Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 1/21/2019
-
Roundtable to Discuss the United States' Overall Role in the Arctic from a Domestic and International Perspective
Jan 24, 2019 | Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
Location: 366 Dirksen / 10:00 AM -
(ACC Mentioned) Operation Clean Sweep Faces Calls to Transform
Jan 18, 2019 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
The plastics industry's longtime voluntary program to fight pellet leakage from its factories, known as Operation Clean Sweep, is facing new pressure from governments and environmental groups. -
(ACC Mentioned) Statewide Bans on Plastic Bags, Straws Are on Dems’ Green To-Do List in Olympia
Jan 18, 2019 | Seattle Times
By Jake Goldstein-Street
As an Edmonds City Council member in 2009, Strom Peterson championed the city’s initiative to become the first municipality in Washington to ban plastic grocery bags. -
(ACC Mentioned) Trade Groups Mobilize to Fight Shutdown
Jan 21, 2019 | PoliticoPro
By Theodoric Meyer
Washington trade groups, frustrated by a partial government shutdown that seems to have no end in sight, are fighting back -
EPA Shutdown Stymies Looming TSCA Assessment, Rule Deadlines
Jan 18, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
The nearly month-long shutdown of EPA and other agencies is hampering the agency's ability to comply with a host of looming statutory deadlines that Congress set in the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), raising the stakes that officials will miss targets to assess chemicals... -
EPA's Fee Rule Takes Effect Without Suit, A First For TSCA Framework
Jan 21, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA's rule setting user fees for chemical manufacturers and processors to fund agency actions under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has taken effect without a challenge from environmentalists or other parties, marking the only one of the agency's four TSCA... -
(ACC Mentioned) Governor Rejects Flame Retardants Bill
Jan 20, 2019 | Somerville Times
By Bob Katzen
Gov. Baker did not sign a bill that would ban 11 toxic flame retardants from children’s products, bedding, carpeting and residential upholstered furniture sold or manufactured in Massachusetts, except for inventory already manufactured prior to January 1, 2019. -
California’s Crusade Against Receipts Is Pointless
Jan 18, 2019 | Bloomberg
By Adam Minter
Can grandstanding empty the oceans of plastics and the landfills of trash? -
(ACC Mentioned) Energy Department Hires a Top Cheerleader for Petrochemical Hub Before Issuing Report Favoring It
Jan 18, 2019 | DeSmog
By Steve Horn
Near the end of 2018, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) hired the leading promoter within academia of a massive and multi-faceted petrochemical complex proposed for West Virginia. A month later, the agency issued a report favoring the construction of such a complex. -
(ACC Mentioned) Rising Oil Prices, Construction Boost Project Logistics
Jan 21, 2019 | JOC.com
By Janet Nodar
At 2019’s outset, adequate global growth and demand bode well for project logistics, but potential pitfalls also exist... -
Seismic Testing Permits Halted by Federal Judge Due to Shutdown
Jan 18, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew M. Ballard
Federal regulators can’t issue permits for seismic testing off the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast coast during the government shutdown, a U.S. district court said Jan. 18. -
All-Clean Energy Mandate by 2032 Signed Into Law in D.C. (1)
Jan 18, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) signed into law on Jan. 18 one of the most ambitious 100 percent clean energy mandates in the U.S., surpassing the renewable-energy goals of New York state, California, and Hawaii. -
Trump EPA’s Meddling with Toxic Chemicals Law Sparks Bipartisan Calls for Oversight Hearing
Jan 21, 2019 | Environmental Working Group
Concern among members of Congress over the Trump administration’s implementation of the updated federal chemicals law burst across the aisle this week, with both the top Republican and Democrat on a key House environment subcommittee... -
(ACC Mentioned) ILITA, Others Laud Congressional Extension of CFATS Program
Jan 18, 2019 | Bulk Transporter
US House and Senate leaders came together this week in 11th-hour bi-partisan approval of a 15-month extension to the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program in a decision industry groups hailed as a win. -
Halted Inspections at Sterigenics Plant Need EPA Probe: Senators
Jan 18, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Joyce
The EPA’s inspector general needs to probe whether political appointees at the agency ordered staff not to inspect potentially carcinogenic air pollution from a Willowbrook, Ill., medical sterilization facility, Senate Democrats said. -
Stopping Dangerous Oil Trains from Coming to California
Jan 21, 2019 | Earth Justice
By Elizabeth Forsyth
In 2014, the State of California convened an Interagency Rail Safety Working Group and produced a report predicting that California was on the cusp of seeing an unprecedented caravan of trains bringing oil into California. -
Utah, Industry Groups Back EPA's Move to Narrow Air Permit Review Policy
Jan 18, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Utah and groups representing major industries are backing EPA's revised policy limiting the scope of review for objections to Clean Air Act Title V operating permits by excluding analysis of other air permits contained within a Title V permit... -
Environmentalists Tout Trump's 'Abysmal' Deregulatory Court Record
Jan 21, 2019 | Inside EPA
Earthjustice, the litigation-focused environmental group, is highlighting the Trump administration's “abysmal” court record in defending deregulatory environmental actions that the group has challenged, finding that the administration has won just one of 17 cases... -
Big Names Bake a Climate Pie in the Sky
Jan 18, 2019 | Wall Street Journal
By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.
An impressive list of names endorse a carbon dividend proposal published in The Wall Street Journal this week. They include 27 Nobel Prize winners plus former Treasury secretaries, Federal Reserve chairmen and White House economists. -
Why I’m (Slightly) Less Pessimistic About Global Warming
Jan 20, 2019 | Washington Post
By Robert J. Samuelson
On global climate change, I’ve changed my mind — just slightly.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Jan 24, 2019 | Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
The purpose of the roundtable discussion is to consider the United States’ overall role in the Arctic from a domestic and international perspective, including natural resource development and environmental stewardship.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Operation Clean Sweep Faces Calls to Transform
Jan 18, 2019 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
The plastics industry's longtime voluntary program to fight pellet leakage from its factories, known as Operation Clean Sweep, is facing new pressure from governments and environmental groups.
Amid heightened concern about plastic waste in the environment, they argue that OCS needs to modernize by giving the public much more data about resin spills and move toward becoming mandatory, rather than voluntary, or find other ways to get more companies to participate.
Industry groups say they are looking at some changes. The American Chemistry Council, for example, said there are "early stage" talks about bringing OCS under the wing of the chemical industry's more demanding Responsible Care program.
The latest push for tougher action on pellet pollution came Jan. 10, with the green investor group As You Sow announcing it had filed shareholder resolutions against Chevron, DowDuPont, ExxonMobil and Phillips 66 asking for annual reports on resin spills and efforts to prevent them.
There are other, more high-profile calls for action: Both the European Union's plastics strategy and the G7 bloc's plastics charter in 2018 highlighted resin pellet pollution from factories as an important problem to tackle. Both reports pushed a so-called "whole supply chain" approach to fighting pellet pollution.
In practice, that approach can mean outside certification and some public reporting that OCS currently lacks.
Some environmental groups who have studied OCS say that while the program is good at providing best practices, keeping it voluntary has meant that only "front-running companies" sign up, which limits the impact because many companies, particularly smaller ones, can avoid participating.
"The voluntary nature of the scheme, lack of external auditing and reporting from companies signed up means it's impossible to know if the scheme is truly effective," said Madeline Berg, a marine plastics project manager with Fidra, an environmental charity based in North Berwick, Scotland. "We're certain that a legislative push will be needed to level the playing field and make sure all companies follow suit."Voluntary origins
OCS started in 1991 as a voluntary initiative of the U.S. industry to establish best practices around reducing pellet loss from factories into the environment. It's since spread worldwide. According to its website, the program's goal is zero pellet loss.
ACC, one of two groups that administers OCS in the United States, said in an email that industry is looking at ways to beef up OCS by making it part of Responsible Care, which requires companies to undergo third-party audits and report environmental, health and other data. That information is then posted on an ACC website.
"Discussions are underway to better integrate Operation Clean Sweep within Responsible Care," ACC said, although it cautioned that the discussions are "early stages" and that it's "too soon to predict what this will look like."
"Our members are fully committed to transparency and continuous improvement in all areas of performance, including preventing pellet loss," ACC said.
Oakland, Calif.-based As You Sow, however, argued that growing worry about plastic waste means that the industry needs to move much more quickly to be transparent about reporting pellet loss so the public can gauge if OCS is effective.
"We have a situation of 27 years of a supposed remediating initiative with absolutely no public disclosure, not one piece of public data released," Conrad MacKerron, As You Sow's senior vice president, said. "That's no longer tolerable given rising public concern about the volume of ocean plastics.
"A request for transparency on what best practices are being pursued, what spills have occurred, and how cleanups were managed seems eminently reasonable," MacKerron said.
Environmental regulators in California and Texas have penalized plastic companies for pellet leakage from their factories.
In the most recent case, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Jan. 16 fined resin producer Formosa Plastic Corp. USA $121,000 for excessive discharges of resin pellets from its Point Comfort plant into surrounding waterways.
The U.S. industry recently introduced an enhanced version of the program, called OCS Blue, and ACC said all of its members have committed to adopting OCS Blue by 2022 and "are exploring options for increasing rigor and transparency within the program."
The other group that administers OCS in the United States, the Plastics Industry Association, said that the OCS Blue program includes confidentiality provisions because some of the information collected through OCS Blue is proprietary to the applicant company.
European approach
In Europe, there's also been a push by environmental groups to make OCS stricter.
Fidra, for example, issued a 2017 report contending that "only a small number of companies have signed up" for OCS. It recommended that governments either take regulatory measures or have industry develop so-called "enhanced voluntary measures."
Berg said Fidra is seeing more interest from companies but still believes both legislation and a much deeper involvement throughout the plastics supply chain will be needed to achieve the stated goal of zero pellet loss.
"OCS is a useful toolkit, and we're pleased that company engagement with the scheme has increased, but it's not enough on its own to ensure zero pellet loss from such a vast industry and complex supply chain," Berg said.
As well, Cambridge, England-based environmental group Fauna & Flora International said it's been having constructive dialogue with industry groups around OCS.
It also favors the supply chain approach advocated by the European Union's plastics strategy, including an EU-wide certification, and said it's received general support from industry groups for that idea.
"The European and U.K. plastic industry trade bodies have told us that they do support a supply chain approach to pellet pollution," said Dilyana Mihaylova, FFI's marine plastics project. "We want to see all companies across the whole plastic supply chain demonstrate effective implementation of OCS through a transparent third-party assessment process."
The trade group PlasticsEurope did not respond to a request for comment, but the group issued a report on OCS in 2017 that detailed industry efforts and said pellet loss was a major concern.
It said that when it wrote the report, about 50 percent of its members, who are large resin manufacturing firms, participate in OCS but that it hoped to raise that to 100 percent by the end of 2017.
The report gave examples of actions companies had taken to reduce pellet loss and noted that PlasticsEurope was developing a reporting scheme for comparable information from all OCS signatories.
The trade group said that a reduction of pellet losses by 75 percent "can be observed" over the last several decades but said more effort is needed.
It also said it has met with FFI and Fidra to discuss pellet loss concerns, and after those discussions, OCS was included on Fidra's Great Nurdle Hunt website aimed at reducing pellet pollution.
PlasticsEurope's report also noted that it participated in a 2015 conference on microplastics put on the OSPAR Commission, a collection of 15 governments concerned about the northeast Atlantic Ocean, and made some changes to OCS based on feedback there. The group said it added more transparency and target setting to OCS.
https://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20190118/NEWS/190119876/operation-clean-sweep-faces-calls-to-transform
-
(ACC Mentioned) Statewide Bans on Plastic Bags, Straws Are on Dems’ Green To-Do List in Olympia
Jan 18, 2019 | Seattle Times
By Jake Goldstein-Street
As an Edmonds City Council member in 2009, Strom Peterson championed the city’s initiative to become the first municipality in Washington to ban plastic grocery bags. Ten years later, he’s the lead sponsor of a bill in the state Legislature to ban single-use plastic bags across the state.
HB 1205, which is supported by the Washington Hospitality Association, would prohibit retail establishments from giving customers single-use plastic carryout bags, or paper bags that do not meet recycling requirements.
With hefty majorities in both chambers of the Legislature, Democrats say the time is ripe for a shift away from the material that has polluted waters and clogged recycling centers.
“Washington is going to be on the leading edge of reducing single-use plastics,” said now Rep. Strom Peterson, D-Edmonds.
The single-use plastic bag ban is just one of several proposals being discussed in the legislative session that began Monday, including separate prohibitions on single-use plastic straws, utensils and plastic packaging, as lawmakers aim to make the environment a major talking point of 2019.
Proponents of the measures are pushing them in hopes of reducing water pollution, which was cited by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration biologists as one of the problems ailing the endangered southern resident killer whales in Puget Sound.
“We’re moving to a place where single-use plastics are recognized across Washington, and really across the world, as one of the major drivers of incredible pollution in our water quality,” said Sen. Reuven Carlyle, D-Seattle, the top Democrat in the Senate Environment, Energy, and Technology Committee and a co-sponsor of the ban’s Senate companion, SB 5323. “I think it’s simply time to find smarter ways to use recyclable paper and to use reusable bags.”
Todd Myers, the environmental director of the Washington Policy Center, disagrees that banning the material is the answer.
“I understand why people think this is a feel-good proposal, but the simple fact is that it would do more harm than good, both in terms of energy and water quality,” Myers said, citing a Danish Environmental Protection Agency study that found that plastic bags, compared to other materials such as cotton, had the lowest impact on the environment.
Matt Seaholm of the American Progressive Bag Alliance, which represents America’s plastic-bag manufacturing and recycling sector, said in a statement that “instead of banning grocery bags, Washington should focus on bolstering recycling infrastructure and raising consumer awareness to the reusability and recyclability of plastic bags.”
If the bill passes, Washington would become only the second state to ban single-use plastic bags after California took a similar step in November 2016with a voter-approved proposition. Hawaii has a de facto ban since the state’s most populous counties prohibit bags that are not biodegradable.
In California, plastic bags accounted for more than 7.4 percent of litter collected on beaches during the state’s 2010 Coastal Cleanup Day. That number dropped to 3.1 percent in 2017, down from 3.4 percent in 2016.
Sen. Tim Sheldon, a Democrat from Potlatch who caucuses with Republicans and serves on the committee overseeing the bill, believes this legislation was hastily written and he does not support it, instead favoring education on recycling. He says it is being pushed to earn the support of urban dwellers, while ignoring rural residents.
The bill, which is scheduled for a public hearing on Monday before the House Environment and Energy Committee, would be enforced on a complaint basis, and Peterson hopes it would bring compliance through education, instead of fines.
Legislators last year pushed legislation that would have placed a small tax on consumers for plastic bags, but had no success. This year’s bill includes a 10-cent charge for every recycled-content paper bag provided to customers. Such bags would be available in stores to offset the costs of moving away from single-use plastic bags. Stores could also provide a reusable 4-millimeter plastic bag for the same fee.
Meanwhile, lawmakers are also looking at a ban on single-use plastic straws with SB 5077.
Retailers that violate the legislation would face a $25 per day fine after their third offense, which could total up to $300 per year.
Seattle is believed to be the first major American city to ban single-use plastic straws, doing so in July 2018. And large companies, such as Starbucks, Disney and American Airlines, have already decided to phase out plastic straws in favor of paper straws.
Even Peterson’s restaurant, the Cheesemonger’s Table in downtown Edmonds, moved away from plastic straws more than a year ago, he said.
One factor supporters of the bill have had to take into account is the effect of a plastic-straw ban on people with disabilities, who rely on them over compostable straws. This was solved in Seattle by allowing flexible plastic straws to be provided to customers for medical reasons.
The bill, which is set to have a public hearing on Thursday before the Senate Environment, Energy and Technology Committee, orders the state Department of Health and the Department of Social and Health Services to consult with stakeholders on how to address the need for plastic straws in health-care facilities and for individuals with disabilities.
Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon, D-West Seattle, chair of the House Environment and Energy Committee, doesn’t think Washington is ready for a statewide ban on plastic straws. He believes that a bill that would allow them only upon request is more likely, much like a policy just enacted in California that prohibits sit-down restaurants from providing plastic straws unless customers explicitly ask for them.
The American Chemistry Council, the lobbying arm of the plastics industry, said in a statement that “the most appropriate policy is to allow customers to request a straw when needed.” The council declined to comment on the proposed ban on single-use plastic bags.
Fitzgibbon, who introduced legislation to regulate checkout bags as far back as 2011 with little success, feels that ban is more suitable for the state given the support of local governments, including the cities of Seattle and Tacoma, which have already approved prohibitions in recent years.
Similarly, Northwest Grocery Association lobbyist Holly Chisa says the organization is in favor of a plastic-bag ban because it wants a statewide standard that would make it more consistent for both customers and employees. Kroger Co. has already begun voluntarily phasing out plastic bags at some Washington QFC stores, according to The Associated Press.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/dems-green-agenda-in-legislature-includes-attempts-to-ban-single-use-plastic-bags-straws/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trade Groups Mobilize to Fight Shutdown
Jan 21, 2019 | PoliticoPro
By Theodoric Meyer
With David Beavers and Daniel Lippman
TRADE GROUPS MOBILIZE AGAINST SHUTDOWN: Washington trade groups, frustrated by a partial government shutdown that seems to have no end in sight, are fighting back. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has circulated a draft letter to other trade associations that it plans to send to President Donald Trump and members of Congress urging them to “immediately take steps to restore the full operation of the federal government.” “The current shutdown — now the longest in American history — is causing significant and in some cases lasting damage to families, businesses and the economy as a whole,” reads the letter, which was obtained by PI.
— The American Hotel & Lodging Association, meanwhile, sent an “action alert” to its members on Wednesday asking them to “urge your elected officials to work in a bipartisan fashion with the Administration to find a solution and end the shutdown.” “Domestic travel is a significant driver of our nation's economy and our industry, along with many others, is being significantly impacted by the government shutdown,” Brian Crawford, the trade group’s top lobbyist, wrote in the message.
FIRST IN PI — FORMER WEXLER | WALKER STAFFERS LAND AT REPUBLIC CONSULTING: Several former staffers at Wexler | Walker have joined Republic Consulting after their former firm was shut down at the close of 2018 by its parent company, the British conglomerate WPP. George Robb Rogers, Wexler | Walker’s former chief executive, will run Republic with former Rep. Geoff Davis (R-Ky.) as managing partners. Davis started Republic in 2012 with Hunter Bates, a former chief of staff to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who later left for Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. He had partnered with Wexler | Walker on some matters for the past couple of years.
— Republic has signed a dozen former Wexler | Walker lobbying clients, including the Mortgage Bankers Association and WW International, the company formerly known as Weight Watchers. Other Wexler | Walker veterans who have joined Republic include Jody Hoffman and Tom Carpenter, who will be senior partners; Dale Snape, who will be a senior adviser; former Rep. Bob Walker(R-Pa.), who will be a strategic partner; and Natalie Nehme, who will be a senior associate. “I am excited to formalize our relationship,” Davis said in a statement, noting that he had worked with Rogers since Davis was a congressman and Rogers was a congressional staffer.
Good afternoon, and welcome to PI. This newsletter will be off on Monday for Martin Luther King Jr. Day. We’ll be back at it on Tuesday. Tips always appreciated: tmeyer@politico.com. You can also follow me on Twitter: @theodoricmeyer.
SKADDEN SAYS IT MISLED JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ON UKRAINE WORK: Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom “admitted to misleading the Justice Department about its work with Paul Manafort on behalf of the Ukrainian government and agreed to hand over nearly $4.7 million in a settlement made public Thursday,” POLITICO’s Theodoric Meyer reports. Manafort helped to hire the law firm in 2012 to produce “a report on the prosecution of former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. Her imprisonment had led to international condemnation of Viktor Yanukovych, the Ukrainian president at the time and Manafort’s patron.”
— “When the report was finished, a Skadden partner reached out to a “national newspaper” to set up a call with a lobbyist for Ukraine, according to the settlement. But when the Justice Department sought to determine whether the firm needed to register as a foreign agent under U.S. law, Skadden, relying on the partner’s representations, misled the Justice Department about the partner’s contact with the media and submitted false documents, according to the settlement. … The settlement doesn’t name the Skadden partner, but it appears to be Greg Craig, a former White House counsel under President Barack Obama who led the Ukraine work.” Full story.
THREE MOVE UP AT PECK MADIGAN JONES: Peck Madigan Jones has made Drew Cantor, Andrew McKechnie and Jeffrey Shapiro equity owners in the firm. All three are former Republican congressional staffers. They joinJonathon Jones, Harold Ickes and Jeff Peck on the firm’s board.
AEI TAPS DOAR AS NEXT PRESIDENT: “The American Enterprise Institute has selected Robert Doar as its new president, elevating the veteran government administrator and poverty scholar to an influential perch within the conservative movement and policy circles,” The Washington Post’s Robert Costa reports. “Doar, 57, will succeed Arthur C. Brooks, who has served as AEI’s president for the past decade and put an emphasis on drawing Republican leaders’ attention to poverty issues.”
— “One of those Republicans, former House speaker Paul Ryan, had been floated by his allies as a possible candidate for the job. But Ryan declined those entreaties because he lives in Wisconsin and is pursuing various political and service projects, according to a person close to him who was not authorized to speak publicly.” Full story.
TRADE GROUPS ASK FOR CLIMATE CHANGE GUIDANCE: “Business groups are asking the White House to direct federal agencies to consider climate change in environmental reviews because the lack of any formal guidance is hindering progress on natural gas pipelines and other energy projects,” POLITICO’s Zack Colman reports. “At issue is the Council on Environmental Quality’s guidance on greenhouse gas emissions under the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires federal agencies to certify that their activities would not have an adverse effect on ecosystems or public health.
— President Donald Trump rescinded the Obama administration’s version two months after taking office, but his administration has not offered a replacement in the nearly two years since. Industry lobbyists say they are optimistic that they will see progress on the guidance now that [Council on Environmental Quality] chief Mary Neumayr has been confirmed, but the ongoing government shutdown has hindered work on the project. … Groups including the American Petroleum Institute, National Association of Manufacturers and Interstate Natural Gas Association of America have reached out to the White House urging it to release new guidance.” Full story.
JOBS REPORT
— The International Franchise Association has hired Lauren Pfingstag as associate director of government relations and public policy. She was previously an aide to Sen. Angus King (I-Maine). The trade group also promoted Rikki Amosto executive director of its educational foundation.
— Mark Bescher has joined Mondelēz as its U.S. government relations lead. He was previously a lobbyist for Unilever.
SPOTTED: At 46 Minna in San Francisco Thursday night for the opening ofMonument Advocacy’s new office there, according to a PI tipster: Jarryd Davis of Zillow; Pierson Stoecklein of Filld; Demetrios Marantis of Visa;Vince Sollitto of Yelp; Vikrum Aiyer of Postmates; Courtney Gillespie of TaskRabbit; Nick Pickles of Twitter; Jaclyn Louis of Intel; and Stewart Verdery, Gideon Lett, Tim Punke, Chan Park and Stacey Hutchinson of Monument.NEW JOINT FUNDRAISERS
NoneNEW PACS
Centered Citizens Alliance (Super PAC)
Alliance Party of Tennessee (PAC)
Centered Citizens Alliance (Super PAC)
Korean Americans in Action Political Fund (PAC)
SEPA4SEPA (PAC)NEW LOBBYING REGISTRATIONSCGM Advisors, LLC: 3Cinteracive
Clark Hill, PLC: Poly-Technical Solutions, Ltd.
Envision Strategy: Avaya Government Solutions
Envision Strategy: Childrens Law Center of California
Ervin Hill Strategy: The Tethys Group
Holland & Knight LLP: Mandan, Hidatsa & Arikara Nation
Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP: Freepoint Commodities LLC
Keller Partners & Company: Grace Christian University
Keller Partners & Company: The Durst Organization
Keys Group, LLC: Propel
Miller & Chevalier, Chtd: MoneyGram International Inc.
Rasky Partners, Inc.: Andiscern
Republic Consulting, LLC: ABB, Inc.
Republic Consulting, LLC: CFA Institute
Republic Consulting, LLC: Finicity
Republic Consulting, LLC: IQVIA
Republic Consulting, LLC: Kelly Services
Republic Consulting, LLC: Mortgage Bankers Association
Republic Consulting, LLC: National Association of Affordable Housing Lenders
Republic Consulting, LLC: National Association of Software and Services Companies (NASSCOM)
Republic Consulting, LLC: National Association of State High School Associations
Republic Consulting, LLC: Personal Connected Health Alliance
Republic Consulting, LLC: Workiva
Republic Consulting, LLC: WW International (formerly known as Weight Watchers)
The Raben Group: Cannabis Trade FederationNEW LOBBYING TERMINATIONS9b Group, Inc.: Holland Knight obo Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Abernathy Consultants, Cathy: Account Control Technology, Inc.
Alcalde & Fay: Fresno County CA
American Capitol Group: National Corn Growers Assocaiton
American Capitol Group: The Cormac Group, on Behalf of Steiner Leisure Ltd.
APCO Worldwide LLC: StrategEast
APCO Worldwide LLC: Tin Thanh Electricity Steam Industrial Corp.
APCO Worldwide LLC: ZHS IP Americas Sarl
Arent Fox LLP: The Wilderness Society
Ballard Partners: Mjalli Investment Group USA
Ballard Partners: Salcedo Attorneys at Law, P.A.
BC Consulting, LLC: JB Hunt Transport
Bracewell LLP: Andeavor (Formerly Tesoro Refining Company)
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney Pc: PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC
Capitol Legislative Strategies LLC: National Restaurant Association
Capitol Legislative Strategies LLC: PJC Investments
Carpi & Clay, Inc.: Indio Water Authority
Chamber Hill Strategies: Abbott Laboratories
Chamber Hill Strategies: Association of Air Medical Services
Chamber Hill Strategies: Avadel Pharmaceuticals
Chamber Hill Strategies: Caravan Health (Formerly Known As The National Rural Aco)
Chamber Hill Strategies: Smiths Group
Cozen O'Connor Public Strategies: Firstrust Bank
Davidoff Hutcher & Citron, LLP: Davidsohn Global Technologies
Davidoff Hutcher & Citron, LLP: H2O Engineering Inc
Davidoff Hutcher & Citron, LLP: Ponce Health Sciences University
Davis & Harman LLP: American Horse Council Inc
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP: 340B Health
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP: Ovarian Cancer Research Fund Alliance
Federal Science Partners LLC: American Society of Anesthesiologists
Hess Corporation: Hess Corporation
Hoboken Strategy Group: Stevens Institute of Technology
Hogan Lovells US LLP: Delfin LNG
Hogan Lovells US LLP: Gas Technology Institute
Hogan Lovells US LLP: Pritikin Longevity Center & Spa
Hogan Lovells US LLP: Reuland Electric Company
Hogan Lovells US LLP: Vertical Infrastucture [sic] Coalition
Holland & Knight LLP: Netafim Ltd.
Holland & Knight LLP: Wix.com, Inc.
Jahanian Strategies LLC: Intel Corporation
Jahanian Strategies LLC: The Washington Tax & Public Policy Group on behalf of the Tax Reform Coalition
Jahanian Strategies LLC: WTPPG on Behalf of Alliance for Biopharmaceutical Competitiveness & Innovation
Kilpatrick Townsend Stockton LLP: Buck Knives
Manatt, Phelps, and Phillips: Change Healthcare F/K/A Altegra Health
McAllister & Quinn, LLC: Fontbonne University
McAllister & Quinn, LLC: National Aquarium
McDermott Will & Emery LLP: IFO Group, LLC
McDermott Will & Emery LLP: Intuit, Inc.
Miller Strategies, LLC: BlueGreen Preservation and Development, LLC
Miller Strategies, LLC: Practical Employee Solutions
Ml Strategies, LLC: National Association of Health and Educational Facilities Finance Authorities
National Industrial Sand Association: National Industrial Sand Association
Olsson, Frank, Weeda, Terman & Matz, PC: Diageo North America
Olsson, Frank, Weeda, Terman & Matz, PC: National Pork Producers Council
Olsson, Frank, Weeda, Terman & Matz, PC: North American Meat Institute
Olsson, Frank, Weeda, Terman & Matz, PC: Rolling Plains Cotton Growers, Inc.
Olsson, Frank, Weeda, Terman & Matz, PC: United Fresh Produce Association
PACE, LLP (Formerly PACE-CAPSTONE): Vets Advocacy, Inc.
Plurus Strategies, LLC: CSC Holdings, LLC
Plurus Strategies, LLC: ML Strategies, LLC (on behalf of NAHEFFA)
Poyner Spruill LLP: American College of Sports Medicine, Inc.
Rich Feuer Anderson: Blockchain (US) Inc.
SCANA Corporation: SCANA Corporation
Schumacher Partners International, LLC: American Chemistry Council
Schumacher Partners International, LLC: Vinyl Institute
SMW Partners, LLC: Comcast Corporation
SMW Partners, LLC: Roberti Global on behalf of Nord Stream 2 AG
Strategies 360: ARES North America
Strategies 360: City of Lake Stevens
Strategies 360: Itek Energy
Strategies 360: Native American Financial Services Association
The Glover Park Group LLC: Hikvision, USA Inc.
The Glover Park Group LLC: Liberman Broadcasting
The Glover Park Group LLC: Sanofi U.S. Services Inc.
The Ingram Group LLC: Blyncsy, Inc.
The Sheridan Group: One Action
The Sheridan Group: Save the Children Action Network (SCAN)
The Smith-Free Group, LLC: Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company
The Washington Tax & Public Policy Group (formerly The Washington Tax Group): Allianz Real Estate of America LLC
Timmons Consulting: Patient Services Inc.
Winning Strategies Washington: General Dynamics
Winning Strategies Washington: WellCarehttps://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-influence/2019/01/18/trade-groups-mobilize-to-fight-shutdown-379531
-
EPA Shutdown Stymies Looming TSCA Assessment, Rule Deadlines
Jan 18, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
The nearly month-long shutdown of EPA and other agencies is hampering the agency's ability to comply with a host of looming statutory deadlines that Congress set in the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), raising the stakes that officials will miss targets to assess chemicals, complete rulemakings or approve new chemical uses.
“As [EPA] is currently closed due to the lapse in appropriations, EPA has ceased all work reviewing new and existing chemicals under the [TSCA],” Richard Engler and Margaret Graham, both with the law firm Bergeson & Campbell, said in a Jan. 2 blog post.
The authors note that while EPA is accepting submissions for new chemicals, it will not process them until it reopens. “We are unaware of EPA publishing a formal notice that it is suspending the review period of new chemical notices, but EPA will not be making any determinations on such notices during the shutdown. Submitters should continue to submit any required information (e.g., Notices of Commencement) even though EPA will not process or review such submissions,” it says.
The shutdown began Dec. 21, though EPA continued operations on reserve funds through Dec. 28. It shows no sign of ending, with House Democrats pushing bills to reopen EPA and other federal agencies despite a veto threat from President Donald Trump who refuses to reopen the government unless Democrats grant his request for $5.7 billion to fund a U.S.-Mexico border wall and other measures.
And its effects are widespread, given thousands of EPA employees who have not worked -- or worked without pay -- since late December, with some forced to consider seeking outside employment.
Acting EPA chief Andrew Wheeler has acknowledged some delays due to the shutdown, telling senators at his Jan. 16 confirmation hearing that the shutdown has “slightly” delayed a series of actions, including a TSCA regulatory package addressing methylene chloride in paint strippers.
While the methylene chloride rule is not subject to a statutory deadline, the revised law, enacted in 2016, set a host of deadlines for EPA, ranging from almost immediate actions to some as far out as five years after enactment. The law also includes a series of important deadlines hitting the three year mark -- which fall in June to December 2019.
Looming over the agenda is the statutory requirement that EPA complete its first 10 risk evaluations of existing chemicals -- those that were on the market when the original TSCA was enacted in 1976, plus the chemicals that EPA has allowed onto the inventory since -- within three years, a deadline that falls on Dec. 22, 2019.
The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), which is conducting the assessments, committed to releasing draft assessments for public comment and peer review.
In order to complete those processes before the December 2019 deadline, OPPT has indicated that it intended to release the draft assessments in December 2018 or early 2019. So far, EPA has released just one draft assessment, of pigment violet 29. With EPA shut down, is it unclear when the agency will complete and release the other nine drafts.
“Given the shutdown, the drafts are obviously delayed, which will put a strain on EPA's ability to meet the deadline,” Javaneh Nekoomaram, an associate at Keller & Heckman, said during the law firm's Jan. 9 webinar.
Comments on the PV29 assessment were due Jan. 14, and EPA had scheduled its peer review for Jan. 29-Feb. 1, but the meeting has been postponed because of the shutdown. It is unclear when it will be rescheduled.
Next 20 Chemicals
Nekoomaram said that another fast approaching announcement from EPA pertains to its selection of the next 20 existing chemicals that it expects to evaluate.
OPPT will “also be extremely busy with chemical prioritization,” in 2019, she noted, as the agency faces statutory deadlines of designating 20 high- and 20 low-priority chemicals by the end of the year. The statute lays out a nine to 12 month process for prioritizing chemicals, and so to meet that time line, “between now and March, we should see EPA nominating chemicals” for prioritization, with final selections by year's end.
Observers are also waiting for EPA to publish its updated TSCA inventory, the list of all existing chemicals, after receiving submissions from industry on which chemicals are deemed active -- manufactured, processed or imported within the past decade -- or inactive. Its publication will start a clock on yet another rulemaking.
EPA's framework rule on the TSCA inventory and confidential business information (CBI) “requires that within one year of publishing the final active/inactive Inventory, EPA must promulgate a rule describing its plan to require submitters to substantiate CBI claims made on active notice submissions and to review claims for confidential substance identities,” Bergeson & Campbell's Forecast 2019 states. At last count in April, the inventory contains some 38,303 active substances, the Forecast adds.
The firm's Forecast also notes that EPA faces a June 22 statutory deadline to propose section 6(a) risk management action on a group of persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals outlined in section 6(h). EPA has identified five chemicals matching this PBT definition that it plans to address under this provision.
“The proposed rule that must be issued by June 2019 will represent another of the important developments in 2019, as they will be the first use by the Trump Administration of the new regulatory authority and requirements under sections 6(a) and (c) of the amended law,” the Forecast states.
Bergeson & Campbell also notes that EPA has indicated that it is working on a proposed rule to revise its Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule, one of its primary sources of exposure information for industrial chemicals in the U.S. The Forecast notes that these changes must come quickly, because the next CDR reporting cycle is slated for 2020.
“EPA is expected to incorporate updates to the small manufacturer definition for purposes of CDR. In addition, EPA may be proposing additional reporting elements related to required reporting of chemicals that are recycled or processed,” the Forecast states. “While these changes may be helpful to the reporting community, it is imperative that EPA move quickly with its proposals so stakeholders are fully educated well before the next reporting cycle in 2020."
The Forecast also predicts “it is likely, given the completion in 2018 or the 'framework rules' … that Section 4 testing actions will be taken in 2019.”
EPA's failure to issue any testing rules since the reformed TSCA gave EPA greater authority to do so has chafed at environmentalists and other critics, who have questioned whether EPA has sufficient information to conduct risk evaluations or make prioritization decisions about existing chemicals without gathering more information about chemicals' toxicity. And EPA officials have indicated that they may not prioritize a chemical for evaluation if it has insufficient information, because of the tight time line for risk evaluation that the formal prioritization process triggers.
The Forecast describes it as “somewhat surprising that EPA has not yet used its new order authority under section 4. EPA has focused instead on issuing section 5(e) testing requirements on individual new chemical submitters. The inability of EPA to require testing under old TSCA was one of the primary issues of concern in amending the law. While industry may not relish being subject to testing, EPA needs to utilize the tools afforded to it by Congress to help address data gaps more equitably and improve the knowledge of hazard and exposure to chemicals.”
The firm also predicts that EPA will move quickly in 2019 to finalize its proposed significant new use rule (SNUR) on certain uses of asbestos, which EPA proposed last June along with the scoping documents for its first 10 evaluations, of which asbestos is one. The Forecast notes that the most recent unified agenda listed a final rule as scheduled this month, adding, “[g]iven all the issues and attention focused on asbestos under TSCA, we expect that this rule will be promulgated during the first quarter of 2019.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-shutdown-stymies-looming-tsca-assessment-rule-deadlines
-
EPA's Fee Rule Takes Effect Without Suit, A First For TSCA Framework
Jan 21, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA's rule setting user fees for chemical manufacturers and processors to fund agency actions under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has taken effect without a challenge from environmentalists or other parties, marking the only one of the agency's four TSCA framework rules to take effect without facing a lawsuit.
EPA Oct. 17 published its final rule establishing a fee structure to defray up to 25 percent of the costs of implementing several key TSCA programs, such as new and existing chemical reviews, issuing test orders, and weighing claims of confidential business information or up to $25 million, whichever number is lower.
The rule took effect Oct. 18, giving any potential challengers 60 days -- until Dec. 18 -- to file suit. It applies to “all submissions that are received starting October 1, 2018,” EPA's Federal Register notice states. But the legal deadline passed without a challenge, clearing the way for the agency to continue implementing it.
The lack of a challenge to the rule may give EPA some needed bandwidth as its Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) is already struggling to meet a host of deadlines under the reformed TSCA statute -- even as the month-long government shutdown further hampers the agency's efforts.
The rule is the last of four TSCA “framework rules” that implement the updated statute's broadened authority for EPA.
The first three rules, describing how EPA will prioritize existing chemicals for risk analysis, evaluate them, and maintain an inventory of existing chemicals, were finalized in 2017 to meet statutory deadlines. The fees rule, however, had no such deadline, despite its importance for the OPPT's operations.
Each of the first three rules have faced legal challenges from environmentalists, generally arguing that the Trump EPA is not complying with statutory requirements.
For example, suits challenging the risk evaluation rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit charge that the agency is not complying with the legal mandate to assess all risks after the agency declined to assess risks from legacy uses or risks already regulated by other programs and agencies.
But parties' decisions to allow the fees rule to advance without a legal challenge is a surprise, especially given competing criticisms from industry and environmentalists over the formula EPA used to calculate fees, with some suggesting a proposed version of the rule was unlawful because it did not adequately cover the agency's costs.
The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), for example, was particularly critical of the fee rule, arguing that OPPT had underestimated the cost of the TSCA program, and therefore, the amount of fees needed to sustain it.
EDF's Richard Denison tells Inside EPA that the group did not file a suit over the fees rule, though he declined to comment on why.
Another environmentalist described the decision not to challenge the fees as “a matter of priorities and the type of issues being raised.”
Legal Limits
Several industry sources say that environmentalists may not have challenged the rule because of potential legal hurdles they may have faced.
James Votaw, a partner with the law firm Keller and Heckman, tells Inside EPA that environmentalists likely did not file suit because any challenge from environmentalists would have been “pretty speculative” as the rule “does not directly implicate any” environmental non-government organization (NGO) interests.
“It seems the only risk to EDF’s interests would be that the absence of fees would deprive EPA of the resources needed to do its work (e.g., risk evaluations) in a timely way. Pretty speculative,” Votaw says.
“And there are enforceable deadlines for completing chemical reviews so the [groups] would have recourse if the risk became manifest,” he adds.
Kathleen Roberts, a senior regulatory consultant at the law firm Bergeson & Campbell, suggested that the clarity of the statute regarding fees dissuaded critics from challenging EPA's final rule. “I believe that there were no challenges because the legislative language is very clear as to how much EPA could collect in TSCA fees. The only question was how the fees would be split between Section 4, 5, and 6 [activities],” Roberts tells Inside EPA.
“Industry stakeholders may not be pleased in paying additional fees, but they knew it was coming,” Roberts adds. “NGOs might want industry to pay more, but the legislation limits what can be collected. Presumably, [environmentalists] do not care how the fees are split among the TSCA sections as long as the funding is provided.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epas-fee-rule-takes-effect-without-suit-first-tsca-framework
-
(ACC Mentioned) Governor Rejects Flame Retardants Bill
Jan 20, 2019 | Somerville Times
By Bob Katzen
Gov. Baker did not sign a bill that would ban 11 toxic flame retardants from children’s products, bedding, carpeting and residential upholstered furniture sold or manufactured in Massachusetts, except for inventory already manufactured prior to January 1, 2019. He was unable to propose any amendments to it because the 2017-2018 session ended on January 1 and the Legislature would not be able to act on the amendments.
“I will continue to stand with families and first responders in our state and will be refiling this bill next session,” said Senate co-sponsor of the measure Sen. Cindy Creem (D-Newton).
The bill requires the Department of Environmental Protection to review, at least every three years, chemical flame retardants used in these products and include them on the list of prohibited chemical flame retardants that are documented to pose a health risk. Vehicles, watercraft and aircraft are exempt from this law as are any previously-owned product that contains a retardant. Violators would be fined up to $5,000 for a first offense and up to $50,000 for subsequent offenses.
In his message to the Legislature, Baker said that he supports the elimination of flame-retardant chemicals from various household and children’s products when those chemicals are unnecessary and toxic but cannot sign the bill in its current form. “Had this bill been presented to me while the Legislature was still in session, I would have returned it with an amendment to address [my] concerns,” Baker said. “Unfortunately, because the Legislature has adjourned, I do not have that option.”
“This bill would make Massachusetts the only state in the United States to ban certain flame retardants in car seats and the non-foam parts of adult mattresses, products already subject to federal flammability requirement,” continued Baker. “In addition, this ban would go into effect in less than five months, cutting the lead time for manufacturers by more than half as compared to the full year provided in the legislation as originally filed. The resulting disruption to what is available to consumers in Massachusetts would likely have a disproportionate impact on families with lower incomes who are less able to afford more expensive alternatives.”
“Gov. Baker has chosen to stand on the side of the trade industries and not with the thousands of firefighters, children and mothers who are at risk every day of cancer,” said the bill’s House sponsor Rep. Marjorie Decker (D-Cambridge).
Today Massachusetts had the opportunity to make our homes safer for children, firefighters and families by taking the simple step of banning toxic flame retardants from certain home products,” said Senate co-sponsor of the bill Sen. Cindy Creem (D-Newton). “However, because [the governor] vetoed this important bill, firefighters and children continue to remain at risk for cancer and other health problems caused by these harmful chemicals.”
Industry opponents of the bill include the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association, the American Chemistry Council, International Sleep Products Association, the American Home Furnishings Alliance and Boston Bed Company.
They say that some of the banned chemicals can be used safely and that prohibiting them is not necessary and would drive up costs for consumers who would have to buy more expensive alternative products. They note it would also hurt Massachusetts businesses.
The industry lobbied heavily to defeat the bill. They argued that flame retardants are still an effective tool to combat fire risk. “We understand and support preventing exposure to dangerous chemicals; however, [the bill] goes too far and could endanger children’s lives,” wrote Kelly Mariotti, executive director of Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association.
https://www.thesomervilletimes.com/archives/89044
-
California’s Crusade Against Receipts Is Pointless
Jan 18, 2019 | Bloomberg
By Adam Minter
Can grandstanding empty the oceans of plastics and the landfills of trash?
For the last five years, California's been conducting an experiment to find out. In 2016, the state enacted a limited plastic-bag ban. This year, a new law forbids most restaurants from distributing plastic straws unless requested by a customer. Next up? A San Francisco lawmaker has introduced legislation to ban paper receipts unless a customer specifically asks for one. If adopted, proponents argue, the environmental and health benefits will be significant.
In reality, the “Skip the Slip” measure would have almost no impact on either. Instead, like the plastic-straw ban that preceded it, and which it emulates, the receipt ban is simply another low-impact environmental campaign that asks little of Californians and will accomplish less. Worse, it diverts attention and effort from bigger and far more pressing waste and recycling issues that are negatively impacting the state right now.
One reason campaigns such as these gain public traction is that they appear to have data on their side. For example, according to a widely cited May 2018 report authored by Green America, the organization that inspired the “Skip the Slip” crusade, receipts in the U.S. consume 10 million trees and 21 billion gallons of water, while generating 686 million pounds of waste and 12 billion pounds of CO2. In addition, they cite studies showing that 93 percent of paper receipts are coated in BPA or BPS -- endocrine-disrupting chemicals associated with plastic manufacture and subject to high-profile campaigns by parents who want to eliminate them from children's products.
But, as with straws, the data and assumptions behind the receipt campaign look shaky. In 2018, the FDA issued preliminary findings from a multi-year study of BPA in which it found that "currently authorized uses of BPA continue to be safe for consumers." Meanwhile, receipt manufacturers have been shifting to BPA alternatives for several years now.
The widely circulated claims about the environmental impacts of paper receipts are even more suspect. For example, Green America’s estimate of how many paper receipts are produced for Americans came from a now-defunct electronic receipt company and "likely assessed production for 2009 or 2010," according to a Green America representative. The group plans to update its report using 2015 data that suggests only half as much paper -- 314,000 tons -- is used in receipt-making. That would presumably also slash their estimate of 10 million felled trees to five million, and 12 billion pounds of CO2 to six billion.
Those might still sound like big numbers. But, in context, they're not. Even 314,000 tons of paper receipts amount to less than .08 percent of the more than 400 million tons of all paper products -- receipts to cardboard -- used globally on an annual basis. Paper receipts, as anybody in California can surmise by taking a look at their recycling and trash bins, are rounding errors (and shrinking rounding errors, at that, thanks to the rise of digital payments).
What’s really filling up California's trash bins? Increasingly, it's cardboard and other packaging left over from e-commerce shipments. In 2017, a spokesperson for Recology Inc., San Francisco’s recycling contractor, calledthis the "Amazon Effect" and blamed it for the company's surge in spending on new routes and additional labor, trucks and other equipment. A few weeks later the city approved a 14 percent hike in garbage fees to help cover the new costs. One analyst expects the global market for e-commerce packaging to grow 14 percent annually through 2022.
Ideally, all that cardboard could be recycled at no extra cost to anyone. But, last year, China -- the biggest buyer of California's recycling -- slammed the door on many imported recyclables. State recycling programs that were once self-sustaining, and even profitable, started losing money, raising ratesand seeking new locations for their trash -- including landfills.
In time, California might yet find somewhere new to sell all its Amazon boxes. But, the current situation should alarm environmentalists and spur serious proposals (how about making it easier for paper mills and plastics recyclers to set up shop in California?) to create sustainable, long-term solutions to the state’s waste and recycling problems.
Bans on paper receipts and straws are not those proposals. In fact, by requiring so little of California consumers -- forgo a slip of paper! -- they prove their lack of seriousness and only serve to distract the state from addressing one of its most complex issues. Advocates who are serious about addressing California’s current and future environmental challenges will skip such campaigns.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-18/california-s-paper-receipt-ban-won-t-save-the-environment
-
Jan 18, 2019 | DeSmog
By Steve Horn
Near the end of 2018, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) hired the leading promoter within academia of a massive and multi-faceted petrochemical complex proposed for West Virginia. A month later, the agency issued a report favoring the construction of such a complex.
On November 9, the Energy Department’s National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) named as its new director former West Virginia University Professor Brian Anderson.
NETL, which spearheads federal energy-related research and development (R&D) efforts, is currently deciding whether to grant $1.9 billion in R&D money toward building out the proposed petrochemical complex, known as the Appalachian Storage Hub.
The storage hub, say its proponents, will compete with the Gulf Coast-based petrochemical hub of Mont Belvieu and perhaps even have a pricing index for traders.
Those alarmed by the prospect of the hub point to the fact that towns along the Gulf of Mexico have higher rates of cancer. Some call that dense stretch of petroleum refineries and petrochemical plants near the Gulf the “Petrochemical Corridor,” while locals call it “Cancer Alley.”
Critics also say the project could further drive up demand for hydraulic fracturing — or “fracking” — of natural gas within the nearby Marcellus Shale and Utica Shale basins.
As DeSmog has reported in an ongoing investigative series titled “Fracking for Plastics,” the Appalachian hub is just one piece of a broader plan for the petrochemical industry's ambitions to transform the Appalachian region into a cutting-edge, fossil-fueled storage and refining epicenter. That could spell serious consequences for worsening the impacts of climate change.Report to Congress
Just a few short weeks after announcing Anderson's hiring, the Energy Department published a report titled, “Report to Congress: Ethane Storage and Distribution Hub in the United States,” and mandated by the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill of 2017.
“The Department is directed to issue a report on the feasibility of establishing an ethane storage and distribution hub in the United States, given the increased production of natural gas liquids (NGLs) from shale developments and recognizing that ethane is the largest component of those NGLs,” the 2017 bill reads. “The report should examine potential locations, economic feasibility, economic benefits, geologic storage capabilities, above ground storage capabilities, infrastructure needs, and benefits to energy security.”Moving NETL’s Needle
Anderson, during his tenure at West Virginia University, founded and headed the school’s Energy Institute. In the DOE press release announcing his new position with NETL, he did not mention his past promotion of the petrochemical hub — which in large part is represented by an $83 billion partnership between West Virginia and China — though the release does call out his involvement in “pav[ing] the pathway” for a partnership between the two countries.
“I am honored and humbled at the opportunity to serve as the director of the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL),” said Anderson. “The work that is being conducted at NETL is critical to advancing technologies that will transform the use and production of our nation’s vast coal, natural gas, and oil resources to protect our environment and enhance our nation’s energy security. I look forward to working with the talented and dedicated team at NETL to continue the lab’s efforts as the gold standard in advancing energy research and development.”
While Anderson did not mention his ties to the proposed petrochemical complex — which include serving as a former executive for the Appalachian Development Group, the firm which applied for the $1.9 billion Energy Department grant his office is now considering — he did receive questions about his work promoting the hub from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
“As the Appalachian storage hub keeps moving forward,” he told the newspaper, “I’m certainly replaceable. It’s something that I still support, but I’m not involved in any of that anymore.”
But just a month after beginning his federal job, Anderson nearly reneged on his statement about removing himself from involvement.
A preliminary schedule for the January 10, 2019 West Virginia Energy Infrastructure Summit lists him as one of the speakers, slotted to speak about energy infrastructure immediately after Steve Hedrick, CEO of the Appalachian Development Group.
Hedrick, who spoke at the forum about the petrochemical hub, is currently under investigation by a special counsel, former U.S. Attorney Mike Carey. West Virginia Governor Jim Justice hired Carey to investigate Hedrick’s potential use of state funds when he joined an official delegation to China. The investigation will probe whether he used the trip as a means of enriching himself and his business.
Ultimately, Anderson did not speak at the January event and did not respond to a request for comment for this story.
DOE spokeswoman Kelly Love told DeSmog that the agency did a comprehensive background check and cleared Anderson, though he will also recuse himself from issues in which he carries a conflict of interest.
“The Department follows all federal laws and ethics requirements regarding onboarding new employees,” explained Love. “The employee in question has been counseled regarding recusal from matters relating to past employers.”Report Unveiled to Shadow Lobby
The DOE’s report touting the potential for a fossil-fueled petrochemical hub in Appalachia was unfurled where else but in the belly of the beast of the oil and gas industry. That is, at the annual meeting in Washington, D.C., for the National Petroleum Council, a body overseen by the Energy Department and created in 1946 under President Harry Truman.
The Petroleum Council, in essence, acts as a collective of oil and gas industry executives who distill their priorities during meetings in Washington alongside top Energy Department officials. The council's office sits on K Street, the heart of lobbying within the nation’s capital. One of the most recent examples of its work, produced during the Obama era, was a report calling for greenlighting offshore drilling in the Arctic.
“There is an incredible opportunity to establish an ethane storage and distribution hub in the Appalachian region and build a robust petrochemical industry in Appalachia,” U.S. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry said at the National Petroleum Council meeting while introducing the report on the potential petrochemical hub.
“As our report shows, there is sufficient global need, and enough regional resources, to help the U.S. gain a significant share of the global petrochemical market. The Trump administration would also support an Appalachia hub to strengthen our energy and manufacturing security by increasing our geographic production diversity.”
The Energy Department report explicitly points to the prospective Appalachian petrochemical hub as a complement to the one along the Gulf Coast.
“[M]arket analysis from the report emphasizes that the development of an Appalachian hub may offer a competitive advantage for the U.S. to gain global petrochemical market share while not being in conflict with Gulf Coast expansion,” explains the press release outlining the paper. “The report explains that a new Appalachian hub would enhance the geographic diversity of the vital U.S. petrochemical industrial sector, supporting U.S. economic security.”
While the report outlines the broad contours of a potential large-scale petrochemical storage and refining market — refining which would transpire at what the industry calls “cracking” plants — some West Virginia and Ohio congressional delegates have called for additional studies to further detail what such a build-out would look like.
These calls have come through the sponsorship and introduction of the Appalachian Ethane Storage Hub Study Act. The bill, which has yet to move far beyond the introduction phase, has received federal lobbying support from Shell and the American Chemistry Council, the former of which is building a major cracking facility to produce plastics in Pennsylvania and the latter is a collective of oil, gas, and petrochemical companies using their considerable lobbying prowess to push for the hub's creation.
The day that the DOE released its report, the American Chemistry Council released a glowing press statement about its contents.
“We welcome DOE’s report, which affirms that the Appalachian region could become a major petrochemical and plastic resin-producing zone,” said the American Chemistry Council in its press release. “Proximity to a world-class supply of feedstocks and to the manufacturing markets of the Midwest and East Coast have already led several companies to announce investment projects, and there is potential for a great deal more. It’s an exciting opportunity for the region and our nation.”Deal Proceeds, Critics Decry
When President Donald Trump first launched the ongoing trade war against China, some observers thought the impasse might lead to the demise of the storage hub. Those predictions, however, have not yet come to pass and Chinese powerbrokers have affirmed that the deal lives on.
“We and the West Virginia government, and other related companies, have always been extremely aggressive in pushing forward this project,” said Ling Wen, president and CEO of the state-owned company China Energy Investment, at a media briefing on the company’s earnings, according to the business publication S&P Global.
hough the billions of dollars in capital needed to create a petrochemical hub in Appalachia have yet to finalize, the Appalachian Development Group also has continued to march forward on the project. In August 2018, the company signed a $3.4 billion deal with the engineering firm Parsons Corporation to form a partnership and engineer the hub.
“Parsons is honored to have been selected by ADG [the Appalachian Development Group] as a partner on this critically important project that will ultimately support the economic and energy security needs of so many communities and citizens, including economic revitalization of the Ohio River Valley states,” Carey Smith, president of Parsons’ federal business unit, said in a press release about the deal.
Not everyone remains pleased with these developments. One such entity is Food and Water Watch, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group with chapters across the country, which opposes fracking and the creation of the Appalachian Development Hub.
“The proposed storage complex may be a profit bonanza for industry, but it is a pollution pitfall for communities and ecosystems of the Appalachian basin,” Food and Water Watch wrote in a September 2018 report titled “Another Petrochemical Sacrifice Zone.” “Converting the region into the second largest concentration of plastics and chemical manufacturing outside the highly polluted Gulf Coast will compound the Tri-State area’s already substantial exposure to industrial toxic emissions, while increasing plastic materials that largely end up polluting the earth’s oceans.”
https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/01/20/trump-doe-anderson-cheerleader-petrochemical-hub-report-favoring
-
(ACC Mentioned) Rising Oil Prices, Construction Boost Project Logistics
Jan 21, 2019 | JOC.com
By Janet Nodar
At 2019’s outset, adequate global growth and demand bode well for project logistics, but potential pitfalls also exist...
Reinforcing that sentiment, the American Chemistry Council reports that between 2010 and September 2018, 333 shale-fed petrochemical projects were ...
§ Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.
Story can be found here: https://www.joc.com/international-logistics/logistics-providers/rising-oil-prices-construction-boost-project-logistics_20190121.html
-
Seismic Testing Permits Halted by Federal Judge Due to Shutdown
Jan 18, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew M. Ballard
Federal regulators can’t issue permits for seismic testing off the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast coast during the government shutdown, a U.S. district court said Jan. 18.
The U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina order said that, if permits are issued during the current shutdown, then five companies seeking to conduct seismic testing in the Atlantic Ocean could start those activities without an adequate legal review of potential harm.
Environmental groups sued over the activity in December, and a separate complaint was filed by coastal municipalities and businesses in South Carolina. The cases were combined and a number of state attorneys general have asked to join in the litigation.
Potential HarmSeismic testing is done by vessels towing air guns that emit acoustic energy pulses into the sea floor repeatedly over long periods of time. The returning sound waves are used to create maps of oil and gas reservoirs beneath the sea floor.
The plaintiffs, led by the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, argue the National Marine Fisheries Service violated the Marine Mammal Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act by allowing seismic testing to go forward.
Not enough consideration was given to the potential harm the testing can have on whales, dolphins, and other marine animals or the local economy, the groups say.
Environmental groups said that because of the shutdown, permits could continue to be processed even though the government argues it can’t adequately respond to lawsuits due to the lapse in funding.
After South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson (R) filed a motion to intervene, federal government lawyers asked that they be given extra time to respond because of the shutdown. In response, Wilson said there are indications that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management might continue to work on the permits despite the lapse in appropriations.
“The government was trying to have its cake and eat it too, and we’re pleased the Court did not allow that to happen,” Laura Cantral, executive director of the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, said in a Jan. 18 statement.
The case is S.C. Coastal Conservation League v. Ross, D.S.C., No. 2:18-cv-03326, 1/18/19.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/seismic-testing-permits-halted-by-federal-judge-due-to-shutdown
-
All-Clean Energy Mandate by 2032 Signed Into Law in D.C. (1)
Jan 18, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) signed into law on Jan. 18 one of the most ambitious 100 percent clean energy mandates in the U.S., surpassing the renewable-energy goals of New York state, California, and Hawaii.
The D.C. Council unanimously passed the Clean Energy D.C Omnibus Act of 2018 in December 2018. The law that Bowser signed Jan. 18 requires all electricity sold in Washington to come from wind, solar, and other clean energy sources by 2032.
The D.C. law increases the city’s 2004 renewable energy portfolio standard—which mandates the percentage of electricity from renewables—from 50 percent to 100 percent.
Bowser stressed the importance of the law supporting D.C. residents of all income levels. It pairs with the D.C. Solar For All program that aims to get solar roofs on 100,000 of low- to moderate-income households.
She said at the signing ceremony that the new law “provides significant financial assistance for programs that support low- and moderate-income residents, including energy bill assistance, efficiency, and workforce development.”
New York has the second most ambitious renewable-energy plan, with a “New Green Deal” announced by Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) on Jan. 15 calling for 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2040. Governors in Hawaii and California have enacted all-clean energy mandates for 2045.
Building Energy Efficiency
The law also creates a task force to establish new energy efficiency building standards and allow the energy provider Pepco, owned by Exelon Corp., to recover revenue lost to its customers’ energy efficiency improvements.
The bill amends the city’s Green Building Act of 2006 to expand the number of commercial buildings that are subject to D.C. government efficiency standards.
The standards will apply to a greater number of privately-owned buildings over the years its implemented. The law applies to buildings with at least 50,000 square feet by 2021, buildings with at least 25,000 square feet by 2023, and buildings with at least 10,000 square feet by 2026.
Every three years, the building owners have to ensure their building complies with the Energy Star program’s efficiency requirements. The program is jointly managed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the federal Department of Energy.
The D.C. government worked closely with building industry groups to ensure they were on board with these standards from the beginning.
“My members want to walk in lockstep with the district’s goals, but just being mindful of the cost considerations,” Kirsten Williams, vice president of government affairs of the Apartment and Office Building Association, which represents commercial building owners and operators in the Washington metropolitan area.
The law allows commercial property owners to use money from the D.C. Sustainable Energy Utility fund. The fund comes from rates local gas and electricity utilities collect from their utility consumers. These rates were increased in the law to provide more funds to support buildings’ energy efficiency improvements, Williams said.
Broader Cities Effort
D.C. is also a member of C40 Cities, a group of nearly 100 cities around the world who have pledged to mitigate against climate change through actions such as building efficiency improvements and vehicle electrification.
More than 90 U.S. cities and 10 counties have already committed to 100 percent renewable energy standards, according to Sierra Club data.
The C40 Cities initiative and the Sierra Club have received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg Environment is operated by entities controlled by Michael Bloomberg, who serves on the C40 Cities board.
(Updates with additional reporting throughout.)
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/all-clean-energy-mandate-by-2032-signed-into-law-in-dc-1
-
Trump EPA’s Meddling with Toxic Chemicals Law Sparks Bipartisan Calls for Oversight Hearing
Jan 21, 2019 | Environmental Working Group
Concern among members of Congress over the Trump administration’s implementation of the updated federal chemicals law burst across the aisle this week, with both the top Republican and Democrat on a key House environment subcommittee calling for oversight hearings.
Rep. Paul Tonko, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on the Environment and Climate Change, and Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., the ranking Republican on the panel, plan to hold an oversight hearing to get answers from the Environmental Protection Agency about how it’s executing the agency’s beefed-up authority to protect the public from toxic chemicals.
Anthony Adragna of Politico Pro reported this week that Tonko and Shimkus are eager to get answers from the EPA about how it is protecting public health from dangerous chemicals.
“The spirit and letter of those reforms should be implemented to the nth degree,” Tonko said. “I agree with former Chairman Shimkus that we need to do oversight and we need to revisit how it's being implemented.”
“I think now it’s time to have an oversight hearing to see where they’re at and get some real numbers,” Shimkus said. “How many new chemicals do we have and how many do we have a decision on.”
“We applaud this bipartisan call for oversight,” said EWG Senior Vice President for Government Affairs Scott Faber. “There is ample evidence showing that the Trump EPA is cooking the books to allow some of the most hazardous chemicals in existence to remain in use, putting millions of people at further risk of exposure.”
In 2016, Congress passed and President Obama signed into law the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, which amended the woefully weak Toxic Substances Control Act. The new law gives the EPA power to finally ban asbestos and other dangerous chemicals.
Since the Trump administration came to power, a number of troubling decisions by former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and current Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler show an agency bending both the spirit and letter of the new chemicals law to benefit the chemical industry.
Among the most egregious actions is the EPA’s decision to ignore the many ways that people are exposed to chemicals that put vulnerable populations, such as young children and communities near factories, at even greater risk.
The new law requires the EPA to consider all uses of a chemical when evaluating it for safety. Despite this clear directive, Wheeler is ignoring key exposures to asbestos in the agency’s safety assessment, likely in violation of the law.
Wheeler appears to be laying the groundwork for the agency to find that asbestos is safe and should remain legal. Other chemicals the EPA is dragging its feet to restrict or ban include the lethal paint-stripping chemical methylene chloride and the notorious industrial solvent trichloroethylene, or TCE.
Under the Trump administration, the EPA is retreating from an earlier proposal to ban key uses of TCE, and it is excluding water, air and soil pollution from a safety assessment under the new chemicals law.
“The mission of the EPA is to protect human health and the environment, not the profits of the chemical industry,” Faber added. “There are a lot of questions about how the EPA is implementing the chemicals law, and Chairman Tonko and Ranking Member Shimkus deserve answers on behalf of all Americans.”
###
The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.
https://www.ewg.org/release/trump-epa-s-meddling-toxic-chemicals-law-sparks-bipartisan-calls-oversight-hearing
-
(ACC Mentioned) ILITA, Others Laud Congressional Extension of CFATS Program
Jan 18, 2019 | Bulk Transporter
US House and Senate leaders came together this week in 11th-hour bi-partisan approval of a 15-month extension to the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program in a decision industry groups hailed as a win.
Both chambers of Congress unanimously approved the extension laid out in HR 251, the Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards Program Extension Act, which now awaits a signature from President Donald Trump.
The CFATS program would have expired Thursday, Jan. 17, without intervention.
“ILTA (International Liquid Terminals Association) applauds Congress for extending—on the day it was set to expire—this important security program, which regulates critical chemical facilities to guard against terrorist attack,” said Kathryn Clay, ILTA’s president.
“This 15-month extension gives us the opportunity to make necessary changes to the program, while continuing to ensure the security of facilities that store the highest-risk chemicals.
“For the past decade, ILTA has been the leading voice encouraging the Department of Homeland Security to correct the treatment of gasoline and other fuel blends under the CFATS program. ILTA looks forward to working with Congress and DHS to ensure that fuel blends are treated on par with similar materials under CFATS implementation.”
The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) called the extension a win for manufacturers and US national security.
“Manufacturers commend the Congress for working on a bipartisan basis to get this critical legislation across the finish line, which reauthorizes the program for an additional 15 months,” said Laura Berkey-Ames, NAM’s director of energy and resources policy, in a blog post.
“The continuity of the CFATS program without interruption is critical for industry and national security because it ensures manufacturers can confidently make appropriate, economically justifiable, long-term investments to protect high-risk facilities. The bipartisan agreement struck between committee leadership in the House and Senate allowing this important reauthorization to move forward sends a strong message that the United States remains prepared and resilient in the face of the threat of terrorism.”
The House earlier voted in favor of a two-year program extension, without reforms, but Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) initially called that measure “unacceptable,” according to reports. He’s now agreed to a 15-month extension to give Congress more time to work on reforms.
CFATS was enacted in 2007 and is now housed in the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The program applies to a range of facilities, including those used by manufacturers, chemical plants and agricultural businesses, that house or plan to store any substance included on a list of more than 300 flagged chemicals. Many of the flagged substances, such as fertilizers, could be used to create explosive devices.
“Continuing this important program ensures the chemical industry and regulators work together to keep our nation’s chemical facilities secured against potential terrorist attacks,” said Eric Byer, president of the National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD).
“We thank Sens. Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Gary Peters (D-MI) and Reps. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), Mike Rogers (R-AL), Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Greg Walden (R-OR), Paul Tonko (D-NY), and John Shimkus (R-IL) for making the continuation of the CFATS program a legislative priority.”
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) and Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates(SOCMA) also added their support for the bill’s passage.
“ACC and its members have testified many times in support of establishing a strong foundation for CFATS, and we are committed to continuing our work with Congress to provide CFATS with greater regulatory certainty and to make improvements to the program, including leveraging industry programs and ensuring employee screening focuses on high risk facilities and protects personal data,” said Cal Dooley, president and CEO of ACC.
“We urge President Trump to sign this legislation, which will give Congress time to work on bolstering CFATS and provide the regulatory certainty needed to support the industry’s ongoing efforts to safeguard chemical facilities and communities.”
https://www.bulktransporter.com/hazmatsafety/ilta-others-laud-congressional-extension-cfats-program
-
Halted Inspections at Sterigenics Plant Need EPA Probe: Senators
Jan 18, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Joyce
The EPA’s inspector general needs to probe whether political appointees at the agency ordered staff not to inspect potentially carcinogenic air pollution from a Willowbrook, Ill., medical sterilization facility, Senate Democrats said.
The request comes just days after senators asked Andrew Wheeler, the nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency, about emissions of ethylene oxide during his confirmation hearing.
Wheeler said at the hearing that an inspector general investigation isn’t yet necessary and that he would prefer to first consult with agency staff about the lack of investigations.
Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) said she received information in January alleging that EPA senior political appointees instructed career civil servants to avoid conducting inspections of facilities like the Sterigenics International LLC plant in Willowbrook that emit ethylene oxide in Region 5, which includes Illinois and five other Midwestern states.
In a Jan. 17 letter, Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.), Duckworth, and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) asked the EPA’s Office of Inspector General to investigate whether the allegations are true.
Ethylene oxide, which is carcinogenic according to the National Health Institute, is a flammable, colorless gas that can irritate the eyes, skin, nose, throat, and lungs with long term exposure. It can also harm the brain and nervous system, causing headaches, memory loss, and numbness.
Sean Savett, a Duckworth spokesman, declined to comment further on the information the senator had received about the Willowbrook plant.
Calls to CloseEthylene oxide emissions from the Sterigenics International have drawn increased scrutiny recently with Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) calling for the facility to shut down unless it can prove it isn’t a threat to human health.
DuPage County (Ill.) State’s Attorney Robert Berlin filed a complaint asking the DuPage County Circuit Court to ban all emissions of the chemical if it concludes no level of ethylene oxide emissions are safe.
Kristin Gibbs, a Sterigenics spokeswoman, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment from Bloomberg Environment. The EPA couldn’t be reached for comment because of the government shutdown.
Nearby residents who have demanded the plant close accused the company of failing to disclose how toxic its emissions are.
“Swift and immediate action needs to be taken. We appreciate the sense of urgency from our Senators and look forward to a better tomorrow,” advocacy group Stop Sterigenics said in a Jan. 18 statement to Bloomberg Environment.
Bill Wehrum, head of the EPA’s air pollution office, told Bloomberg Environment in December 2018 the agency could propose the first update to its toxic pollution standards for medical sterilization facilities such as Sterigenics this year.
The senators in their letter claimed EPA’s own data illustrates the agency has recently failed to conduct inspections of facilities emitting ethylene oxide in the Midwest.
“This fact pattern is concerning in and of itself. However, if the lax inspection and enforcement activity is a result of politically-motivated interference overriding recommendations of career staff, that would elevate our concerns from simply poor performance to potential outright misconduct by political appointees,” the letter said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/halted-inspections-at-sterigenics-plant-need-epa-probe-senators
-
Stopping Dangerous Oil Trains from Coming to California
Jan 21, 2019 | Earth Justice
By Elizabeth Forsyth
In 2014, the State of California convened an Interagency Rail Safety Working Group and produced a report predicting that California was on the cusp of seeing an unprecedented caravan of trains bringing oil into California. The amount of crude oil transported by rail had historically been very small nationwide, including in California. In 2012, only about one million barrels of oil, or .3 percent of total oil imported into California, traveled through the state of California by rail. With land-locked crude oil in Canada and the Bakken region of North Dakota becoming increasingly cheaper than other crude oils, however, there was a rush to provide refineries with access to these new crudes by rail. The report predicted that by 2016, there could be up to 150 million barrels, or 25 percent of total oil imports, moving by rail through California.
This was an alarming prediction: Moving crude oil by train is incredibly dangerous. Derailments of oil trains can be catastrophic. In July 2013, a train carrying Bakken crude derailed and exploded in Lac-Mégantic, Canada, killing almost 50 people and decimating half of downtown Lac-Mégantic. Other major oil train accidents began occurring across the country in Alabama, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Colorado, and Oregon. The Working Group predicted that “the potential for high-consequence incidents” would increase in California, as more oil was predicted to be transported by rail.
But the predicted dystopian future of catastrophic train derailments in California has not come to pass. Instead of the predicted 150 million barrels, only about 2 million barrels of oil arrived by train in 2016. About 3 million barrels arrived in 2017. Although this is more crude arriving by rail than in 2012, it is nowhere near the predicted 150-fold increase.
The reason crude-by-rail imports have not exploded is a collective victory for community activists.
The California Rail Safety Report’s prediction was predicated on six rail infrastructure projects being built. The report’s 2014 predictions are replicated below:
· Bakersfield – Plains All American (under construction): 90 cars per day
· Pittsburg – WesPac Energy Project (planned): 70 cars per day, construction could begin in early 2014 and would reach completion in about 18 months
· Benicia – Valero (planned): 100 cars per day, could be operational by the first quarter of 2015
· Bakersfield – Alon (planned): 200 cars per day
· Wilmington – Valero (planned): 85 cars per day
· Santa Maria – Phillips 66 (planned)
As communities found out about these planned projects, however, they rallied en mass to stop them. They spoke against the projects at public hearings. They submitted extensive testimony and technical comments on the environmental reports for the projects. They tirelessly lobbied their local officials. In most cases public outcry, and the light shed on the startling dangers of these projects, was enough to kill them. Pittsburg – WesPac Energy Project, Benicia – Valero, Wilmington – Valero, and Santa Maria – Phillips 66, were all rejected by public officials or voluntarily canceled by the project applicant after public opposition.
For the two projects actually approved by public officials, community and environmental groups sued, and won. While the Bakersfield – Plains All American is still in operation, local groups were successful in litigation proving that the project illegally evaded public notice and comment. And in the last domino to fall, just this week the Bakersfield – Alon project announced it would not go forward, in response to successful litigation showing that the true rail safety risks of the project were hidden from local officials.
The 2014 report concluded that in order to reduce the risk of a train derailment and explosion in California, we would need stronger federal railroad standards. And better oil tanker upgrades. And more track inspectors. And advanced technology to slow trains before accidents. And lots and lots of local community emergency planning.
But the report missed the most important tool. While these regulatory improvements are still needed across the country, what was really needed to reduce the risk of derailment in California was to stop new crude-by-rail infrastructure projects. And all that took was ordinary folks, wielding the power of the law, taking a stand.
https://earthjustice.org/from-the-experts/2019-january/crude-by-rail-california
-
Utah, Industry Groups Back EPA's Move to Narrow Air Permit Review Policy
Jan 18, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Utah and groups representing major industries are backing EPA's revised policy limiting the scope of review for objections to Clean Air Act Title V operating permits by excluding analysis of other air permits contained within a Title V permit, saying a broader approach would unlawfully allow the agency to “second guess” state permitting decisions.
In briefs filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, electric utility Pacificorp, Utah and the Air Permitting Forum (APF), an industry coalition favoring eased permitting conditions, say the Trump administration's policy is lawful. They further say EPA is justified in seeking to dismiss the litigation in the D.C Circuit and hear the case only in the 10th Circuit, where a parallel case is now on hold.
“EPA reasonably refused to adopt Sierra Club’s” interpretation of the air law, “which requires reading Title V in isolation, and determined that Title V review is not a de novo or second-layer [new source review (NSR)] . . . allowing EPA to second-guess state permitting decisions where public input and judicial review were previously available," Utah says in its intervenor brief.
APF says in its amicus brief, “Petitioner asks this Court to mandate that EPA reevaluate long-ago issued state permitting decisions in a manner that would effectively substitute its own policy judgments for the Agency’s reasoned decision-making.” Utah, Pacificorp and APF all agree the case should be heard in the 10th Circuit.
The 10th Circuit suit is on hold pending a decision by the D.C. Circuit on whether to hear the merits of the case. Sierra Club claims that the suit belongs in the D.C. Circuit because the permit policy is “nationally applicable,” but EPA, Utah and industry say it must be heard in the 10th Circuit because it concerns a Utah permit decision only.
Sierra Club’s suit seeks to overturn EPA’s rejection of its petition for the agency to object to the Title V permit of Pacificorp’s Hunter coal-fired power plant in Utah. The group says Utah wrongly allowed the plant to evade a “major source” NSR permit that would contain tougher pollution control mandates. Hence the overarching Title V permit fails to contain “all applicable” requirements, Sierra Club says.
EPA's 2017 denial of that argument, written by former Administrator Scott Pruitt, changed its approach for reviewing petitions for objection to Title V permits. It restricted the grounds for granting a petition to exclude the content of underlying air permits, or decisions over whether such underlying permits are required in the first place.
This departure from prior EPA practice sharply limits the ability of petitioners to challenge underlying air permits in Title V reviews. Title V permits are “umbrella” permits containing all permit terms “applicable” to a pollution source, including underlying permits such as “nonattainment” NSR permits or the similar prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permits. Nonattainment NSR permits are required for new or modified major air pollution sources in areas violating national ambient air quality standards, while PSD applies in attainment areas.
Sierra Club says EPA effectively changed national policy with its Hunter decision, which the agency has cited in several subsequent permit review petition denials as a basis not to challenge states’ permitting decisions. The Hunter decision and another 2017 petition denial in Big River Steel established the principle that EPA will not “second-guess” states’ decisions on whether major source permits are required, or what the terms of state-issued permits are.
Permit Requirements
APF in its brief stresses “Title V’s core purpose of recordation of applicable requirements established under the Act’s substantive provisions," which provides "certainty to regulated entities, regulators, and the public about which . . . requirements apply to facilities.”
Further, the group says that Sierra Club missed its opportunities to object to state decisions on the Hunter plant’s need for a PSD permit at issue in the dispute. “The notion that these duly-issued construction permits could be undone, after construction has been completed, by holding operation of these changes hostage to objections by those who chose not to participate in and pursue the underlying process is not what Congress intended Title V to accomplish.”
Pacificorp in its brief says that not only is venue incorrect in the D.C. Circuit, Sierra Cub lacks standing to sue. “Sierra Club’s standing declarations rely on conjecture, lack supporting evidence and information, and fail to meet the constitutional requirements for standing,” the utility says.
Nor is the 1997 Utah decision exempting Hunter from major source PSD permit review deficient, the utility says. “Sierra Club fails to present any evidence in its brief in support of its claim that the State’s 1997 PSD permitting actions were insufficient,” Pacificorp says, adding that in any case, Sierra Club has missed applicable procedural deadlines to challenge the state’s permitting decisions by two decades.
EPA is defending a similar case, Environmental Integrity Project and Sierra Club v. EPA, in the 5th Circuit. The agency is defending its March 2018 rejection of a petition by environmentalists to object to the Title V permit granted by Texas to ExxonMobil's Baytown, TX, olefins production plant. Environmentalists say that an underlying permit included in the Title V permit is flawed and not federally enforceable, serving to circumvent tougher NSR permit requirements. EPA relied on the Hunter precedent to deny environmentalists’ petition, and the policy is again at issue in the resulting lawsuit.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/utah-industry-groups-back-epas-move-narrow-air-permit-review-policy
-
Environmentalists Tout Trump's 'Abysmal' Deregulatory Court Record
Jan 21, 2019 | Inside EPA
Earthjustice, the litigation-focused environmental group, is highlighting the Trump administration's “abysmal” court record in defending deregulatory environmental actions that the group has challenged, finding that the administration has won just one of 17 cases with “major decisions” to date for a 6 percent victory rate.
“The untold story of President Donald Trump’s environmental agenda is that he’s losing. While the Trump administration continues to spit out dangerous environmental rollbacks at a record clip and its efforts remain a dire threat to our environment, the administration is overwhelmingly failing when its proposed rollbacks” go to court, the group says in a Jan. 17 report.
Earthjustice has filed 118 suits against the administration in its first two years. “In one court decision after another, federal courts have blocked the administration’s attempts to reverse existing regulations because it failed to meet federal statutory requirements such as scientific and cost-benefit analysis. In addition, courts have ruled that the government cannot undo regulations without the transparency and accountability that are required by federal law,” the group says.
It cites a similar October study by the Brookings Institution, which looked broadly at all of the administration's deregulatory agenda, finding it has “an abysmally low win rate” of just 5 percent, which is “far lower than the average 69 percent success rate of previous presidential administrations.”
Earthjustice says its litigation victories “prove that facts still matter in court. We are taking every opportunity to hold the Trump administration accountable to the rule of law -- and it’s working.”
Among the victories the group cites are a March 2018 district court ruling that EPA cannot extend deadlines for complying with a rule to limit formaldehyde in wood products; a February 2018 district court ruling rejecting the Department of Energy’s attempt to delay energy efficiency standards; a July 2017 appellate court summary vacatur of EPA’s stay of its oil and gas methane rule; a March 2018 district court decision holding EPA illegally delayed implementations of pesticide worker safeguards; an October 2017 district court ruling that the Bureau of Land Management illegally suspended its oil and gas methane rule without public comment; and a February 2018 ruling by the same court rejecting BLM’s second attempt to stay the rule.
Other cases involving EPA include a March 2018 district court ruling ordering the agency to identify areas out of attainment with 2015 ozone air quality standards; an EPA decision to update agricultural worker protection standards after groups filed suit; an August 2018 appellate court ruling ordering EPA to finalize its proposed ban on the pesticide chlorpyrifos; a November 2018 district court ruling finding EPA unlawfully attempted to delay the Waters of the United States rule, keeping it in effect in 22 states; an August 2018 appeals court ruling blocking EPA from delaying its chemical disaster rule; a December 2017 appellate court order requiring EPA to update dust lead hazards regarding lead-based paint; and an October 2017 district court decision finding EPA failed to enforce deadlines in California’s San Joaquin Valley to meet fine particulate air standards.
The one “major” case that the Trump administration won was an April 2018 district court ruling holding that a challenge to EPA’s stay of power plant effluent limitation guidelines rule was moot.
“Again and again, federal judges have told the Trump administration that it can’t break the law simply because it feels like it,” the report says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/environmentalists-tout-trumps-abysmal-deregulatory-court-record
-
Big Names Bake a Climate Pie in the Sky
Jan 18, 2019 | Wall Street Journal
By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.
An impressive list of names endorse a carbon dividend proposal published in The Wall Street Journal this week. They include 27 Nobel Prize winners plus former Treasury secretaries, Federal Reserve chairmen and White House economists.
They propose not only a steadily rising fossil-energy tax, but a new bureaucracy to distribute the proceeds to every American in annual “dividend” payments. They would repeal the existing panoply of green subsidies and mandates. Their program also requires a new import tax to stop U.S. industry from shifting its carbon-intensive activities offshore.
Their plan contains quite a few moving parts. As Texas Democrat and new liberal heartthrob Beto O’Rourke seems to say about everything these days, let’s start a discussion!
And that’s the problem. I can’t help thinking of the original grand bargain worked up by the tobacco industry, plaintiffs’ lawyers, the states, and antismoking groups in 1997. Here’s our program, now enact it, they said to Congress. Never were Republicans and Democrats so united in telling a collection of special interests to get lost.
By its very breadth and radical nature, the carbon-dividend plan announces a climate emergency. This concession Democrats will gladly embrace, along with any chance to enact a new tax. But distributing the proceeds equally to the rich? That sounds insufficiently progressive. Besides, since we face a “climate emergency,” wouldn’t the money be better spent on speeding up deployment of wind and solar? As for existing mandates and subsidies, sure, we might expend additional political energy to repeal these. And pigs might fly.
Congress, let’s remind ourselves, exists to pursue national priorities in a way that greases as many special interests as possible. To the voting public, meanwhile, the cost of effective climate action dwarfs the perceived benefits by a country mile. This is why our existing climate efforts, while expensively pleasing to certain lobbying interests, are so trifling as to be inconsequential to the climate.
The dividend approach is supposed to end-run the problem of public support by putting the money back into voters’ pockets directly. Good luck with that. And it still doesn’t solve the deeper conundrum.
Climate change, if it’s a problem, is a global problem. The U.S. could stop emitting tomorrow and the world would continue to discover the slowly accumulating effects of CO2 already in the atmosphere for decades to come. And total CO2 would continue to rise thanks to countries like India and China.
The carbon-dividend crowd, unlike the Green New Deal crowd, at least addresses the global dimension—but with a colossal and unlikely act of coercion. Other nations, they tell us, will be forced to enact their own carbon taxes to get relief from our import tax. In their hubris, they dictate not only to the U.S. Congress, but to all the world’s legislatures.
Let’s grow up. The world faces lots of problems, none more so than its vastly accumulatingdebt.
Climate scientists are not nearly as simple-minded as climate reporters. Scientists’ worst-case emissions scenario, RCP 8.5, is one in which the global economy lapses into economic and technological stagnation (contradicting an assumption on the left that stopping economic growth is the solution to climate change).
A tax reform that included a carbon tax to replace taxes that depress work, saving and investment would be an incentive to do everything in a less carbon-intensive way, bringing forth new technologies.
More to the point, it would be a model other countries could adopt out of self-interest—they need growth too, and tax reform is a way to stimulate it. Political grand bargains are unneeded. Legislators in the future will be endlessly hungry for revenue collected in ways that minimally impact growth.
A carbon tax is not a miracle solution. There aren’t any. We will be living with some amount of climate change due to the highly uncertain effects of rising CO2 levels for the foreseeable future. The difference between a happy and unhappy outcome for humanity will come down to our ability to maintain economic growth and technological progress in the face of our extraordinarily daunting debt challenges.
Finally, pardon a valedictory cynicism, but the most important truth about any political proposal is the part unsaid. Corporations rush to fund the carbon-dividend campaign not because believe the plan is actionable, but because CEOs and PR departments need something gaudy to point to in order to suggest their concern about climate.
Not that I doubt the sincerity of many who sign on to this DOA proposal, but their credibility could have been better spent. Imagine if it had been employed to alert the media to the dubious, longstanding, likely fraudulent science of radiation risk that has so inhibited the development of nuclear power. Overnight the chances of the world dealing efficiently with its climate puzzle would be increased appreciably.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-names-bake-a-climate-pie-in-the-sky-11547853413?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1
-
Why I’m (Slightly) Less Pessimistic About Global Warming
Jan 20, 2019 | Washington Post
By Robert J. Samuelson
On global climate change, I’ve changed my mind — just slightly.
I’ve written about this issue for more than two decades, and my theme has been monotonously consistent. As a starting point, I’ve accepted the prevailing scientific view that man-made greenhouse gases contribute to global warming.
But I’ve been routinely pessimistic and skeptical that we can do much about it. That is, we can’t easily control the forces that worsen global warming.
We have yet to discover or create some low-cost fuel that would replace fossil fuels (oil, natural gas and coal), which provide roughly 80 percent of the world’s energy. Most nations aren’t willing to scrap the energy status quo — the very basis of modern civilization — before having a practical substitute.
Thus, despite the enthusiasm for non-fossil fuels (wind, solar, hydro, nuclear), global greenhouse-gas emissions are higher today than, say, in 1990.
This raises the atmospheric concentration levels of those gases, which in turn trap heat above the Earth’s surface. From 1990 to 2018, the concentration level of carbon dioxide rose from 354 parts per million to 409 parts per million.
The emissions continue. Poorer countries (China, India, Indonesia and the like), where most energy growth now occurs, won’t condemn their populations to perpetual poverty to satisfy hard-to-attain environmental goals. Many governments — rich and poor — resist inflicting pain on today’s voters, in the form of higher energy prices or more regulations, for imprecise future gains. Politics is present-oriented.
Implicitly, I’ve been critical of much media coverage, which has portrayed the climate-change story as a struggle between good guys and bad — climate-change believers vs. deniers. The real story is our relative helplessness.
Still, we should do something. We need to learn how much, if at all, we can influence emissions.
Last week, a large group of economists, including 27 Nobel Prize winners, 15 former chairs of the White House Council of Economic Advisers and two former treasury secretaries — Democrats and Republicans — issued a manifesto endorsing what’s been called a “carbon dividend” plan. This would be a good start.
Here’s how it would work. The government would tax CO2 emissions. The idea is to prompt Americans to use less fossil fuels and to prod businesses to focus on renewables and energy efficiency. That’s a standard carbon tax. What defines the “carbon dividend” plan is that all the money collected would be rebated to households.
Under one proposal, the government would slap a $43 tax on each ton of CO2. That would equal about 38 cents on a gallon of gasoline, says economist Marc Hafstead of Resources for the Future, who studied the plan. It would raise about $180 billion in the tax’s first year, he says. If the “dividend” — the tax rebate — were distributed evenly, that would be about $1,400 per household.
Meanwhile, if the tax were increased 3 percent annually, there would be (according to the estimates) a dramatic reduction in U.S. fossil fuel use and greenhouse gases. Without the tax, projected CO2 emissions would be 5.4 billion metric tons in 2035. With the tax, the total would be 3.6 billion metric tons, a 33 percent decline. Still, this would hardly eliminate greenhouse-gas emissions.
Assuming the tax works this way, the lesson would be that we can, up to some point, curb emissions without hugely disrupting the economy. As Hafstead notes, the initial increase in gasoline prices of 38 cents a gallon is within normal market fluctuations. The rebate would sweeten the tax. Consumers who cut fossil fuel use would come out ahead.
The tax has another advantage. It decentralizes decision-making to individual companies and people. The alternative of regulations would centralize more power in Washington. This would be complicated, costly and potentially corrupting.
Given President Trump’s hostility toward anything “climate change,” it’s unlikely that major legislation will pass this Congress. We will have to wait until at least 2021.
None of this has changed my long-standing skepticism that, without some major technological breakthrough (safer nuclear power?), it will be exceedingly hard to halt the increase in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. The required changes in lifestyle and economic activity are simply too great.
But something less grandiose than “solving” the problem is plausible. It may be possible to slow the increase in greenhouse gases.
We need firsthand experience with these problems rather than repeating an increasingly futile and familiar debate. (For the record: I have long favored a carbon tax without a dividend. Revenue would go to cut budget deficits. But I recognize the dividend’s political appeal.)
All in all, my thinking on global warming has shifted slightly, as I said. I haven’t gotten more optimistic. But I am less pessimistic.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-im-slightly-less-pessimistic-about-global-warming/2019/01/20/4c2b3122-1b52-11e9-88fe-f9f77a3bcb6c_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c71bb86a2a5e
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested