Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - October 19, 2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) PE, PS, PET prices up; PP down; PVC flat
Oct 19, 2018 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
Market forces sent North American commodity resin prices in different directions in September, with polyethylene, solid polystyrene and PET bottle resin prices up, regional polypropylene prices down and PVC prices flat. -
A Closer Look At EPA Inspector General's New Strategic Plan
Oct 19, 2018 | Law 360
By Brian Stansbury and Leah Min
On Oct. 4, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Inspector General released its strategic plan for 2019 to 2023. -
EPA Issues Final TSCA Fees Rule in Federal Register
Oct 19, 2018 | The National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham
On October 17, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its final fees rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in the Federal Register. -
Kids' Chief Sought Meeting with Wheeler on Lead — Sources
Oct 19, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
Requests from EPA's top expert on children's health to meet with acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler about a critical lead policy went unanswered, agency sources told E&E News. -
Do You Live in a Chemical Disaster Danger Zone?
Oct 19, 2018 | Truthout
By Eric Whalen
A new online map shows that 124 million Americans live, work, and play under constant threat from chemical facilities — which, at any time, could release toxic gas or explode. -
Lawmakers Launch Railway Safety Standards Inquiry
Oct 19, 2018 | Transportation Today
By Douglas Clark
Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) are seeking answers from two railway company’s regarding plans to ensure trains carrying hazardous material have updated braking systems. -
DOJ Renews High Court Bid to Halt Youth Climate Case
Oct 19, 2018 | Inside EPA
As it had promised earlier this week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is filing its second request for the Supreme Court to halt a case at a district court on the eve of trial where 21 youths are claiming the government has violated the Constitution and the public trust doctrine by promoting fossil fuel use and causing them to be injured by climate change. -
Trump Says He Won’t Pay Trillions for Climate Change. But He Already Is.
Oct 19, 2018 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Ellen Ketterson and Janet Mccabe
President Trump did not mince words in his response to the U.N.’s major climate report on Monday. -
Judges Give EPA a Shutout on SO2 Designation Challenges
Oct 19, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
A panel of federal appellate court judges has unanimously sided with EPA in denying legal challenges to several attainment designations for the agency's 2010 sulfur dioxide standard.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) PE, PS, PET prices up; PP down; PVC flat
Oct 19, 2018 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
Market forces sent North American commodity resin prices in different directions in September, with polyethylene, solid polystyrene and PET bottle resin prices up, regional polypropylene prices down and PVC prices flat.
All grades of PE moved up by an average of 3 cents per pound, according to market sources contacted by Plastics News. Market analyst David Barry with PetroChem Wire in Houston said that ethane feedstock was the big driver in the September PE price hike.
Ethane-based ethylene cash costs averaged more than 21 cents per pound in September, which Barry said was the highest level since January 2012. Those costs were running 10-11 cents for the first five months of the year.
Barry added that he believes that PE makers were able to export more in September to keep the market balanced. "The reports I'm getting are that the Gulf Coast and East Coast warehouses are busy," he said.
The September PE hike followed a chaotic pricing month in August, which ended with 3-cent-per-pound reductions for most grades of low and linear low density PE and for film and other flexible grades of high density PE.
Prior to the August declines, regional HDPE and LDPE prices had been flat for four consecutive months. LLDPE prices had been flat for two straight months after sliding 3 cents in May.
Backed by new production capacity, export sales of PE had fueled U.S. and Canadian PE growth in the first eight months of 2018, according to the American Chemistry Council. Exports of LLDPE in particular had exploded, growing almost 90 percent vs. the same period in 2017.
LLDPE exports, combined with domestic demand growth of almost 5 percent, lifted total regional LLDPE market growth to almost 23 percent for the period.
HDPE exports from the region were up an impressive 30 percent for the seven months. Those levels and domestic growth of almost 8 percent created eight-month HDPE growth of almost 12 percent. Growth in LDPE exports was more modest at 9 percent. That combined with domestic sales growth of almost 2 percent produced seven-month LDPE growth of almost 4 percent.
North American PET bottle resin prices surged up an average of 6 cents per pound in September after a 2-cent hike in August. Market watchers cited tight supplies of purified terephthalic acid and other raw materials as reasons for the increase. The 2-cent August hike had canceled out a 2-cent drop that hit the market in July.
Regional solid PS prices bumped up an average of 2 cents per pound in September after being flat in August. The September hike was sparked by a price increase for benzene feedstock, which was up 10 cents to $2.98 per gallon.
North American solid PS sales have struggled so far in 2018, dropping more than 4 percent through August. Exports have provided a bright spot, growing more than 16 percent and somewhat reducing the impact of a 5 percent drop in domestic sales.PP heads down
PP was the only major commodity resin to see lower prices in September. Average selling prices for the material were down 1 cent per pound, giving back half of a 2-cent hike that the market had seen in August.
Resin prices for PP in September again followed the path of propylene monomer feedstock. Prices had been flat in July after surging a combined 15 cents in May-June.
North American PP sales were down almost 1 percent through August. Flat domestic sales were made worse by a decline of almost 35 percent in export sales.
Some domestic PP end markets have fared well in spite of the overall decline. Sales of PP into oriented film were up almost 14 percent for the eight-month period. Sales of the materials into injection molded caps and closures grew more than 7 percent.
Regional solid PVC prices were flat for the fifth consecutive month in August, although market sources said that increases of as much as 2 cents per pound could take hold in October. A small Oct. 9 fire at a Westlake Chemical plant making PVC feedstock VCM in Plaquemine, La., isn't expected to have much impact on the PVC resin market.
U.S./Canadian PVC sales were strong through August, climbing 5.4 percent vs. the year-ago period. Domestic growth of just under 2 percent was bolstered by a jump of 13.5 percent in export sales. Among end markets, rigid pipe and tubing showed eight-month growth of almost 2.5 percent. That segment accounted for more than 46 percent of all domestic PVC sales during that period.
At the macro-feedstock level, West Texas Intermediate crude oil prices began September at $69 per barrel but had climbed to $75 by the end of the month. Regional prices for natural gas rose from $2.85 per million British thermal units to $3.05 in the same comparison.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20181019/NEWS/181019893/pe-ps-pet-prices-up-pp-down-pvc-flat
-
A Closer Look At EPA Inspector General's New Strategic Plan
Oct 19, 2018 | Law 360
By Brian Stansbury and Leah Min
On Oct. 4, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Inspector General released its strategic plan for 2019 to 2023. The OIG is charged with the prevention of fraud, waste, abuse, mismanagement and misconduct in the EPA and the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, or CSB. Previously in February 2018, the EPA released its strategic plan for fiscal year 2018 to 2022. Unlike the EPA strategic plan, which differs drastically from the prior EPA strategic plan for 2014 to 2018 and charts a new course for the EPA, the OIG strategic plan largely resembles the OIG’s prior strategic plan for 2012 to 2016. As in the 2012 to 2016 OIG strategic plan, the OIG strategic plan adopts the goals of the EPA and identifies how it will help the EPA perform its stated goals.[1] This article focuses on a few aspects of the OIG strategic plan worth noting for industry and other stakeholders with interest in environmental regulatory enforcement:
The OIG will hold the EPA accountable for meeting 2019 targets identified in the EPA strategic plan.
The OIG provides less guidance on how it will support other EPA goals, such as rebalancing regulatory power to the states and returning the EPA to its statutory obligations.
The OIG will rely on data and business analytics to meet its goals.
The OIG characterizes its oversight role as creating value propositions.
The OIG reinforces its commitment to staff retention, satisfaction and diversity.
Importantly, the resignation of Inspector General Arthur A. Elkins Jr., which took effect on Oct. 10 of this year, creates the possibility of a subsequently appointed inspector general changing the OIG’s focus. In the meantime, Charles J. Sheehan, who has served as Elkins’s deputy inspector general since 2012, is the acting inspector general, and there has been no indication that he intends to deviate from the OIG strategic plan.
The EPA Strategic Plan Was a Drastic Departure From the Prior Strategic Plan
The current EPA strategic plan is in stark contrast to the prior strategic plan and could be characterized as a repudiation of the prior administration’s vision for an inclusive and proactive EPA. In the new EPA strategic plan, the stated goals reflect a new direction for the EPA:
Core Mission: Deliver real results to provide Americans with clean air, land and water, and ensure chemical safety.
Cooperative Federalism: Rebalance the power between Washington, D.C., and the states to create tangible environmental results for the American people.
Rule of Law and Process: Administer the law as Congress intends, to refocus the agency on its statutory obligations under the law.
Whereas the previous 2014 to 2018 EPA strategic plan included the following goals:
Addressing climate change and improving air quality.Protecting America’s waters.Cleaning up communities and advancing sustainable development.Ensuring the safety of chemicals and preventing pollution.Protecting human health and the environment by enforcing laws and ensuring compliance.
Moreover, the “Administrator’s Message” at the beginning of that report reinforced the EPA’s commitment to environmental justice and its “focus on urban, rural and economically disadvantaged communities to ensure that everyone — regardless of age, race, economic status or ethnicity — has access to clean water, clean air, and the opportunity to live, work, and play in healthy communities.”
Gone in the current EPA strategic plan is the goal of addressing climate change or environmental justice, and, in fact, refocusing the EPA on its “statutory obligations” could be interpreted as a repudiation of both of those objectives.
Main Goals of the OIG Strategic Plan
From a high-level perspective, the OIG strategic plan varies little from its prior incarnation, as the stated goals of both plans are largely the same. The similarity between the two plans is not entirely surprising given that Elkins was the inspector general of the EPA when both plans were created. Divided into three primary goals and 13 strategic measures, the new OIG strategic plan outlines the ways in which the OIG plans to provide oversight to the EPA while extending leadership and support.
Goal 1: Contribute to improved EPA and CSB programs and operations protecting human health and the environment, and enhancing safety. The OIG plans to perform targeted audits and evaluations that assess the EPA’s processes and procedures, so the programs and operations protecting human health, the environment and safety can be made more effective and efficient. The focus is on being agile while addressing key aspects of air quality standards, clean drinking water, land remediation and chemical safety. Within this goal, OIG creates specific targets for the next five years to increase its impact on laws and regulations regarding human health, the environment and safety, and to reduce environmental risks and challenges.
Goal 2: Conduct audits, evaluations and investigations that enable the EPA and the CSB to improve business practices and accountability. The second goal is targeted toward accountability and reducing waste in the EPA. It focuses on assisting the EPA with improving business practices by conducting audits, evaluations and investigations. Under this goal, OIG plans to monitor and review the EPA’s use of operational resources in an effort to promote efficiency while detecting and preventing fraud, waste, abuse, mismanagement and misconduct. Notable here is the focus on mitigating potential for fraud and loss through establishing governance over enterprise risks. The OIG places increased focus on maximizing resources by utilizing automated tools to target investigations. The OIG anticipates using enterprise risk management and internal control assessment tools as well as data and business analytic technology in order to achieve this goal. The OIG makes it a priority to reduce wasteful misconduct not just for the sake of efficiency but with an eye toward proactively creating monetary benefit for the agency.
Goal 3: Improve OIG processes, resource allocation and accountability to meet stakeholder needs. The third goal is focused internally toward the OIG itself and is oriented toward ensuring that the OIG is equipped to provide the greatest return on investment. The objectives described within this goal address improving the OIG’s processes, resource allocation and accountability to meet stakeholder needs. Particular focus is given to ensuring that products and services provided to stakeholders and the agency are timely and that high-risk and high-vulnerability items are minimized. Within this goal are also numerous workforce-focused objectives to ensure a well-trained, satisfied and diverse staff. Specific employee-related goals include being rated “above satisfactory” in the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey and for the majority of employees to indicate satisfaction in working with the OIG as assessed by the “Best Places to Work” score administered by the Partnership for Public Service.
OIG Holding EPA to Stated 2019 Benchmarks
In a document comprised primarily of broad discussion of goals and methods, one of the most explicit statements in the OIG strategic plan is the intent to audit whether the EPA meets its “Agency Priority Goals” for FY 2018 to 2019. Specifically, the OIG will “conduct audits that assess the EPA’s progress toward its goals to implement the following by September 30, 2019”:
Reduce the number of nonattainment areas from 166 to 138.
Increase by $16 billion the nonfederal dollars leveraged by the EPA water infrastructure finance programs.
Make an additional 102 Superfund sites and 1,368 brownfield sites ready for anticipated use.
Complete 100 percent of the EPA-initiated Toxic Substances Control Act risk evaluations and risk management actions for existing chemicals and 80 percent of TSCA premanufacture notice final determinations.
Reduce the percentage of Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permittees in significant noncompliance with permit limits to 21 percent from a baseline of 24 percent.
Reduce by 50 percent the number of permitting-related decisions that exceed six months.
To the extent that an EPA stakeholder — including a company being regulated by the EPA — is involved with a project that would further one of the above stated goals, the EPA is likely to respond proactively. Additionally, to the extent that the EPA fails to meet any of the goals above, the OIG may scrutinize any ongoing sites or regulatory actions that played a role in EPA’s failure to meet its goals.
OIG Does Not Specifically Address Other EPA Goals
Notably missing from the OIG strategic plan are concrete measures to support the goals in the EPA strategic plan to (1) rebalance regulatory powers to the states and (2) refocus the EPA to its statutory obligations. In the EPA strategic plan, the EPA emphasizes its intended collaboration with state, local and tribal organizations, addressing the shared responsibility for environmental enforcement actions. The EPA’s “refocus” on its “statutory obligations” likely means a movement away from issues like addressing climate change. The OIG strategic plan does not identify any metrics or goals that it will use to assess whether the EPA is meeting either goal. The OIG strategic plan does indicate that it will conduct “major investigative activities” that will include identifying any “criminal activities related to agency grants and contracts dealing with state revolving funds and interagency and cooperative agreements that help state, local, and tribal governments, universities, and nonprofit recipients; ...”
OIG Will Rely on Data and Business Analytics to Meet its Goals
With spending at the EPA on the decline since President Donald Trump took office and environmental regulation under increased scrutiny, the OIG recognizes that it will have to leverage technological innovation in order to achieve more with less. The OIG places particular emphasis on technological solutions such as the E-Enterprise Web Portal, data analytics and business analytical tools. The OIG strategic plan does not provide great detail on exactly which analytics will be used and how they will be used, but industry and environmental stakeholders can expect to see increased utilization of technological and automated tools by the EPA and the OIG.
OIG Characterizes its Role as Creating a Value Proposition
The OIG states that it will not just support the EPA’s stated goals and promote efficiency, but it will proactively create a monetary benefit through its efforts. The OIG articulates an ambitious plan to create a 20:1 return on investment within the next five years. Whereas previous OIG strategic plans describe creating savings and results, in the new OIG strategic plan, the OIG recognizes the urgent need to create ongoing value in realizing immediate and measurable monetary benefit, thus ensuring the watchdog’s worth and longevity.
For businesses and stakeholders with an interest in environmental regulation, the increased focus on creating monetary benefit likely means increased scrutiny from the OIG, particularly on larger projects where the “return” on identifying any malfeasance would involve larger sums of money.
OIG Will Focus on Staff Retention, Satisfaction and Diversity
Previous OIG strategic plans identify diversity as a priority for its workforce, and not only does the OIG retain that goal, but there is a greater emphasis on the importance of staff retention and satisfaction. The OIG strategic plan provides several measures focused toward quantifiable metrics of workforce satisfaction. This is noteworthy at a time when the EPA has been accused of a “brain drain” as high-level, long-time experts have left the agency and numerous others have admitted concern. Moreover, the EPA’s movement away from environmental justice and a focus on addressing environmental issues that specifically impact communities of color has not gone unnoticed in these communities. The OIG’s commitment to diversity in the workforce conveys an important message to all stakeholders. What remains to be seen is whether this commitment to diversity and workplace satisfaction will continue when and if a new inspector general is confirmed.https://www.law360.com/energy/articles/1093350/a-closer-look-at-epa-inspector-general-s-new-strategic-plan
-
EPA Issues Final TSCA Fees Rule in Federal Register
Oct 19, 2018 | The National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham
On October 17, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its final fees rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in the Federal Register. 83 Fed. Reg. 52694. The final rule largely tracks the proposed rule. EPA is establishing fees applicable to any person required to submit information to EPA; or a notice, including an exemption or other information, to be reviewed by EPA; or who manufactures (including imports) a chemical substance that is the subject of a risk evaluation. This final rulemaking describes the final TSCA fees and fee categories for fiscal years 2019, 2020, and 2021, and explains the methodology by which the final TSCA fees were determined. It identifies some factors and considerations for determining fees for subsequent fiscal years; and includes amendments to existing fee regulations governing the review of premanufacture notices, exemption applications and notices, and significant new use notices. As required in TSCA, EPA is also establishing standards for determining which persons qualify as “small business concerns” and thus would be subject to lower fee payments. Small businesses will be eligible to receive a substantial discount of approximately 80 percent on their fees. EPA will host a series of webinars focusing on making TSCA submissions and paying fees under the final rule. The first webinar was held on October 10, 2018. The other two webinars will be held on October 24, 2018, from 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. (EDT)and on November 7, 2018, from 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. (EDT). Our memorandum provides an overview of the final rule with specific information about final fee amounts and timing and a commentary. The final rule is effective on October 18, 2018.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-issues-final-tsca-fees-rule-federal-register
-
Kids' Chief Sought Meeting with Wheeler on Lead — Sources
Oct 19, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
Requests from EPA's top expert on children's health to meet with acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler about a critical lead policy went unanswered, agency sources told E&E News.
Office of Children's Health Protection chief Ruth Etzel requested to meet with Wheeler every week throughout August and September to discuss the federal lead strategy that EPA is drafting with public health agencies, but she was unable to meet with the administrator.
While public health experts have been clamoring to see the lead strategy — which was originally scheduled for release in June — questions about it have swirled since EPA placed Etzel on leave last month for what spokeswoman Molly Block called "serious reports made against her by staff regarding her ability to effectively lead the Office of Children's Health."
Etzel herself has said in multiple television interviews that she believes EPA ousted her because of disagreements over the lead strategy. Speaking to CBS News this week, she said an EPA political appointee had told her proposed regulations to combat lead poisoning in the strategy "wouldn't fly" (Greenwire, Oct. 15).
While she has said she wasn't given an explanation before EPA placed her on leave, Etzel told CNN this week that the lead strategy "was just about to come out when this happened, so I think perhaps it's related to that strategy."
Block strongly denied Etzel's allegations, writing in an email that "the kinds of allegations that have been raised regarding Dr. Etzel's conduct are very concerning and prompted EPA to take action."
"Her attempt to use the press to distract from the allegations about her personal conduct is completely inappropriate," she said. "Any link that Dr. Etzel is attempting to draw between her personal situation and the mission of the Office of Children's Health is an attempt at misdirection. EPA is 100 percent committed to protecting children's health and will do everything in its power to ensure that the Office has competent leadership."
But sources told E&E News that neither Wheeler nor his acting deputy, Henry Darwin, have met to discuss the strategy with Michael Firestone, who has been in charge of the Office of Children's Health Protection and spearheading the strategy since Etzel was placed on leave.
Block didn't respond to questions about whether EPA leadership had met with Firestone but noted that the Trump administration brought on Hayley Hughes as a national lead coordinator. She has met, she said, with both Wheeler and former Administrator Scott Pruitt in her role "spearheading all lead related activity across the Agency, including the Office of Children's Health Protection."
The Trump administration has long said that combating lead poisoning is a priority, with Pruitt declaring EPA would wage a "war on lead."
But critics say they have seen little action, noting Wheeler has yet to use that phrase.
"Pruitt says anything he wants, and Wheeler doesn't say anything, but if you look at their actions, what they say or don't say doesn't make any difference; they still aren't doing anything," said Ronnie Levin, a former EPA staffer who now manages the water and health program at Harvard University's T.H. Chan School of Public Health.'War on lead'?
EPA's critics say Etzel's being placed on leave is just the latest example of the agency not doing enough to protect children from lead, a potent neurotoxin linked to learning disabilities.
The delay of the federal lead strategy, they say, is another.
Whether the current draft of the strategy includes any calls to beef up regulations is unclear.
But the interagency work group charged with drafting the strategy, which Etzel led, is basing the document on a November 2016 report that outlined "key federal programs to reduce childhood lead exposure and eliminate associated health impacts."
Nearly half of the 2016 document describes different regulatory efforts across the government, including EPA, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The Environmental Defense Fund's Tom Neltner, a member of a committee advising EPA on children's health, said he will be watching closely to see what is in the strategy and whether it is "a call to action with measurable goals or a list of things we do wrapped up and called a strategy."
"The question is whether the first step in the 'war on lead' is really a retreat," he said.
Asked about the strategy at an advisory committee meeting last week, EPA's Firestone said it would come out "soon" and that the delay was due to bureaucratic challenges of so many agencies working together.
"It's probably the most complicated thing I've worked on in my career," said Firestone, who has worked at EPA for 30 years.
Public health advocates say an aggressive lead strategy could serve as a catalyst for stronger policies and more funding for lead poisoning prevention.
David Jacobs previously ran the Department of Housing and Urban Development's lead-in-homes program between 1995 and 2005 and helped work on the previous federal lead strategy, which was released in 2000.
The strategy called for increased funding to remove lead paint from homes and looked at how revamped regulations and tougher enforcement could help combat what is still the leading cause of lead poisoning for kids.
After it was published, Congress increased appropriations for lead programs.
"A federal strategy did make a difference," said Jacobs, who is now chief scientist for the nonprofit National Center for Healthy Housing.
The Trump administration has also postponed action on a number of regulations that could reduce lead exposure.
The Obama administration had planned to propose new regulations for lead in drinking water in spring 2016. The Trump administration has delayed the timeline multiple times and now plans to propose a new rule in February.
EPA has also indefinitely put off regulating lead dust in public buildings, like restaurants and after-school programs, and an endangerment finding for lead in aviation fuel.
To comply with a court-ordered deadline, the agency did propose new lead dust standards for homes in June. But advocates have heavily criticized that rule for being ineffective.
The proposal would significantly lower the acceptable lead-dust level for risk assessments used to determine whether lead paint needs to be removed from a home. But it doesn't change "clearance levels" of lead, which are used to determine whether a cleanup has actually lowered the risk of lead exposure. Those numbers are traditionally the same to ensure that lead paint removal actually lowers the risk of lead poisoning.
"It makes no sense," Jacobs said. "EPA is saying that it's OK for the risk of exposure to be higher after your cleanup job than it was before. If you do a hazard control, you expect the hazard to go down, not up."EPA defends its work
Lynn Goldman, dean of the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University, who helped establish EPA's Office of Children's Health in the 1990s, agreed with Jacobs about EPA's stance on risk.
"The standards they are replacing were developed when I was at EPA," she said. "For it to take so long for them to come out, and for them to be so weak, is incredibly disappointing."
Asked about criticisms of the lead dust standards, EPA spokeswoman Block said the Trump administration is acting when the Obama administration didn't.
"Critics were provided a 45-day comment period on the proposal [that lowers the lead dust hazard standard], which is 45 more days than the non-existent proposal never issued under the 8 years of the Obama administration," she said in an email.
She didn't respond to questions about the delayed regulations but touted a number of EPA efforts aimed at lead, writing, "Here are some of the things you've missed during the last 22 months."
Those included progress removing lead from homes at the USS Lead Superfund site in East Chicago, Ind., with Block saying there has been a 316 percent increase in properties cleaned between 2016 and 2018, "all thanks to the Trump administration's focus and prioritization of remediating the country's most contaminated Superfund sites."
She also highlighted a new $20 million grant program for states and tribes to test for lead in drinking water and noted that Trump's EPA awarded $100 million to Flint, Mich., to replace lead pipes.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/10/19/stories/1060103865
-
Do You Live in a Chemical Disaster Danger Zone?
Oct 19, 2018 | Truthout
By Eric Whalen
A new online map shows that 124 million Americans live, work, and play under constant threat from chemical facilities — which, at any time, could release toxic gas or explode. The map, released by the Environmental Justice Health Alliance, Coming Clean, and the Campaign for Healthier Solutions, found that nearly 40 percent of Americans live within just three miles of a facility that stores or manufactures large amounts of toxic gas or explosive materials — like large refineries, chemical manufacturing plants, and even water treatment facilities, which handle large volumes of chlorine gas. In the event of an accident, some of these facilities could harm people as far as 25 miles away.
The danger of these facilities is real. In 2013, in West, TX, for example, a small fire inside a fertilizer plant resulted in a catastrophic explosion — destroying over 150 buildings, killing 15 people and injuring another 160. The event changed the town forever — and it could have been much worse. West Middle School was one of the dozens of buildings leveled by the explosion. Fortunately, school was not in session at the time — but if students had been at their desks the result may have been unspeakable.
Today, there are more than 12,000 similarly dangerous facilities scattered across the nation. Roughly 45 percent of all schools in the US are located within three miles of these locations. That means 24 million children attend schools situated within a chemical disaster-danger zone. Some 11,000 hospitals and nursing homes are also within three miles of hazardous chemical facilities and, when disaster strikes, these facilities will be extremely difficult to evacuate.
Sadly, accidents at these facilities are fairly routine. The EPA reports that, over the last five years, these chemical plants have had over 1,200 accidents. Roughly 16,000 people were injured in these accidents, and 160,000 people were forced to evacuate.
The difference between a small-scale accident and a catastrophic disaster can be small, and chemical plants are constantly flirting with danger on a scale that’s difficult to imagine. In 2015, for example, a refinery in Torrance, just outside Los Angeles, CA, suffered a minor explosion that sent a piece of debris towards a massive container of volatile hydrofluoric acid. Had the container been struck, thousands of people in the surrounding neighborhoods may have been injured or killed.
In addition to the vast scale of the risk posed by these facilities, a new report accompanying the map also provides insight into who lives within these three-mile ‘fenceline’ zones near dangerous chemical facilities. By looking at nine separate communities, researchers found a clear picture of environmental injustice. Communities near chemical facilities are disproportionately Black and Latinx. They suffer far greater poverty rates than the average neighborhood in the US. On top of the risk of chemical disaster, these communities also suffer higher-than-average rates of cancer and respiratory disease linked to air pollution.
Despite all this evidence of enormous risk for those living near chemical facilities — and the disproportionate way in which this risk is distributed — the Trump Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has made several attempts to block or delay improved safety rules for these hazardous chemical facilities, improvements that were sought by the Obama Administration. Chemical facility safety rules are required by the Clean Air Act, and these updates are designed to strengthen disaster-prevention rules, improve emergency preparedness, and give communities the right to know about chemical plants that threaten their lives. They were scheduled to take effect in March, 2017 but, at the behest of industry, the EPA shelved them arbitrarily. In response, the Environmental Justice Health Alliance joined other plaintiffs — including the Union of Concerned Scientists, Sierra Club, and Coming Clean, among others — andsuccessfully sued to force these safety improvements into effect.
While these bolstered safety measures stand for the moment, Trump’s EPA, under Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler, is now pursuing an effort to roll them back outright. It’s essential that the disaster-prevention measures remain intact to reduce risks in fenceline communities across the country.
Find out if you live in a ‘Fenceline’ zone around a chemical facility,read the full report, and learn more about the work of theEnvironmental Justice Health Alliance, Coming Clean, and theCampaign for Healthier Solutions.
https://truthout.org/articles/do-you-live-in-a-chemical-disaster-danger-zone/
-
Lawmakers Launch Railway Safety Standards Inquiry
Oct 19, 2018 | Transportation Today
By Douglas Clark
Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) are seeking answers from two railway company’s regarding plans to ensure trains carrying hazardous material have updated braking systems.
To do so, the Oregon senators recently forwarded correspondence to Union Pacific and BNSF in the wake of the Trump Administration’s announcement to roll back an Obama-era rule requiring the installation of electronically controlled pneumatic braking systems by 2021. The legislators noted that the guideline was instituted after multiple oil train crashes across the United States, including one in the Columbia River Gorge.
“Too often our constituents in the Pacific Northwest have seen trains carrying crude oil crashing within and around their communities,” Wyden and Merkley wrote. “We have seen these trains crash near school buildings, small businesses, and homes, causing extensive damage to communities and putting our environment at risk, including sources of drinking water as well as river habitats that house endangered fish species.”
In their letter, the lawmakers inquired about how many of the railway companies’ trains carrying crude oil in Oregon and Washington have ECP brakes installed; the percentage of trains carrying crude oil through Oregon and Washington have ECP brakes; and whether the rule rollback impact purchasing of new railcars with ECP brakes.
The legislators maintain their constituents should be afforded security from potential railway transport dangers.
“Our constituents, many of whom live, work or go to school in the vicinity of rail lines that carry hazardous materials, need to know that their safety is being protected,” the legislators wrote.
https://transportationtodaynews.com/news/11051-lawmakers-launch-railway-safety-standards-inquiry/
-
DOJ Renews High Court Bid to Halt Youth Climate Case
Oct 19, 2018 | Inside EPA
As it had promised earlier this week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is filing its second request for the Supreme Court to halt a case at a district court on the eve of trial where 21 youths are claiming the government has violated the Constitution and the public trust doctrine by promoting fossil fuel use and causing them to be injured by climate change.
The Oct. 18 petition comes three days after Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon denied two earlier DOJ motions to end the case, Juliana, et al. v. United States, and after DOJ filed a similar petition for a writ of mandamus and other documents with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
Trial is set to begin Oct. 29, and DOJ is continuing to try to stop the case despite several previous rejections by the 9th Circuit and the Supreme Court. It is also continuing to prepare for trial.
DOJ's latest filing asks the Supreme Court to determine: “[w]hether this suit is justiciable under Article III” of the Constitution; “w[]hether this suit should be dismissed for failure to comply with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act:” and “[w]hether this suit should be dismissed because there is no right to a 'climate system capable of sustaining human life' under the Due Process Clause or a public trust doctrine.”
The filing notes that the 2015 suit asks the district court to order the federal defendants -- which no longer includes President Donald Trump -- to “move to swiftly phase out [carbon dioxide] emissions, as well as take such other actions as necessary to ensure that atmospheric CO2 is more concentrated than 350 [parts per million] by 2100.”
DOJ argues that is has “a clear and indisputable right to relief from the district court's refusal to dismiss this fundamentally misguided suit,” and charges that the district court “clearly and indisputable erred by exercising jurisdiction over the suit” as well as when it allowed “the claims to proceed outside the binding framework of the [Administrative Procedure Act (APA)],” and when it allowed “the claims to proceed on the merits. The government has no other adequate means to attain relief from a fundamentally misguided and improper trial.”
DOJ also says allowing the case to go to trial would violate “bedrock requirements for agency decisionmaking and judicial review imposed by the APA and the separation of powers.”
In response to the filing, attorneys for the youth plaintiffs said in an Oct. 18 statement that the outcome will test the public's “faith in the courts as a check on the political branches.”
Granting mandamus relief is highly unusual as most appellate courts want proceedings to complete at a lower court before hearing them. Granting such a petition is generally only done when a higher court believes a lower court has committed a grave error. The 9th Circuit has twice before rejected DOJ's effort and the Supreme Court also rejected it in July.
The youth attorneys added that this is the second time in three months DOJ has gone to the high court “to circumvent the ordinary procedures of federal litigation” to stop the case.
Attorney Julia Olson said it would be a “complete abdication of responsibility by the third branch of government not to declare the constitutional rights of these young people and not to hear the evidence in this fundamental rights case,” and compared it to a 1950s Supreme Court preventing the children in Brown v. Board of Education from going to court to find that the “separate but equal” doctrine was unconstitutional. “We don't usurp judicial power in the United States of America. Our courts hear constitutional claims and they decide them by not speculating as to the facts, but seeing the evidence and hearing the expert testimony.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/doj-renews-high-court-bid-halt-youth-climate-case
-
Trump Says He Won’t Pay Trillions for Climate Change. But He Already Is.
Oct 19, 2018 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Ellen Ketterson and Janet Mccabe
President Trump did not mince words in his response to the U.N.’s major climate report on Monday. While he conceded that our climate is changing, he isn’t sure if it’s manmade, he thinks it will change back again (though didn’t specify the timeframe), and he definitely does not want to pay to fix it.
But here’s the problem: The president of the United States is already spending money on climate change—loads of it, in fact—and so are businesses, communities, and Americans from every walk of life. And the bill is only going to soar further in the coming years.
Consider a report released last year from the Government Accountability Office—one of President Trump’s own federal agencies—which found that climate change has cost the federal government over $350 billion in the last decade, largely due to extreme weather and wildfires. Without immediate government action, the costs created by environmental change will continue to climb, generating a mind-boggling economic price tag that will near $300 billion annually by 2050, according to EPA projections. Let that sink in.
Of course, we already experience the tangible costs of climate change with every hurricane—which are becoming stronger and more frequent—that batters our coasts. For example, the total cost of Hurricane Michael will take time to assess, but initial reports likened the destruction to that of Hurricane Andrew, which wreaked $25 billion in damages to south Florida in 1992. And this does not include the irreplaceable, human costs of lives lost, or the anguish caused by the destruction of a family’s home and everything in it.
This isn’t only a coastal problem, either. Since 2011, our home state of Indiana has already faced more than $6 billion in costs to address the impacts of extreme weather. And with temperatures expected to rise by several degrees mid-century, corn yields could decrease by as much as 20 percent, threatening the multi-billion dollar industry of our most valuable crop—not to mention the grocery bills of middle-class families.
How about our children? They surely don’t want to foot the bill—but amidst our inaction, they’ll ultimately pay for it, and with interest. According to a 2016 study from NextGen Climate and Demos, a 24-year old college graduate can expect to lose over $185,000 in lifetime wealth as a result of climate change’s economic impact. Whether it’s our generation or those that follow, there is no escaping the cost of climate change.
And what’s even stranger about the president’s remarks is that he is ignoring the tremendous economic opportunities available to us if we’re willing to invest. The flip side of the environmental balance sheet shows us that addressing climate change won’t only save us trillions of dollars in expenses—let alone the future of our very planet—it will also spur innovation, drive growth and create jobs.
For example, while it’s clear that consumers who purchase hybrid or electric cars save money at the pump and reduce their own carbon footprint, they also support skilled technical jobs for those who manufacture and maintain those vehicles and make U.S. auto manufacturers more competitive in the global market.
The same is true for businesses building green offices fueled by renewable energy, or cities—like our own state capital of Indianapolis—converting its outdated street lights to energy efficient LEDs. Managers and mayors alike value these investments because they protect their bottom line while curbing emissions (and enhancing public safety at the same time). Efforts like these can also help boost burgeoning industries like wind and solar, which are creating jobs at a clip that’s 12 times faster than the rest of the U.S. economy.
Although President Trump may not realize it yet, it’s clear that the best answer for the health of our land, our oceans and our communities is also the best answer for our pocketbooks. To instead argue that not responding to climate change is the less expensive option is as false as claiming the oceans aren’t warming, the ice caps aren’t melting and our environment isn’t changing.
The more we do now, the fewer disaster cleanups to fund, the fewer wildfires to extinguish and the fewer farmers to subsidize after a crop-destroying drought.
We work with colleagues every day who are assessing the problems we face as a result of climate change and creating solutions that are better for our planet, our communities, and—critically—our economies, too. Working together to find practical, implementable solutions to environmental change is not only the best cost-saving measure we have available, it’s also the key to securing sustainable economic and job growth in new, innovative industries.
The days of ignoring climate change are over. Not just scientifically, not just politically, but economically as well. To claim otherwise at this point is a failure of judgement that we simply cannot tolerate.
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/412259-trump-says-he-wont-pay-trillions-for-climate-change
-
Judges Give EPA a Shutout on SO2 Designation Challenges
Oct 19, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
A panel of federal appellate court judges has unanimously sided with EPA in denying legal challenges to several attainment designations for the agency's 2010 sulfur dioxide standard.
The three consolidated lawsuits contested EPA's decisions two years ago to deem Wyandotte County, Kan.; Colorado Springs, Colo.; and Gallia County, Ohio, "unclassifiable" in terms of whether they met the 75-parts-per-billion limit.
But the Kansas City Board of Public Utilities lacked legal standing to contest the Wyandotte County designation, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit wrote in the opinion released this morning. In response to a lawsuit brought by three Colorado Springs residents, the court also found that EPA had acted "reasonably" in making the unclassifiable designation for Colorado's second-largest city, while ruling that the Sierra Club should have registered its concerns about some data used in the Gallia County determination earlier.
The court's decision came little more than a month after the panel heard oral arguments on the litigation (E&E News PM, Sept. 11). Writing the opinion was Senior Judge Stephen Williams, appointed by President Reagan. Concurring were Judges David Tatel and Patricia Millett, named to the appellate court by Presidents Clinton and Obama, respectively.
All three lawsuits were filed in 2016, soon after EPA made the designations.
Both the Sierra Club and the Colorado Springs residents argued that EPA should have listed those areas in Ohio and Colorado as in "nonattainment," a step that would have required their respective states to come up with cleanup plans. The Kansas City utilities board had wanted an "unclassifiable/attainment" designation for the eastern Kansas county.
But from a compliance perspective, EPA had argued that there was no practical difference between the "unclassifiable" and "unclassifiable/attainment" designations. Therefore, the agency wrote in a brief earlier this year, the Kansas City board lacked the standing to bring the suit because it could not show any harm fixable by court action. In today's opinion, the panel agreed, saying the board had not shown that it has been subjected "to any cognizable injury."
In regard to the designation for Gallia County, in southern Ohio, the panel found that the Sierra Club should have raised its concerns about government air quality modeling used in making the unclassifiable designation during the public comment period leading up to EPA's final decision.
While the environmental group did raise that objection in an administrative petition for reconsideration, "EPA's resolution of that petition is not before us," Williams wrote in also rejecting the challenge. In upholding EPA's decision for the Colorado Springs area, the three-judge panel concluded that EPA reasonably applied its modeling guidelines in opting to reject data cited by the plaintiffs.
All three areas are home to coal-fired power plants that are the leading source of sulfur dioxide. The acrid gas is linked to breathing difficulties and also contributes to formation of airborne fine particulates, which are tied to an even wider array of health problems.
Under the Clean Air Act, SO2 is among a half-dozen "criteria" pollutants; EPA is supposed to review the standards for those pollutants every five years to determine whether its air quality standards are adequate in light of what's known about their health and ecological effects.
The Obama-era EPA's 2010 decision to create the one-hour primary 75-ppb standard marked the first time in almost four decades that federal regulators had tightened limits on SO2 emissions to protect public health. At the time, the agency predicted the change would eventually yield annual health benefits valued between $13 billion and $33 billion, or far more than industry's expected compliance costs.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/10/19/stories/1060103867
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested