Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - September 19, 2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) Lobbying Efforts Expand To Promote Recycling
Sep 19, 2018 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Colin Staub
Plastics industry interests are lobbying Washington politicians to fund recycling infrastructure projects, a new area of focus for groups that have historically emphasized trade and regulatory issues. -
(ACC Mentioned) Wheeler Won’t Stop America’s Addiction To Fossil Fuels
Sep 19, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Michael Mikulka
National Clean Energy Week, coming up Sept. 24-28, is designed to create awareness of how clean energy is driving economic growth, creating jobs, strengthening America’s national security and preserving our environment. In the height of irony, Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler will speak at NCEW events and billed as a “key influencer” of clean energy. -
Chemical Producers In The Carolinas and Virginia Restart Operations After Weathering Hurricane Florence
Sep 18, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Rick Mullin
Chemical manufacturing operations in the U.S. southeast coast report no serious damage after Hurricane Florence battered them late last week, though flooding remains a continuing concern. Some plants experienced power outages. Routine storm response involved planned facility shutdowns prior to the storm hitting the Carolinas and Virginia Sept. 14. -
The TSCA New Chemicals Mess: A Problem Of The Chemical Industry’s Own Making
Sep 19, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Nary a day goes by without a complaint being lodged by someone in the chemical industry, or in one of the myriad law firms that represent its interests in Washington, D.C., about the delays in EPA’s approval of new chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
Factbox: Bayer's Monsanto Faces Broad U.S. Glyphosate Litigation
Sep 19, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Tina Bellon
Bayer AG's Monsanto unit has urged a California judge to toss the $289-million verdict a jury awarded to a man who said the company's glyphosate-based weed-killers, including the widely-used Roundup brand, caused his cancer. -
The EPA Is Failing to Keep Students Safe From Asbestos: Report
Sep 19, 2018 | Gizmodo
By Yessenia Funes
The Environmental Protection Agency has been slacking when it comes to monitoring asbestos in schools. It did such a poor job between 2011 and 2015 that even its Office of Inspector General can’t protect its image. -
Drone To Survey Lake In Search For Toxic Chemicals
Sep 19, 2018 | Associated Press (In E&E Greenwire)
Environmental regulators say they'll deploy a drone over a northern Michigan lake to search for sources of toxic chemicals that are emerging as a widespread threat to drinking water systems. -
Report: 140 House Members Vote Against Chemical Safeguards Every Time
Sep 19, 2018 | EcoWatch
By Lorraine Chow
The Environmental Working Group Action Fund, the political arm of the Environmental Working Group (EWG), released a first-ever report that scores how each member of the U.S. House of Representatives voted on chemical policy and safety. -
German Chemical Industry Warns Against Disruptive No-Deal Brexit
Sep 19, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Tims)
By Ludwig Burger
The VCI association of German chemical companies such as BASF and Bayer warned that a no-deal Brexit would have "grave consequences" for European supply chains and called on Britain to move towards the European Union's position in divorce talks. -
China Tariffs Could Impede U.S. LNG Exports
Sep 19, 2018 | Chron
By Katherine Blunt
China plans to impose a 10 percent tariff on U.S. liquefied natural gas as part of an escalating trade battle between the two countries, hindering export opportunities for a emerging industry that is growing rapidly along the Gulf Coast. -
U.S. Gas Still a No-Go for Chinese Buyers Despite Weaker Tariff
Sep 19, 2018 | Bloomberg
By Stephen Stapczynski and Dan Murtaugh
Even with China’s smaller-than-threatened tariff on U.S. natural gas, American cargoes may still be kryptonite for Chinese traders trying to navigate the ongoing trade war. -
Study: Cracker Plant Will Temporarily Boost Income, Employment
Sep 18, 2018 | The Times
By Jared Stonesifer
Beaver County will experience higher average income and employment numbers because of Shell Chemicals’ ethane cracker plant, but the project represents a one-time economic boost and will not result in long-term sustained increases in wage or job growth. -
'It's Déjà Vu All Over Again' at Trump EPA
Sep 19, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Maxine Joselow and Sean Reilly,
On a chilly afternoon in February, EPA air chief Bill Wehrum sat down for lunch with two other former officials in the George W. Bush administration. -
Methane Rollbacks Could Put Paris Goal Further Out Of Sight
Sep 19, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
In the span of a week, the Trump administration has taken aim at two key Obama-era rules to control methane emissions from the oil and gas industry. -
California, New Mexico Sue Over Trump Methane Pollution Rollback
Sep 19, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Democratic attorneys general of California and New Mexico sued the Trump administration to stop it from rolling back methane pollution standards for oil and natural gas drilling. -
States' Push To limit HFCs May Fracture Market, Manufacturers Warn
Sep 19, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Eric Wolff
U.S. manufacturers fear the Trump administration's lack of interest in regulating hydrofluorocarbons will lead to a fractured domestic market as states concerned about climate change begin implementing their own rules.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Lobbying Efforts Expand To Promote Recycling
Sep 19, 2018 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Colin Staub
Plastics industry interests are lobbying Washington politicians to fund recycling infrastructure projects, a new area of focus for groups that have historically emphasized trade and regulatory issues.
The Plastics Industry Association and other industry groups held their annual fly-in last week, bringing company executives to Washington, D.C. to meet with lawmakers on issues relevant to the industry. According to the agenda, the featured topics included trade and tariffs, workforce development and recycling infrastructure.
As Plastics News reported the recycling topic is new to the plastics companies’ lobbying efforts. It was driven by “rising concerns over plastic waste and worries over bans or taxes on plastic packaging,” the publication noted.
Scott DeFife, vice president of government affairs for the Plastics Industry Association, told Plastics News that “recycling infrastructure is really the new key point that we want to raise.”
To that end, the groups are pushing Congress to allocate federal spending for materials recovery facilities and waste-to-energy facilities, Plastics News reported. In addition to the Plastics Industry Association, the groups include the American Chemistry Council (ACC), American Mold Builders Association (AMBA), Manufacturers Association for Plastic Processors (MAPP) and the Plastic Pipe Institute (PPI).
The plastics groups’ lobbying focus on recycling-related legislative issues adds additional support to ongoing legislative advocacy at the federal level by recycling-specific groups, including the Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR) and the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI).Focus on pipe
In a separate push that also has recycling implications, the groups included “open competition for plastic pipe” among their topics of focus. The ACC explained that this would open up public infrastructure projects to use plastic, rather than prescribing certain materials such as steel.
PPI issued a release this month detailing how increased use of plastic in infrastructure projects could spur recycling by creating more demand.
Recycled HDPE is now frequently used in plastic pipe manufacturing, according to PPI. The group also stated that North American standards organizations have recently changed their criteria to allow more recycled plastic usage, “permitting use of recycled HDPE drainage pipe within the public right-of-way.”
“Using discarded bottles to make new ones is certainly beneficial, but taking that same old bottle and using it to make pipe is a far better use of recycled resin,” said Tony Radoszewski, president of PPI, in the release. “Our industry takes a product that has a 60-day shelf life and turns it into a product with a 100-year service life. That is an extremely important benefit of plastics that we want our legislators to know.”
https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2018/09/19/lobbying-efforts-expand-to-promote-recycling/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Wheeler Won’t Stop America’s Addiction To Fossil Fuels
Sep 19, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Michael Mikulka
National Clean Energy Week, coming up Sept. 24-28, is designed to create awareness of how clean energy is driving economic growth, creating jobs, strengthening America’s national security and preserving our environment. In the height of irony, Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler will speak at NCEW events and billed as a “key influencer” of clean energy.
But Wheeler is not a clean energy advocate. By helping to repeal the Clean Power Plan and propose an inadequate replacement, Wheeler snubbed an opportunity to contribute to the growth of clean energy jobs. He seems firmly committed to continuing the American addiction to fossil fuels. In his short tenure as head of EPA, he has sided again and again with dirty energy sectors over the environment.
As everyone who went through the gas crisis of the 1970s surely knows, fossil fuels — coal, oil and natural gas — are sources of energy that are non-renewable and will be eventually depleted. As their supplies dwindle, they will become too expensive, difficult to retrieve and will have a drastic impact on our environment.
Renewable energy sources include solar, wind and water. In addition to not having an adverse impact on the environment, these clean energy sources are continuously replenished. Renewables’ portion of U.S. energy consumption has doubled since 2008, as coal’s share fell from 48 percent to 30 percent. Clean energy has attracted much attention and acceptance in the past 10 years as governments all over the world are embracing their responsibility to stop or slow climate change.
The science behind climate change is common knowledge. Our activity over the last 100-plus years has been overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide and climate-changing emissions, creating an atmospheric blanket, trapping greenhouse gasses and heat. The result is series of interconnected and harmful impacts, ranging from stronger, more deadly storms, to severe drought, sea level rise, and mass extinction. In the United States, about 29 percent of carbon emissions come from the electricity sector burning fossil fuels like coal and natural gas.
Compared with fossil fuel production, typically highly automated, the clean energy industry is more labor intensive. Solar panels need humans to install them; wind farms need technicians for maintenance.
On average, clean energy creates more jobs for each unit of electricity generated from renewable sources than from fossil fuels. The industry already supports many thousands of jobs in the United States. In 2016, the wind energy industry directly employed over 100,000 people full-time in manufacturing, project development, construction, installation, O&M and transportation. More than 500 U.S. production facilities provide construction materials for wind turbines.
Until 2017, Wheeler served as a top lobbyist to Murray Energy, a large coal company. He led that company’s opposition to Obama’s efforts to cut climate change emissions. Murray’s CEO, Bob Murray, was one of President Trump's most ardent supporters. And Wheeler was Murray’s unabashed inside man for fossil fuel industries on Capitol Hill.
When Wheeler was confirmed as EPA deputy under the infamous Scott Pruitt, he wasted no time in meeting regularly with fossil fuel industry representatives. Upon confirmation, one of Wheeler's first calls was with Andrew Lundquist, vice president at ConocoPhillips, an oil conglomerate.
Wheeler met for breakfast in May with the National Ocean Industries Association legislative group, and included representatives from the American Petroleum Institute, Independent Petroleum Association of America, National Association of Manufacturers, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Chemistry Council and International Association of Drilling Companies.
Further, Wheeler held firm to the Trump administration’s support of coal and its refusal to address climate change. In Wheeler’s only interview with the Washington Post regarding the science of climate change, he suggested, ridiculously, that fighting climate change by drastically reducing carbon pollution — as the Clean Power Plan does — may not actually fall under the EPA's authority. As a result, he immediately lost credibility on the issue. He came down on the opposite side of millions of citizens who have urged Trump to reinstate the Clean Power Plan, which represents our country's best shot for tackling emissions.
Instead, Wheeler is pushing Trump’s so-called Affordable Clean Energy sham that deregulates emissions’ enforcement and politicizes climate science. He would allow the further pollution of the air Americans breathe and allow the U.S. to cede control of the climate change agenda to our economic rival, China.
To be a true clean energy influencer, Wheeler should find ways of reducing pollution from our energy sources. He should tout the incredible progress being made by wind and solar across the country and explain the need for carbon emissions to fall dramatically and slow climate change. He should work with the global community to reverse Trump's decision to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement, which was a disastrous mistake.
Wheeler has no credibility as a clean energy “influencer” after his continued brazen support of the fossil fuel industry. In choosing Wheeler, a member of the coal industry's Hall of Fame, the Clean Energy Business Network hosting the coming events is tapping one of the most potent enemies of America’s conversion to renewable sources of energy.
Michael Mikulka is president of AFGE Local 704, representing EPA Region 5 workers protecting IL, IN, MI, MN, OH and WI, and spokesperson for the Save the U.S. EPA Campaign.
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/407394-wheeler-wont-stop-americas-addiction-to-fossil-fuels
-
Sep 18, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Rick Mullin
Chemical manufacturing operations in the U.S. southeast coast report no serious damage after Hurricane Florence battered them late last week, though flooding remains a continuing concern. Some plants experienced power outages. Routine storm response involved planned facility shutdowns prior to the storm hitting the Carolinas and Virginia Sept. 14.
Chemours says its Fayetteville, N.C., facility experienced no serious wind- or water-related damage as a result of the storm. The company is not concerned about flooding this week given the elevation of the plant.
“Our restart process is underway and we anticipate being operational within 24 to 48 hours,” Lisa Randall, communications manager for the company, told C&EN Sept. 17. “Our greatest concern is flooding occurring within the community and its impact on our employees and neighbors as rivers are not expected to crest until Tuesday,” she says.
BASF’s plants in Virginia and the Carolinas came through unscathed and have resumed normal operations, according to Bob Nelson, senior manager of corporate communications. “The rain and flooding in the area could pose additional dangers and cause more damages, so our focus remains on the safety of our employees and providing support to impacted employees,” Nelson tells C&EN.
In Leland, N.C., a plant operated by Aprinnova, a joint venture between flavor and fragrance specialist Amyris and Nikkol Group, a Japanese chemicals holding group, lost power in a regional outage during the storm and remained without power through Sept. 16, according to a statement from Amyris. Initial assessment of the plant indicates it sustained no significant material damage.
“Our employees’ safety is of the utmost importance and we took precautionary measures to shut the plant down ahead of the storm so they could be home to ensure their safety and that of their families,” Amyris CEO John Melo says.
The company says it expects to resume full production of squalene, a skin care additive, without any impact to its third-quarter or full-year results for the product.
https://cen.acs.org/business/Chemical-producers-Carolinas-Virginia-restart/96/web/2018/09
-
The TSCA New Chemicals Mess: A Problem Of The Chemical Industry’s Own Making
Sep 19, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Nary a day goes by without a complaint being lodged by someone in the chemical industry, or in one of the myriad law firms that represent its interests in Washington, D.C., about the delays in EPA’s approval of new chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Here’s the irony: Those delays and the general chaos in the TSCA new chemicals program are entirely of the industry’s own making.
As of the middle of the summer of 2017, the program was largely on track. Not surprisingly, there had been a considerable backlog of new chemical cases – a function of a brand new law that imposed significant, immediately effective changes to the new chemical review process, and the need to restart reviews using the new standards for hundreds of cases that had been in the pipeline at the time the new law was passed. As EPA found its feet and brought new staff on board, however, the number of cases under review had been gradually reduced back down to typical levels.
Also not surprisingly, the number of new chemicals being subject to conditions or testing requirements through consent orders had increased relative to the pre-reform review program. That was a direct and appropriate outcome of the increased scrutiny the new law required EPA to pay to potential risks and the sufficiency of health and environmental information on new chemicals during the enhanced review process.
(To briefly summarize the law’s new requirements: Post-reform, TSCA requires EPA to issue an order if a chemical may present an unreasonable risk to health or the environment or if EPA has insufficient information to conduct a reasoned evaluation of the chemical. EPA must then consider whether to issue a “Significant New Use Rule” (SNUR) requiring that any company first notify EPA before deviating from the restrictions in that order so that EPA can review that significant new use.)
Then on August 7, 2017, then EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced, in response to relentless pressure from the industry, that EPA would implement sweeping changes to the program designed to hasten the approval process. These changes were actually designed to minimize the restrictions imposed by EPA on new chemicals that might present unreasonable risks or had insufficient health and environmental information.
Let’s examine the effects, using EPA’s own data. Below is a chart showing the size of the new chemicals “backlog” taken directly from EPA’s website and current through September 4 of this year. The only modification I have made to that chart is to add an arrow indicating when Pruitt’s announcement was made.
Before that arrow, you can clearly see the steady decline in the backlog down to below 400 cases. At the time, EPA noted that its typical caseload of new chemicals under active review was about 300, and that it had completed and signed consent orders for most of the other 100 cases, which were awaiting company sign-off. Indeed, Pruitt’s own press release declared the backlog had been eliminated.
Now look at what has happened ever since that time: A clear increase in the backlog, with the number of cases under review standing at close to 500 cases.
The increase is directly traceable to non-stop industry demands for EPA to make unsound, illegal changes to the program.
We want stand-alone SNURs, not orders
Industry’s initial demand was for EPA to stop issuing so many ordersfor new chemicals. EPA responded in late 2017 with its “new chemicals decision-making framework” – which sought to avoid orders by illegally limiting new chemical reviews only to the “intended” uses of the new chemical producer and relegating any review of other, “reasonably foreseen” uses of the chemical to a later process divorced from the initial review. EPA would generally issue a “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” determination for the chemical based on its constricted review, thereby clearing the chemical for market entry. It would then promulgate a stand-alone “Significant New Use Rule” (SNUR), which would require anyone wanting to use the chemical in a way that differed from the cleared use to first notify EPA, which would trigger a second review of that new use.
While the scheme was fraught with a host of legal, policy, scientific, good government and transparency problems, industry initially welcomed it – not surprising, given the industry had pled with EPA for months to issue such stand-alone SNURs, instead of coupling them with consent orders. But not so fast.
On second thought, we don’t want SNURs either
Not content with this victory, the chemical industry quickly demanded more: a scheme that would eliminate the stand-alone SNURs as well. EPA immediately signaled it was receptive, and this summer began to make yet another “pivot” that deviated even farther from the requirements of the law. The need for even a SNUR would be made to disappear by EPA simply asserting there were no “reasonably foreseen” uses of the chemical. The first of those decisions was made in late July. Industry promptly endorsed it.
No consent orders, no SNURs – and no testing requirements to boot, because those instruments would have been the means to require (in the case of consent orders) or encourage (in the case of SNURs) companies to fill critical data gaps on their new chemicals.
The actual state of affairs at EPA is difficult to discern at this point, however. Rumors swirl about yet more pivots and even a possible return to the earlier framework.
Denying worker protections
One thing that is constant, however, is the chemical industry’s greed for more. The industry and its allies in the agency now have in their sights additional moves that would allow EPA to shirk its clear obligations under TSCA to address risks to workers – either by asserting that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) should take care of it, or by shifting the burden of workplace safety off of companies and onto the backs of the workers themselves.
***
Lost in all this maneuvering is the clear purpose behind the enhancements Congress made to TSCA’s new chemicals review program a scant two years ago: The need to better ensure that new chemicals entering commerce are safe for human health and the environment.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/09/19/the-tsca-new-chemicals-mess-a-problem-of-the-chemical-industrys-own-making/
-
Factbox: Bayer's Monsanto Faces Broad U.S. Glyphosate Litigation
Sep 19, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Tina Bellon
Bayer AG's Monsanto unit has urged a California judge to toss the $289-million verdict a jury awarded to a man who said the company's glyphosate-based weed-killers, including the widely-used Roundup brand, caused his cancer.
The company filed a post-trial motion on Tuesday for California Superior Court Judge Suzanne Bolanos in San Francisco to set aside the Aug. 10 jury verdict, reduce the award or grant a new trial, saying there was insufficient evidence for the jury to conclude glyphosate caused the man's disease.
Bayer denies allegations that glyphosate, the world's most widely used weed-killer, causes cancer and said it would appeal the verdict if necessary.
The jury awarded $39 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages to school groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson, who was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a cancer of the lymph system, in 2014.
Here are details of the U.S. litigation over glyphosate and an outline of the appeals process in the case.
What is the significance of this case?
It marks the world's first jury verdict in a lawsuit alleging that glyphosate causes cancer. The decision sent Bayer shares sliding, with the stock continuing to trade more than 20 percent below its Aug. 9 value.
By the end of July, Bayer's Monsanto unit faced 8,000 glyphosate lawsuits in United States federal and state courts, some of which could go to trial before year-end or in early 2019.
Many investors in Bayer, which bought Monsanto for $63 billion this year, were caught off guard by the ruling and analysts continue to assess the deal's legal risks.
What are the scientific arguments?
Monsanto denies that its glyphosate products can cause cancer, saying decades of scientific studies have shown the weed-killer to be safe for humans.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in September last year concluded the chemical was probably not carcinogenic to humans, and the European Union in 2017 also extended the license for use of glyphosate for five years after a heated debate.
But the cancer division of the World Health Organization in 2015 concluded glyphosate was "probably carcinogenic to humans," and plaintiffs have widely cited that finding.
At the center of Bayer's defense is the U.S. government-backed November 2017 Agricultural Health Study. The largest human study on pesticides published, it found no statistically significant link between glyphosate and cancer in about 57,000 U.S. agricultural workers observed since the early 1990s.
But plaintiffs in the litigation question the validity of the study, saying there were problems with it methodology that caused glyphosate exposure to be underestimated.
What is at stake for Bayer?
Bayer said in an Aug. 23 call with analysts it did not expect any short-term effects from the Johnson verdict on glyphosate sales. Though it does not break out that figure, it said glyphosates are a significant portion of revenue from its agricultural productivity segment, which was $3.7 billion in 2017.
But analysts questioned whether Bayer had underestimated legal risks in its Monsanto acquisition.
Berenberg analyst Alistair Campbell said resolving the issue could cost Bayer $5 billion, citing a rough estimate based on past product liability settlements such as Merck & Co Inc's $4.9-billion settlement over painkiller Vioxx or Bayer's $4.2-billion total settlement over the Baycol cholesterol drug.
The company has only set aside provisions for legal defense costs, not damages.
How will Bayer appeal the verdict?Sign up for The Interpreter
Subscribe for original insights, commentary and discussions on the major news stories of the week, from columnists Max Fisher and Amanda Taub.
SIGN UP
If Judge Bolanos denies its post-trial motion, Bayer has said it will file an appeal, which could take the case to California's Supreme Court and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court.
Bayer's first appeal would be to the California superior court's appellate division. The company said it would argue an evidentiary ruling issued in May wrongly allowed Johnson's expert witnesses to testify in front of the jury.
It said the trial judge also wrongly allowed lawyers and experts for Johnson to "inflame" jurors with statements aimed at casting Monsanto in a bad light.
Legal experts say Bayer's appeal could face an uphill climb.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/09/19/world/europe/19reuters-bayer-glyphosate-lawsuits-factbox.html
-
The EPA Is Failing to Keep Students Safe From Asbestos: Report
Sep 19, 2018 | Gizmodo
By Yessenia Funes
The Environmental Protection Agency has been slacking when it comes to monitoring asbestos in schools. It did such a poor job between 2011 and 2015 that even its Office of Inspector General can’t protect its image.
The inspector general’s office published a report Monday breaking down how badly the EPA has failed our children: The agency conducted only 13 percent of the inspections at public, private, and nonprofit schools that are required under the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act from fiscal years 2011 to 2015. For comparison, the 21 states that handle this responsibility themselves conducted 87 percent of the required inspections.
Asbestos is nothing to take lightly. This fibrous material, once hailed for its heat resistance, can cause lung issues when inhaled—including cancer. This hasn’t really been seen in children, but the risk for mesothelioma, a rare lung cancer exclusive to asbestos exposure, increases the more time that passes after a person’s first been exposed. That’s why asbestos in schools is a Big Deal—and why advocates want to see the EPA ban the toxic substance outright, instead of spending more time analyzing where it can and cannot be used, as the agency announced back in June.
None of that, however, addresses the asbestos that continues to exist in buildings from prior uses. That’s what’s of concern in these schools. A major problem, the office found, is that not all schools maintained an asbestos management plan. Neither did entire regions, which are failing at larger-scale asbestos compliance related to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Now, the office is suggesting that the EPA require all school districts to develop a plan and all regions to more explicitly include asbestos in their TSCA compliance efforts. But the issue here is, well, money. That’s what the agency blamed for its inadequate efforts, per the report. And keep in mind: These issues were happening under former President Barack Obama. The agency has faced far more extreme budget cuts under President Donald Trump and his goonies.
“The previous administration did not do enough to provide adequate protections to children from asbestos exposure,” said EPA spokesman Michael Abboud in an emailed statement to Earther. “The Trump administration is taking proactive steps to reduce asbestos exposure, which includes a new proposed regulation that, for the first time, would prohibit the currently unregulated former uses of asbestos.”
While the administration’s review of asbestos should, in theory, prohibit current unregulated uses, opponents worry that this will be another way to sneak more uses into the market. We don’t really know yet how the review process will play out—but we do know that right now, 50 million students and 7 million teachers are at risk of asbestos exposure. This comes just a few months after a separate federal office found that states are failing to monitor lead exposure in U.S. schools.
Our children require urgent attention—and government action. That, however, feels unlikely in a time when the EPA is low on resources and regulation.
https://earther.gizmodo.com/the-epa-is-failing-to-keep-students-safe-from-asbestos-1829139622
-
Drone To Survey Lake In Search For Toxic Chemicals
Sep 19, 2018 | Associated Press (In E&E Greenwire)
Environmental regulators say they'll deploy a drone over a northern Michigan lake to search for sources of toxic chemicals that are emerging as a widespread threat to drinking water systems.
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality will fly the drone over Lake Margrethe in Crawford County to locate springs that could be laced with chemicals from firefighting foam used at the nearby Camp Grayling military base.
The foam contains per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS. The industrial compounds are used in many consumer products and processes, from food packaging to clothing production.
The DEQ says the drone will be fitted with an infrared camera that could detect cold springs entering the lake, a step toward determining where to take water samples to test for evidence of the chemicals. —
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/09/19/stories/1060098335
-
Report: 140 House Members Vote Against Chemical Safeguards Every Time
Sep 19, 2018 | EcoWatch
By Lorraine Chow
The Environmental Working Group Action Fund, the political arm of the Environmental Working Group (EWG), released a first-ever report that scores how each member of the U.S. House of Representatives voted on chemical policy and safety.
The scorecard shows that 140 House members voted against chemical safeguards every time, while 149 members consistently voted for chemical safety protections.
"While no president has ever done as much to weaken safeguards for toxic chemicals as Donald Trump, too many members of Congress have collaborated with the Trump administration or cast votes in favor of policies that reversed or delayed chemical bans, gutted chemical safety rules, rejected sound science, weakened worker and consumer protections, and denied justice to asbestos victims," the report said.
The report specifically focused on 17 bills and amendments that were up for a vote during the 115th and 114th Congresses.
The EWG Action Fund also singled out several lawmakers, including Rep. Jason Lewis (R-Minn.), Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas), Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) and Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.), who the action fund says introduced or co-sponsored measures that weaken existing chemical safety laws.
"Over and over, too many legislators voted to support President Trump's agenda to eliminate toxic chemical safeguards," said Scott Faber, speaking on behalf of EWG Action Fund, in a statement received by EcoWatch.
"Too many members of Congress have collaborated with the Trump administration to advance policies that reject sound science and weaken worker and consumer protections," Faber added. "And many more stood by silently when Trump's EPA reversed or delayed chemical bans or gutted chemical safety rules."
Most Republican members of Congress were graded poorly in the report. However, the action fund praised the lawmakers that bucked their party to vote for chemical safety, including Reps. Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.), John Duncan (R-Tenn.), Walter Jones (R-N.C.) and others who voted to protect asbestos victims.
The action fund also noted that Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) voted for funding chemical reviews and against a farm bill that included pesticide safety loopholes. Florida Reps. Carlos Curbelo and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen voted against efforts to weaken agency science, and Illinois Republican Rep. Rodney Davis voted against toxic air pollution loopholes.
https://www.ecowatch.com/house-members-vote-on-chemicals-2606004094.html
-
German Chemical Industry Warns Against Disruptive No-Deal Brexit
Sep 19, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Tims)
By Ludwig Burger
FRANKFURT — The VCI association of German chemical companies such as BASF and Bayer warned that a no-deal Brexit would have "grave consequences" for European supply chains and called on Britain to move towards the European Union's position in divorce talks.
"The Chequers paper is still far from the European Commission's position. The British Government has to clearly show greater willingness to compromise in further negotiations. The EU cannot put the common market at risk," the group's managing director Utz Tillmann said in a statement, referring to Prime Minister Theresa May's so-called Chequers proposals.
The risk of a disorderly Brexit without an agreement would include disruptions to pan-European supply chains because chemicals registered with the European Chemicals Agency by British businesses could no longer cross the border without further administrative steps.
VCI also represents foreign companies, such as DowDuPont, LyondellBasell or Ineos, who operate sites in Germany, Europe's largest chemical producing nation.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/09/19/business/19reuters-britain-eu-chemicals-germany.html
-
China Tariffs Could Impede U.S. LNG Exports
Sep 19, 2018 | Chron
By Katherine Blunt
China plans to impose a 10 percent tariff on U.S. liquefied natural gas as part of an escalating trade battle between the two countries, hindering export opportunities for a emerging industry that is growing rapidly along the Gulf Coast.
The move, made in retaliation against the Trump administration's latest tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese imports, affects $60 billion in U.S. exports to China. The 10 percent tariff on LNG is less than the 25 percent proposed early last month, but it's still expected to undercut the competitiveness of U.S. exporters vying for a share of one of the world's largest LNG markets.
"The consequences are likely to be felt on new supply developments," said Giles Farrer, research director for Wood Mackenzie. "It restricts the target market for developers of new U.S. LNG projects trying to sign new long-term contracts."
A number of U.S. developers, including Houston companies Cheniere Energy and Tellurian Inc., are investing billions of dollars to build massive export terminals along the Gulf Coast, which has ready access to cheap and plentiful natural gas from West Texas and elsewhere.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is pushing to expedite its reviews of new U.S. projects, most of which are planned for the Gulf Coast. The agency earlier this month issued regulatory schedules for its environmental review of 12 LNG export facilities, including six in Texas.
The proposed projects put the U.S. on track to supply nearly a quarter of global LNG by 2030, according to Wood Mackenzie.
China, which is working to shift its power generation from coal to cleaner-burning natural gas, has emerged as a major source of demand. In the year prior to June, the country was the second largest buyer of U.S. LNG.
Farrer expect the tariffs to change that dynamic. Already, he said, Chinese buyers have gradually reduced purchases of U.S. LNG amid the trade dispute.
However, he expects growing demand outside of China to support the next wave of U.S. LNG projects. Other countries in Asia and Europe also need more natural gas as they reduce their use of coal.
"There is still plenty of appetite for second wave U.S. LNG projects from other buyers," Farrer said.
Cheniere was the first U.S. company to export LNG, operating from its Sabine Pass terminal in Louisiana. The company, which now ships to nearly 30 foreign markets, is expanding that terminal and building a second one in Corpus Christi.
The company earlier this year struck a deal to sell LNG to China National Petroleum Corp. as part of two sales contracts that extend through 2043.
Virginia's Dominion Energy also began exporting LNG from a terminal in Maryland earlier this year.
Other U.S. companies are expected to begin exports next year, including two based in Houston. Freeport LNG is working to open its Gulf Coast terminal at Quintana Island, and Kinder Morgan is completing an export terminal in Georgia.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/China-tariffs-could-impede-U-S-LNG-exports-13241150.php
-
U.S. Gas Still a No-Go for Chinese Buyers Despite Weaker Tariff
Sep 19, 2018 | Bloomberg
By Stephen Stapczynski and Dan Murtaugh
Even with China’s smaller-than-threatened tariff on U.S. natural gas, American cargoes may still be kryptonite for Chinese traders trying to navigate the ongoing trade war.
Chinese buyers will seek to avoid purchasing U.S. liquefied natural gas as long as any tariffs are in place because of the risk that duties may rise further and possibly without warning, according to officials from four importers. While they said they would prioritize cargoes from other suppliers, they couldn’t entirely rule out buying U.S. shipments. The officials asked not to be identified discussing procurement strategy.
China announced Tuesday a 10 percent tariff on American goods, including LNG, starting Sept. 24 in retaliation for a similar-sized levy imposed by the U.S. That China struck below the 25 percent duty it threatened last month was met with relief, with gas futures in New York jumping more than 4 percent while companies that develop U.S. export projects, such as Tellurian Inc. and Cheniere Energy Inc., saw their share’s rally.
But the ongoing trade tensions are seen turning off buyers in China, the world’s biggest and fastest-growing natural gas market. That could go for both taking individual, or so-called spot, cargoes, as well as tying themselves to projects with long-term spending and supply commitments in the U.S., where more than a dozen projects are seeking about $139 billionin investments.
“For a Chinese buyer, the overall risk profile for procuring U.S. LNG remains heightened,” Saul Kavonic, Credit Suisse Group AG’s director of Asia energy research, said by email. “Even with a smaller tariff, there has likely been some longstanding damage done to the perception of reliability of U.S. LNG supply in the eyes of Chinese buyers who will shape the next wave of global LNG projects.”
U.S. LNG sales are linked to the nation’s benchmark Henry Hub gas price, which is down about 1 percent this year, while supply from most other exporters is tied to oil, which has gained 18 percent over that period. That’s made American fuel cheaper than other sources, an advantage that’s being eroded by tariffs.
China may shift its buying from the U.S. to other exporters, including Australia, Qatar and Papua New Guinea, according to Bloomberg Intelligence analysts Lu Wang and Kunal Agrawal.
PetroChina Co. signed a deal earlier this month with Qatargas Operating Co. to purchase 3.4 million tons of LNG annually, the Chinese company’s biggest supply deal, while inking a mid-term contract with the PNG LNG project earlier this year. PetroChina’s parent, China National Petroleum Corp., signed a deal to buy U.S. LNG from Cheniere in February. CNPC didn’t respond to requests for comment.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-19/u-s-gas-still-a-no-go-for-chinese-buyers-despite-weaker-tariff
-
Study: Cracker Plant Will Temporarily Boost Income, Employment
Sep 18, 2018 | The Times
By Jared Stonesifer
WASHINGTON, Pa. — Beaver County will experience higher average income and employment numbers because of Shell Chemicals’ ethane cracker plant, but the project represents a one-time economic boost and will not result in long-term sustained increases in wage or job growth.
That was the conclusion reached by two economics professors at Washington and Jefferson College after a yearlong study of the potential economic impacts of the Potter Township plant.
In their exhaustive profile, the husband-wife team of Robert and Leslie Dunn studied extensive socioeconomic data from every county in America that is home to a cracker plant and then compared that data to counties without a cracker plant.
On the surface, their findings seem simple: Counties with cracker plants experienced higher income and higher employment levels.
For Beaver County, the couple predicted a 10.4 percent increase in per-capita employment numbers with an estimation that 7,400 new jobs will come here, either from the cracker plant directly or from ancillary spinoff activity.
According to the study, however, the plant and ancillary economic activity will eventually stagnate or “mature,” and at that point, the county will go back to experiencing only average growth rates in wages and employment.
The Dunns, noting exhaustive research in compiling the study, relied solely on “observable data” and not predictions or conjecture. That observable data came in the form of studying domestic locations that are currently home to cracker facilities.
The pair counted 34 ethane cracker facilities in 16 counties in the United States, primarily along the Gulf Coast. In comparison, there are 3,124 other counties in the 48 contiguous United States without cracker plants.
However, it would skew the data solely by comparing one county to another. Los Angeles County has 10 million residents, Robert Dunn said, which is more than many states in the country.
To compensate for that disparity, the researchers broke down the data even further into age, education levels, urban/rural population centers, and race/ethnicity and tried to compare similar counties to one another.
With all of those factors brought into the equation, the researchers found the counties with cracker plants have “real mean earnings” that are $5,627 higher than counties without plants, or nearly 13 percent.
Tuesday’s event marked the unveiling of the Dunns’ findings, and the study will now be sent out for peer review for potential publication.
“There is nothing else quite like this (study) in academic literature,” Robert Dunn said.
While most of the daylong symposium focused on the economic impacts of the cracker, several local officials made the trip to Washington, Pa., to participate.
One of those speakers was Potter Township Supervisor Rebecca Matsco, who spoke for an hour in the morning about the plant’s impact on her community.
Matsco said the cracker plant project is one of “regional, national and global implications.” But she also delved deeply into the finer aspects of Shell’s impact on Potter. She told the crowd about the “startling shift in our topography” when Shell literally moved a hillside and relocated Route 18 before main construction on the plant even started.
Despite that, the majority of Matsco’s talk centered on the municipal planning process and the major shifts that took place in Potter’s zoning ordinances after Shell came.
She talked in-depth about how it took Potter officials took nearly a year to redraw zoning maps and redo land-use ordinances in an effort to plan for the economic boom expected to follow. Matsco also talked about the challenges of crafting a “transparent, reliable and predictable” permitting process that encourages responsible growth in the township.
Near the end of her speech, Matsco mentioned that officials from Ohio and West Virginia were in the room, and that small communities in those states could have cracker plants of their own in the coming years.
“Potter’s story, I hope, is beneficial, but it could also serve as a bit of a warning that there’s not a lot of time to prepare,” she said after her presentation.
Community College of Beaver County official John Goberish also spoke at the symposium and said afterward that it’s crucial to share Beaver County’s story with other municipal leaders who might soon be facing the same issues.
Goberish, who serves as the dean of workforce development and continuing education at CCBC, has worked for more than six years in trying to prepare the college and its students for Shell’s arrival.
“Part of our job is to share what we learned,” he said. “It’s our obligation to share it.”
The symposium, which ran from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., was sponsored by Washington and Jefferson College’s Center for Energy Policy and Management.
http://www.timesonline.com/news/20180918/study-cracker-plant-will-temporarily-boost-income-employment
-
'It's Déjà Vu All Over Again' at Trump EPA
Sep 19, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Maxine Joselow and Sean Reilly,
On a chilly afternoon in February, EPA air chief Bill Wehrum sat down for lunch with two other former officials in the George W. Bush administration.
At an upscale restaurant two blocks from the White House, the three men reminisced about their time serving President Bush and discussed the future of their policy priorities under President Trump.
The two other attendees were Jeff Holmstead, a former assistant administrator in EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, and John Graham, a former head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
The lunch at Occidental Grill & Seafood, which was disclosed in documents obtained by E&E News through the Freedom of Information Act, shows that Wehrum maintains close ties to Bush-era officials who remain active in Washington.
It comes as Wehrum pursues a number of regulatory rollbacks that were stymied during his time in EPA's air office from 2001 to 2007, first as counsel and then as acting chief.
Holmstead is now a partner with Bracewell LLP, where he advises clients on EPA regulations. Graham is a dean at Indiana University and a member of EPA's Scientific Advisory Board, which is tasked with reviewing the science behind agency rulemakings.
In an interview, Holmstead cast the lunch as an informal gathering of old friends that didn't meet the standard of lobbying.
"Bill and John and I have worked on regulatory issues for many, many years," Holmstead said. "So we probably talked about a dozen issues. But, you know, it's not as though we had anything in particular that we needed to lobby him on."
Graham confirmed this account.
"Bill, Jeff and I had lunch as friends and former collaborators from the Bush 43 years," Graham said in an email. "Jeff and I were very proud to see Bill W capture the big air job at EPA."
Still, since assuming the "big air job" last November, Wehrum has shown a strong proclivity for returning to Bush-era policy objectives, particularly reforming the New Source Review permitting program under the Clean Air Act.
Environmentalists who have been active in Washington for decades have seen this story play out before.
"It's déjà vu all over again," said Paul Billings, national senior vice president for advocacy with the American Lung Association, who has been with the organization for more than 25 years.
"We are certainly seeing an attempt by this administration to revisit many of the issues that were debated in the aughts," Billings said. "New Source Review is one that comes to the top of the list."
Still, Holmstead said Wehrum's priorities have largely been shaped by litigation or statutory deadlines.
"To some extent, when you get that job as head of the air office, your priorities are determined by things outside of your control," Holmstead said. "You had the various Obama rules that had been issued shortly before the end of the administration. So when Bill got the job, he had to deal with the Clean Power Plan and [Mercury and Air Toxics Standards] and the ozone standard. Just a whole bunch of different things."New Source Review
ndustry groups have been complaining about the New Source Review program for decades.
The program puts utilities on the hook for upgrading pollution controls if they propose major modifications to their facilities. The groups say the program sets unrealistic standards for new facilities and makes upgrades to existing ones prohibitively expensive.
In a public appearance last December, Wehrum confirmed his continuing personal interest in NSR reform.
While the Bush administration's attempted broad-bore overhaul fell short, enough pieces survived that "we made fundamental and useful change to the program," Wehrum told an EPA advisory committee that month.
Under Trump, "the best thing we can do is be more targeted: look at narrower, but still important questions and deal with them on a one-by-one or two-by-two basis," he added.
A few days earlier, EPA had taken a first step toward streamlining NSR requirements. Then-Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a memo saying the agency would no longer challenge companies' pre-construction forecasts of air pollution increases expected from a particular project (Greenwire, Dec. 8, 2017).
More guidance has since followed aimed at compressing that forecasting process and making it easier for businesses to show that planned new plants or expansions will not significantly affect air quality when they are applying for permits (E&E News PM, April 18).
But the administration's most ambitious bid to revamp the program came last month in its proposed replacement for the Obama-era Clean Power Plan (Greenwire, Aug. 21).
A section tucked into the Affordable Clean Energy plan would allow utilities and other electricity generators to substitute a more forgiving gauge for estimating the impact that a plant expansion upgrade or expansion would have on emissions.
Even the Bush administration wasn't willing to go that far, said Keri Powell, an Atlanta-based lawyer who was involved in the NSR litigation at the time as an Earthjustice attorney.
"I feel very much that the fights I fought back then are coming back up again, sometimes in new ways," Powell said.'Once in, always in'
One of Wehrum's first major moves as air chief harked back to another battle he had launched more than a decade ago.
In January, barely two months into the job, Wehrum abruptly ended a Clinton-era policy known in regulatory shorthand as "once in, always in" (Greenwire, Jan. 26).
The policy, outlined in a 1995 memo, was intended to limit industrial pollution by requiring refineries and other "major" sources of pollution to continue applying stringent air toxics emission standards even when their releases fell below the thresholds that triggered those standards.
That requirement, Wehrum wrote in his own memo, ran contrary to the "plain language" of the Clean Air Act.
Wehrum was acting EPA air chief in late 2006 when the agency pursued a similar move, although in that instance, it sought to eliminate the "once in, always in" mandate through a formal rulemaking (E&E News PM, Dec. 21, 2006).
Then, as now, the move roused opposition from environmental groups. After Wehrum left EPA in the spring of 2007, the proposed abolition of the policy quietly slipped into limbo, but it was never officially withdrawn.
Wehrum's January decision to scrap "once in, always in" by administrative fiat came shortly after senior Senate Republicans said the policy "disincentivizes" large polluters from curbing their emissions since the same "Maximum Achievable Control Technology" requirements remain in place even if their releases fall below the benchmarks for a major source.
Environmental groups challenging Wehrum's move in court counter that emissions will spike because plants no longer covered by the MACT standards can turn off existing pollution controls to save money.
In a news release announcing the decision to end the policy, Wehrum's own view was clear: Repeal "will reduce regulatory burden for industries and the states, while continuing to ensure stringent and effective controls on hazardous air pollutants."
And while Wehrum has inherited many Obama-era rules, he has sometimes taken them in a different direction.
Most notably, EPA announced last month it would reconsider the 2012 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for oil- and coal-fired power plants, even though the industry has long since come into compliance and had explicitly asked Wehrum to leave the status quo in place (Greenwire, Aug. 29).
But the planned reconsideration could have consequences for future regulatory endeavors, particularly because it will scrutinize EPA's use of projected health savings produced by "co-benefits" to help justify the cost of complying with the mercury standards.Other agencies
It's not unusual for political appointees in one administration to serve in the next administration of the same party.
"People who work at policy levels in government often do so in different administrations," Susan Dudley, who served as Bush's regulatory czar, said in an email. "Of course, career staff work across administrations as well."
Examples abound at other agencies.
At the Department of Energy, the No. 2 post is being filled by Dan Brouillette, who was assistant secretary for congressional and intergovernmental affairs at DOE under Bush.
At the Interior Department, the No. 2 position is held by David Bernhardt, whom Bush tapped to serve as solicitor of the department.
And at the Department of Transportation, Deputy Secretary Jeff Rosen was a known quantity under Bush, having served as chief counsel at DOT from 2003 to 2006 and then as general counsel at the Office of Management and Budget from 2006 to 2009.
E&E News reported in 2008 that Rosen was one of several officials who pushed the Bush administration to scrap EPA's well-developed plans to regulate greenhouse gases from motor vehicles, power plants, petroleum refiners and other major polluters (E&E Daily, July 18, 2008).
Rosen was also privy to the Bush administration's rejection of California's request for a Clean Air Act waiver to regulate tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions, said Margo Oge, the former head of EPA's transportation office.
"At the time, Jeff Rosen had left the Department of Transportation and had gone to OMB," Oge said. "So as a political appointee, he was aware of or part of EPA's decision to basically say no to the waiver request."
Today, Rosen shows no signs of slowing down. This summer, for instance, he emerged as a driving force behind the Trump administration's proposed rollback of Obama-era clean car standards (Greenwire, July 31).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/09/19/stories/1060098361
-
Methane Rollbacks Could Put Paris Goal Further Out Of Sight
Sep 19, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
In the span of a week, the Trump administration has taken aim at two key Obama-era rules to control methane emissions from the oil and gas industry.
The Bureau of Land Management announced yesterday afternoon it is reviewing its rule for controlling emissions of the greenhouse gas from oil and gas development on public lands. This followed EPA's Sept. 11 announcement that it was loosening New Source Performance Standards for new and modified sources in the industry.
Industry trade groups have cheered the moves, but environmentalists are warning that, combined, the rule rollbacks could have serious implications for controlling greenhouse gases and protecting public health.
The changes could also set the United States further back on meeting the emission reduction targets the Obama administration committed to in the Paris Agreement.
Michael Saul, senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said it was "not a coincidence" EPA and BLM released the rules at the same time. He described the rule changes as a bid to give oil and gas operators short-term savings at the expense of climate and health benefits.
"When you look at these two together, it seems like a concerted effort to effectively prop up [oil and gas] by letting it in economic terms externalize its costs onto the public," Saul said. "The harms of methane, whether immediate air pollution or extremely potent climate effects, are borne by the public at large, and the industry that's making profit off this is being removed from any obligation to internalize its share of those costs."
The two announcements came just a few months after the Environmental Defense Fund published research finding methane emissions from the oil and gas industry on both public and private lands were about 60 percent higher than EPA had previously estimated in its annual report of greenhouse gas emissions (Climatewire, June 22).
Steven Hamburg, chief scientist at EDF and co-author of the June study, described the research as the most comprehensive look yet at methane emissions across the entire oil and gas sector. The researchers also found that control technologies were much more affordable to implement than previous studies had suggested.
"The notion that you would weaken regulations in the face of new information that the problem is significantly worse than you thought is hard to rationalize," Hamburg said.
Methane accounts for about 10 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions but has more than 20 times the heat-trapping capability of carbon dioxide over 100 years. Over just 20 years, that heat-trapping ability is more than 80 times stronger than CO2.
That difference makes controlling methane an important component of reducing warming over the next couple of decades, Hamburg said.
While BLM's estimates of forgone climate benefits were not immediately available through its website, EPA stated in a regulatory impact analysis that its rule change would lead to 380,000 short tons of methane emitted through 2025.
Hamburg argues that controlling methane saves the oil and gas industry product it can sell, resulting in little to no cost to companies. "There is basically no downside," he said.
Western Energy Alliance President Kathleen Sgamma, however, praised the decision to revert air quality protections back under EPA's authority. Independent Petroleum Association of America President Barry Russell said the rule change would ease "cost burdens" on companies exploring on federal lands (see related story).
Erik Milito, director of the American Petroleum Institute's upstream and industry operations group, touted industry efforts to slash its own emissions without federal regulation (Climatewire, Sept. 18).
"We support smart, cost effective BLM regulations that focus on prevention of waste and the conservation of resources," Milito said in a statement. "Driven by greater use of natural gas, emissions from power generation continue to decline and air quality continues to improve."
A June analysis by the Rhodium Group, however, found repealing EPA's and Interior's methane regulations could have an impact on meeting U.S. targets under the Paris Agreement. Though President Trump has signaled his intent to leave the international accord, the United States remains a part.
Under the agreement, the United States said it would cut total greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. Rhodium estimated that the country's current trajectory was between 12 and 20 percent in reductions — depending on how regulatory rollbacks progressed (Climatewire, June 28).
On methane, the report found that if federal regulators enforced Obama-era rules, methane emissions would decrease 8.5 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and continue to level off over the next five years.
If the agency overturned the rules, however, methane emissions would drop only 2 percent by 2020 and 1 percent by 2025.
The group's analysis also included the repeal of EPA's control technique guidelines for the oil and gas industry, which offer recommendations for reducing volatile organic compounds in ozone nonattainment areas. EPA issued a notice in March calling for public comment on repealing the guidelines.
The Rhodium report's authors noted that, with an uncertain regulatory future, state policies in California, Colorado, Pennsylvania and Wyoming for cutting methane would become even more important.
The Clean Air Task Force similarly projected that keeping the BLM rule, EPA new source standards and the control technique guidelines in place would have prevented 1.5 million tons of methane pollution in 2025.
David McCabe, an atmospheric scientist at CATF, noted that the Trump administration appeared poised to slash large portions of the rules, "so essentially the full benefits of the standards are at stake."
"Because methane is such a near-term climate pollutant, this means that the Trump administration's plans could lead to unnecessary methane pollution that will warm the planet as much as 33 coal-fired power plants," he said in an email.
The changes in domestic methane policy come as U.S. neighbors to the north and south are continuing with their commitments to reduce methane emissions as part of the Obama-era "Three Amigos" agreement.
President Obama, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto agreed in 2016 to collaborate to cut emissions by 40 to 45 percent from 2012 levels by 2025.
The Trump administration backed out of the commitment in March 2017 as it signaled plans to review a host of rules affecting domestic energy production.
In April, Canada released standards for cutting methane from both new and existing sources of methane. This summer, Mexico also stated it would proceed with its two-year plan to cut methane emissions (Climatewire, July 10).
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/09/19/stories/1060098277
-
California, New Mexico Sue Over Trump Methane Pollution Rollback
Sep 19, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Democratic attorneys general of California and New Mexico sued the Trump administration to stop it from rolling back methane pollution standards for oil and natural gas drilling.
Hours after the Interior Department unveiled its final action to weaken the Obama administration’s methane rule for drillers on federal land, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas filed suit in northern California’s federal court.
Becerra and Balderas argue that Interior’s Bureau of Land Management didn’t properly justify their repeal of the key portions of the methane rule, and that the new standard is legally insufficient.
“With this attempt to axe the Waste Prevention Rule, the Trump administration risks the air our children breathe and at taxpayers’ expense,” Becerra said in a statement.
“We’ve sued the administration before over the illegal delay and suspension of this rule and will continue doing everything in our power to hold them accountable for the sake of our people and planet.”
California’s Air Resources Board is also part of the lawsuit.
“Repealing a rule that is working is just another giveaway to an industry that doesn’t need it,” said Mary Nichols, the board’s chairwoman.
Under Tuesday’s final action, key requirements of the Obama administration’s 2017 rule were repealed, including mandating that drillers write plans to minimize methane output and that they capture certain percentages of the methane that is vented.
Drillers are now subject to almost the same requirements they had to meet before the Obama rule, including the expectation that they do not have to capture methane if it would be cost-prohibitive.
Interior said the changes would save significant amounts of unnecessary regulatory costs.
“The Trump administration is committed to innovative regulatory improvement and environmental stewardship, while appropriately respecting the clear and distinct authorities of the states, tribes, as well as the direction we receive from Congress,” Deputy Interior Secretary David Bernhardt said in a statement.
Methane is the main component of natural gas, and is often released during drilling for both gas and oil. It is a greenhouse gas, at least 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide at warming the atmosphere.
Becerra has already racked up some victories in the Trump administration’s methane rollback agenda.
In two previous attempts by the BLM to delay the Obama methane rule while officials worked to roll it back, Becerra’s office successfully convinced federal judges that the administration’s actions were illegal.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/407383-california-new-mexico-sue-over-trump-methane-pollution-rollback
-
States' Push To limit HFCs May Fracture Market, Manufacturers Warn
Sep 19, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Eric Wolff
U.S. manufacturers fear the Trump administration's lack of interest in regulating hydrofluorocarbons will lead to a fractured domestic market as states concerned about climate change begin implementing their own rules.
New York and California have already begun writing rules to phase down HFCs — a coolant with thousands of times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide — after EPA signaled it would abandon an Obama-era push to do that nationwide. At least 14 other states have committed to reducing emissions of the chemical, and their approach could determine the fortunes of companies that make commercial freezers, air conditioners and the chemicals that make them work.
If states coordinate with one another to write similar rules, as green groups are urging them to do, then they could create momentum for a national rule and possibly U.S. ratification of a treaty seeking to reduce the HFCs globally. But if states each devise their own version of a rule with different restrictions, the resulting splintered market could cause regulatory costs to skyrocket for manufacturers who have already spent $2 billion to transition to next-generation coolants, according to a top trade association.
"It’s obviously something we’d like to avoid," said Joe Trauger, senior vice president for policy and government relations for the Air Conditioning Heating and Refrigeration Institute, a trade association of coolant and equipment makers. "It is potentially more costly for consumers, you have different compliance dates, different markets, different manufacture schedules and design schedules."
HFCs entered widespread use in the 1990s to replace a related class of coolants that were depleting the ozone layer, but policymakers did not become aware of their incredible heat-trapping potential until later, leading the Obama administration to issue a 2015 rule directing manufacturers to find new replacements that would not contribute to climate change. But the bulk of that rule was struck down last year by a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Trump administration subsequently suspended the rest of the rule while EPA works to address administrative issues the court raised.
But industry and environmental advocates tracking the process say they do not expect that rule to seek major reductions in HFCs under the Clean Air Act, but instead to address narrow issues raised by the court.
Some interest groups have suggested EPA could regulate HFCs under the Toxic Substances Control Act, another potential avenue the court left open (in a decision that was, coincidentally, written by President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh). But EPA also does not appear to be pursuing that route. The agency declined to comment for this article.
The Trump administration's actions have raised doubts over whether the U.S. would agree to ratify an international agreement struck in 2016 in Kigali, Rwanda, to phase down the chemical worldwide.
Manufacturers see the Kigali treaty and the rule as keys to its future development. In an effort to persuade the Trump administration to submit the Obama-era agreement to the Senate for ratification, AHRI developed a study saying that ratification of the treaty would add 33,000 domestic jobs in the coolant and refrigeration industry by 2027. The group is now working on a study to address the administration's concerns about consumer costs.
Trauger told POLITICO that AHRI is still in talks with the White House and EPA to come up with a new regulation. And he said the industry is prepared to work with Congress to develop new implementing legislation, if necessary.
"We believe a national approach is more efficient and more appropriate response," he said.
Many states are not willing to wait. Without a nationwide phaseout on the immediate horizon, the U.S. Climate Alliance, a group of 16 states plus Puerto Rico that has promised to try and meet the objectives of the Paris climate agreement, said its members would cut HFC emissions by 40 to 50 percent by 2030. But the group leaves open exactly how the emissions would be addressed. Industry leaders fear that each state could go its own way.
But state-level rules would also have to survive court challenges of their own. Arkema, a French chemical maker that led the federal lawsuit to dismantle the EPA rule, said such an approach would raise constitutional issues.
"Arkema has long been a supporter of phasing down HFCs through a holistic process, not a patchwork of regulations from different states or government agencies," the company said in a statement. "A state patchwork is expensive and inefficient as it creates barriers to interstate commerce and increases costs for consumers as well as smaller businesses and contractors working across state lines."
Green groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council are working with states to adopt strong regulation of HFCs and to maintain consistency from state to state. The early results suggest they are succeeding. California Gov. Jerry Brown signed a law last week that would have the state adopt the EPA rule the Trump administration is abandoning. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo promised to do something similar a few days before.
"We’ve been asking other states to commit to do similar things under existing regulatory authority ... or if they don’t have authority to consider doing legislation," said David Doniger, senior strategic director for the climate and clean energy at NRDC.
And some companies see state action as a path forward to a new national rule.
Honeywell, a U.S. manufacturer that supported the EPA rule and the Kigali treaty, can manage a market divided into only two parts, George Koutsaftes, president of Honeywell Advanced Materials, told POLITICO. The company makes coolants used in commercial freezers and air conditioners that would be regulated, but says it could serve two separate markets as long as California, New York and the other states harmonize their approach. Still, Koutsaftes said he hopes that getting a group of states to adopt similar rules might create momentum for a new national rule.
"Generally speaking, we think the current climate in which there is a coalition of states that would appear to be pushing toward a common framework of regulations that appear to leverage the SNAP policy in place provides the kind of certainty that industry and customers alike are looking for," Koutsaftes said.
Honeywell has appealed the D.C. Circuit panel's decision that struck down the HFC phaseout to the Supreme Court, which has not yet said whether it will take up the case.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/09/states-push-to-limit-hfcs-may-fracture-market-manufacturers-warn-788559
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested