Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 8/30/2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chinese Tariffs on U.S. Scrap Plastics Take Effect
Aug 29, 2018 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Jared Paben and Colin Staub
The U.S. and China have fired their latest salvo in their ongoing trade war, and this time tariffs have been applied to recovered plastics and a number of other U.S. recyclables. -
(ACC Mentioned) 4 Recycling Conversations to Watch for Remainder of 2018
Aug 29, 2018 | Waste Dive
By Cole Rosengren
Last week's 2018 WASTECON was about much more than recycling, though the topic was inescapable in sessions and conversations. -
(ACC Mentioned) 3 High-Yield Stocks Still Worth Buying
Aug 30, 2018 | The Motley Fool
By Brian Feroldi, Anders Bylund, And Maxx Chatsko
Interest rates might be on the rise, but they still remain low in absolute terms. That's why income-seeking investors need to look elsewhere if they want a good cash-on-cash return on their money. -
Wheeler Poised To Soon Issue EPA Policy For Assessing State Programs
Aug 29, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler is reviewing a highly-anticipated draft final policy for how the agency assesses the adequacy of state pollution control programs, a plan that will govern a host of federal-state interaction, ranging from retrospective reviews of state programs... -
BSEE's Angelle to Lead Interior Royalty Policy Committee
Aug 29, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Ben LeFebvre
Scott Angelle, director of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, will chair the next meeting of the Interior Department’s Royalty Policy Commission, the commission said today. -
Brexit Storm Clouds Build
Aug 29, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alex Scott
Ongoing failure of the European Union and the U.K. to strike a trade deal ahead of the U.K.’s exit from the EU in March 2019 could bring the import and export of chemicals between the two entities to a complete standstill, says Utz Tillmann, CEO of VCI, Germany’s largest chemical industry association. -
(ACC Mentioned) Protecting the Safety Net for New Chemicals Under TSCA
Aug 29, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Bob Sussman and Daniel Rosenberg
Over two years ago, Congress strengthened the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a well-intentioned but flawed law that had made little progress in addressing the many toxic chemicals that pervade our homes, workplaces, schools and outdoor environment. -
EPA’s New Chemical Delays Hurting Business, Industry Says
Aug 30, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA’s new chemicals program may no longer face an environmental group’s lawsuit, but specialty chemical manufacturers remain frustrated by the slow pace of the agency’s approval process for new products. -
EPA Official Raises Concern over PFAS MCL as States Back Standard
Aug 29, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Even as he claimed not to be signaling how the agency may proceed, a top EPA water official is raising concerns about whether the agency should develop a federally-enforceable standard targeting per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)... -
Trump Set to Tap Centrist to Head Epa’s Chemical Safety Office
Aug 30, 2018 | Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis
When President Trump first took office and was looking for someone to head the Environmental Protection Agency’s chemical safety division, it didn’t go well. -
Chemours Chemicals to Get New EPA Safety Levels in Coming Weeks (1)
Aug 29, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The EPA will propose new safety levels in a matter of weeks for a class of chemicals manufactured by the Chemours Co. that have triggered water contamination concerns across the country. -
Detroit Schools Shut off Drinking Water After Tests Show Elevated Lead, Copper
Aug 29, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Brett Samuels
The Detroit public school district turned off drinking water on Wednesday after test results showed that two-thirds of its schools had elevated levels of lead or copper. -
Echa ‘Culture Shift’ Can Speed up SVHC Identification – NGO
Aug 29, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Echa needs to change its organisational culture and make better use of the precautionary principle in order to speed up identification of SVHCs, NGO ChemSec said in a second letter to the agency’s head. -
Colorado to Vote on Measure to Limit Oil, Gas Drilling (1)
Aug 30, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Catherine Traywick
A measure to restrict drilling in Colorado and protect designated areas from its effects made the November ballot, state regulators said in an Aug. 29 statement. -
EQT’s Mountain Valley Pipe Cleared to Resume Most Construction (1)
Aug 29, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Adams-Heard
EQT Midstream Partners LP can resume work on most of its Mountain Valley natural gas pipeline, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said in a filing, after the U.S. Bureau of Land Management found alternative routes to be impractical. -
Drowning in Dirty Water, Permian Seeks a $22 Billion Lifeline
Aug 29, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Wethe and Kevin Crowley
In the dry, dusty plains of West Texas, home to America’s most prolific oil play, the problem isn’t too little water, it’s too much of it. -
It’s Been a Year Since Hurricane Harvey Triggered a Toxic Chemical Emergency. Us Chemical Laws Are as Weak as Ever.
Aug 29, 2018 | Quartz
By Zoë Schlanger
On August 31, 2017, the Arkema chemical facility in Crosby, Texas, a suburb of Houston, failed to contain the volatile compounds it housed. The 19.5 tons of organic peroxides stored on site needed to be kept refrigerated to avoid combusting but Hurricane Harvey... -
California Votes to Require 100 Percent Clean Electricity by 2045 (1)
Aug 29, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Chediak and Christopher Martin
California lawmakers passed a measure mandating that all electricity come from wind, solar and other clean-energy sources by 2045, marking the state’s biggest step yet in the fight against global warming. -
E.P.A. to Reconsider Obama-Era Curbs on Mercury Emissions by Power Plants
Aug 29, 2018 | New York Times
By Coral Davenport
The Trump administration is reviewing a major Obama-era clean air regulation on the emission of mercury — a pollutant linked with damage to the brain, to the nervous system and to fetal development — with the intent of proposing a replacement rule... -
Exxon Tells N.Y. to ‘Put Up or Shut Up’ in Climate Change Probe
Aug 29, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Erik Larson
Exxon Mobil Corp. told a judge that New York’s attorney general should either sue the company for misleading investors about the financial impact of climate change, or close its probe and move on. -
CBD Threatens Suit over Climate-Related Ocean Acidification
Aug 29, 2018 | Inside EPA
The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) is threatening to sue EPA for failing to identify Oregon marine waters as impaired by climate change-related ocean acidification, part of the center's long-running push to force increased controls on carbon dioxide emissions.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chinese Tariffs on U.S. Scrap Plastics Take Effect
Aug 29, 2018 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Jared Paben and Colin Staub
The U.S. and China have fired their latest salvo in their ongoing trade war, and this time tariffs have been applied to recovered plastics and a number of other U.S. recyclables.
On Aug. 23, each country began imposing new rounds of penalties on $16 billion worth of each other’s goods. Among the hundreds of categories of products, this latest round included China’s 25 percent tariff on recovered plastics, cardboard and paper and various recovered metals. Chinese authorities released the list earlier this month.
According to the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI), U.S. aluminum sent to China now has a 50 percent tariff on it. China on Aug. 23 bumped it up from 25 percent to 50 percent.
The 25 percent tariff now applies to recovered PET, PE, PVC, PS and other plastics. The duties are likely to further reduce the already-crippled scrap plastics trade with China. U.S. export statistics show aluminum exports, not counting used beverage containers, dropped by about one-third after the 25 percent penalty went into effect.
Recovered plastic shipment have already been slashed by China’s other import restrictions. During the first half of the year, 30 million pounds were exported to China, down from 379 million during the first half of 2017.
The Aug. 23 tariffs also included, for the first time, virgin resin produced in the U.S. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has been speaking out in opposition to chemicals and plastics tariffs, according to Plastics News.
What could be next
China has drafted a list of tariffs on 5,000 product codes, with the duties targeting about $60 billion in U.S. goods.
For virgin chemicals and plastics, that list could be even more painful than the Aug. 23 tariffs, according to the ACC. The $60 billion list is in response to the Trump Administration’s proposed 25 percent tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods. This round could go into effect starting in September.
Bloomberg and Reuters both reported that talks between the countries haven’t yielded significant progress, making another round of tariffs more likely.
https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2018/08/29/chinese-tariffs-on-u-s-scrap-plastics-take-effect/
-
(ACC Mentioned) 4 Recycling Conversations to Watch for Remainder of 2018
Aug 29, 2018 | Waste Dive
By Cole Rosengren
Last week's 2018 WASTECON was about much more than recycling, though the topic was inescapable in sessions and conversations.
We've already been highlighting many of the biggest takeaways from the event, including the MRF Summit co-hosted by SWANA and ISRI during the week, and now have a few parting thoughts on what else piqued our interest. Here are a few of the most intriguing threads that we saw come up and expect will continue to be relevant in the months ahead.Marine Litter
A session entitled "Battling the Marine Debris Blues" outlined just how dire the world's ocean plastic problem has become. Jenna Jambeck, associate professor of environmental engineering at the University of Georgia, explained how "we can’t imagine our lives without plastic right now" because it's such a fundamental material in so many products. She framed the challenge as a global issue that will require an integrated approach.
Dominic Hogg, founding director of Eunomia Research & Consulting, said that thankfully this is finally in the public consciousness — especially in the U.K. "I can't imagine an issue that sort of shot up the political agenda quite as rapidly as this one has," he said, noting that as that interest leads to a desire for action people also need to remember that "just making stuff recyclable doesn't solve the litter problem."
Keith Christman, managing director of plastics markets at the American Chemistry Council, said his organization agrees that "plastic in the environment is totally unacceptable." Though he cautioned against a potential rush to banning products and emphasized the material's "important societal benefits" in terms of preserving food, facilitating healthcare and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
"Those benefits will be lost if we don't do a better job of keeping plastics and other trash out of the environment," said Christman.Key questions: Can the marine debris crisis be solved without seriously rethinking how much plastic companies make, and consumers buy, around the world? What role should plastics producers and other industry stakeholders play in this international dilemma?Single-stream vs. dual-stream
A growing number of people have begun pointing to the adoption of single-stream as the reason contamination rates have gone up in recent years, which many believe was a key factor in China restricting its scrap imports. While there have been scattered reports of certain programs switching back to dual-stream for some or all customers, that scenario is still an exception to the rule.
An informal survey of attendees during a recap of breakout sessions in the MRF Summit showed about two-thirds of the room was still sticking with single-stream, and few believed it had any affect on the marketability of material. During his keynote interview, Waste Connections CEO Ron Mittelstaedt said he didn't necessarily think dual-stream was the answer either, though he did take a moment to advocate for removing glass from the mix.
Lisa Skumatz, principal at Skumatz Economic Research Associates, made the case for why "single stream is not equal to the devil," and said it all comes down to technology. "Right now, single stream can be cleaned up to the specs that you've been talking about." Instead, she said the real issue has been a race to the bottom in terms of bale quality.
"It began the first time a mill or another end user bought an out-of-spec bale and didn't reject it," said Skumatz. "As long as you do that, there's no incentive for anybody to clean it up more."
During another session all about the two options, panelists seemed to indicate it was all about what made the most sense locally. Simon Ellin, CEO of The Recycling Association, said dual-stream was on the rise in the U.K. Willie Puz of Palm Beach County, Florida said his dual-stream system was staying the course and had even recently attracted one municipality back into the fold. Joaquin Mariel, vice president of operations at Balcones Resources in Texas, stood by his company's single-stream process and said "we work to get what we want out of what we're given."
Get waste news like this in your inbox daily. Subscribe to Waste
Key question: Will any more municipalities make the switch back to dual-stream, or some other alternative, as contracts come up for renegotiation and prices heading into 2019? Will single-stream plants be able to get down to the specs they need to stay viable if not?Striving for 0.5% and Domestic Potential
One main factor in whether single-stream plants can meet the new de facto contamination spec is whether they actually need to if China has effectively shut its doors. Some also wondered during the week whether the costs required to do so, in terms of labor and capital upgrades, had reached a point of diminishing returns.
"I think it is attainable, but at what cost, and would the market bear that cost?" asked Bill Keegan, president of Dem-Con Companies. "What quality material can we make for what the generators are willing to pay?"
Bill Moore, president of Moore Associates, said to his knowledge the best U.S. MRFs are hitting about 2% contamination right now. He questioned whether on the fiber side it would actually make more sense to catch that last bit of contamination in the wet phase of pulping at a mill rather than the dry sorting process at a MRF.
As for how long it might take for more domestic paper mills to open up, panelists had a range of responses, but all expected it could take multiple years. Mittelstaedt said he expected to see a major acceleration in investment next year and expressed confidence that "if there's a quality product put out by us as a company or by us as an industry, the markets will develop."
On the plastics side, CEO Nina Butler of More Recycling said if the demand for post-consumer recycled content isn't keeping up with the supply for certain categories then it might be time to re-frame the conversation.
"We need to develop the cache around PCR being the preferable material because of its C02 savings." Butler said this fits into a broader sustainable materials management discussion that needs to go beyond a narrow focus on collection and diversion. That means more education on which materials are best for certain actions or performance standards, and some of those may be plastic.
"Shifting to a heavier material is not going to get us out of this challenge, said Butler. "We have to both pick the lowest impact product, and we have to find a way to recycle it."Key Question: Will de facto quality standards shift as more domestic capacity comes online? What will encourage that capacity, and the necessary demand pull behind it, to help capture all of the material that is currently without a clear end market?Framing the Narrative
As all of these conversations, and many more, play out in the months ahead, the coming shifts will likely still merit plenty of media coverage. This will be especially true if more local programs or reduce or suspended, a move which many viewed as dangerously irreversible.
Attendees talked frequently throughout the week about getting on the same page with a message about recycling's long-term viability, as well as China's role in this current moment.
"The scrap industry is a global industry and this long predates China," said Robin Weiner, president of ISRI. "China is the trigger that exposed a lot of the weaknesses in the recycling system."
Weiner said it's key to remember it will take time to find new homes for the 30% or more worth of material that previously went overseas. As more Southeast Asian countries begin to limit what they'll take, some material may be in limbo for a period of time. Meanwhile, associations are trying to keep recycling's reputation viable as a key public service, but also recognize the underlying factors that led to this point.
"Part of how we got into this situation is we got reliant on China," said SWANA CEO David Biderman. "Those chickens are coming home to roost now and one of the solutions here is actually generating less waste."
Above all else, it's also important to remember this material isn't going away and global waste generation is projected to rise exponentially in the years to come.
"We as an industry definitely need to avoid this ostrich effect. The stakes are too high," said Butler. "Things do not look good for recycling if we do nothing."Key question: Can everyone stay unified on that message of recycling being a key component of any integrated waste management system, and not just an environmentally friendly add-on? Can the industry find a way to truly reconcile its export reliance and change the system?
https://www.wastedive.com/news/future-recycling-china-paper-plastic/531132/
-
(ACC Mentioned) 3 High-Yield Stocks Still Worth Buying
Aug 30, 2018 | The Motley Fool
By Brian Feroldi, Anders Bylund, And Maxx Chatsko
Interest rates might be on the rise, but they still remain low in absolute terms. That's why income-seeking investors need to look elsewhere if they want a good cash-on-cash return on their money.
So which stocks should these investors check out? We posed that question to a team of Motley Fool contributors, and they called out Canon (NYSE:CAJ), Enterprise Products Partners LP (NYSE:EPD), and Starbucks (NASDAQ:SBUX).
Here's what Canon can do for you
Anders Bylund (Canon): The maker of cameras, office equipment, printing systems, and more has been on a shopping spree in recent years. Canon has acquired six smaller companies over the last four years, reshaping the business model and lifting its top-line revenues. At the moment, the company is enjoying strong revenue growth in medical imaging devices, network cameras, and equipment for manufacturing OLED screens.
Annual sales have increased by 15% over the last three years, coupled with 26% higher earnings per share. In short, Canon's business is strong today and aiming for even greater heights a few years down the road.
But share prices have dropped 14% lower year to date, and Canon's shares are trading at just 15 times trailing earnings -- their lowest P/E ratios in the last three years. As a result, the dividend yield has increased to a multiyear high of 4.6%.
It's true that Japanese (and European) companies can be uncomfortable investments for American dividend seekers. Dividend payers in those markets don't see it as a requirement to boost payouts every year, preferring to shuffle budgets in and out of that bucket as other cash-consuming line items demand more or less attention. The resulting long-term dividend chart looks a little crazy to us Yankees:
If you can get over that psychological speed bump, Canon presents generally growing dividends over the long term alongside rising sales and affordable share prices. In my book, that's a high-yield stock worth buying today.
An integral player in American energy
Maxx Chatsko (Enterprise Products Partners LP): It may not have much name recognition, but this $64 billion midstream company plays an important role in the American energy sector. Units also sport a healthy 6% yield, but the business generates more than enough distributable cash flow to cover the generous payout. In fact, the distribution has grown for 56 consecutive quarters.
Upcoming growth projects bode well for that streak continuing for the foreseeable future. Enterprise Products Partners operates a robust transcontinental network of storage, pipeline, and export infrastructure for crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids (NGLs). The latter products may be overlooked among most energy investors, but they're responsible for 59% of the company's total operating income dating back to June 2017.
Enterprise Products Partners is leveraging its leadership position in NGLs logistics to prepare for a huge under-the-radar opportunity. According to the American Chemistry Council, since 2010, global companies have committed more than $181 billion in investment capital to build world-class chemical manufacturing facilities in the United States to take advantage of ridiculously low prices of NGLs, which will be converted to valuable petrochemicals such as ethylene and propylene.
Not only can the midstream giant supply NGLs via pipeline to new facilities in the Northeast and along the Gulf Coast, but it's also preparing to shuttle the resulting petrochemicals down to dedicated storage and export facilities it owns along the Gulf Coast. Add it all up, and Enterprise Products Partners will be vertically integrated in an industry expected to grow domestic revenues by more than $100 billion per year by the mid-2020s. That makes the high-yield stock worth a much closer look for long-term investors.
Too cheap to pass up
Brian Feroldi (Starbucks): Long-term investors in Starbucks haven't kept up with the gains of the S&P 500 over the last few years. Shares have basically traded sideways since late 2015, while the S&P 500 is up 45% in the same time frame.
What can explain the severe underperformance? I think the culprit is declining same-store sales comps and the announced departure of founder and chairman Howard Schultz. The combination has caused the company's valuation multiples to contract:
he upshot of this revaluation is that Starbucks' dividend yield has been soaring. Shares currently yield 2.3%, which is an all-time high for the business.
That high yield wouldn't matter to me if Starbucks was in serial decline, but I think there's reason to believe the opposite is true. Asia, ultra-premium coffee, and tea remain huge growth opportunities for this business. The company is also set to receive a $7.2 billion check from Nestle. When combined with the company's knack for generating boatloads of cash, management plans on returning $25 billion to shareholders between now and fiscal 2020 through dividends and stock buybacks.
Add it all up, and market watchers project that Starbucks' earnings will grow in excess of 13% annualized over the next five years. With shares trading for about 20 times next year's earnings estimates and offering up a market-beating yield, I can't help but think that this company is a strong buy right now.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/08/30/3-high-yield-stocks-still-worth-buying.aspx
-
Wheeler Poised To Soon Issue EPA Policy For Assessing State Programs
Aug 29, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler is reviewing a highly-anticipated draft final policy for how the agency assesses the adequacy of state pollution control programs, a plan that will govern a host of federal-state interaction, ranging from retrospective reviews of state programs and oversight of permitting and enforcement decisions.
In an exclusive Aug. 29 interview with Inside EPA, EPA's acting Deputy Administrator Henry Darwin said that Wheeler is currently reviewing and plans to soon issue a draft final policy governing agency reviews of state environmental programs, which the agency plans to first implement in reviews of state Title V air permit programs and national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) water permit decisions.
“We're going to be providing the standard of review, so when we do a review of the state, they're going to know what we're reviewing them for and what the standards are for the review so they're not surprised by the questions that we're asking or the results of the review,” Darwin said, describing what he called the policy's “no surprises” approach.
“It's going to be coming from statute, rule or guidance,” he added. “There is going to be some basis for our review that will be shared with them.”
The policy responds to calls from the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) for EPA to conduct retrospective reviews of state programs wherever possible, rather than reworking specific decisions, and for a consistent review process.
But it is unclear how state officials responded to Darwin's closed-door briefing on the policy, which Darwin said Wheeler will likely issue in a memo to staff in the coming weeks, and whether the policy preserves EPA regions' flexibilities to work with states -- a top priority for ECOS.
Darwin is a former head of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. Former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt hired Darwin as the agency's chief of operations but he was elevated to his current role after Pruitt resigned in July and then-Deputy Administrator Andrew Wheeler was tapped as the agency's acting chief.
Wheeler's memo to staff will outline principles to guide EPA regional officials' work with states in several areas -- conducting retrospective reviews of state environmental programs and reviewing specific permitting and enforcement actions where necessary, as well as other meetings and interactions with state regulators.
The policy calls for work in each of those areas to adhere to four principles. Those include defining an appropriate level of deference for state decision-making, clearly communicating with states prior to reviews, clarifying the standard of review as defined in a specific statute or policy, and defining a process for elevating disputes from staff to supervisors to ensure prompt resolution of disagreements.
Darwin said that EPA plans to pilot the review process with several states and EPA regions. Feedback from those states will inform whether adjustments are needed, such as possibly expanding the policy to cover additional areas of state and federal interaction, or whether to implement the policy in its current form nationally.
The pilot will focus on programmatic reviews of states' Title V permitting programs and on reviews of NPDES permits as they are being issued, Darwin said.
Cooperative Federalism
The policy results from months of negotiations between states and EPA, and is a core facet of the “cooperative federalism” that ECOS and the Trump administration have strongly backed.
Scaling back EPA review of state environment programs is a component of ECOS' spring 2017 paper, “Cooperative Federalism 2.0: A Deeper Look into a Rebooted EPA-State Relationship,” which outlines principles for redefining state and federal roles for overseeing pollution control requirements.
In addition, Todd Parfitt, Wyoming's top environment official and ECOS' past president, has urged EPA to establish an audit system under which "EPA should not review individual state implementation decisions, including enforcement, on a routine basis unless an audit recognizes" that there is a problem.
ECOS, which represents most state environment commissioners, has for months been in talks with Darwin and other EPA officials on crafting the policy for EPA regional offices reviews of state environment programs.
In those talks, state officials have called for an elevation policy and have called out reviews of NPDES permits as an area of particular concern.
While Darwin's overview of the policy suggests that it responds to some of ECOS' primary concerns, state officials will likely be watching how the pilot plays out in states where EPA and regional collaboration already runs smoothly.
ECOS Director Sam Sankar told Inside EPA in July that states generally appreciate EPA's plan to streamline agency reviews of state programs but that any policy should be sufficiently flexible to not alter cooperation in states and regional relationships are strong.
ECOS officials July 9 released a set of principles for the federal policy that called for both increased consistency in reserves while also preserving some regional flexibility.
“EPA should manage its internal decision-making processes so it can be clear, transparent, and as consistent as possible given regional differences,” the document says.
“EPA decisions should reflect coordination and agreement among all the relevant parts of the agency, including the National Program Manager offices and Regional offices."
Any draft plan is also likely to face a complex response from other stakeholders. For example, industry officials have also welcomed EPA's streamlining efforts, saying that technical or legal questions can cause EPA permit reviews to drag on.
But environmentalists, who have faulted some state programs as inadequate, fear that streamlining the EPA reviews will weaken environmental protections, especially in states where industry has significant political influence.
For example, environmentalists have vowed to challenge EPA's approval this summer of Oklahoma's first-in-the-nation coal ash permit program, charging that the program falls short of public-participation mandates and that Oklahoma lacks resources to adequately enforce it.
Additionally, environmentalists have argued that the Trump administration's proposals to cut EPA's budget by roughly one-third would gut agency grants that help fund state programs, further weakening environmental oversight.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/wheeler-poised-soon-issue-epa-policy-assessing-state-programs
-
BSEE's Angelle to Lead Interior Royalty Policy Committee
Aug 29, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Ben LeFebvre
Scott Angelle, director of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, will chair the next meeting of the Interior Department’s Royalty Policy Commission, the commission said today.
Angelle will be the commission’s acting chairman following the departure this week of Vincent DeVito, who served as the commission's chairman and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s energy adviser.
Angelle, a former Louisiana Department of Natural Resources secretary, has been a proponent of rolling back offshore drilling regulations and opening up more federal waters for oil and gas drilling.
WHAT'S NEXT: The commission will meet in Denver on Sept. 13.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Aug 29, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alex Scott
Ongoing failure of the European Union and the U.K. to strike a trade deal ahead of the U.K.’s exit from the EU in March 2019 could bring the import and export of chemicals between the two entities to a complete standstill, says Utz Tillmann, CEO of VCI, Germany’s largest chemical industry association. “Chaos threatens,” he says. Complex and cross-border chemical supply chains would lead to time-consuming customs procedures at the border, he adds.
The U.K. government is due to provide the chemical sector with guidance in the event of a “no deal” scenario in the coming days. But unilateral technical advice to British firms will not solve the problem, Tillmann says. Instead, the EU and U.K. must work hard to reach a negotiated result. The most important component of any deal would be to integrate the U.K. into Europe’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation & Restriction of Chemicals legislation, he says.
The U.K. chemical and pharmaceutical industries generate annual sales of $65 billion, of which about 60% are from exports to the EU. Approximately 75% of finished chemicals and raw materials imported into the U.K. come from the EU.
Philip Hammond, U.K. government minister for finance, in recent days acknowledged that the chemical industry would be one of the sectors hardest hit by Brexit in the event of no deal. Hammond is forecasting that in such a scenario, the U.K.’s gross domestic product—a marker of economic output—would drop by 5.0–10.3%.
Sign up for C&EN's must-read weekly newsletterSubscribe »
YES! I'd like to receive the C&EN Weekly Newsletter.
Meanwhile, the U.K. government is advising the country’s pharmaceutical companies, including GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca, that they should stockpile a six-week supply of drugs, two weeks more than it had previously proposed.
A “no deal” scenario is currently on track to have major repercussions for British scientists, according to Scientists for EU, a campaign organized by U.K. scientists who want to stay in the EU. The organization expects that in the event of no deal, the U.K. would no longer be eligible to receive money from European funds, including the European Research Council and Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, which together provide U.K. scientists with almost $700 million annually.
https://cen.acs.org/business/economy/Brexit-storm-clouds-build/96/i35
-
(ACC Mentioned) Protecting the Safety Net for New Chemicals Under TSCA
Aug 29, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Bob Sussman and Daniel Rosenberg
Over two years ago, Congress strengthened the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a well-intentioned but flawed law that had made little progress in addressing the many toxic chemicals that pervade our homes, workplaces, schools and outdoor environment. The new law was not perfect, but our groups hoped that with proper implementation it would result in a stronger federal toxics program. Unfortunately, the Trump EPA – led by former industry insiders who continue to take their cues from the nation’s chemical manufacturers — has retreated from the goals of Congress and undermined the new law at every turn.
Few aspects of the new law have been at more risk than the section 5 premanufacture notice (PMN) program, which provides critical safeguards against unsafe new chemicals entering commerce. The amended law put considerably more teeth in this program, but from day one, the chemical industry has sought to block EPA from implementing the tougher review process that the law required. We have persistently pushed back on EPA’s efforts to weaken the program. In January of this year, NRDC sued EPA to block implementation of the so-called “PMN Framework,” a decision-making roadmap that EPA announced in November 2017 and that we argued bypassed the clear requirements of the law. SCHF later intervened in the case.
We’re now withdrawing our case because, despite the statements of agency officials last December, EPA has not in fact gone ahead with the Framework and seems unlikely to do so. As a result, the PMN program has dodged a bullet that would have had destructive consequences for public health.
We’re not celebrating, however: the chemical industry still has the PMN program in its sights, and the Trump administration hasn’t given up on finding ways to cut corners on the review and regulation of new chemicals. There are troubling signs that EPA is now employing new, hard-to-track strategies for allowing new chemicals raising health or environmental concerns to slip through the section 5 safety net. The persistence of the chemical industry and the Trump administration in trying to dismantle the new protections under TSCA requires heightened vigilance in monitoring decisions on individual new chemicals so that EPA is held accountable for questionable legal and scientific judgments that stray from the requirements of the law.
Why the New Chemicals Program Is Important
The new chemicals program originated in a recognition by Congress that many chemicals causing widespread harm had been introduced into commerce without any review and testing. As explained by the House of Representatives in 1976, “we have become literally surrounded by a man-made chemical environment” and “[t]his vast volume of chemicals have, for the most part, been released into the environment with little or no knowledge of their long-term health or environmental effects.” H.R. Rep. No. 94-1341, at 3 (1976). According to the Senate report on the 1976 law, “[t]he most effective and efficient time to prevent unreasonable risks to public health or the environment is prior to first manufacture. It is at this point that the costs of regulation in terms of human suffering, jobs lost, wasted capital expenditures, and other costs are lowest.” Senate Rep. No. 94-698, (1976) at 5.
How Congress Strengthened PMN Review in 2016
Regrettably, the 1976 law contained limitations that hampered the effectiveness of the new chemicals program. Between 1979 and mid-2016, EPA received 40,151 pre-manufacture notices. But only 4 percent of these notices were subject to orders under TSCA section 5(e), the tool in the law that authorized EPA to restrict new chemicals that may present unreasonable risks of injury to health or the environment. Congress deemed this situation unacceptable when it overhauled TSCA in 2016. Several Democratic sponsors of the new law noted at the time of enactment that “[w]hile existing TSCA does not preclude EPA from reviewing new chemicals . . . following notification by the manufacturer or processor, it does not require EPA to do so or to reach conclusions on the potential risks of all such chemicals before they enter the marketplace.” To change this “passive approach,” they explained that, “[f]or the first time, EPA will be required to review all new chemicals . . . and make an affirmative finding regarding the chemical’s . . . potential risks as a condition for commencement of manufacture for commercial purposes and, in the absence of a finding that the chemical . . . is not likely to present an unreasonable risk, manufacture will not be allowed to occur.”
This approach is reflected in section 5(a)(3) of the new law. This provision directs EPA to determine the safety of every new chemical and to regulate it under section 5(e) if the Agency finds that it “may present an unreasonable risk,” lacks “sufficient information” to determine its risks or will be produced in substantial quantities and may have significant or substantial human exposure or environmental release. EPA is only allowed to authorize manufacture of the new chemical without restriction where it makes a determination under section 5(a)(3)(C) that the chemical “is not likely to present an unreasonable risk.”
During the eighteen months following enactment of the new law, EPA seemed to follow its requirements. As of December 2017, EPA had issued section 5(e) orders for around 80 percent of all the chemicals completing PMN review. The EPA orders addressed a broad range of health and environmental concerns, provided protection to workers, consumers and the general population, required enforceable reductions in exposure and environmental release and called for testing.
How the PMN Framework Dismantled the 2016 Amendments
Almost from the day TSCA took effect, however, the chemical industry pushed back hard on EPA’s heightened use of section 5(e), making one dubious argument after another – that Congress only envisioned minor changes in the PMN program, that the length of PMN reviews was creating a “backlog” and stifling innovation, and that EPA’s 5(e) orders were based on speculative changes in use that were not “intended” by the PMN submitter. The pressure by industry to roll back the program was exerted not just in public statements but undoubtedly in private discussions with senior EPA political appointees, including a weekend meeting at a fancy resort between former Administrator Scott Pruitt and the chemical manufacturers’ trade association, the American Chemistry Council.
The industry campaign was rewarded on November 7, 2017, when EPA released its New Chemicals Decision-Making Framework: Working Approach to Making Determinations under Section 5 of TSCA. Closely resembling recommendations in industry comments, the Framework would substitute a weak and largely voluntary new chemical review process for the strong regulatory regime established by Congress. Its impact would be to limit reliance on enforceable orders under section 5(e), the focus of industry unhappiness with EPA‘s initial approach to implementing the law. As the first step in curtailing these orders, EPA would evaluate the PMN substance based only on the “intended” use conditions identified in the PMN. Where these activities raised human health or environmental concerns that may present an unreasonable risk of injury, EPA would recommend changes to the PMN and encourage the submitter to amend its PMN to incorporate them. Although these controls would be strictly voluntary, EPA would then rely on the amended PMN to make a determination that the chemical is “unlikely to present an unreasonable risk” under section 5(a)(3)(B). Even where the PMN lacked test data, EPA would presume that the available information on the PMN substance is “sufficient” for a determination of risk and an order requiring testing is unnecessary.
TSCA requires EPA safety determinations under section 5(a)(3) to be based on the new chemical’s “conditions of use,” a term covering not just “intended” uses but those that are “known” or “reasonably foreseen.” However, the Framework would address potential risks presented by “reasonably foreseen” uses of the new chemical not with section 5(e) orders but with significant new use rules (SNURs) under section 5(a)(2). The Framework provided no assurance that these SNURs would in fact be issued or would be timely and, by their nature, any SNUR would be less protective than a section 5(e) order. Nowhere does the law allow EPA to base a determination that a chemical “is unlikely to present an unreasonable risk” under section 5(a)(3)(C) on the possibility of a future SNUR of uncertain value in protecting health and the environment.
EPA Did Not Implement the PMN Framework After We Filed Suit
EPA requested comment on the Framework but, at its December 7, 2017 public meeting, Jeff Morris, Director of the EPA office overseeing the new chemicals program, emphasized that “we are going to move forward; we are acting on this framework now . . . and governing ourselves by the framework.” Our groups protested against immediate implementation of the Framework and asked that it be delayed but EPA never responded. Faced with EPA’s seeming resolve to immediately make major weakening changes in the PMN program that lacked any basis in the law, NRDC filed for judicial review of the Framework on January 5, 2018. SCHF later was granted intervention.
The brief EPA filed on July 31 informed the court of appeals that – contrary to the previous explicit statements of Dr. Morris — it had not in fact implemented the Framework, was still reviewing public comments and did not know when, if ever, it would take further action on the Framework. This surprising announcement was supported by a declaration from Dr. Morris stating that EPA had issued no SNURs in accordance with the Framework and that section 5(e) orders remained the principal tool used in the new chemicals program. He explained that, since posting the Framework on November 6, 2017, EPA had issued 150 section 5(a)(3) safety determinations regarding PMNs; that 131 (or 87 percent) resulted in orders under section 5(e); and that only 19 determinations (or 13 percent) concluded that the chemical was “unlikely to present an unreasonable risk” under section 5(a)(3)(C). Dr. Morris further asserted that “reasonably foreseen” future uses were, in fact, the basis for several section 5(e) actions and were considered in all determinations of PMN safety during this period.
In short, EPA has backed off on Dr. Morris’ statements in December that PMN reviews were “being governed” by the Framework, put the Framework on the back burner and seemingly continued to follow the general approach to PMN review that the law required.
The Need for Continued Vigilance
While EPA’s announced decision to back off of the Framework is good news, it does not ensure that EPA is following the law’s requirements, or that the public is being protected from the introduction of new chemicals of concern into the marketplace. There are troubling indications that EPA is still trying to achieve the goal of the Framework – to curtail the use of section 5(e) orders – by other means. Even more disturbing, recent reports suggest that EPA’s career staff are being instructed orally on how to implement the new program, to avoid putting any instructions in writing.
EPA recently issued an eyebrow-raising “not likely” determination for a polymer intended for use as “a deodorizer in industrial, commercial, and household consumer products such as floor cleaners, cat litters, fabric refresher sprays, etc.” The polymer is part of two chemical classes known by EPA to have serious adverse health effects and EPA’s determination recognized its potential to cause “mutagenicity, developmental/reproductive toxicity, neurotoxicity, and carcinogenicity.” In its determination, EPA assumed that the polymer would only be present in consumer products at levels of 2% or below but provided no assurance that the PMN submitter or other companies would not increase its concentration to higher levels and placed no limit on the types of products in which the chemical might be used.
The decision document also failed to identify any “reasonably foreseen” uses of the polymer. This marks a departure from previous determinations (which identify reasonably foreseen uses in almost all cases) and suggests that EPA may be setting a higher – and illegal — bar for classifying future uses as reasonably foreseen. Reinforcing this possibility is new wording in footnote 1 in the EPA decision document. This footnote, which discusses how EPA defines a PMN substance’s conditions of use, states that “[r]easonably foreseen conditions of use are future circumstances, distinct from known or intended conditions of use, under which the Administrator expects the chemical substance to be manufactured, processed, distributed, used, or disposed of” (emphasis added). The word “expects” indicates that EPA now seeks to redefine “reasonably foreseen” as “highly likely” (a standard that would be impossible to meet given the inherent uncertainty in predicting how a chemical will be used in the future). A definition of reasonably foreseen as “highly likely” is inconsistent with the letter and intent of the revised TSCA and would be vulnerable to legal challenge.
We have many questions about EPA’s failure to issue a section 5(e) order for this polymer. Among them: Why did the agency conclude that an unreasonable risk to human health was not likely despite the wide range of products with consumer uses that might result in significant exposure and the polymer’s acknowledged potential for serious health effects? Why wasn’t an enforceable limit placed on the concentration of the polymer that could be present in products? Was there a risk to workers handling the PMN substance and why were no enforceable workplace protections required? Why didn’t EPA issue an order requiring testing of the polymer under section 5(e) based on a finding under section 5(a)(3)(B)(i) that the available data were insufficient in light of its similarities to substances with known adverse health effects? Did EPA do a search for “reasonably foreseen” uses of the polymer and what possibilities did it examine?
We don’t know the answers to these questions because the decision document is painfully short on details and EPA has not made available the underlying technical analyses that form the basis for its “not likely” determinations. The Agency also doesn’t post PMNs and follow-up submissions on its Website; these are obtainable with some effort but are frequently unhelpful because of the large amount of information commonly withheld as Confidential Business Information (CBI), although there are new limits on the extent of information that can be claimed as CBI under the revised TSCA. Thus, the public cannot meaningfully decipher the basis for EPA’s decisions on specific new chemicals and must – to a considerable extent — accept these decisions “on faith.” But how much faith can the public have in decisions by EPA’s Toxics Office while it is under the direction of a former chemical industry official? If EPA is using individual PMN reviews to make major legal or policy changes in the PMN program (a definite possibility in light of the August 1 “not likely” determination), the public will have no notice of these changes and no ability to respond. Which, of course, is exactly what the chemical manufacturers want.
It is remarkable that, as communities across the country are grappling with the legacy contamination of drinking water and food by cancer-causing fluorinated chemicals that some in the chemical industry have for years insisted are “safe”, the Trump administration appears to be determined to let new potential carcinogens on the market, and into our homes, with as little review or public disclosure as possible.
We’re calling on EPA to open up the new chemicals program to public scrutiny and review and to greatly increase the information it posts on individual chemical reviews. We can’t let the Trump administration and the chemical industry continue to collaborate behind closed doors to weaken the law and allow new unsafe chemicals to enter the marketplace. To encourage this step and maintain pressure on the agency, we will be filing FOIA requests for all available information on “not likely” determinations and challenging the unjustified withholding of information as CBI. Our goal is to shine light on individual new chemical decisions so that EPA can be held accountable if it is failing to comply with the law.
https://saferchemicals.org/2018/08/29/protecting-the-safety-net-for-new-chemicals-under-tsca/
-
EPA’s New Chemical Delays Hurting Business, Industry Says
Aug 30, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA’s new chemicals program may no longer face an environmental group’s lawsuit, but specialty chemical manufacturers remain frustrated by the slow pace of the agency’s approval process for new products.
The agency must make decisions within 180 days before new chemicals can enter the market but is frequently slipping past that legal limit.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit approved on Aug. 29 the Natural Resources Defense Council’s unopposed motion asking to drop the group’s lawsuit. The council had challenged a strategy the Environmental Protection Agency planned to use to speed reviews of whether a new chemical can be sold.
The dropped lawsuit resolves one of four legal challenges to EPA’s implementation of the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act amendments.
But dropping the lawsuit doesn’t address the chemical industry’s primary concern about the EPA’s new chemicals program: months-long delays that prevent manufacturers from selling new chemicals.
Timely Reviews NeededThe EPA is consistently missing the deadlines set by the amended TSCA to complete its reviews of new chemicals, Robert Helminiak, vice president for legal and government relations at the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA), told Bloomberg Environment Aug. 29.
Timely reviews of new chemicals and issuance of final new use rules is critical, “so specialty chemical manufacturers can continue to thrive and develop new products,” Helminiak said.
More than 100 new chemicals have been under review at EPA for more than two years, according to agency information analyzed by Bloomberg Environment. The EPA repeatedly has told Bloomberg Environment that it is working to reduce the amount of time it takes the agency to review new chemicals.
Under amendments to TSCA, the EPA is supposed to conclude—typically within 90 days, but up to 180 days total—whether or not a new chemical’s known, intended, or reasonably foreseen uses may pose an unreasonable risk of injuring people’s health or the environment.
If the chemical poses unreasonable risks, the agency is required to prevent that risk before allowing the new chemical to be sold. The agency can address the risks by requesting more data, limiting a chemical’s release to water if it harms aquatic life, or requiring chemical manufacturers to add worker protections such as gloves, masks, and other protective gear, among other actions.
The TSCA amendments reinforced the deadlines by directing the EPA to refund the fee chemical manufacturers pay for the agency to review their new chemicals if it misses those deadlines. Instead of issuing refunds, however, the EPA routinely asks chemical manufacturers to voluntarily “stop the clock.”
“The specialty chemical industry relies on innovation and with that innovation comes an urgency to get products to market,” Helminiak said by email.
The EPA also needs to publish a type of regulation, called a “significant new use rule,” more quickly, Helminiak said. Those rules level the regulatory playing field for future manufacturers of the same chemical by requiring them to abide by the same restrictions that the original manufacturer agreed to follow.
The case is Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 2d Cir., No. 18-00025, 8/29/18.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epas-new-chemical-delays-hurting-business-industry-says?context=landing&limit=10&tab=news
-
EPA Official Raises Concern over PFAS MCL as States Back Standard
Aug 29, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Even as he claimed not to be signaling how the agency may proceed, a top EPA water official is raising concerns about whether the agency should develop a federally-enforceable standard targeting per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a ubiquitous class of drinking water contaminants, that many states continue to seek.
During the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) Fall Meeting here Peter Grevatt, director of EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, who is leading agency efforts to address PFAS, reiterated his past concerns that a single national standard may be inappropriate given that a recent agency survey of systems that supply drinking water to 80 percent of users found PFAS in less than 2 percent of those systems.
In particular, he noted that a 2013-2015 survey conducted under EPA's Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) that checked for six forms of PFAS found the substance in just 1.3 percent of water systems surveyed, though the rule was criticized by environmentalists, who charged that it set a high reporting theshold for the substances while concentrations detected at lower levels were not released to the public.
In his remarks, Grevatt also noted that PFAS contamination is more commonly found near military installations or other known sources, suggesting such knowledge could inform a more targeted approach.
Yet Grevatt stated he was not signaling whether EPA would pursue the standard, known as a maximum contaminant level (MCL), he left the door open to pursuing in remarks to ECOS this spring.
“It matters where you look,” he said, noting that contamination is more common near certain locations used for bio-solid disposal or spraying firefighting foam. “If you go there, you would likely find elevated levels in the drinking water systems. From EPA's side this prompts the question, what is the best tool to develop, what are the most useful for the states.”
In response, several state regulators reiterated calls for EPA to curb PFAS contamination, with one Vermont official saying that if state law did not allow oversight of the substances “we would be nowhere.”
The class of chemicals, which number more than 3,000 substances, have been used to make a wide range of products, including fire fighting foam, waterproof textiles and cookware. The chemicals have been linked to various adverse health effects, including certain cancers, ulcerative colitis and thyroid disease. PFAS has drawn growing concerns from communities and states as their presence has been found in drinking water systems, and in groundwater.
EPA's review of the two most common PFAS -- perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) -- stems from its 2016 decision to list the two substances on the Safe Drinking Water Act Contaminant Candidate List (CCL4), which also listed 95 other chemical contaminants and 12 microbial substances.
Under the law, the agency is required to assess listed contaminants against three criteria: whether the substance may have an adverse effect on human health; is known to occur or there is a substantial likelihood that it will occur in public water systems with a frequency and at levels of public health concern; and, in the judgment of the Administrator, regulation presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk reductions.
But the agency is only required to make a decision on whether or not to regulate at least five of the more than 100 CCL4 contaminants by January 2021.
PFAS Agenda
While it is not clear how or whether the agency will proceed, its plan to consider whether to craft a standard for at least two of the thousands of PFAS was a centerpiece of the agency's agenda to address the substances.
During a May 22 summit, former Administrator Scott Pruitt announced officials would “take the next step” to evaluate the need for a drinking water standard for PFOA and PFOS, a step that the Defense Department (DOD) and many states are seeking to provide a consistent national cleanup standard.
Many lawmakers and their constituents -- especially in communities with contamination -- are also urging the agency to set a standard.
But Grevatt has previously indicated that any decision on whether to regulate was likely a long way off. “This is one of the issues that [Pruitt] will certainly think about,” Grevatt told ECOS officials in March. He cautioned that crafting an MCL would require numerous steps including a regulatory determination and multiple rounds of public comment. “That is not going to happen in a year. That is a multi-year process.”
State officials at the meeting pushed back on any suggestion that EPA may be stepping back from a strict approach on the contaminants.
Maia Bellon, director of the Washington State Department of Ecology, said that while regulators are addressing cleanup, “we have to get at the top of the pipe -- how is this getting into communities?” She added that EPA should work with industry to curb the pollution before it occurs.
“I understand that EPA has some very good relationships with manufacturers and chemical producers, and I ask EPA to engage at that level to give us a fighting chance so we don't continually have to play from the defensive to protect our residents,” she said.
And Peter Walke, deputy secretary of the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, backed Bellon's call for reducing pollution “on the front end” as “all that matters,” and said thankfully Vermont state law allows that agency to regulate the substances or “we'd be nowhere.”
“We need your leadership and we need your cooperation, but I'm grateful we are where we are,” Walke added.
Grevatt responded that industry collaboration has shared data that has informed EPA assessments of some of the emerging contaminants.
Grevatt also provided an update on several of the agency's other priorities for addressing PFAS contamination, which includes exploring listing PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the Superfund or other laws.
He also said that the agency is currently developing groundwater cleanup recommendations for certain PFAS substances, and developing toxicity values for two other substances, one of which is GenX, an emerging contaminant found in North Carolina's Cape Fear River.
Grevatt said EPA has been working with five states on developing those toxicity factors the agency plans to issue for public comment before the end of September.
Grevatt also backed states' calls for improved communication of the substances' risks, an idea the agency heard reiterated during public listening sessions recently held in communities with PFAS contamination. “Communities that are impacted by these compounds are really struggling with how to deal with these challenges,” he said. “Risk communication has been hammered home about the need to be clear about what we know and what we don't know.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-official-raises-concern-over-pfas-mcl-states-back-standard
-
Trump Set to Tap Centrist to Head Epa’s Chemical Safety Office
Aug 30, 2018 | Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis
When President Trump first took office and was looking for someone to head the Environmental Protection Agency’s chemical safety division, it didn’t go well.
He nominated Michael Dourson, a University of Cincinnati professor whose research had been used for years by chemical firms and other companies to challenge claims that their products posed a public health risk. After North Carolina’s two Republican senators publicly declared their opposition, and a third Republican suggested she would vote no, Dourson withdrew his name from consideration in December.
Now, Trump is poised to shift course. He plans to nominate a centrist to head the EPA’s Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Office, according to two individuals briefed on the decision who spoke on the condition of anonymity because it is not yet public.
EPA Region 1 Administrator Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, who was appointed to her current post in November, has deep roots working at nonpartisan environmental organizations and academia. Before becoming the agency’s top official for New England, Dunn served as executive director and general counsel for the Environmental Council of States. Before then, she occupied the same role at the Association of Clean Water Administrators, which represents state water officials across the country.
Dunn has taught environmental law at Pace University, where she served as its dean of environmental law programs, and as an adjunct professor at Catholic University’s Columbus School of Law and American University’s Washington College of Law.
An EPA spokesman referred questions about Dunn’s nomination to the White House, which declined to comment.
American University law professor Amanda Leiter, who served the Interior Department’s deputy assistant secretary for land and minerals under President Barack Obama, praised Dunn’s environmental expertise in an email.
“She taught environmental justice here and students loved her,” said Leiter, who recruited her to teach at both Catholic University and AU. “She’s a consummate professional with a longstanding commitment to environmental protection and cooperative federalism, and a deep understanding of the importance of sound federal regulation.”
The EPA’s chemical safety office has already attracted scrutiny for how it is implementing a major chemical safety law passed by Congress in 2016, The bipartisan update to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) gives the agency far-reaching authority to prioritize and evaluate existing chemicals in commercial products to make sure they do not pose a health hazard to Americans. It also must evaluate new chemicals to determine any associated health risks.
The agency has said it hopes to complete its evaluation of 10 initial chemicals -- a list that includes asbestos and a range of other compounds -- by next year.
On Wednesday, all 10 members of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on environment wrote a letter to GOP committee leaders demanding a hearing on how EPA was carrying out the law, saying the agency’s current approach “contradicts the new law’s language and intent and undermines public confidence in the program.”
Other decisions concerning pesticides and toxic chemicals, made when Scott Pruitt helmed the agency, now face legal challenges. Pruitt decided last spring that the widely used pesticide chlorpyrifos, which has been linked in studies to neurological developmental problems in children, would be kept on the market. Earlier this month, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled 2 to 1 that federal law requires the agency to ban the use of a pesticide on food if it finds any harm from exposure to it. The ruling gave the EPA 60 days to institute a ban.
Dunn appears unlikely to stir nearly the same level of political resistance as Dourson, whose nomination in July 2017 drew widespread criticism from environmental and public health advocates.
A longtime toxicologist who worked at the EPA from 1980 to 1994, Dourson was closely tied to the chemical industry through a nonprofit consulting group he founded. Over the years, it produced research for chemical companies that consistently showed little or no human health risks from their products.
Critics argued that Dourson, who worked as an EPA adviser while awaiting a Senate vote, had too many conflicts of interest to be considered for an EPA post that would position him to oversee the review of chemicals produced by companies he once represented. In October, a Senate committee narrowly advanced Dourson’s nomination along party lines. But some Senate Republicans began voicing reservations about confirming him to the high-level post.
North Carolina GOP Sens. Richard Burr and Thom Tillis both raised questions about his record, and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) also raised concerns. Burr said he was most alarmed about Dourson’s work on a case involving contaminated water at a North Carolina military base and an unregulated compound known as Gen X, used to produce Teflon and other products, that was discovered in the Cape Fear River.
“I am not confident he is the best choice for our country,” Burr said at the time.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/08/30/trump-set-tap-centrist-head-epas-chemical-safety-office/?utm_term=.1f3f50f8e80b
-
Chemours Chemicals to Get New EPA Safety Levels in Coming Weeks (1)
Aug 29, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The EPA will propose new safety levels in a matter of weeks for a class of chemicals manufactured by the Chemours Co. that have triggered water contamination concerns across the country.
The Environmental Protection Agency is on pace to release draft safety levels by the end of September for the chemicals the company has been marketing as GenX, said Peter Grevatt, the EPA’s top drinking water official.
These numbers, also known as “toxicity values,” will attempt to define the thresholds for safe exposure to GenX chemicals through water, soil, air, and other media, Grevatt said. He spoke at an Aug. 29 conference of state environmental officials in Stowe, Vt.
The EPA will share these toxicity values with them before posting the numbers on the agency’s website, he told the officials. The values are part of a broader agency effort to assess contamination at Superfund sites and other locations.
“We want to share this with the states before it appears publicly so you can think about the implications for your programs,” Grevatt said.
Chemours didn’t respond to an email from Bloomberg Environment seeking comment.
Draft NumbersGenX is part of the broader class of chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. They are long-lasting in the environment and have been linked to a number of health problems.
Additional testing for these chemicals has shown high levels in some of the country’s water systems, especially those on or near military bases, where the chemicals were used in firefighting foam.
GenX has been an especially vexing problem in North Carolina, where Chemours had a manufacturing facility in Fayetteville that is now the subject of numerous lawsuits.
In addition to new safety levels for GenX, the EPA also will come out next month with numbers for the chemical perfluorobutane sulfonate, a component of the Scotchgard products produced by the 3M Co.
These numbers will be in draft form, and the public will have an opportunity to comment on them before they become final, Grevatt said.
More ActionWhile state officials at the Stowe conference could appreciate the EPA’s efforts to open up its process, many also would like to see more action from the agency.
Several states have taken measures to regulate these chemicals independently of the EPA. New Jersey is considering setting one of the nation’s first regulations that force water utilities to screen for PFAS, said the head of the state’s Department of Environmental Protection, Catherine McCabe.
This has led to a confusing patchwork of differing regulations in different states.
Grevatt didn’t specify whether or when the EPA could set a nationwide standard. But he seemed to indicate that he thinks this might not be the best approach, given that contamination levels vary widely from community to community.
“It matters where you go to look,” he said. “If you go near known sources … then you’ll likely find elevated levels. This prompts the questions about what are the best tools to develop for states.”
(Updated to add more reporting after the seventh paragraph.)
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/chemours-chemicals-to-get-new-epa-safety-levels-in-coming-weeks-1?context=landing&limit=10&tab=news
-
Detroit Schools Shut off Drinking Water After Tests Show Elevated Lead, Copper
Aug 29, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Brett Samuels
The Detroit public school district turned off drinking water on Wednesday after test results showed that two-thirds of its schools had elevated levels of lead or copper.
The Detroit Free Press reported that Nikolai Vitti, the superintendent of the Detroit Public Schools Community District, said the action was taken "out of an abundance of caution."
Test results showed that 16 of 24 schools had elevated copper and lead levels, The Free Press reported. The district is waiting for test results in other buildings, but it has no evidence that levels are too high there, Vitti said.
"Out of an abundance of caution and concern for the safety of our students and employees, I am turning off all drinking water in our schools until a deeper and broader analysis can be conducted to determine the long-term solutions for all schools," Vitti said in a statement.
The district had previously shut off water at 18 other schools after Vitti ordered testing at all 106 school buildings in the spring, the Free Press reported.
Concerns about water safety in Detroit come as the state continues to deal with the health crisis in Flint, Mich.
The state revealed in 2015 that due to a switch in Flint’s water source meant to save money, the city’s water pipes had corroded, contaminating the drinking water with lead.
A Michigan judge said earlier this month that the state's health director will face criminal charges for two deaths linked to a Legionnaires' disease outbreak connected to the Flint water issues.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/404233-detroit-schools-shut-off-drinking-water-after-tests-show-elevated
-
Echa ‘Culture Shift’ Can Speed up SVHC Identification – NGO
Aug 29, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Echa needs to change its organisational culture and make better use of the precautionary principle in order to speed up identification of SVHCs, NGO ChemSec said in a second letter to the agency’s head.
ChemSec first wrote to Bjorn Hansen on 3 July, urging action and to find ways to limit REACH candidate list "paralysis".
In his 17 July response, Mr Hansen said the roadmap to have all currently known SVHCs included in the candidate list by 2020 was "doing well" even though there is a need for swifter implementation of REACH.
ChemSec’s executive director Anne-Sofie Andersson wrote back on 24 August, saying that she "stands firm" in her opinion that the pace has been "far too slow" and that she can't see this improving within the current roadmap.
It is difficult, she said, to set protocols on how to avoid this "paralysis by analysis. There is rather a need to change the organisational culture, and I hope you will use your influence to improve the situation," she wrote.
Echa’s committees and expert groups should act more often on the available data without routinely asking for more information, she added. The latter is "effectively slowing down substance evaluation", not only because data generation takes time, but because requirements for new data are "routinely overruled".
Ms Andersson said she was "not reassured" by Hansen’s answers to the questions in her original letter about how Echa can ensure that substances do not get stuck in expert groups; and how it can resist industry pressure more effectively.
She referred to a Euractiv interview in October last year with Mr Hansen’s predecessor, Geert Dancet, in which he admitted that there is "huge pressure" from industry to block substances from being included in the candidate list.
However, Ms Andersson added that she was "glad" that they both agree that:
· non-registered substances can also be relevant for the candidate list;
· carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic (CMR) substances are not necessarily adequately controlled through requirements following on classification;
· it can be advantageous to have restricted substances also on the candidate list.
ChemSec, she said, will continue to have "close discussions" with Mr Hansen.
https://chemicalwatch.com/69978/echa-culture-shift-can-speed-up-svhc-identification-ngo
-
Colorado to Vote on Measure to Limit Oil, Gas Drilling (1)
Aug 30, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Catherine Traywick
A measure to restrict drilling in Colorado and protect designated areas from its effects made the November ballot, state regulators said in an Aug. 29 statement.
Initiative 97 would mandate that new oil and gas development is at least 2,500 feet from occupied buildings and areas designated as “vulnerable,“ such as schools. It would block drilling on more than half of state land, according to the Colorado Energy Office.
Supporters submitted 172,834 signatures in support of putting the measure on the ballot. The issue is expected to ignite a hard-fought battle between environmental advocates and the state’s oil and gas industry.
The announcement came one day after the certification of a private property rights measure proposed by the Colorado Farm Bureau and supported by oil and gas interests in the state. That measure would require state and local governments to pay just compensation to landowners who see a drop in the fair market value of their property caused by the passage of a regulation, including restrictions on drilling.
Economic ImpactOil and gas representatives said the increased setback measure would devastate the Colorado economy, shutting down 80 percent of energy development—including hydraulic fracturing—in the state, wiping out 147,000 jobs, and cutting the state’s gross domestic product by $218 billion. The current statewide setback requirement—the minimum distance between drilling wells and certain structures—is 500 feet for homes and 1,000 feet for high-occupancy buildings such as hospitals.
Supporters of the measure said the Farm Bureau proposal would effectively eliminate all zoning in Colorado.
“It’s a sly attempt at corporate welfare, that will have devastating effects on Colorado’s economy by opening up the state to being sued by any business that doesn’t like where they aren’t able to develop,” Anne Lee Foster of the Colorado Rising Campaign, which is pushing the setback measure, said in an email to Bloomberg Environment.
©2018 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission
(Adds details on ballot initiative, Farm Bureau proposal and economic impact starting in fourth paragraph.)
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/colorado-to-vote-on-measure-to-limit-oil-gas-drilling-1?context=landing&limit=10&tab=news
-
EQT’s Mountain Valley Pipe Cleared to Resume Most Construction (1)
Aug 29, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Adams-Heard
EQT Midstream Partners LP can resume work on most of its Mountain Valley natural gas pipeline, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said in a filing, after the U.S. Bureau of Land Management found alternative routes to be impractical.
Construction can resume on all portions of the $3.7 billion project except where the company hasn’t obtained rights-of-way and temporary use permits from the federal government, FERC said.
The exception includes the crossing of Weston and Gauley Bridge Turnpike on lands owned by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Braxton County, W.Va., as well as a 25-mile section that encompasses two watersheds containing 3.5 miles of pipeline route across the Jefferson National Forest in Monroe County, W.Va. and Giles County, Va.
The project has been delayed twice in the past few months due to mounting regulatory woes. The land bureau’s analysis comes after a U.S. appeals court directed the agency to explore other paths for the 303-mile pipeline, which would run from West Virginia to Virginia and cross the forest.
Construction on much of the line had remained shut down as FERC and other agencies, including the land bureau, required the routes to be changed. The company has said previously it was confident the route it favors is better than alternatives.
A spokeswoman for EQT Midstream didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in late July vacated two important permits for the Mountain Valley pipeline, a decision analysts said could lead to a “material re-route” for the project. In response, FERC ordered work on Mountain Valley to stop.
EQT Midstream earlier this month delayed the project again to the fourth quarter of 2019—roughly a year past its original timeline.
Mountain Valley is a joint venture of EQT Midstream, NextEra Energy Inc., Consolidated Edison Inc., WGL Holdings Inc., and RGC Resources Inc.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/eqts-mountain-valley-pipe-cleared-to-resume-most-construction-1?context=landing&limit=10&tab=news
-
Drowning in Dirty Water, Permian Seeks a $22 Billion Lifeline
Aug 29, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Wethe and Kevin Crowley
In the dry, dusty plains of West Texas, home to America’s most prolific oil play, the problem isn’t too little water, it’s too much of it.
Just ask Will Hickey, the 31-year-old chief executive officer of Colgate Energy.
Standing on a 26-foot high rig platform in Texas’s Reeves County, Hickey watches as contractors maneuver drilling pipe almost 10,000 feet underground in search of oil. Just a half-mile away, another rig is equally hard at work. But this one, operated by WaterBridge Resources LLC, isn’t seeking oil. It’s making a hole to dispose of the vast amount of water generated from local wells.
‘‘If we don’t have a water solution we can’t produce the well, it’s as simple as that,’’ Hickey said in an interview. “It used to be that each operator handled water themselves. But the sheer volume of what’s now being produced has created an opportunity for specialized water companies to step in.”
With fracking, explorers blast water, sand, and chemicals down wells to crack open the oil-bearing shale below. As oil is pumped up, so is the water, combined with salt-laden water from underground reservoirs to create a toxic mix that would devastate farmland if released on the surface. With as many as four barrels of water produced for every barrel of oil, it’s a disposal nightmare that could add as much as $6 a barrel to company break-evens by 2025, according to a recent Wood Mackenzie study.
Disposal NightmareOverall, the region will pull up enough water this year alone to cover all of Rhode Island nearly a foot deep. Wall Street is well aware of the threats posed by the Permian Basin’s pipeline and labor shortages, key side effects from the region’s rapid buildup. But investors “aren’t as well apprised of some of the other risks and challenges that could be just as material, if not more so,” said Gabriel Collins, a fellow in energy and the environment at Rice University.
“I’d put water right at the top of that list,” he said
How material? Spending on water management in the Permian Basin is likely to nearly double to more than $22 billion in just five years, according to industry consultant IHS Markit. The reason is twofold. The rig count is rising, and many of the “workhorse” disposal formations used for decades are starting to fill up, said Laura Capper, an industry consultant. That means explorers have to move water further to find a home for it.
It’s a problem “that’s just going to get bigger and bigger,” said Wood Mackenzie analyst Ryan Duman, “Operators are victims of their own success.“
Drillers generally flush excess water back into the ground, often after trucking it to areas such as the San Andres, a region of the basin largely drilled-out early on in the shale boom. But now, with the boom hitting historic levels, that system is running into headwinds.
In the San Andres, wells sunk to gather oil deeper within the play are collapsing as a result of the increased pressure from water injections, causing dozens to be closed and the loss of miles of pipe, according to Andrew Hunter, a drilling engineer at Blackstone Energy Partners-backed Guidon Energy.
It’s a situation that’s “getting worse,” Hunter said at a recent conference on water held in Houston. “I think people are afraid to talk about this problem. We’re trying to get the word out to let everyone know how serious this is.“
At the same time, earthquakes in parts of West Texas and New Mexico that include the Permian have more than tripled to 62 with at least a 2.5 magnitude in the past year, from just six two years earlier, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. That’s data environmentalists are quick to blame on the injections, pointing to studies on similar activity in Oklahoma.
Emerging IndustryIn some cases, companies are pushing to solve the problem on their own, setting up new units that deal just with water. In other cases, drillers are turning elsewhere for help, creating an emerging industry that coordinates a wide range of services, from trucking to pipelines to disposal and recycling.
Colgate Energy LLC oil drilling rig in Reeves County, on Aug. 23.Photographer: Callaghan O’Hare/BloombergBy this time next year, three to five of the eight large water management companies operating in the Permian could reach at least $1 billion in market value, according to Steve Coffee, president of the Produced Water Society.
“There’s a need for a new midstream market,” Coffee said by telephone. “One thing that’s clear: they all have different strategies and directions and niches.“
The latest strategy is recycling the recovered water in a way that will allow it to be used over and over again according to Amanda Martin Brock, the chief operating officer of Solaris Midstream. There’s a variety of techniques now being explored to do this, she said at a water conference last month in Houston, but the efforts are “in early days.”
“Everybody is looking for the holy grail,” she said. “It doesn’t exist. This is trial and error, this is operator specific.“
Frack on the FlyIn some instances, companies are blending the recovered water with a fresh supply, helping to balance out the high salt content of what’s in the reservoir. Others are using it without hardly any change, a technique being referred to as “frack on the fly.“
“You haven’t had a definitive technology accepted by everyone,” Robert Rubey, co-founder of Goodnight Midstream, said at the recent water conference.
His company chose to stay out of the recycling business because it would compete with the land owners who give him easements for his water pipelines. Those same land owners are trying to sell fresh water, he said.
“I’ll help you deal with it, moving the water for recycling,” he said. “But we have made a strategic decision not to try to compete with the landowners, because I can’t put them out of business.“
WaterBridge, SolarisWaterBridge and Solaris Midstream are pursuing both sides of the equation—supplying fresh water upfront, and managing wastewater at the back end.
WaterBridge intends to do an IPO, according to a statement on its website. Solaris is in the process of building integrated operations to gather, transport, recycle and dispose of produced water across a 300-mile swath of the Permian. The plan includes pipelines, disposal wells, storage ponds and recycling facilities.
“You’ve got two things that are just terrifying,” Solaris’s Brock said during a recent conference on the issue. “One, you won’t have the water available when the frack crew needs it, and you shut down that frack. The other one: your wells are up and you’re having to choke them back, because there’s no where to send the water.“
—With assistance from Alex Nussbaum.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/drowning-in-dirty-water-permian-seeks-a-22-billion-lifeline?context=landing&limit=20&tab=news
-
Aug 29, 2018 | Quartz
By Zoë Schlanger
On August 31, 2017, the Arkema chemical facility in Crosby, Texas, a suburb of Houston, failed to contain the volatile compounds it housed. The 19.5 tons of organic peroxides stored on site needed to be kept refrigerated to avoid combusting but Hurricane Harvey had just inundated the facility, flooding the premises and knocking out the plant’s generators. Workers tried moving the chemicals to refrigerated trucks, but those were stalled in six feet of water.
In the early morning, one truck exploded. An “unearthly cloud” floated out of the plant. Fifteen police officers and paramedics exposed to it were sent to the hospital. As a report from Outside magazine described it:
Some deputies were gagging; others were down on their hands and knees. “Oh my god, what’s happening?” someone said. By the time [Christy Graves, director of operations for emergency services in area] arrived on the scene, her paramedics were gasping for air, turning blue. Unable to speak in more than a croak herself, Graves tended to a thrashing, wild-eyed EMT in the back of an ambulance. The cops began to pile everyone into their service vehicles and drive away, struggling not to vomit in their laps.
No one died, but as of this month—a full year later—the cops and EMTs are “still feeling the effects,” according to Outside. “Headaches that won’t go away, fluid in their lungs, decreased respiratory capacity. They’re all still under doctors’ care.” Residents in the area say they are also still experiencing health problems they trace back to the Arkema release.
A few months before Hurricane Harvey struck—in June, 2017—the Trump administration moved to delay an Obama-era chemical-safety rule from taking effect. The government order, known as the Risk Management Program (RMP) rule, was written in response to a fertilizer-plant disaster that killed 12 people in West, Texas in 2013.
The mandate would have required chemical facilities to report what compounds were stored onsite, to inform emergency responders about the inherent risks of anything they processed or stored, and to develop emergency plans. It was finalized right at the end of the Obama presidency, and scheduled to take effect on March 14, 2017.
Nearly 177 million Americans, half the US population, live close enough to a chemical facility to be impacted in a disaster situation, according to a US Environmental Protection Agency report published in January 2017, just before Trump took office. And those Americans are disproportionately low-income and people of color.
But under Trump, the then-head of the EPA Scott Pruitt moved to delay the rule on March 13, 2017—first for a few weeks, and then, in June, until 2019. CBS news reported that Arkema was among the many chemical companies that lobbied the federal government for the delay; the plants argued that making lists of stored chemicals public would leave plants vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
Had the RMP been in force during Hurricane Harvey, first responders may have known better what chemicals, exactly, they were dealing with—and how better to protect themselves and the public.
Nothing has changed about the way chemical plants have to handle emergency planning since then. If Hurricane Harvey happened today, it is likely the exact same scenario would play out.
But there is some hope on the horizon for advocates of emergency response plans for chemical plants: Just last week, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against the EPA’s decision to delay the rollout of the RMP’s safety standards, calling the original delay “arbitrary and capricious.” It was one of several blowsdealt to the EPA’s deregulatory agenda in recent weeks. It is unclear how quickly chemical plants will have to comply with the Obama-era rule now that the Trump-era delay has been vacated.
But even with that court order, US chemical-plant regulation is still lacking in key areas. Even if the Obama-era RMP rule went into force, it wouldn’t explicitly take into account the future hazard of more intense or frequent flooding scenarios. Flooding like the type that inundated the Houston area during Harvey was never going to be part of Arkema’s emergency planning, even under the RMP.
The US Chemical Safety Board, a federal body that investigates chemical accidents, but cannot make rules, published a report in May 2018 noting that chemical plants, even those at risk of flooding, are not required to plan for catastrophic floods (nor would they be under the Obama-era RMP). Arkema employees at the time of the storm “appeared to be unaware” that the plant sat in a floodplain, the safety board wrote. But even if they had, no federal rule required them to do anything about it.
The board called for “more robust industry guidance” on catastrophic storm risks. If the government won’t mandate emergency planning for a future where storms are more common and floods more severe, the report urged the industry to do it themselves.
“Considering that extreme weather events are likely to increase in number and severity, the chemical industry must be prepared for worst case scenarios at their facilities,” Vanessa Allen Sutherland, the chair of the board, wrote. “We cannot stop the storms, but working together, we can mitigate the damage and avoid a future catastrophic incident.”Sign up for the Quartzy emailSign me upStay updated about Quartz products and events.
https://qz.com/1373653/hurricane-harveys-arkema-toxic-chemical-emergency-could-still-happen/
-
California Votes to Require 100 Percent Clean Electricity by 2045 (1)
Aug 29, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Chediak and Christopher Martin
California lawmakers passed a measure mandating that all electricity come from wind, solar and other clean-energy sources by 2045, marking the state’s biggest step yet in the fight against global warming.
The state Assembly voted 43-32 in favor of the legislation Aug. 28. It would eliminate the reliance on fossil fuels to power homes, businesses, and factories in the world’s fifth-largest economy, accelerating a shift already underway. The state currently gets about 44 percent of its power from renewables and hydropower.
“It’s already happening for economic reasons,” said Pavel Molchanov, an analyst at Raymond James Financial Inc., who noted that solar and wind are the cheapest sources of electricity in some regions. “I think California can get to 100 percent in 15 years.”
California has positioned itself to lead the battle against climate change by cutting emissions even as the Trump administration has worked to roll back the state’s stringent auto pollution standards and prop up ailing coal-fired power plants. Earlier this year, California became the first U.S. state to mandate solar rooftop panels on almost all new homes. It would be the second state to require 100 percent carbon-free power after Hawaii.
“This is landmark legislation that is helping to stave off some of the worst effects of climate change,” said Dan Jacobson, state director for Environment California, an environmental advocacy group. “We need it more than ever because the state and the world are starting to see the devastating impacts of climate change.“
The move would accelerate a shift already under way to wind and solar but hinges on a big bet—that battery costs will plunge, allowing for a transition away from the natural gas plants that provide about a third of California’s electricity.
Pending Approvals
The bill must clear the state Senate—which had already approved an earlier version of the measure—before heading to Gov. Jerry Brown (D), who is expected to sign it into law. The legislature adjourns Aug. 31.
Proponents of the bill say solar and wind energy already compete in price with fossil fuels and that costs are expected to decline further. But they also note that the measure allows for a mix of clean-energy resources, including large hydroelectric dams.
But while hydropower, solar, wind, geothermal and fuel cells would benefit from the bill, “the bigger winners would be battery storage and long-distance transmission, which would be required to balance intermittent renewable sources and connect more utility-scale renewables,” Michael Weinstein, a New York-based analyst at Credit Suisse Group AG, said in a research note Aug. 29.
Opponents—including the state’s investor-owned utilities run by PG&E Corp., Edison International, and Sempra Energy—raised concerns that the requirement would raise electricity costs. California would need to install more than 200 times as much energy-storage capacity than it has now to make up for the loss of gas plants, according to the Clean Air Task Force, a Boston-based energy-policy nonprofit.
“When it comes to fighting climate change and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, California won’t back down,” the bill’s sponsor, California state Sen. Kevin de Leon (D) said. “We have doubled down.”
—With assistance from Brian Eckhouse.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/california-votes-to-require-100-percent-clean-electricity-by-2045-1?context=landing&limit=30&tab=news
-
E.P.A. to Reconsider Obama-Era Curbs on Mercury Emissions by Power Plants
Aug 29, 2018 | New York Times
By Coral Davenport
The Trump administration is reviewing a major Obama-era clean air regulation on the emission of mercury — a pollutant linked with damage to the brain, to the nervous system and to fetal development — with the intent of proposing a replacement rule, a spokeswoman for the Environmental Protection Agency said Wednesday.
The E.P.A.’s review of the 2011 mercury rule comes amid a string of initiatives by the Trump administration to roll back or weaken many environmental regulations put forth by the Obama administration. After reviewing the rule, a process which typically takes 60 to 90 days, the E.P.A. will issue a proposed replacement rule, the agency spokeswoman, Molly Block, said in an email.
The mercury regulation under review chiefly affects pollution from coal-fired power plants. The move comes as President Trump has pressed forward on numerous fronts in an attempt to meet his campaign pledge to revive the nation’s coal industry, despite economic analyses showing that the decline in demand for coal is largely driven by market forces rather than regulations.
Last week, the E.P.A. proposed a new rule designed to replace the Clean Power Plan, another major Obama-era regulation governing coal-fired power plants. That rule would have restricted coal plants’ emission of a different pollutant: carbon dioxide, one of the chief causes of global warming.
At the time the Obama administration put forth the mercury regulations, which took more than 20 years to formulate, E.P.A. officials estimated they would save thousands of lives and return economic and health benefits many times their estimated $9.6 billion annual cost.
While owners of coal plants fought the rule in the courts, most have since complied with regulation. Because coal plant owners have already invested in the technology required to lower mercury pollution, some analysts say, it makes little sense to change the regulation now.
“This is reckless chaos for the sake of chaos,” said John Walke, an expert on the Clean Air Act with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group. “The power sector is fully complying and has appealed to E.P.A. publicly, with labor organizations, to leave the standards alone.”
If the agency rolls back the rules, he said, it raises the prospect that “coal plant owners will face legal challenges to prior utility-commission approvals of pollution-control costs incurred to meet those obligations.”
In 2015, in a victory for opponents of the mercury rule, the Supreme Court concluded that the E.P.A. did not appropriately consider the costs to industry when crafting the rule and directed the E.P.A. to recalculate those costs. The Obama administration then reissued the rule in 2016, and power plants have complied with it since then.
Jeffrey Holmstead, a lawyer who represents coal-burning electric utilities and who served in the E.P.A. under former President George W. Bush, said in an email he was “not surprised” that the agency was reviewing the Obama-era finding that it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate power plants for mercury pollution considering that several Supreme Court justices “expressed skepticism about the argument that the Obama E.P.A. made to support its second finding, which the current E.P.A. is now reviewing.”
Mr. Holmstead said, however, that he did not expect the Trump administration to try to eliminate a rule on mercury pollution entirely. “It would serve no purpose because the power sector has already spent billions of dollars to bring all their plants into compliance.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/29/climate/epa-mercury-emissions.html
-
Exxon Tells N.Y. to ‘Put Up or Shut Up’ in Climate Change Probe
Aug 29, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Erik Larson
Exxon Mobil Corp. told a judge that New York’s attorney general should either sue the company for misleading investors about the financial impact of climate change, or close its probe and move on.
“They should put up or shut up,” Exxon’s lawyer, Theodore Wells, said at a hearing Aug. 29 in New York state court in Manhattan. “We are ready to confront any complaint.“
The remark was part of a heated exchange between lawyers for Exxon and New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood about the production of internal corporate documents sought by the state, pertaining to a variety of exploration and chemical projects. New York argues there’s evidence that Exxon for years used two sets of numbers -- one public, one private -- to calculate the future financial impact of climate change, with investors given the rosier figures.
“This cannot go on interminably,” Justice Barry Ostrager told the attorney general’s lawyers at the start of the hearing. “You’ve been investigating for two years, so either you’re going to file a case, or you’re not going to file a case.“
“We are coming to an end in our investigation,” Manisha Sheth, a top lawyer for Underwood’s office, responded. Underwood’s office has repeatedly argued that Exxon’s tactics have delayed the probe.
Ostrager ordered Exxon to turn over as many as 14 cash-flow spreadsheets detailing the finances of various global projects as well as any documents the company turned over to the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of a related investigation, but that haven’t already been given to New York.
There’s “smoking gun” evidence, Sheth said, that justifies the continued digging for Exxon documents before a decision is made on whether to sue. She said there’s evidence suggesting former Exxon Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson was aware of the discrepancy in the so-called proxy cost numbers, and that he “seemed happy” with it.
The Irving, Texas-based company has long argued the case was politically motivated, having been coordinated behind the scenes with other Democratic-led states and environmental groups hostile to Exxon. Wells made that point again Aug. 29.
“They brought this case for political reasons and now they’re backed into a corner,” he said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/exxon-tells-ny-to-put-up-or-shut-up-in-climate-change-probe?context=landing&limit=10&tab=news
-
CBD Threatens Suit over Climate-Related Ocean Acidification
Aug 29, 2018 | Inside EPA
The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) is threatening to sue EPA for failing to identify Oregon marine waters as impaired by climate change-related ocean acidification, part of the center's long-running push to force increased controls on carbon dioxide emissions.
CBD sent its notice of intent to sue Aug. 28 to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler and Region 10 Administrator Chris Hladick, arguing that EPA has failed to perform a non-discretionary duty under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to address waters the agency said Oregon failed to include on a 2012 list of impaired waters.
“Specifically, the Center intends to sue EPA and its Administrators for violating its mandatory duty to identify impaired Oregon waters, including those impaired by ocean acidification, after EPA’s partial disapproval of Oregon’s 2012 303(d) list, as required by section 303(d)(2) of the CWA,” the notice says.
Ocean acidification is defined as a reduction in the pH of the ocean over an extended period, caused primarily by uptake of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
EPA in 2016 partially approved and partially disapproved Oregon's 2012 impaired waters list, with the disapproval taking issue with Oregon's removal of eight water quality limited segments and the state's failure to list 332 impaired waterbodies, the notice says.
The agency also solicited data and information on ocean acidification impairments of Oregon marine waters, acknowledging that studies show impacts to shellfish and pteropods under corrosive conditions, and that data showed such conditions off the Oregon coast.
EPA said it would act on the marine waters once it considered the comments, but the agency has failed to act even though the CWA requires EPA to identify impaired waters within 30 days of disapproving a state's impaired waters list, the notice says.
“Our oceans can’t keep absorbing all the carbon pollution we’re emitting. We’re changing the chemistry of our oceans in dangerous ways,” Emily Jeffers, a CBD attorney, said in an Aug. 28 statement. “It’s time for the federal government to recognize the problem and take real action on ocean acidification."
Jeffers said the Trump administration must recognize how fossil fuel dependence is hurting Oregon's waterways. “We can help protect water quality and coastal communities, but only if EPA officials address the acidification threat before it gets worse,” she said.
CBD previously sued EPA over failing to list Oregon and Washington state waters as impaired by ocean acidification when the agency acted on those states' 2010 impaired waters lists. But a federal district court judge in February 2015 ruled in favor of EPA, saying the agency's approval of the 2010 lists without including waters impaired by ocean acidification was “plausible in light of the evidence” at the time.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/cbd-threatens-suit-over-climate-related-ocean-acidification
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested