Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - August 20, 2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Administration Hears Day One of China Tariff Pleas
Aug 20, 2018 | Roll Call
By Ellyn Ferguson
Importers told government officials Monday that very little product manufacturing will return to the United States, saying Chinese manufacturers have the expertise to produce at high volume and lower prices. -
(ACC Mentioned) Dog Days Are Busy Days on Trade
Aug 20, 2018 | Politico - Morning Trade
By Megan Cassella
This late August week will be full of trade action, starting with today’s kickoff of a marathon-like series of hearings on the China trade front. -
Government May Allow New Uses for Asbestos
Aug 19, 2018 | Huntington Herald Dispatch
By Bishop Nash
Though asbestos has over recent decades become nearly synonymous with the lung diseases its particulate causes when inhaled, the long-restricted building material might return to broader use under new measures outlined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency this year. -
Walmart Joins Other Retailers with Ban on Deadly Paint Removers
Aug 20, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Jamie Nolan
Walmart announced today that it will phase out the use of the toxic chemicals methylene chloride and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) in paint removal products it sells in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Central America, and on walmart.com by February 2019. -
Walmart Joins Ranks of Retailers Pulling Toxic Paint Strippers from Shelves – When Will EPA Follow Suit?
Aug 20, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Sarah Vogel
Today, Walmart announced that it will stop selling paint strippers containing methylene chloride or N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) in stores by February 2019 – making it the first general merchandise retailer to take such action. -
Walmart to Stop Selling Paint Strippers With Two Toxic Chemicals
Aug 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Walmart plans to phase out paint removal products containing methylene chloride and N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP) in many of its stores by early 2019. -
What's the Plan?
Aug 20, 2018 | Politico - Morning Energy
By Kelsey Tamborrino
The Trump administration is widely expected to formally unveil its plan to rewrite the Obama administration's cornerstone climate rule for power plants this week, and it's likely to land sooner rather than later. -
Oil Exports Exceed Imports for First Time on Texas Gulf Coast
Aug 20, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Rye Druzin
Oil exports exceeded imports along Texas' Gulf Coast in April for the first time on record. -
NYSW Railway Taps Collins’ ARINC RailwayNetSM for PTC
Aug 20, 2018 | Railway Track & Structures
By Kyra Senese
The New York, Susquehannah and Western (NYSW) Railway has chosen Rockwell Collins’ ARINC Railway NetSM service to implement positive train control (PTC). -
Ewire: EPA's CPP Replacement to Cut Tiny Fraction of GHGs
Aug 20, 2018 | Inside EPA
President Trump is slated to unveil EPA's narrow replacement for the Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP) utility greenhouse gas rule on Aug. 21 but new details are emerging that indicate it will cut only a tiny slice of emissions from the power sector, the second-largest domestic source of GHGs. -
Document Details Trump’s Plan to Scale Back Obama Rule
Aug 20, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Rod Kuckro
The Trump administration plans to return to states the responsibility to curb greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. -
Uncertain Path for NEPA Overhaul as Comment Period Ends
Aug 20, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Nick Sobczyk
The first public comment period ends today for one of the Trump administration's broadest regulatory overhauls, but the path forward is far from clear.
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
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Administration Hears Day One of China Tariff Pleas
Aug 20, 2018 | Roll Call
By Ellyn Ferguson
Importers told government officials Monday that very little product manufacturing will return to the United States, saying Chinese manufacturers have the expertise to produce at high volume and lower prices.
The comments came as the Trump administration began public hearings on proposed tariffs on $200 billion in imports from China. While business leaders in some industries are hopeful that the tariffs will offer protection against competitors using cheaper imported Chinese goods, others worry about potential financial hardships.
More than 300 people are scheduled to testify during the six days of hearings by the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office, addressing whether the duties should be imposed and the level at which they should be set.
The hearings run through the week and conclude Aug. 27.
Administration officials say the tariffs are designed to push Beijing into talks about trade practices that the officials say discriminate against U.S. companies or allow the theft of intellectual property.
Midlevel talks between a Chinese delegation and Treasury Undersecretary for International Affairs David Malpass and other U.S. officials are scheduled in Washington this week, but it is unclear if the meetings signal a de-escalation of the tariff battle between the world’s two largest economies.
On Aug. 1, USTR announced that Trump had asked it to consider raising the rate used for the tariffs from 10 percent to 25 percent. The agency has extended the public comment period to give businesses and the public time to respond.
After USTR announced the possibility of raising the tariff rate, Beijing threatened to respond with tariffs on $60 billion of U.S. imports, including liquefied natural gas. China already has filed a challenge to the proposed duties on $200 billion in goods with the World Trade Organization.
The pending tariffs are the third phase of duties President Donald Trump has authorized under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The first phase of tariffs on $34 billion in goods took effect on July 6, and the second phase on $16 billion in goods is scheduled to take effect Aug. 23. Beijing responded July 6 with duties on $34 billion in U.S. imports and has released a list of $16 billion of products on which it plans to levy retaliatory tariffs on Aug. 23.
The combined U.S. tariffs on $250 billion in goods would cover more than half the value of Chinese goods in 2017, which tallied $505 billion. The U.S. exported $130 billion in goods to China that year.
For some trade associations, the hearings offer an opportunity to identify ways businesses could be hurt by the additional tariffs.
Ed Brzytwa, international trade director for the American Chemistry Council, plans to use his time on Monday to underscore the financial burden a third round of tariffs would put on an industry that will be affected by the Aug. 23 tariffs. The council calculates that those tariffs would raise the costs for imported chemicals and plastics by $2.2 billion annually.
China’s retaliatory tariffs on chemical products would raise the cost of U.S. chemical and plastics exports to China by $5.4 billion on an annual basis, the organization estimates. The council said it wants the administration to end the use of tariffs and engage in tough negotiations to force Beijing to end policies and practices that put U.S. companies at a disadvantage in China.
In prepared testimony, Brzytwa plans to say, “the $16.4 billion in tariffs on additional products of chemistry in List 3 would have a potentially irreparable impact on our industry’s economic structure and supply chain.”
But other witnesses will be arguing that the proposed tariffs fall short.
On Tuesday, Wayne Joseph, president of New Flyer of America, will argue in support of placing tariffs on lithium ion batteries and related components used to power electric medium- and heavy-duty buses. New Flyer produces electric-powered buses and relies on XALT Energy for batteries. XALT Energy faces competition from lower-priced lithium batteries from China. On Friday, Richard R. Cundiff III, president and chief executive of XALT Energy, LLC, will also lay out reasons he thinks tariffs on competing Chinese batteries would be good for his company.
In an earlier argument for extra duties on the bus lithium batteries, Joseph said his company needs a U.S. supplier like XALT in order to meet domestic content requirements for federally funded projects and purchases.
“New Flyer has established its manufacturing operations and supply chain to ensure that its buses and coaches always comply with the U.S. Department of Transportation Buy America requirements,” Joseph wrote to USTR in May.
https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/trump-administration-six-days-pleas-china-tariffs
-
(ACC Mentioned) Dog Days Are Busy Days on Trade
Aug 20, 2018 | Politico - Morning Trade
By Megan Cassella
This late August week will be full of trade action, starting with today’s kickoff of a marathon-like series of hearings on the China trade front. The hearings will feature testimony on products that should or should not be included in a list of $200 billion in Chinese imports that the Trump administration intends to tax in its next round of tariffs against Beijing.
As the hearings unfold, a Chinese delegation will visit Washington at midweek in an attempt to rekindle talks geared toward heading off the brewing trade war. On Thursday, U.S. tariffs on another $16 billion in Chinese goods will take effect, with Chinese duties set to be imposed in response.
European trade officials will be in Washington today to continue laying the groundwork for bilateral trade talks, and more NAFTA meetings with Mexico are also on the docket. There is a possibility that Canada could return to the NAFTA negotiating table by the end of the week if American and Mexican negotiators can square away outstanding issues in the U.S.-Mexico portion of the talks. And, on Friday, the Department of Agriculture is expected to unveil details of its plan to aid farmers hurt by trade retaliation.
USTR and the marathon hearings: Such is the pace of trade developments in the Trump administration that most weeks must feel like a marathon for staff of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. That said, we’re referring to the China hearings, which USTR is hosting at the U.S. International Trade Commission. They’ll run through Monday, Aug. 27, and give industry associations, major corporations and small businesses a chance to make their voices heard in regard to the $200 billion in Chinese goods the administration is targeting.
Gotta see it live: The hearings begin at 9:30 this morning and will be held off-camera, despite calls last week to have them live-streamed. The proceedings will ultimately feature nearly 400 witness testimonies. Tariffs on the final list of goods, which could stretch as high as 25 percent, are part of the Trump administration’s quest to punish China’s intellectual property theft and forced technology transfers.
Witnesses listed on the hearing docket range from power players, like the National Foreign Trade Council and companies like Halliburton, to lesser known firms like BrightLine Bags, a company that makes bags designed for pilots and will be first in line to testify this morning. In the panel that will wrap things up a week from today, designer handbag maker Rebecca Minkoff will testify on behalf of her company, according to the schedule.
Thousands of comments flooding in: The testimonies slated to be delivered at the hearings, though numerous and wide-ranging, represent only a fraction of the total public comments USTR has received on the $200 billion list. As of late Sunday night, nearly 1,500 comments were listed on the public docket.
IT’S MONDAY, AUG. 20! Welcome to Morning Trade, where your host is wishing a happy birthday to Pro Trade’s Doug Palmer. Send him trade-themed birthday wishes at dpalmer@politico.com or @tradereporter, and send me your trade tips at mcassella@politico.com or @mmcassella.
BRACING FOR A $200B HIT: A review of a portion of comments already filed with USTR found a greater share pushing against the tariffs, including from folks who emphasized that they support the administration’s push to crack down on China’s IP practices but would prefer that a different approach be taken. But others offered support, including individuals like Keith Allen from Colorado, who identified himself as an engineer and lifelong inventor and called the move “way overdue.”
Those who oppose the tariffs overall warn that implementation of penalties on another $200 billion in goods will have far more extensive consequences for consumers than previous rounds of duties have wrought. While the Trump administration sought to avoid the wide majority of consumer goods in previous tariff rounds, expanding the list of goods five-fold — from $50 billion to $250 billion — means that everyday Americans are far more likely to feel the effects.
“USTR’s proposed tariffs on an additional $200 billion of Chinese imports dramatically expands the harm to American consumers, workers, businesses, and the economy,” the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote in its submission. “The number of written submissions to USTR and in-person testimony opposing the administration’s tariffs speaks volumes about the damage that additional tariffs will do.”
Beyond concern over Chinese goods that are included on the list, tariff opponents have also expressed fears over what Beijing will do in retaliation. China so far has retaliated dollar-for-dollar against the U.S. tariffs, so the country’s reaction to duties on another $200 billion in goods is expected to be just as extreme and could likely extend to measures that make it harder for U.S. businesses operating in China.
Auto parts, for example, are included on the U.S.’s list. Additional tariffs on auto parts imported from China will make production in the U.S. more expensive. But if Beijing should choose to retaliate by imposing duties on U.S. cars, that could severely curb the number of American vehicles sent to China — the U.S. automotive industry’s second-largest export market.
** A message from the American-Romanian Business Council: Hottest market in Europe? Romania. And next month is the time to advance your opportunities there. Romania hosts the 3 Seas Initiative Business Forum, just months before assuming the EU Council Presidency. Join AMRO’s business delegation to share your priorities directly with Romanian business and government leaders. Learn more: amro.com/3SI. **
CHEMICALS INDUSTRY TO TAKE HEAVY HIT: Two sectors on track to be impacted the most by a third round of Section 301 tariffs against China are the chemicals and plastics industries, which together amount for more than 1,500 products included on the preliminary list — an amount valued at around $16.4 billion.
Ed Brzytwa, director of international trade at the American Chemistry Council, will call on USTR at today’s hearing to remove all of the products from the list, warning that while tariffs already in place on $2.2 billion in chemicals and plastics imports have weakened the industry, the proposed penalties “would have a potentially irreparable impact on our industry’s economic structure and supply chain.”
“We reiterate, in the strongest possible terms: the best way to preserve the interests of the U.S. chemicals industry and indeed the entire manufacturing sector is by removing chemicals from the front lines of this trade war,” he will say, according to prepared testimony.
WHITE HOUSE DIVIDE OVER TARIFF LIST: This week’s series of hearings is only the first step in determining the final makeup of the $200 billion list of products, as White House officials will ultimately have to decide what to include and what to leave off. And bridging internal disagreements among advisers over what to include and how high of a tariff to implement could prove to be a difficult task.
“There is a feasibility issue within the administration of, can you agree on 25 percent tariffs on $200 billion? Should some of it be 10 percent tariffs? Should some of it be less than 10 percent tariffs?” said Derek Scissors, a China expert at the American Enterprise Institute. “I already know there is disagreement in the administration on this. … There is going to be more disagreement as we get closer to a decision.”
A major indicator that the administration could have problems agreeing on a final $200 billion list is the difficulty it had in handling the $50 billion list earlier this summer, Scissors noted. So challenging was that process that they ultimately agreed first on a $34 billion list and later on a separate $16 billion list “because they couldn’t come up with $50 billion off the top of their heads that people agreed with.”
“There are not two groups in this discussion. There are a bunch,” he added. “So it’s not an easy thing to manage. That’s where the administration will struggle.”
COULD NAFTA TALKS GO TRILATERAL AGAIN? That’s the big question headed into this week following a month of U.S.-Mexico bilateral engagement over NAFTA. Mexican Economy Secretary Ildefonso Guajardo, who will return to Washington for the fifth consecutive week on Tuesday, told reporters on Friday that he and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer are aiming to finalize two-way talks in a matter of days. If that happens, Canada could re-enter the talks as soon as later this week.
“Hopefully, we will be able to close up no later than the middle of the week the remaining [bilateral] issues, and probably there will be space to start the trilateral,” Guajardo said as he left a two-hour meeting with USTR Robert Lighthizer.
Guajardo said he would prepare for this week’s meeting with Lighthizer by checking in with Mexican stakeholders — particularly the autos sector — to “speak in terms of the analysis of the sector and how we frame the commitments that are possibly going to be made.”
USTR GETS SPECIFIC ON ISDS WITH MEXICO: The U.S. still wants to make major changes to NAFTA’s investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, but it is offering something of a reprieve to U.S. oil and gas companies and possibly other sectors operating in Mexico, Pro Trade’s Adam Behsudi reports. The latest talks on ISDS represent a slight easing of the earlier U.S. position.
The U.S. wants only companies that are headquartered in the U.S. and led by a “U.S. person” to be eligible to file investment claims. That would preclude U.S. subsidiaries of foreign parent companies from using the dispute mechanism, sources told Adam. One source close to the talks stressed that the U.S. is not proposing that eligible sectors would get the same treatment under NAFTA’s current investor dispute process or even be subjected to updated provisions the U.S. negotiated in the TPP.
Instead, the administration is discussing a different process that would provide U.S. oil and gas companies some redress if their contracts are canceled and they fail to get compensation through the Mexican judicial system, the source said.
Pros can read the full story here.
EUROPEAN OFFICIALS IN WASHINGTON TO TALK TRADE: European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker’s chief trade adviser, Léon Delvaux, and another senior EU trade official are traveling to Washington today to meet with various U.S. counterparts in an effort to advance preparations for bilateral trade talks. The engagement is part of the transatlantic trade truce that Juncker and President Donald Trump reached in late July.
Flashback: Juncker and Trump agreed “to work together toward zero tariffs, zero non-tariff barriers, and zero subsidies on non-auto industrial goods,” per their statement on July 25. “We will also work to reduce barriers and increase trade in services, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, medical products, as well as soybeans,” the declaration said, adding that there also would be strengthened “strategic cooperation” on liquified natural gas.
The agreement was largely applauded as a good deal for the EU because it avoided tariffs on cars and included the two main European proposals — a trade deal on industrial goods and energy cooperation on LNG — that Brussels had offered to Trump in May, with little success.
Ag woes: At the same time, the most contentious issue for the European side — agricultural imports and food standards — was left out. The agreement was barely a day old when the first cracks appeared, as Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Lighthizer demanded that agriculture be a part of future talks.
Europe’s commitment to buy more American soybeans gave Trump some good news to sell to U.S. farmers getting hit by trade retaliation, but it merely reflected ongoing market movements. China has snatched up most of South America’s soy as a consequence of the U.S.-China trade war, thereby lowering prices for U.S. soybeans and making them a better buy for Europeans.
Among the negatives for the European side, and much to the chagrin of the French, the deal did not include commitments to facilitate access to the U.S. public procurement market, and the Trump administration is not required to lift its steel and aluminum tariffs on the EU as a precondition of the talks.
Bottom line: Both sides will have a lot to talk about today, and don’t assume that the July agreement created a glide path to bilateral talks.
TRILATERAL ACTION ON WTO ISSUES: In other news on the Europe trade front, there will be trilateral talks later this week among senior officials from the EU, U.S. and Japan on how to reform the WTO and deal with non-market-conforming trade practices, mainly on the part of China. Those include market-distorting subsidies, state-owned enterprises and intellectual property theft.
The trilateral initiative was launched on the sidelines of the WTO’s ministerial conference in Buenos Aires in December and has since advanced with ministerial meetings in Brussels in March and in Paris in May. Administrative-level talks also have been held.
Flashback, Part II: POLITICO reported earlier this month that the three sides are preparing draft legal texts on tougher subsidy rules that should be negotiated with China.
TARIFFS KEEP HELPING K STREET: The stream of companies hiring lobbyists to help them navigate Trump’s tariff policies continues.
Jo-Ann Stores, the fabrics retailer, has hired Clark Hill to lobby on tariffs, according to a disclosure filing. Mitsubishi Chemical America has hired Drinker, Biddle & Reath to lobby on trade policy.
Smith’s Products, a knife manufacturer, and eero inc., a Wi-Fi router maker, have hired Sorini, Samet & Associates to lobby on Trump’s tariffs on China. And ARRIS US Holdings hired Willkie Farr & Gallagher to do the same.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-trade/2018/08/20/dog-days-are-busy-days-on-trade-321838
-
Government May Allow New Uses for Asbestos
Aug 19, 2018 | Huntington Herald Dispatch
By Bishop Nash
Though asbestos has over recent decades become nearly synonymous with the lung diseases its particulate causes when inhaled, the long-restricted building material might return to broader use under new measures outlined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency this year.
Experts warn the EPA's new regulations potentially leave the door open for the infamous material to be used in new applications and could overlook the "downstream" environmental aspects of indirect contact with asbestos.
Asbestos is a natural mineral fiber and a documented carcinogen known to cause lung cancer; mesothelioma, which is cancer in the inner lining of the chest; and asbestosis, which is scarring in the lungs from inhaling airborne particulates. Between 1999 and 2013, 530 West Virginians died from mesothelioma and asbestosis, according to The Mesothelioma Center.
Asbestos was commonly used in many types of building materials and insulation until the 1970s for its heat resistance and durability.
In question are two particular new pieces of EPA policy that have stirred controversy since their introduction earlier this year.
First, EPA guidelines were restructured in April so that the agency will no longer consider the effect of substances in the environment when assessing the risks of its most high-priority substances like asbestos, instead focusing solely on a substance's effects in direct human contact. This new framework was released in April after the EPA completed its first study on 10 chemicals, including asbestos, under a 2016 amendment to the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA).
Not accounting for the effects of asbestos entering public air, water and soil turns a willful blind eye to consumer protection, argues James Van Nostrand, director for the Center for Energy and Sustainable Development at West Virginia University's College of Law.
"It's disregarding everything we know about these chemicals when they're disposed of," he said.
In June, the EPA released a second proposal stating the agency would consider possible new uses of asbestos on a case-by-case basis to determine which uses would be deemed hazardous enough to review.
However, the new "significant new-use rule" is limited to only 15 specific uses that would automatically trigger federal oversight, leaving experts - including many within the EPA itself, The New York Times reported last week - speculating the new language would limit oversight to any new asbestos uses outside those 15 uses.
Those uses include well-established existing uses for asbestos, such as in batteries, floor tile and electrical paper.
The TSCA requires the EPA to screen potentially toxic substances instead of levying bans or restrictions against them. Asbestos has been banned in 60 countries worldwide, though the U.S. attempted to ban it as well in the 1970s; its partial use was restored by a federal court ruling in 1991.
Even though it remains legal to use, the material has fallen out of use for most of its former applications with the years of litigation - and the millions paid to those exposed to it - already precedent in the court of law. Van Nostrand said he does not foresee these new deregulations sparking a return to form for asbestos with the chance for a lawsuit so prevalent.
"Just because the EPA said it's OK doesn't mean it stands up in the court of law, because the science is just so founded on it," Van Nostrand said. "We don't need to connect the dots (between asbestos and lung disease) anymore. It's already been done.
"Who's going to use this stuff with a precedent like that?"
While loosening asbestos restrictions will likely have no real economic or environmental impact as its use remains status quo, Van Nostrand called it a "poster child win for the chemical industry" in a push toward broader deregulation goals touted by the Trump administration and the EPA under former director Scott Pruitt.
It's a symbolic gesture by the ruling powers, he added, and will likely become a political football to be run back by any future administration looking to tout tighter regulation on asbestos.
"Who would use this stuff anyway? Because they're going to get sued," Van Nostrand said. "It's just going to get kicked back and forth so much whether or not it makes economic sense or not."
Still, Van Nostrand said it was troubling, even as a matter of symbolism, that the EPA would take an action that would knowingly risk public exposure to more scientifically founded risk.
"It's a win for the chemical industry, but what does that say about the EPA and this administration?" he added.
The EPA told The Washington Post it will conduct further studies on the first 10 chemicals under the amended TSCA and final risk evaluations will be published in December 2019.
http://www.herald-dispatch.com/news/government-may-allow-new-uses-for-asbestos/article_63c60856-20b0-5972-8bd8-a319bf64bd65.html
-
Walmart Joins Other Retailers with Ban on Deadly Paint Removers
Aug 20, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Jamie Nolan
Walmart announced today that it will phase out the use of the toxic chemicals methylene chloride and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) in paint removal products it sells in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Central America, and on walmart.com by February 2019. The company, which is the largest retailer in the world, is the fourth major retailer to make such a commitment over the past few months, joining Lowe’s, The Home Depot, and Sherwin-Williams. Methylene chloride and NMP have been found to pose unacceptable health risks to the public, including cancer, harm to the nervous system and childhood development, and death.
Last month, Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families (SCHF) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) sent joint letters to Walmart and more than a dozen other retailers urging the companies to stop selling paint strippers containing methylene chloride and NMP. SCHF, NRDC, and Environmental Defence also sent a letter to Walmart Canada. Following the letters, Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families launched an online petition urging Walmart to act, which was signed by more than 8,000 people. More recently the campaign launched a petition to Ace Hardware, which has been signed by over 35,000 people.
“We applaud Walmart for doing what’s right to safeguard its customers,” said Mike Schade, Mind the Store campaign director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. “Walmart’s actions signal a growing trend in the retail sector—businesses are stepping up to ban harmful chemicals in the absence of federal leadership from the EPA. We hope Walmart will finish the job by banning these chemicals in their few remaining stores globally. Other top retail chains like Ace Hardware, True Value, and Menards should join them and banish these dangerous products from store shelves once and for all.“
In 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a ban on paint removers that contain methylene chloride and NMP, citing the products’ unreasonable risks to human health. Deferring to the wishes of the chemical industry, the EPA shelved its proposed ban soon after Scott Pruitt was confirmed as EPA Administrator and the agency has taken no action in 19 months. In May, two days after former Administrator Pruitt met with families who have recently lost loved ones due to methylene chloride exposure, the EPA announced that it would finalize a methylene chloride rule “shortly.” However, the agency has revealed few details on its planned regulatory action, offered no timeline, and has taken no action on NMP.
“The Pruitt EPA’s failure to finalize the ban on methylene chloride was one of the agency’s many actions that demonstrated an unprecedented disregard for public health. The agency has bent over backwards to serve the interests of polluters and toxic chemical manufacturers,” said Mike Belliveau, executive director of Environmental Health Strategy Center and senior advisor to Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. “Acting Administrator Wheeler now has the opportunity to change course and live up to the EPA’s mandate to protect public health by following the lead of major retailers and finalizing the proposed ban on deadly methylene chloride and NMP.”
Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families’ Mind the Store campaign has led a national effort to persuade retailers to phase out the sale of dangerous paint strippers over the past year. Advocates sent letters to top retailers, met with companies, organized online petitions signed by hundreds of thousands of consumers, and held a national “week of action” in more than a dozen states.
Timeline of major retailer policy commitments on toxic paint strippers:May 29: Lowe’s becomes the first major U.S. retailer to commit to ending sales of paint strippers containing methylene chloride and NMP globally by the end of 2018.June 15: Sherwin-Williams, the nation’s largest specialty retailer of paint and paint supplies, announcesit is phasing out the sale of methylene chloride paint strippers by the end of 2018 and that it will continue to keep NMP paint strippers off its shelves.June 19: The Home Depot, the world’s largest home improvement retailer, announces it will ban the sale of toxic paint strippers in all of its stores by the end of 2018.August 20: Walmart announces it will ban toxic paint strippers in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Central America, and on walmart.com by February 2019.
Methylene chloride has been linked to more than 60 deaths nationwide since 1980 and is linked to lung and liver cancer, neurotoxicity, and reproductive toxicity. Since EPA proposed its ban last year, at least four people in the U.S. have died while working with methylene chloride-based paint strippers. In turn, NMP, which can be substituted for methylene chloride in paint removers, impacts fetal development and can cause miscarriage and stillbirth. According to the EPA, more than 60,000 U.S. workers and 2 million consumers are exposed to methylene chloride and NMP annually.
https://saferchemicals.org/newsroom/walmart-joins-other-retailers-with-ban-on-deadly-paint-removers/
-
Aug 20, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Sarah Vogel
Today, Walmart announced that it will stop selling paint strippers containing methylene chloride or N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) in stores by February 2019 – making it the first general merchandise retailer to take such action. Walmart’s announcement follows the strong leadership demonstrated by Lowes, Home Depot, and Sherwin Williams, all of which have committed not to sell methylene chloride- and NMP-based paint stripping products by the end of the year. Importantly, Walmart’s action goes beyond its U.S. stores, including those in Mexico, Canada, and Central America, as well as their online store.
The announcement signals an important step by Walmart to better protect consumers from dangerous paint strippers. Methylene chloride is highly neurotoxic and acutely lethal. The chemical is responsible for over 50 reported deaths from acute exposure over the last 35 years – though many more likely have gone unreported. NMP is linked to fetal development problems, including low birth weight and birth defects.
EDF has advocated for several years for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban both methylene chloride- and NMP-based paint strippers, using its enhanced authority under the reformed Toxic Substance Control Act. In January 2017, EPA proposed to ban methylene chloride and restrict NMP in paint strippers, but action has stalled under the Trump Administration. For over a year, the agency made no effort to finalize these actions – even taking steps to delay any progress.
This past May, families whose sons died from using paint strippers containing methylene chloride met with former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to personally ask him to finalize the ban on these products. Just two days after the meeting, EPA announced its intention to finalize the proposed ban on methylene chloride-based paint strippers.
Three months later, EPA has yet to make good on its promise. But retailers across the nation are stepping up. We applaud the leadership demonstrated by these retailers and strongly urge EPA to follow suit and ban methylene chloride- and NMP-based paint strippers. It is the only health-protective path forward.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/08/20/walmart-joins-ranks-of-retailers-pulling-toxic-paint-strippers-from-shelves-when-will-epa-follow-suit/
-
Walmart to Stop Selling Paint Strippers With Two Toxic Chemicals
Aug 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Walmart plans to phase out paint removal products containing methylene chloride and N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP) in many of its stores by early 2019.
The retailer said it would eliminate the products by February 2019 from stores in the US, Canada, Mexico and Central America. It will also stop selling them online.
The commitment follows similar pledges by retail giants Lowe’s, Sherwin-Williams and Home Depot, which plan to phase out the sale of the paint strippers by December.
Zach Freeze, a senior director at Walmart, said the retailer was committed to providing "access to affordable, effective and more sustainable products" and would continue to work with suppliers, NGOs, academics, government and industry stakeholders to advance its sustainable chemistry commitments.
Walmart has said that by 2022 it plans to reduce chemicals of concern in its retail products by 10%. Its policy focuses on household cleaning, personal care, baby, pet, beauty and cosmetic products.'Growing trend'
Campaigners from consumer advocacy groups have pressured retailers to ban methylene chloride and NMP following a number of deaths in the last few years.
The Mind the Store NGO campaign has encouraged retailers to phase out chemicals of high concern that it says are neglected by federal agencies, including the two solvents.
Mike Schade, Mind the Store campaign director of the NGO Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families (SCHF), said: "Walmart’s actions signal a growing trend in the retail sector. Businesses are stepping up to ban harmful chemicals in the absence of federal leadership from the US Environmental Protection Agency."
Walmart should "finish the job" by banning the chemicals in their few remaining stores globally, he added.
Mr Schade called on retail chains like Ace Hardware, True Value, and Menards to also ban the solvents.Lack of federal action
A proposal to ban or restrict methylene chloride and NMP paint strippers under TSCA appeared to be shelved. The EPA announced in May 2017, after meeting with campaigners, that it would finalise the rule "shortly", but no action was immediately forthcoming.
Mike Belliveau, executive director of Environmental Health Strategy Center and senior advisor to SCFH, said the EPA's failure to finalise the ban on methylene chloride was "one of the agency's many actions that demonstrated an unprecedented disregard for public health".
He called on EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler to take action.
"The agency has bent over backwards to serve the interests of polluters and toxic chemical manufacturers," Mr Belliveau said.
In a blog post, NGO Environmental Defense Fund applauded Walmart’s chemical leadership.
Boma Brown-West, a senior manager at EDF, wrote: "While EPA drags its feet, retailers across the nation are stepping up."
https://chemicalwatch.com/69824/walmart-to-phase-out-methylene-chloride-and-nmp-paint-strippers
-
Aug 20, 2018 | Politico - Morning Energy
By Kelsey Tamborrino
WHAT'S THE PLAN FOR THE CLEAN POWER PLAN? The Trump administration is widely expected to formally unveil its plan to rewrite the Obama administration's cornerstone climate rule for power plants this week, and it's likely to land sooner rather than later. President Donald Trump will travel to coal country — Charleston, W.Va. — Tuesday for a rally alongside supporters, and the administration will likely drop its proposed rewrite of the Clean Power Plan the same day. The proposal is expected to be touted by the president's supporters in the lead-up to the November midterm elections as another way the White House has reversed the previous administration's so-called war on coal.
So, what’s inside? POLITICO reported last week on details within the White House’s draft proposal to rewrite the Obama-era climate plan. It would give states leeway to write their own modest regulations for coal plants, or even allow them to seek permission to opt out entirely — a sharp contrast to the aims of former President Barack Obama's Clean Power Plan, which would have sped the shift away from coal use and toward less-polluting sources. Instead, the Trump administration replacement would do far less to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are warming the planet.
The new Trump proposal makes no mention of an overarching national goal for reductions, The New York Times reported this weekend. "Instead the rule sets guidelines for states to develop and submit to the EPA plans to establish 'patterns of performance' for existing coal plants." And the plan would narrow the options on achieving such cuts — "reductions would be confined to measures coal plants can achieve on-site, like improving heat efficiency," the Times reports. In fact, The Washington Post separately reports EPA's "own impact analysis, which runs nearly 300 pages, projects that the proposal would make only slight cuts to overall emissions of pollutants — including carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides — over the next decade. The Obama rule, by contrast, dwarfs those cuts by a factor of more than 12." Catch up on the details of the plan hereand the math behind it here.
THE RACE FOR THE BAKKEN STATE: Despite a seemingly poor electoral environment for conservatives, top Republicans continue to rank North Dakota Rep. Kevin Cramer as one of their best prospects to take a Democratic-held Senate seat in November. The rationale centers around a core argument: North Dakota remains Trump country, and Cramer’s support for the president is unflinching, POLITICO’s Elana Schor reports. For her part, incumbent Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp won her first Senate race in 2012 “by less than 1 percentage point on the strength of her retail campaign skills, independent streak and plainspokeness.” And Cramer is now trying to turn those assets against her with his own tell-it-like-it-is style, Elana writes.
“She tries to disguise her lack of political conviction as some noble thing,” Cramer told POLITICO last week in between events highlighting homegrown fuel and power companies with Energy Secretary Rick Perry. He said Heitkamp is having an “identity crisis” when it comes to Trump’s agenda. Part of that agenda centers around energy, where Cramer has sought to undercut Heitkamp’s work on a proposal Trump signed into law this year expanding tax credits for capturing carbon from coal, and on the deal to end the U.S. oil export ban in 2015, by touting his own involvement on both fronts.
“I hold my record up against his record any day of the week, because if all you do is talk to one side and vote one side, you’ll get nothing done in this town,” Heitkamp responded. “And this is exactly why I’m going to win this race. Because North Dakotans aren’t electing a Republican. They are electing the next U.S. senator from North Dakota.” More here.
WELCOME TO MONDAY! I'm your host, Kelsey Tamborrino. No one was able to correctly identify the three current House lawmakers who previously served as ambassadors: Reps. Don Beyer, Francis Rooney and Ann Wagner. Beyer was ambassador to Switzerland and Liechtenstein, Rooney to the Holy See, and Wagner was ambassador to Luxembourg. For today: Name the congressman who introduced a bill in 1911 to abolish the Senate, inspiring the constitutional amendment that requires direct popular election of senators today. Send your tips, energy gossip and comments to ktamborrino@politico.com, or follow us on Twitter @kelseytam, @Morning_Energy and @POLITICOPro.
NEPA, GONNA GIVE YOU UP? Today’s the last day to comment on the White House Council on Environmental Quality's range of proposed procedural changesto the National Environmental Policy Act. The proposal up for comment asks 20 specific questions, including topics like NEPA rules on the timing of agency actions, which could lead to stricter deadlines, a long-standing industry request, as Alex Guillén previously reported. The notice suggests that NEPA rules require that reviews involving multiple agencies be “conducted in a manner that is concurrent, synchronized, timely, and efficient” and also suggests using documents from previous environmental reviews to “make the NEPA process more efficient.”
Already, comments have piled up, including one from the Natural Resources Defense Council that calls for the Trump administration to drop the overhaul altogether, contending that the changes proposed would lead to unnecessary delays for projects now awaiting federal approval. “Rewriting the NEPA regulations will unsettle a very settled area of the law, causing industry to have to deal with uncertainty and possibly new processes,” the comment says.
IF I COULD TURN BACK TIME: Interior reversed course on a BLM proposal that would have put more than 1,600 acres inside the previous boundaries of Utah’s Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument up for sale, the Salt Lake Tribune reports — an area that Secretary Ryan Zinke previously said he wouldn’t open up. Deputy Interior Secretary David Bernhardt sent a memo to BLM officials Friday reversing part of a management plan for the acreage that was removed in December. “The failure to capture this inconsistency stops with me,” Bernhardt wrote. Top Interior officials, including Zinke, were caught off guard by the proposal, the Tribune reports. “The secretary did not see the proposal before it went out and was not happy about it,” a senior official told the newspaper.
Green groups pounced on that remark. “Does Secretary Zinke have any idea what’s going on inside the Interior Department?” Jennifer Rokala, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Western Priorities, said in a statement. “He was caught red-handed trying to sell off our public lands to his political supporters. It’s only after two days of terrible news stories that he is now changing direction.”
AND HE'S OFF: Zinke was spotted in the Turkish Airlines lounge at Washington Dulles International Airport on Friday night, according to a Playbook tipster. He later boarded a flight to Istanbul and traveled in business class. A source told Playbook the secretary's on personal travel.
CH-CH-CHANGES: A memo released by the Trump administration last month without much fanfare challenges known justifications for the conservation of oil. The memo outlines how conserving oil is no longer an economic imperative for the U.S., writes The Associated Press. The memo was released in July in support of the administration’s proposal to relax fuel mileage standards. The Energy Department says growth in natural gas and other sectors has reduced the need for imported oil, which “in turn affects the need of the nation to conserve energy,” the AP recaps. DOE also cites the increase in fracking that has unlocked U.S. shale oil reserves, giving “the United States more flexibility than in the past to use our oil resources with less concern.” Read the story.
REPORT: EPA EYEING RULE ON WATER PERMIT VETOS: EPA is drafting a regulation to limit the agency's ability to veto water pollution permits under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act, sources tell E&E News. The regulation would echo limits previously outlined in a memo from former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. That memo directed the Office of Water to craft a regulation that eliminates EPA's ability to veto a project before a permit application is filed, or after a permit has been approved. Pruitt also called to centralize the agency's use of the Clean Water Act authority by requiring headquarters to sign off on any such 404(c) vetos, Pro's Annie Snider reported in June.
Now, EPA sources tell E&E News the agency "is planning to submit a proposed rule nixing pre-emptive and retroactive vetoes to the White House for review by the end of December." An EPA spokeswoman confirmed to E&E it is "continuing its work to evaluate updates to the regulations governing EPA's role in the permitting process under section 404c of the Clean Water Act in order to increase predictability and provide regulatory certainty for landowners, investors, businesses and other stakeholders."
INVESTMENT PROTECTIONS WEIGHED FOR OIL, GAS: U.S. oil and gas investments in Mexico could get a boost under a proposed rule to NAFTA from the U.S., three sources with direct knowledge of the discussions tell Pro Trade's Adam Behsudi. The move would represent a slight shift from the United States' earlier negotiating position. The Trump administration is essentially looking at “a final deal that would significantly change a long-standing dispute settlement mechanism that currently allows companies to sue nations in the pact over investment issues,” Adam writes. Additionally, the U.S. only wants companies headquartered within the U.S. and led by a “U.S. person” to be eligible to file investment claims.
“One source close to the talks stressed that the U.S. is not proposing that eligible sectors would get the same treatment under NAFTA’s current investor dispute process or updated provisions the U.S. negotiated" in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Adam writes. “Instead, the administration is discussing a different process that would provide U.S. oil and gas companies some redress if their contracts are canceled and they fail to get compensation through the Mexican judicial system, the source said.” Read more.
FROM THE OTHER SIDE: Of all the towns around the Chesapeake Bay, “none is so wide open to the whims of weather, so vulnerable to the effects of climate change” than Tangier Island, Virginia-based journalist Earl Swift writes for POLITICO Magazine. The deeply religious community of Tangier elected Trump en masse in 2016, but now they are looking to the federal and state governments to build a protective wall around the island’s perimeter to protect against erosion and rising sea levels. The response, Earl writes, has largely been tepid. Read his take on Tangier here.
TAKE A LOOK! Energy analysis firm Energy Innovation released a new report on the Trump administration's plan to rescue economically struggling coal and nuclear power plants. The analysis looked at what would happen if you took the $2 billion in federal subsidies for six uneconomic FirstEnergy coal and nuclear power plants and instead spent it investing in "an economic transition" for the communities where those plants are located. The report found the scenario could create more than $300 million in investment for each of the six communities where FirstEnergy plants are at risk of closing.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-energy/2018/08/20/whats-the-plan-321668
-
Oil Exports Exceed Imports for First Time on Texas Gulf Coast
Aug 20, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Rye Druzin
Oil exports exceeded imports along Texas' Gulf Coast in April for the first time on record.
In April oil exports in the Houston-Galveston port district exceeded imports by 15,000 barrels a day, and in May that difference grew to 470,000 barrels a day, according to data from the Department of Energy. The Houston-Galveston port district includes the ports of Houston, Texas City, Galveston, Freeport, Port Lavaca, and Corpus Christi.
In May total U.S. crude oil exports rose to a record 2 million barrels a day. A year prior exports were just over 1 million barrels a day. The Energy Department said that on average since mid-2017 the Houston-Galveston port district has accounted for slightly more than half of U.S. crude oil exports. In May that proportion grew to 70 percent.
The Energy Department linked the growing crude oil export volumes to efforts at the ports of Corpus Christi and Houston to expand infrastructure. The port district of Port Arthur -- which includes the Texas ports of Port Arthur, Sabine, Beaumont and Orange -- is the only other port district that has seen significant crude oil export volumes.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Oil-export-exceed-imports-on-Texas-Gulf-Coast-13168347.php
-
NYSW Railway Taps Collins’ ARINC RailwayNetSM for PTC
Aug 20, 2018 | Railway Track & Structures
By Kyra Senese
The New York, Susquehannah and Western (NYSW) Railway has chosen Rockwell Collins’ ARINC Railway NetSM service to implement positive train control (PTC).
ARINC RailwayNet is a hosted network, messaging and application platform for use by freight and passenger railroads.
The platform facilitates a common communication infrastructure in order to enable PTC solutions to monitor train movements and address rail safety issues, including train-to-train collisions and incursions into work zones.
“Rockwell Collins’ service allows for interoperability between the short line and commuter rails with the Class I railroads to deliver PTC safety benefits with reduced operational deployment risks for smaller lines,” said Kenneth Schreder, vice president, Surface Transportation and Critical Infrastructure Systems for Rockwell Collins. “Through RailwayNet, Rockwell Collins is helping NYSW meet the PTC mandate efficiently, cost effectively and securely.”
NYSW operates more than 500 miles of track in New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
https://www.rtands.com/cs/nysw-railway-taps-collins-arinc-railwaynetsm-for-ptc/
-
Ewire: EPA's CPP Replacement to Cut Tiny Fraction of GHGs
Aug 20, 2018 | Inside EPA
President Trump is slated to unveil EPA's narrow replacement for the Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP) utility greenhouse gas rule on Aug. 21 but new details are emerging that indicate it will cut only a tiny slice of emissions from the power sector, the second-largest domestic source of GHGs.
The Washington Post takes us through the numbers, citing two anonymous administration officials. The headline is that by 2030, the new rule would cut power sector carbon dioxide levels between 0.7-1.5 percent, from a 2005 baseline. The Post says the CPP would have reduced CO2 by 19 percent in that time frame. (The story does not address why that figure differs from the oft-cited 32 percent cut for the Obama rule.)
Regardless, the 2015 regulation “dwarfs” the forthcoming proposal's emissions cuts “by a factor of more than 12,” the article says, citing similarly minor reductions in power sector sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury.
Some environmentalists also believe the Trump rule could ultimately boost emissions, given that it will focus on efficiency upgrades at coal plants, and those steps could encourage such plants to run more often. Additionally, the proposal will include some changes to EPA's new source review (NSR) permitting program, essentially making efficiency upgrades exempt from NSR requirements to install up-to-date pollution controls.
“Emissions are going to go up, and I don’t mean from where they would have been under the Clean Power Plan, but relative to the trends now,” said Conrad Schneider of the Clean Air Task Force, according to the New York Times. “This is to put the thumb on the scales and bring coal back.”
Other environmental advocates are also noting that the CPP replacement plan will come just weeks after the Trump administration's major rollback plan for vehicle fuel economy and GHG standards -- cementing plans to gut climate standards for the country's largest two categories of planet-warming emissions.
“These are the two biggest sectors of the economy that contribute to greenhouse gases in the country and are just hugely significant in terms of emissions,” said Janet McCabe, the acting EPA air chief during the second half of the Obama administration.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-epas-cpp-replacement-cut-tiny-fraction-ghgs
-
Document Details Trump’s Plan to Scale Back Obama Rule
Aug 20, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Rod Kuckro
The Trump administration plans to return to states the responsibility to curb greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.
The administration's draft plan — expected to be unveiled tomorrow — would replace the Obama-era Clean Power Plan. It would give states three years from the date the rule is finalized to come up with their own plans to cut emissions, according to talking points on the proposal obtained by E&E News.
President Trump is slated to speak tomorrow night at a rally in Charleston, W.Va., according to White House spokeswoman Caroline Sunshine. He's expected to tout his plans to overhaul the rule at that event.
Trump's proposal would delay for years the certainty that operators of coal-fired plants had sought and began acting on during the last year of the Obama administration.
Expected litigation could further throw into doubt the willingness of plant owners to postpone already announced plans to shutter coal plants that are struggling to compete in many parts of the United States by less expensive natural gas and renewable generation.
Notably, the proposed replacement for the CPP doesn't appear to take a stance on the endangerment finding, whereby in 2009, EPA determined that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health.
"EPA has six pending petitions challenging both the substance and the process of the endangerment finding. We are evaluating the best path forward," the talking points say.
"In the meantime, we have a responsibility to fill the void and provide regulatory certainty to the states and energy sector," they say.
The EPA replacement is an "inside the fence" solution along the lines of what many critics of the Clean Power Plan at the state level and in the electricity sector had sought.
The approach "does not attempt to force an accelerated shift to renewables at the grid-wide level," the talking points say.
Once a state submits a plan, EPA would have 12 months to approve it. If a state does not submit a plan, EPA would have two years to develop and impose a federal plan.
EPA says it has conducted four regulatory impact analyses on the replacement rule. All four would reduce carbon dioxide emissions from their current levels and could result in $400 million in annual net benefits, EPA says.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/08/20/stories/1060094761
-
Uncertain Path for NEPA Overhaul as Comment Period Ends
Aug 20, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Nick Sobczyk
The first public comment period ends today for one of the Trump administration's broadest regulatory overhauls, but the path forward is far from clear.
The White House Council on Environmental Quality in June issued a proposal aimed at streamlining its National Environmental Policy Act regulations, which underpin environmental permitting for the entire federal government.
The advance notice of proposed rulemaking has drawn more than 10,500 comments ahead of the deadline at midnight tonight. That includes hundreds of form letters, as well as more detailed missives from environmental organizations and conservative heavyweights such as Americans for Prosperity.
And yet CEQ has not made clear exactly what it wants to change in the regulations, even if environmental and industry groups have an idea of where the process is headed. That has caused consternation among greens, who see it as part of a larger effort by the Trump administration to tear down environmental permitting.
"I think that one thing that has to be laid out as the process continues is the ground rules for the game," said Raul Garcia, legislative counsel at Earthjustice.
Those ground rules should include exactly how much CEQ will engage with the public and which aspects of the regulations are open to change, Garcia said.
There are sections of the regulations backed up by statute and large bodies of case law. What's more, some of the regulatory streamlining efforts taken on by other agencies — including the 150-page limit for environmental impact statements at the Interior Department — are already on the books in CEQ's existing regulations (Greenwire, May 21).
The early proposal from CEQ lays out a list of 20 broad questions about the regulations, including whether some of the most litigated terms in the regulations — "major federal action," "cumulative impact" and "significantly," among others — should be redefined.
In a public comment endorsed by nearly 350 environmental organizations, greens say CEQ's regulations have withstood "the test of time."
"Rather than contemplating a rewrite of the regulations, we urge that CEQ invest its modest resources, and most importantly, its leadership position, in a systematic initiative to enforce them," the comment says.
Industry and conservative groups, meanwhile, have generally praised the effort, arguing that vague statutes and conflicting interpretations in CEQ's NEPA guidance and regulations can cause permitting delays.
"This constant revision and reinterpretation has added to, rather than alleviated, the complexity of compliance," Americans for Prosperity Chief Government Affairs Officer Brent Gardner wrote in a public comment. "Today, the NEPA review process continues to [be] a significant roadblock for federally funded construction and infrastructure investments."
Still, the advance notice of proposed rulemaking leaves plenty of room for interpretation, and acting CEQ Director Mary Neumayr at her confirmation hearing for the permanent job last month declined several times to outline CEQ's future plans in detail.
She instead echoed a generalized talking point used by industry and some other agency officials: The regulations have not been significantly updated in decades, and with permitting times on the rise, they may be ripe for change.
Neumayr also suggested the agency has not decided whether it will rewrite its NEPA regulations, though she did not specifically commit to fulfilling a request from Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) to have public hearings on the proposal in each EPA region.
"It is not a regulatory proposal," she said. "We have not made the decision to move forward with a proposed rule, but should we make that decision, I will commit that we will consider all of our options with respect to public engagement."
CEQ spokesman Dan Schneider said today that the agency "will review the comments we have received before we determine next steps and any potential revisions."
Apparent issues with the regulations.gov website have made it difficult to gauge just how much public interest the NEPA proposal has garnered.
One count on the website shows 10,586 comments, while another indicates more than 11,000. One environmentalist said some of his comments were not registering over a span of several days last week, though they now appear to have loaded onto the docket.
That appears to be a technical difficulty rather than cause for concern for environmentalists, but Garcia said they'll be pushing for public meetings and a slower rulemaking process that allows for more engagement.
"The process itself is just beginning," he said, "but so far, it doesn't look very good."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/08/20/stories/1060094757
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
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested