintiffs suing under the Clean Water Act to establish the “significant nexus” that Kennedy referenced in his concurrence in Rapanos.
Kennedy’s opinion turned out to be the linchpin for the Obama administration’s attempt, through the Clean Water Rule, to define what is meant by “waters of the U.S.,” or WOTUS.
The court also could affect similar cases that determine control over wetlands, she said.
“In this example, a more conservative court wouldn’t necessarily be overturningUnited States v. Riverside Bayview Homes Inc. or Rapanos, but it would be further narrowing what is meant by waters of the United States in the CWA,” she said.
In the 1985 Riverside case, the Supreme Court held that the federal government doesn’t have the power to control intrastate wetlands as federal waters.
It’s more likely that future Supreme Court decisions will chip away at standards and precedents established in prior Supreme Court decisions and the offspring of those opinions, Bell said.
Indirect Discharge CasesBell said she wouldn’t be surprised to see a more conservative court reject the idea of “indirect discharges” where the Clean Water Act regulates point source discharges that reach navigable water via groundwater.
Cases relating to indirect discharge recently were decided in the Fourth Circuit and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals.
In February, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Hawai’i Wildlife Fund v. County of Maui, that the county violated the Clean Water Act when it allowed wastewater to be discharged into the ocean via groundwater without a permit.
In April, the Fourth Circuit held in Upstate Forever v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners LPthat a citizens’ group had an adequate claim for relief when it brought a Clean Water Act claim against the energy infrastructure company after gasoline released from a pipeline migrated into nearby creeks.
This could implicate or further narrow the plurality or concurring opinions from Rapanos discussing what jurisdictional waters are, Bell said.
The indirect discharge cases also implicate Gwaltney of Smithfield Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Found Inc., she added.
In Gwaltney, decided in 1987, the court held that there’s no Clean Water Act citizen lawsuit jurisdiction for past violations of the law, and violations have to be ongoing for there to be citizen lawsuit jurisdiction.
‘Cooperative Federalism’How the new justice interprets the concept of cooperative federalism—where federal, state, and local governments interact cooperatively to enforce the nation’s laws—will have an affect on interpreting environmental policy in the future, Georgetown’s Buzbee said.
“Attitudes of the administrative state matter a lot, because most of our environmental laws have the federal government in the driver’s seat,” Buzbee said. “But states can take over” on certain issues.
He gave an example of states having control over issuing permits under the Clean Water Act, while the federal government continues to issue regulations.
“That’s an area where a Supreme Court justice’s opinion can really matter,” he said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/conservative-high-court-could-change-course-of-environmental-cases
-
Deadline Nears for US EPA TSCA Nanomaterials Reporting Requirement
Jul 9, 2018 | The National Law Review
By Stephen A. Owens
The August 14, 2018 deadline for reporting under US EPA’s nanomaterials reporting rule is rapidly approaching.
US EPA promulgated the rule in January 2017 under Section 8(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). 82 Fed. Reg. 3641 (Jan. 12, 2017). The rule requires any person that manufactured, imported or processed a covered nanomaterial substance during the three years prior to the rule’s effective date to report certain information to US EPA within one year of the effective date.
Although the rule initially was to be effective in May 2017, US EPA extended the effective date until August 14, 2017, making the reporting deadline August 14, 2018. 82 Fed. Reg. 22088 (May 12, 2017). The extension also adjusted the beginning and end dates of the three-year period for which reporting is required.
The rule does not contain a formal definition of nanomaterials. Instead, the rule requires reporting of chemical substances that are solids at 25° Celsius and standard atmospheric pressure; that are manufactured or processed in a form where any particles (including aggregates and agglomerates) are in the size range of 1–100 nanometers (nm) in at least one dimension; and that are manufactured or processed to exhibit one or more “unique and novel properties.” Additionally, the rule exempts small businesses with sales of less than $11 million per year from the reporting requirement.
“Unique and novel properties” are defined in the rule to mean “any size-dependent properties that vary from those associated with other forms or sizes of the same chemical substance, and such properties are a reason that the chemical substance is manufactured or processed in that form or size.” In the preamble to the rule, US EPA explained that a substance is not reportable simply because it contains particles in the size range of 1–100 nm. Instead, the substance “must also demonstrate a size-dependent property different from properties at sizes greater than 100 nm and is a reason the chemical is manufactured or processed in that form or size.” The rule also contains exemptions for certain substances, including substances manufactured, imported or processed for R&D purposes, as well as substances that contain less than 1% by weight of any particles, including aggregates and agglomerates, in the size range of 1–100 nm.
Persons who manufactured, imported or processed nanomaterial substances covered by the rule during the three-year period prior to August 14, 2017 must report the following information to US EPA by August 14, 2018 for each such substance:
(1) the common or trade name, the specific chemical identity including the correct Chemical Abstracts (CA) Index Name and available Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry Number, and the molecular structure of each chemical substance or mixture.
(2) material characteristics including particle size, morphology, and surface modifications.
(3) physical/chemical properties.
(4) the maximum weight percentage of impurities and byproducts resulting from the manufacture, processing, use, or disposal of each chemical substance.
(5) the annual production volume for the previous three years before August 14, 2017 and an estimate of the maximum production volume for any consecutive 12-month period during the next two years of production after August 14, 2017.
(6) use information describing the category of each use by function and application, estimates of the amount manufactured or processed for each category of use, and estimates of the percentage in the formulation for each use.
(7) detailed information on methods of manufacturing or processing.
(8) exposure information with estimates of the number of individuals exposed in their places of employment, descriptions and duration of the occupational tasks that cause such exposure, descriptions and estimates of any general population or consumer exposures.
(9) release information with estimates of the amounts released, descriptions and duration of the activities that cause such releases, and whether releases are directly to the environment or to control technology.
(10) risk management practices describing protective equipment for individuals, engineering controls, control technologies used, any hazard warning statement, label, safety data sheet, customer training, or other information that is provided to any person who is reasonably likely to be exposed to the substance regarding protective equipment or practices for the safe handing, transport, use, or disposal of the substance.
(11) existing information concerning the environmental and health effects.The rule also imposes a “standing one-time reporting requirement” for persons “who intend to manufacture or process a discrete form of a reportable chemical substance” on or after August 14, 2017. Any such person must report the same information above to US EPA, except that for production volume, the party must report the estimated maximum 12 month production volume and the estimated maximum 12-month production volume for any consecutive 12-month period during the first three years of production. In general, any such person must report the information to US EPA at least 135 days before manufacturing, importing or processing of the substance. The rule provides, however, that where the person has not formed an intent to manufacture, import or process a discrete form of a reportable chemical substance 135 days before such manufacturing, importing or processing, the information must be provided to US EPA within 30 days of forming the intent. The party cannot manufacture, import or process the substance until it provides the information to US EPA, but it can begin manufacturing, importing or processing the substance at any time thereafter.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/deadline-nears-us-epa-tsca-nanomaterials-reporting-requirement
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Stalls Release of Carcinogen Report
Jul 9, 2018 | The Scientist
By Sukanya Charuchandra
The Environmental Protection Agency is delaying the release of a draft assessment on formaldehyde that finds the chemical causes nasal and oral cancer and leukemia, according to Politico.
The report has been ready since before President Donald Trump’s entry into the White House, yet it hasn’t been forwarded to the National Academies of Sciences for review nor been made public, reports Politico.
Politico’s investigation suggests that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials have been suppressing the report to cater to the chemical industry. “At every corner, you see the agency trying to either minimize the role of science or manipulate the role of science or just ignore the work of scientists in doing the critical work to ensure that human health and the environment is protected,” Jennifer McPartland, a senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, tells Politico.
EPA denies the accusations.
According to Vox, democratic senators in a May letter to former EPA chief Scott Pruit say, “We have also learned that, at the same time as EPA political appointees’ requests were delaying the formaldehyde assessment’s movement through the agency review process, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) as well as interested corporation such as ExxonMobil have been pressuring EPA not to release the assessment for public comment as drafted.”
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/epa-stalls-release-of-carcinogen-report-64467
-
BASF to Stop Making Cosmetic Chemical in U.S.
Jul 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam McQuillan
The U.S. will no longer be a manufacturing base for a chemical commonly found in soaps and makeup.
The sole U.S. producer of 1,4-dioxane, BASF, told the EPA on July 2 that it will move production exclusively to Europe, calling the decision a purely economic one due to declining sales in North America.
The German Badische Anilin und Soda Fabrik company suggested in a letter that the Environmental Protection Agency may wish to drop plans to assess the chemical’s risks, since it will no longer be made in the U.S.
Possible Carcinogen1,4-dioxane is classified by the EPA as possibly carcinogenic to humans, and is managed under the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act.
The solvent also has been found in groundwater, which means it has the potential for regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The agency, however, recently opted to limit its risk evaluation for 1,4-dioxane to just occupational and industrial exposures.
Despite the chemical’s potential health risks, the Food and Drug Administration does not have labeling requirements for its uses in sunscreens, deodorants, and lotions.
Developments AbroadBASF is currently in the process of migrating any remaining U.S. purchasers of the solvent to its business in Ludwigshafen, Germany, where it will now be exclusively manufactured.
In a separate July 9 announcement, the company said it plans to build a new $10 billion chemical complex in China, which would make it the first foreign company to fully own a site there.Neither the EPA nor BASF could be immediately reached by phone for comment.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/basf-to-stop-making-cosmetic-chemical-in-us
-
Norway's EPA Recommends Two Substances for Phase-Out List
Jul 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Norway’s EPA has recommended adding two substances to the national priority list of contaminants it intends to phase out.
The substances are the flame retardant dekloran plus and water and stain repellent PFBS. Both are poorly degradable and have been found to accumulate in humans, animals and the environment,
Dechlorane plus is marketed as an alternative to the banned brominated flame retardant DecaBDE. PFBS is a perfluorinated substance (PFAS).
Ellen Hambro, director of the Norwegian Environment Agency said of the recommendations: "If the government includes these two types of substances on the priority list, we get the opportunity to adopt more instruments such as stricter requirements in emissions permits for industry and waste management."
Earlier this year Norway added added dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane (D6), three alkylphenols and the phthalates DBP, BBP and DIBP to the list.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68422/norways-epa-recommends-two-substances-for-phase-out-list
-
Danish Study Finds Cans of Tomatoes with BPA Lining
Jul 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Testing of cans of chopped tomatoes by the Danish Consumer Council's THINK Chemicals initiative has found some are still coated on the inside with an epoxy lacquer containing bisphenol A (BPA).
The initiative tested 13 cans on sale in Denmark and found:two private label products from Danish retailers contained BPA;two cans contained bisphenol A diglycidyl ether (BADGE); andnine were free of BPA and other bisphenols.
Similar testing in 2016 found five out eight cans tested had a BPA coating.
Sofie Christiansen, senior researcher at Denmark's National Food Institute (DTU), cautioned against worrying about the effect of individual cans: "Bisphenol A is problematic because it is an endocrine disruptor, and because there are many scientific studies that show that it can have an effect at rather low doses.
"Consumers should not worry about bisphenol A in the individual can. However, it is the many small contributions consumers are exposed to from many different sources, which overall can be problematic."
In 2017 a Danish study of soft drink cans found that eight out of 14 contained BPA or bisphenol F (BPF) in the linings. The other six contained BADGE.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68416/danish-study-finds-cans-of-tomatoes-with-bpa-lining
-
Efsa Elects Chairs of FCM Panel
Jul 10, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Vittorio Silano has been re-elected chair of the European Food Safety Agency (Efsa) expert panel on food contact materials, enzymes and processing aids (CEP).
A contract professor of food safety legislation at the University of Rome II (Tor Vergata), Professor Silano teaches current EU food safety regulations and and scientific criteria and methodologies for risk assessment.
The committee has also elected two new vice chairs:Professor Henk van Loveren, senior adviser to the Dutch Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA); andDr Alicja Mortensen from Denmark's National Research Centre for Working Environment.
Efsa's scientific panels are made up of independent scientific experts. They carry out assessments and develop related methodologies.
The agency renews its panels every three years. This year, it renewed all ten of them simultaneously for the first time.
The latest mandate for the Scientific Committee and panels began on 1 July.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68433/efsa-elects-chairs-of-fcm-panel
-
NGO Calls for 'Ambitious' French Strategy on EDCs
Jul 10, 2018 | Chemical Watch
France should spur EU action on endocrine disrupting chemicals, by making its second national strategy on regulating the substances "as ambitious as possible", NGO Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) has said.
Last year, the French government promised tough controls on EDCs and a second national plan (SNPE) is currently underway.
Under the first strategy, adopted in 2014, the French food safety agency, Anses, was tasked with evaluating at least 15 substances over three years.
In a letter to the French health and ecology ministers Agnès Buzyn and Nicolas Hulot, HEAL said France's leadership and national actions by member states like them was "absolutely necessary".
The NGO said that there is very low ambition to regulate EDCs in the EU, with its actions being both "incomplete and incoherent".
HEAL, which brings together 70 organisations from across Europe, recommended France take certain steps to speed up EU regulation. These were:accelerate the identification of EDCs under REACH. Through the SNPE, France can propose a number of substances for identification every year;make better use of French expertise on endocrine disruptors;contribute to the effective identification of biocides and pesticides EDs, by working on a definition of substances that protects human health and the environment.
The NGO added that France must make a stronger contribution to Echa's work on the substances. It pointed out that it has so far proposed only two substances to the Corap (community rolling action plan) this year.
This "is very little in the light of its expertise and the strong expectations that result from its political and public positions on these issues," it said.'Important initiative'
A government evaluation of the first strategy in May concluded that the SNPE is an "important initiative to be pursued" and has enabled France to take a leading role in Europe over the control of EDCs.
However, for a large number of substances assessed, additional information had to be requested, the report said.
It called for a renewed strategy to build on the five priorities of the first SNPE. These are to:develop research;strengthen health and environment monitoring;better characterise hazards;manage the risks (evaluation, bans on hazardous chemicals, better enforcement); andtrain, raise awareness and inform.
Three working groups have been created for the second strategy, expected to be adopted in September.
In March, the European Commission faced fresh criticism from the European Parliament's environment committee (Envi) and NGOs, at a public hearing about its handling of EDCs. Envi vice-chair Pavel Poc called the Commission's approach "patronising".
https://chemicalwatch.com/68500/ngo-calls-for-ambitious-french-strategy-on-edcs
-
Monsanto 'Bullied Scientists' and Hid Weedkiller Cancer Risk, Lawyer Tells Court
Jul 10, 2018 | The Guardian
By Sam Levin
Monsanto has long worked to “bully scientists” and suppress evidence of the cancer risks of its popular weedkiller, a lawyer argued on Monday in a landmark lawsuit against the global chemical corporation.
“Monsanto has specifically gone out of its way to bully ... and to fight independent researchers,” said the attorney Brent Wisner, who presented internal Monsanto emails that he said showed how the agrochemical company rejected critical research and expert warnings over the years while pursuing and helping to write favorable analyses of their products. “They fought science.”
Wisner, who spoke inside a crowded San Francisco courtroom, is representing DeWayne Johnson, known also as Lee, a California man whose cancer has spread through his body. The father of three and former school groundskeeper, who doctors say may have just months to live, is the first person to take Monsanto to trial over allegations that the chemical sold under the Roundup brand is linked to cancer. Thousands have made similar legal claims across the US.
In his opening remarks, the Monsanto lawyer George Lombardi alleged that the body of research over the years was on the company’s side: “The scientific evidence is overwhelming that glyphosate-based products do not cause cancer and did not cause Mr Johnson’s cancer.”
The case is significant in part because the judge has allowed Johnson’s lawyers to present scientific arguments. The suit centers on glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide, which Monsanto began marketing as Roundup in 1974, presenting it as a technological breakthrough that could kill almost every weed without harming humans or the environment.
Over the years, however, studies have suggested otherwise, and in 2015, the World Health Organization’s international agency for research on cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans”.
Roundup products are registered in 130 countries and approved for use on more than 100 crops, and glyphosate has been found in food, a variety of water sources, and the urine of agricultural workers and others. A number of countries have policies banning or restricting the sale and use of glyphosate.
Johnson worked as a groundskeeper for a the school district in Benicia, just north of San Francisco, and was responsible for applying Roundup. Lawyers showed the jury photos of lesions and rashes on Johnson’s skin after he was regularly exposed to the chemical and was eventually diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in 2014, at age 42.
“The simple fact is he’s going to die. It’s just a matter of time,” Wisner said in court, as Johnson lowered his head and his wife cried in the seat next to him. “Between now and then, it’s just nothing but pain.”Sign up for Guardian Today US edition: the day's must-reads sent directly to you
Read more
Wisner, who said the trial would include commentary from 10 current or former Monsanto employees, also read aloud internal corporate documents obtained during the case. In response to one critical study about glyphosate exposure, Donna Farmer, product protection lead, wrote in an email: “How do we combat this?”
Wisner also referenced an email from Farmer in which she gave colleagues guidance on how they could publicly talk about science, writing: “You cannot say that Roundup does not cause cancer.” The Monsanto lawyer later said this comment had been taken out of context and presented in a misleading way.
A strategic corporate document also revealed Monsanto’s public relations plan to “orchestrate outcry” in advance of the IARC glyphosate classification, Wisner told the jury.
Wisner further cited Monsanto emails from decades prior, in which the company was working with a genotoxicity expert who reviewed a series of 1990s studies. He raised concerns about Roundup impacts on humans and suggested further areas of research. After the expert’s analyses, Monsanto representatives began considering finding a different expert and also started working on a press statement saying the product carried no risk, according to Johnson’s lawyer.
Wisner also read documents that he said showed how Monsanto strategized plans to “ghostwrite” favorable research.
Monsanto has continued to assert that its herbicide is safe, a claim that Johnson’s legal team is challenging, arguing that “scientific fraud” has contributed to Roundup marketing.
Lombardi, the Monsanto lawyer, argued that Johnson’s lawyers were “cherrypicking” studies that did not provide a “full picture”, repeatedly pointed to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) findings approving the use of glyphosate, and argued that the plaintiffs were overstating the significance of IARC’s conclusions. He also said Monsanto had been open about its involvement in research, adding: “Testing has been done by independent scientists, by university scientists, by government scientists.”
Timothy Litzenburg, one of Johnson’s lawyers, called his client “incredibly brave” in an interview with the Guardian prior to trial, adding: “Whatever happens ... his sons will get to know that their dad was brave enough to go up against Monsanto completely alone, and first, before he died.”
In addition to financial compensation, a verdict in Johnson’s favor “would say that his life is worth something”, Litzenburg added.
Regardless of the outcome, the attorney said, “so much of what Monsanto has worked to keep secret is coming out”.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jul/09/monsanto-trial-roundup-weedkiller-cancer-dewayne-johnson
-
First Trial Over Roundup Weed Killer Cancer Claim Under Way
Jul 9, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
By Sudhin Thanawala
Lawyers for a school groundskeeper dying of cancer asked a San Francisco jury on Monday to find that agribusiness giant Monsanto's widely used weed killer Roundup likely caused his disease.
Dewayne Johnson's lawsuit is the first case to go to trial among hundreds of lawsuits saying Roundup caused non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Johnson sprayed Roundup and a similar product, Ranger Pro, at his job as a pest control manager at a San Francisco Bay Area school district, according to his attorneys.
He sprayed large quantities from a 50-gallon tank attached to a truck, his attorney, Brent Wisner, told jurors during his opening statement. When the wind was gusty, it would cover his face, Wisner said. When a hose broke once, it soaked his entire body.
Johnson read the label carefully and even contacted the company after developing a rash, but was never warned it could cause cancer, Wisner said. He was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in 2014 at the age of 42.
"The simple fact is he is going to die. It's just a matter of time," Wisner said, showing jurors photos of lesions on Johnson's body that he said were caused by cancer. Johnson sat nearby.
Wisner added, "Between now and then, it's just nothing but pain."
George Lombardi, an attorney for Monsanto, said non-Hodgkin's lymphoma takes years to develop, so Johnson's cancer started well before he began working at the school district.
Many government regulators have rejected a link between the active ingredient in Roundup — glyphosate — and cancer. Monsanto has vehemently denied such a connection, saying hundreds of studies have established that glyphosate is safe.
"The scientific evidence is overwhelming that glyphosate-based products do not cause cancer and did not cause Mr. Johnson's cancer," Lombardi said during his opening statement.
The trial is expected to last about a month. Johnson is seeking unspecified damages against Monsanto.
The outcome of Johnson's case will not affect the hundreds of other lawsuits in state and federal courts, but it may serve as an indicator of how the others might go.
St. Louis-based Monsanto developed glyphosate in the 1970s, and the weed killer is now sold in more than 160 countries. Farmers in California, the most agriculturally productive state in the U.S., use it on more than 200 types of crops. Homeowners use it on their lawns and gardens.
The herbicide came under increasing scrutiny after the France-based International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is part of the World Health Organization, classified it as a "probable human carcinogen" in 2015.
A flurry of lawsuits against Monsanto in federal and state courts followed, and California added glyphosate to its list of chemicals known to cause cancer. Monsanto has attacked the international research agency's opinion as an outlier.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says glyphosate is safe for humans when used in accordance with label directions. A draft report by the agency last year concluded the herbicide is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. The report noted that science reviews by numerous other countries had reached the same conclusion.
A federal judge in Sacramento in February blocked California from requiring that Roundup carry a label stating that it is known to cause cancer, saying the warning is misleading because almost all regulators have concluded that there is no evidence glyphosate is carcinogenic.
Another federal judge presiding over hundreds of lawsuits like Johnson's is deciding whether the claim that Roundup weed killer can cause cancer is supported by good science.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/07/09/us/ap-us-roundup-weed-killer-lawsuits.html
-
Permian Pinch Spurs a Pipeline Binge, and Fears of Overbuilding
Jul 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Adams-Heard
The pipeline crunch threatening the world’s hottest shale play won’t be solved until at least the back half of next year. But then, the floodgates will open.
Pipelines serving the Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico were able to carry 2.9 million barrels of oil a day in the second quarter, according to analysts at Bloomberg NEF, and pretty much every line from Midland to the Gulf Coast is full. That’ll change in late 2019 as three major projects are slated to open, potentially adding more than 2 million barrels a day of capacity.
Fixing the pipeline conundrum is key for a shale play where researcher IHS Markit expects output to more than double by 2023 to 5.4 million barrels a day, eclipsing every OPEC nation beyond Saudi Arabia. Pipeline builders are pouring billions of dollars into the basin, but delays are a concern as developers compete for everything from labor to steel.
“They want to move heaven and Earth to get these projects done,” said John Kilduff, a partner at New York-based hedge fund Again Capital LLC. “In a situation like this, the economics just make it so compelling that they rush resources into the area, and that’s what you’re seeing.”
The bottlenecks are reverberating through global energy markets. Combined with disruptions in Iran, Venezuela, Libya and Canada, stranded oil in the Permian has helped push up benchmark U.S. crude prices by roughly 20 percent this year. With gasoline also rising and congressional elections looming in November, President Donald Trump took to Twitter last week demanding OPEC lower prices.
In the meantime, producers are moving cautiously, with the number of wells left deliberately uncompleted on the rise. Permian wells that were drilled but not taken through the final stage of hydraulic fracturing surged to 3,203 in May, a 90 percent increase from a year earlier and the highest since the Energy Department began tracking in 2013.
Pipeline woes are moving some companies to rethink their strategy. ConocoPhillips Chief Executive Officer Ryan Lance told Bloomberg TV last month that the world’s biggest independent oil explorer will likely move some rigs from the Permian to the less crowded Eagle Ford shale in South Texas to avoid the constraints. “Why would I drill into that headwind if I can reallocate that capital somewhere else?” Lance said.
The shortage has forced some producers to sell locally at a steep discount to Gulf Coast prices, or to pay extra to ship barrels hundreds of miles by truck or rail. Crude sold in Midland, in the heart of the Permian, for about $15 a barrel less than in Houston at the end of last week, after starting the year at a $4 discount.
That makes the new proposals critical to the U.S. shale boom’s future.
The projects include Plains All American Pipeline LP’s Cactus II, running from Midland to Corpus Christi on the Gulf Coast and slated to carry as much as 670,000 barrels a day. Also expected in late 2019 are Phillips 66 Partners’ and Andeavor’s Gray Oak pipeline, proposed for 700,000 to 1 million barrels, and the private equity-backed EPIC pipeline, which could carry as much as 675,000 barrels.
Substantial ReliefThey’ll offer “substantial relief” to producers eager to drill without fear of having nowhere to put their supply, Kilduff said.
Others are trying to make existing infrastructure go further: Plains, Energy Transfer Partners LP and Magellan Midstream Partners LP are all expanding existing crude pipes. That’s expected to add 400,000 barrels a day of capacity by the middle of next year.
Other projects are farther off, including plans for two giant pipelines that could take 1 million barrels of oil each. Energy Transfer is proposing one from the Permian to Nederland, Texas, and Exxon Mobil Corp. is teaming up with Plains for another to Corpus Christi. Those projects wouldn’t enter service until 2020 or 2021.
That’s already sparking talk of a potential overbuild, including from Magellan Chief Executive Officer Mike Mears. He’s advocated shippers extend contracts on existing lines—like his Longhorn pipeline—instead of signing onto new projects.
“You may have a nicely contracted pipeline for five years, but what does your sixth look like if your competitors build too many pipelines?” Mears said last month at an investor conference. “You always want to be cautious of not overbuilding.”
But complications could also arise. Plains last month bumped back the start date for Cactus II—from the third quarter of 2019 to October—citing unidentified “constraints.”
“If it’s delayed again, producers could be looking at a difficult 2019,” Guggenheim Securities analyst Matthew Phillips said.
Pipeline TimelinesPlains may not be the only one facing pressure. The chances for setbacks are “increasing by the day,” said Robert W Baird & Co. analyst Ethan Bellamy.
“If you’re starting to build three or four of these pipelines out of the Permian at the same time, there’s a potential to max out the available construction capacity,” he said. “If there are delays, they’re probably due to construction capacity and labor and acquisition of pipeline in a timely and cost-efficient manner.”
Still, by early 2020, drillers may have more ability to move oil out of the Permian than they really need, said John Zanner, an RBN Energy analyst. While good for producers that benefit from cheaper shipping, that also could force companies to scrap some plans, he said.
Others say the play is up to the challenge.
“They’re finding more and more oil every day,” said Again Capital’s Kilduff. “The good old days are back, and you’re going to see all of these be put into action.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/permian-pinch-spurs-a-pipeline-binge-and-fears-of-overbuilding
-
Energy Transfer Partners Gets Win in Louisiana Pipeline Battle
Jul 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
Energy Transfer Partners can begin construction of a $750 million pipeline to carry oil across southern Louisiana after a federal appeals court lifted an injunction on the project.
In a 2-1 decision, a panel of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said a lower court erred when it halted construction on a 162.5-mile extension of the Bayou Bridge Pipeline.
The lower court “misperceived the applicable regulations” when it determined the Army Corps of Engineers didn’t properly analyze this pipeline’s environmental consequences on surrounding wetlands, Judge Edith Jones wrote in a July 6 opinion.
The project would extend the pipeline from Lake Charles in southwestern Louisiana to St. James in the southeastern corner of the state. When completed, it could move up to 480,000 barrels of oil per day to a cluster of refineries and export terminals near St. James.
Lawsuit Not OverIn practice, Jones’ opinion throwing out the lower court’s injunction may not have much of an immediate effect; the appeals court already placed a temporary hold on the injunction earlier this year, which allowed construction to proceed.
However, the appeals court decision does remove some measure of uncertainty for Energy Transfer Partners, the company constructing the pipeline. “We are pleased with the decision,” Alexis Daniel, a spokeswoman with the company, told Bloomberg Environment in an email. “We remain committed to restoring the areas across our right-of-way to preconstruction conditions or better.”
Energy Transfer Partners has a 60 percent ownership stake in the project, which it is developing with Phillips 66 Partners LP.
But Misha Mitchell, an attorney with the environmental group Atchafalaya Basinkeeper, the lead plaintiff in the case, said her group is far from waving a white flag.
She told Bloomberg Environment that Jones’ opinion simply allows construction to continue while the parties debate the merits of their lawsuit in the lower court. And Mitchell said her group and the other plaintiffs in that case plan on continuing to pursue it there.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/energy-transfer-partners-gets-win-in-louisiana-pipeline-battle
-
Graham Awarded Petrochemical Orders
Jul 10, 2018 | Hydrocarbon Engineering
By Anna Nicklin
Graham Corp. has received two orders of a total of approximately US$6.6 million for the petrochemical industry in the US Gulf Coast. Equipment delivery for both orders is planned for the 1H20 and both will add to fiscal 2019 revenue.
The first order is for a Texas-based ethylene cracking plant within the company’s installed base, replacing and upgrading steam surface condensers that Graham installed 25 years ago. The new condensers will provide more corrosion resistant material. Graham was well positioned to win this order as the supplier of the original equipment.
The second order is for new petrochemical capacity at a Texas-based plant producing fuel additives that reduce automobile emissions. Graham will provide a process vacuum condenser.
James R. Lines, Graham’s President and CEO, commented: “Low-cost natural gas, serving as the primary feedstock to the petrochemical industry, is supporting massive investments in North America that began in full force with the first wave about five years ago. We are identifying projects for both new capacity and revamping of existing facilities to improve output and operational performance. We believe both of these projects are part of a second wave of petrochemical investment in the region.
He concluded: “While we don’t anticipate that the second wave will be as strong as the first, we believe we are well positioned to benefit from these petrochemical investments which we believe are part of a multi-year campaign. As previously disclosed, we project that Graham will realise strong revenue growth in fiscal 2019 and we are now further encouraged that we are also filling backlog for fiscal 2020.”
https://www.hydrocarbonengineering.com/petrochemicals/10072018/graham-awarded-petrochemical-orders/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Companies Make Moves to Go Green, but Texas Says No to Bag Bans
Jul 9, 2018 | KTRK-TV
By Keaton Fox
Starbucks is dropping plastic straws. Dunkin Donuts is ditching Styrofoam. But despite corporate moves to be more environmentally-friendly, Texas is proudly bucking the trend.
Late last month, the state supreme court ruled plastic bag bans in cities across Texas were unconstitutional. Eleven cities passed bag bans: Austin, Sunset Valley, Port Aransas, Laguna Vista, Fort Stockton, Eagle Pass, Corpus Christi, Brownsville, Kermit, Freer and South Padre Island.
Dallas had previously considered it but never passed it.
Retail groups sued to overturn the Laredo ban and the move was supported by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Paxton warned cities with current disposable plastic bag bans that they'll face legal action if they continue to enforce such ordinances.
The ruling is one in line with what state leaders have been emphasizing more and more: cities shouldn't try to clamp down on what they see as individual freedoms.
State lawmakers last year passed a law keeping cities from regulating cell phone towers, instead making it a state issue.
Bag bans have spread across the country as more and more cities struggle with the bags that wind up in trees and ditches and take thousands of years to degrade. Many municipal recycling systems, including Houston's, don't accept bags either.
But as the bans spread internationally, consumers -- and lawmakers -- are pushing back.
Michigan passed a ban on banning plastic bags in 2015. Idaho, Arizona and Missouri have similar legislation.
Industries that play a role in bag production have been vocal as well, from the American Chemistry Council to the Retail Merchants Association, suggesting that plastic bags are a tiny percent of pollution and litter, and that the bans don't work.
Novolex, a company that produces a number of plastic bags, even created a website called "Bag The Ban" that claims that plastic bags are actually "the right choice for the environment" and suggests that 90 percent of consumers reuse plastic bags. A flyer even connects grocery store basket thefts with bag bans, though offers no direct evidence that the ban led to the thefts.
But there's nothing to stop businesses from making its own rules about bags. Stores like Aldi charge for plastic bags.
Texas' court decision goes directly to whether or not bags are considered "garbage" under state law. The court ruled it is, and therefore could not be banned under state law. Local laws may not conflict with state law.http://abc13.com/politics/companies-move-to-go-green-but-texas-says-no-to-bag-bans/3732487/
-
Kavanaugh Could Be Obstacle to Major Climate Action at Supreme Court
Jul 9, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillen
President Donald Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court is likely to be skeptical of any EPA attempt to take major action on climate change without the backing of the sharply divided Congress.
Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, a twelve-year veteran of the influential D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, aired his criticisms of the Obama administration’s carbon dioxide regulation for power plants during seven hours of arguments in September 2016, just weeks before the election of Trump, whose administration is seeking to dramatically weaken the rule.
“On the policy, I understand, it's laudable, and the Earth is warming, and humans are contributing,” Kavanaugh said at the time. But, he added, “under our system of separation of powers ... Congress is supposed to make the decision.”
The D.C. Circuit never issued its ruling in the case that has been on hold while the Trump EPA reformulates the Obama regulation, so Kavanaugh’s final opinion on the regulation remains a matter of speculation.
But his comments from the 2016 hearing, as well as a long series of rulings on EPA actions over the course of his 12 years on the bench, show that Kavanaugh has frequently been critical of agencies taking steps beyond what he considered their authority.
Still, Kavanaugh’s separation of powers concerns on climate change may not lead to an outright reversal of the 2007 ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, the landmark case that requires the federal government to take action on greenhouse gasses.
But it could mean Kavanaugh and the Supreme Court’s conservative wing would be more willing to support Trump administration moves to only lightly regulate greenhouse gases from power plants, as the agency is considering.
Sweeping policy actions should be clearly directed by Congress, not interpreted by the executive branch, Kavanaugh said during the 2016 arguments on the Obama climate rule, called the Clean Power Plan.
“If Congress does something like this ... they can account for the losers, the people who are left behind by something like this, and to do a balanced approach,”Kavanaugh said. EPA’s Clean Power Plan was focused entirely on emissions reductions without significant consideration of the resultant ripples throughout the economy.
“Congress can look at something like this in a well-rounded approach, and that was the difficulty obviously that happened in the Senate,” he said, referring to Congress’s failure to pass cap-and-trade legislation in 2010. “But for us to do it, for you to do it, all the people who are left behind are just left behind.”
The Clean Power Plan was hardly the first time Kavanaugh was critical of agency regulations, especially from the Obama-era EPA.
Because of his seat on the D.C. Circuit, Kavanaugh has weighed in on dozens of environmental cases. He has developed a reputation as a skeptic of federal agencies that seek to greatly expand their reach, as the Obama-era EPA did on air and water issues.
The D.C. Circuit is dominated by Democratic appointees, so Kavanaugh’s opinions were often relegated to dissents — though not necessarily the dustbin of history.
For example, in a 2014 ruling over EPA’s mercury rule for power plants, Kavanaugh wrote in a dissent that he believed EPA had acted wrongly in not weighing the costs of a rulemaking when it first decided to regulate mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.
A year later, a 5-4 Supreme Court propelled Kavanaugh’s reasoning into the majority, and ruled that EPA should have considered costs at that early stage of rulemaking. The Obama-era mercury rule itself is still in place, and was responsible for the retirements of many older, dirtier power plants. But the Supreme Court’s ruling prompted coal companies and other critics to sue EPA again over how it calculates costs and benefits. While that suit is pending, EPA has launched its own review of cost-benefit calculations, a policy shift that could make it harder to justify regulating industrial pollution.
An earlier Kavanaugh dissent in 2012 when he called for curbing EPA’s discretion in rulemaking helped pave the way for another Supreme Court ruling. Kavanaugh wrote that the full D.C. Circuit was wrong not to review an EPA rule regulating greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and other sources under a key air permitting program, writing that EPA "cannot adopt an admittedly absurd interpretation" of a law.
Two years later, a unanimous Supreme Court cited in part Kavanaugh’s dissent in overturning both that circuit ruling and EPA’s tailoring rule on greenhouse gas pollution.
Several other rulings have shown Kavanaugh’s skepticism of any agency actions he viewed as an over-extension of executive branch statutory authority.
That includes the high-profile challenge to EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, in which Kavanaugh wrote for a split panel that EPA had “transgressed statutory boundaries” in writing the rule curbing pollution that drifts across state lines. That ruling, however, was knocked down by a 6-2 Supreme Court ruling that reversed Kavanaugh’s decision and upheld the regulation.
In 2017, Kavanaugh wrote the opinion that struck down a key part of an Obama-era rule phasing out the use of hydrofluorocarbons, a potent greenhouse gas that was often used as a replacement for ozone-depleting chemicals in appliances like refrigerators and air conditioners. Kavanaugh dinged EPA's "novel reading" of the law, which he said is "inconsistent with the statute as written."
Also last year, Kavanaugh revived a lawsuit brought by the timber industry over endangered species habitat. He sent the case back to a lower court to proceed after he concluded that the industry would lose money because of reduced access to forests in the Pacific Northwest under Interior’s designation of 9.5 million acres as spotted owl habitat.
However, Kavanaugh’s rulings also show a willingness to uphold agency actions when he feels Congress has granted it wide latitude — rulings that also could help the Trump administration’s de-regulatory agenda in upcoming years.
In 2014, Kavanaugh wrote an opinion upholding EPA's tightened air quality standard for particulate matter against industry challenges, explaining that the Clean Air Act "gives EPA substantial discretion in setting" such air standards. That could make it easier for the Trump administration to avoid lowering some standards.
Also in 2014, Kavanaugh wrote an opinion that said EPA cannot give the cement industry a shield from lawsuits over pollution emitted during emergencies like malfunctions. Kavanaugh's ruling prompted the Obama EPA to remove similar provisions from other programs, including from state air implementation programs, which drew a lawsuit from a number of Republican attorneys general and industry. EPA is still considering whether to revisit that rulemaking.
And Kavanaugh was part of a three-judge panel in 2013 that ruled EPA has the authority to veto 404(c) Clean Water Act permits even years after they are issued, a ruling the National Mining Association blasted as a “devastating blow to investment and jobs.”
Kavanaugh is also well known in nuclear waste policy circles for having played a big role in forcing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to reopen its review of Yucca Mountain.
After the Energy Department attempted to shut down the project, South Carolina and other critics sued the agency, but a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Two judges, however, including Kavanaugh, gave a helpful suggestion.
“The ball in this case rests in the Executive Branch not with the President, but rather with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” he wrote in a concurring opinion. Yucca Mountain supporters quickly sued the NRC and prevailed in obtaining a rare writ of mandamus, a court order that directed the agency to continue work on the project — written by Kavanaugh.
Kavanaugh may also be open to revisiting a legal precedent that has been crucial to environmental and administrative law known as Chevron deference, a 34-year-old Supreme Court doctrine that directs judges to defer to reasonable agency actions when a statute is ambiguous.
Shortly before Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement in June, he sent waves through the legal world with a concurrence in an immigration case that called for the court to revisit Chevron deference. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have also aired concerns with the doctrine.
The problem with Chevron deference is that it requires judges to rely heavily on their own determinations, and "different judges have wildly different conceptions" on questions of ambiguity, Kavanaugh wrote in a 2016 piece in the Harvard Law Review.
Still, Kavanaugh indicated he is unwilling to toss Chevron completely. “All of that said, Chevron makes a lot of sense in certain circumstances” because it gives agencies “discretion over how to exercise authority delegated to them by Congress,” he wrote.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/07/kavanaugh-could-be-obstacle-to-major-climate-action-at-supreme-court-675665
-
Petroleum Refineries Get Breathing Room to Meet Toxic Air Limits
Jul 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Petroleum refineries built before July 1, 2014, will have more time to meet toxic air pollution limits for maintenance vents used when operations are started up or shut down for inspection or routine repairs.
The Environmental Protection Agency plans to push the compliance date from Aug. 1, 2017, to Jan. 30, 2019, to give refiners more time to engineer changes, install new alarms, conduct risk assessments, update plans, and provide training.
Maintenance vents are used only during startup, shutdown, maintenance, or inspection when equipment is emptied, depressurized, degassed, or placed into service, according to the EPA.
Deciding DeadlinesThe Clean Air Act requires the use of maximum achievable control technologies to limit hazardous air pollution. The 2015 rule spelled out new requirements for maintenance vents. Aug. 1, 2017, was the initial deadline the petroleum industry received in the 2015 rule.
A number of refineries requested and received a one-year extension to Aug. 1, 2018, but the EPA said this delay wasn’t enough to get everyone on board. The American Petroleum Institute and the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers asked for an extension to Jan. 30, 2019.
The proposed extension recognizes the difficulty that refiners are facing in meeting the compliance date, the EPA said. That’s why the agency also proposed technical corrections (RIN: 2060-AT50) April 10 to the requirements for maintenance vents that it said will be completed before the Jan. 30 deadline.
140 Units AffectedThe extension would apply to an estimated 140 refineries in the country that process a variety of petroleum products, David Friedman, vice president for regulatory affairs with American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers in Washington, told Bloomberg Environment.
Refiners are waiting for the EPA to finalize the technical corrections—which clarify reporting and record-keeping requirements—before they can begin to comply, Friedman said. The EPA isn’t expected to issue that final rule until the end of the third quarter of this year, he added.
“The agency has recognized the fact that we want to comply,” Friedman said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/petroleum-refineries-get-breathing-room-to-meet-toxic-air-limits-2
-
EPA Sends NSR 'Project Aggregation' Rule for OMB Review
Jul 9, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA has sent for White House pre-publication review a final rule governing when industrial projects may be “aggregated,” or combined, for the purposes of determining whether new source review (NSR) air permits are required, likely another step in the Trump administration's push to ease NSR permitting.
EPA sent the final rule for White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review on July 6, according to OMB's website. OMB review typically takes up to 90 days, but can be faster or slower, depending on the rule at issue. EPA senior career air official Anna Marie Wood said earlier this year that EPA is planning release of the rule this summer. The rule will finalize reconsideration of a 2009 George W. Bush EPA rule that made it more difficult for air regulators to “aggregate” projects and therefore easier for industry to avoid breaching emissions thresholds that trigger full NSR review, which can lead to expensive new emissions control mandates.
The “interpretive” rule established a criterion that activities at an industrial facility must be “substantially related” in order to be aggregated, and also determined that activities undertaken more than three years apart should not be aggregated. The rule applied only prospectively.
But the Obama EPA in 2010 granted reconsideration of the rule in response to a petition from environmentalists, who claimed it is insufficiently stringent. The agency also stayed application of the rule pending completion of reconsideration.
Now, the Trump EPA is moving to finalize reconsideration, and will likely take the rulemaking in a different direction than the Obama EPA would have.
While the Obama administration expressed a preference to scrap the rule on reconsideration, the Trump EPA may retain the Bush-era rule or even expand its provisions against project aggregation.
The Trump EPA in a series of policy memos has already moved to ease NSR permitting, for example by prohibiting EPA from “second guessing” industry permit applicants' estimates of their projects' future air emissions, and also by allowing applicants to count emissions decreases, and as well as increases, in the initial “project netting” stage of NSR review.
According to an April 5 presentation Wood gave to state air regulators, EPA plans a proposed rule to codify the new policy on project netting in the fall.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-sends-nsr-project-aggregation-rule-omb-review
-
Conservative Groups Push for House Vote on Anti-Carbon-Tax Measure
Jul 9, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Conservative groups are pushing GOP House leaders to allow a vote on a non-binding resolution to condemn carbon taxes.
Eighteen organizations, including Americans for Tax Reform, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and FreedomWorks, say it is important for House Republicans to vocally denounce potential taxes on carbon dioxide emissions, even as some push for conservatives to endorse the idea.
House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R) introduced the resolution in April. It states that it is Congress’s opinion that “a carbon tax would be detrimental to American families and businesses, and is not in the best interest of the United States.”
A similar measure passed the House in 2016, with all Republicans and some Democrats supporting it. Scalise hails from Louisiana, whose economy is dependent on offshore oil and natural gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. The use of fossil fuels like oil and gas contributes to the carbon dioxide emissions that warm the Earth.
The conservative groups cheered Scalise’s resolution and pushed for quick consideration of it.
“A carbon tax is a policy with one definable goal: to raise the cost of traditional, reliable, affordable sources of energy. This includes the domestically produced gasoline, diesel, coal, and natural gas that fuel our cars and trucks, power our homes and keep our economy going strong every day,” they wrote.
“Despite recent attempts to market several carbon tax policy proposals as ‘conservative,’ it is also important to note the striking similarities between those proposals and carbon tax legislation being pushed by liberal members of Congress,” they continued.
Carbon taxes have long been supported by many Democrats and environmentalists as a way to discourage the use of fuels that contribute to climate change, and some conservative economists have also backed the idea.
Since President Trump took office, a handful of conservative campaigns have tried to move Republicans towards carbon taxes, including one backed by former Secretary of State James Baker, but with little apparent success.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/396164-conservative-groups-push-for-house-vote-on-anti-carbon-tax-measure
-
Starbucks Swears Off Single-Use Plastic Straws for 2020 Deadline
Jul 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Uliana Pavlova
For Starbucks Corp., the year 2020 will be the final straw.
The company said July 9 it plans to eliminate single-use plastic straws from its more than 28,000 coffeehouses globally by the end of the decade. Exchanging them for alternative-material ones and recyclable strawless lids will allow the coffee giant to remove more than 1 billion plastic straws from its locations per year, it said.
The move comes as plastic waste has come under fire globally, particularly for contributing to ocean pollution and harming birds and sea mammals. Last month, a group of 25 investors managing more than $1 trillion in assets demanded that companies including Nestle SA and PepsiCo Inc. reduce their use of plastic packaging.
Sustainability ProposalA proposal asking Starbucks to issue a report on its global plastic footprint was rejected at the company’s annual shareholder meeting in March. Still, the push for corporate sustainability has been gaining traction, especially as governments around the globe plan to legislate the issue themselves. The European Union proposed a ban on plastic straws in May, and the Indian government has pledged to ban single-use plastic by 2022.
McDonald’s Corp. said in June it will start rolling out paper straws in the U.K. and Ireland, with plans to phase out the plastic variety in all 1,361 locations there in 2019.
Starbucks says it’s the largest food and beverage retailer to make a commitment to end plastic-straw use. Cold beverages—generally consumed with a straw—make up more than half of Starbucks’ beverage sales, compared to 37 percent five years ago.
The coffee chain already uses its strawless lids in 8,000 North American stores for drinks like its draft nitro and cold foam beverages. They are being tested for some beverages in other markets including China, Japan, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam, according to the company.
Starbucks will launch two new cold offerings in the U.S. and Canada July 10 that use the lids, including a salted cream cold foam cold brew, Starbucks spokeswoman Haley Drage said in an email.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/starbucks-swears-off-single-use-plastic-straws-for-2020-deadline
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested