Preview Newsletter

AM ACC Clips Report - March 7, 2019

Industry and Association News

(ACC Blog) Why Spray Foam… Why It Makes Sense…
Mar 6, 2019 | American Chemistry Matters

Since homeowners, construction professionals, and do-it-yourselfers have asked the question “how to do it better,” spray polyurethane foam (SPF) has often been the answer.
(ACC Mentioned) Trade War Deal Should Address China’s Distorting Practices, Reduce Tariffs - ACC’s CEO
Mar 7, 2019 | ICIS
By Jonathan Lopez

The potential resolution of the US-China trade war should involve the Asian superpower rolling back some of its “market distorting practices” and reduce the US tariffs imposed on Chinese products, according to the CEO at the US’ chemicals trade group the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
(ACC Mentioned) House Hearing Drills Down on Safety
Mar 6, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Kelsey Tamborrino

...9 a.m. — American Chemistry Council's 2019 GlobalChem Conference and Exhibition, 2500 Calvert St. NW.
(ACC Mentioned) Colorado’s Ban On Banning Plastics Has Cities’ Plans To Outlaw Single-use Bags And Straws In Limbo
Mar 7, 2019 | The Colorado Sun
By Tamara Chuang

A little-known Colorado law written to protect recycling stands is in the way of cities that want to outlaw straws, plastic grocery bags and Styrofoam containers

TSCA News

GAO Keeps EPA Toxics Analyses On High-Risk List, Seeks 'Sufficient' Funds
Mar 6, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad

Rejecting arguments from EPA, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is continuing to list the agency's premiere chemical assessment programs as a “high risk” issue in need of senior management oversight and is urging Congress and the administration to ensure the agency has “sufficient” funds to ensure their successful implementation.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) New Chemicals Backlog May Be Unclogged With EPA Policy
Mar 6, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

The EPA hopes to clear a backlog of company requests to make new chemicals now that it has a clearer policy to identify possible future uses of those substances, an agency official said March 6.
(ACC Mentioned) ICCA seeks ‘Reinvigorated’ Post-2020 Global Chemicals Framework
Mar 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer

The International Council of Chemical Associations, the ICCA, will push for a "reinforced and reinvigorated" global chemicals programme at international discussions in the coming weeks.
California Biomonitoring Programme Updates List Of Designated Chemicals
Mar 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch

The California Environmental Contaminant Biomonitoring Program has updated its list of designated chemicals.
California to Survey Airports, Landfills, Wells for Contaminants
Mar 7, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Emily C. Dooley

California is launching a plan this month to require testing of drinking water wells, landfill facilities, and airport sites for so-called “forever chemicals” in an attempt to map out exposure to the contaminants.
Congress Joins Fight Between Air Force and New Mexico
Mar 7, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz

Congress is getting involved in an ongoing dispute between the U.S. Air Force and the State of New Mexico over who should pay to clean up water contaminated with toxic nonstick chemicals.
Feature: The Extreme Challenge Of PFCs
Mar 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer

a subset of the broader group of substances known as PFASs – are used in a wide range of applications for their water, oil and stain resistance.
Democrats Launch Broad Inter-Agency Inquiry Into EPA's PFAS Policies
Mar 6, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan

House and Senate Democrats are launching a broad investigation into the role EPA and other agencies played in development of its policies to address per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), renewing concerns that the Defense Department (DOD) and other officials may have blocked strict regulatory plans.
Lawmakers Demand Faster Action on PFAS
Mar 7, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder

EPA and the Defense Department need to act faster on a family of chemicals contaminating drinking water, Oversight and Reform Committee Democrats said yesterday.
Maryland Legislature Advances Paint Remover Ban
Mar 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch

Maryland’s Senate has voted in favour of a bill to ban the sale of paint removal products containing methylene chloride or N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP).
GAO High-Risk List Flags EPA IRIS Management, Climate Change
Mar 7, 2019 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén

The Government Accountability Office’s 2019 high-risk report said EPA’s management of a key toxic chemicals review program continues to be a significant concern as the watchdog downgraded political leadership’s commitment to the program.
7th Circ. Remands SPX Win In Homeowner PCB Dust Suit
Mar 7, 2019 | Law 360
By Dave Simpson

The Seventh Circuit remanded part of a decision that tossed homeowners' claims SPX Corp. contaminated their properties with PCBs, finding Wednesday that the lower court set the bar unnecessarily high for the couple to show a violation of federal law.
Oregon Begins Rulemaking For Phasing Out Chemicals Of Concern
Mar 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin

Oregon has set in motion implementation of the final phase of its children product’s programme, which will focus on phasing out chemicals of concern.
Brexit: Government Hopeful Of UK REACH IT Readiness
Mar 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch

The California Environmental Contaminant Biomonitoring Program has updated its list of designated chemicals.

Energy News

ExxonMobil, Chevron Putting Bullseye on Permian
Mar 6, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis

The Permian Basin may face infrastructure constraints, a labor shortage and scarce services, but deep-pocketed Chevron Corp. and ExxonMobil Corp. plan to direct more talent and resources over the long term into the estimable oil and natural gas resources.
Feds Give Kinder Morgan Permission to Introduce Feed Gas at Elba Island LNG
Mar 6, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Sergio Chapa

Houston pipeline operator Kinder Morgan is one step closer to placing its $2 billion Elba Island LNG export terminal in Savannah, Ga., into service.
Republican Bill Looks To Overhaul PURPA Law
Mar 7, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Jeremy Dillon

Michigan Republican Rep. Tim Walberg reintroduced legislation this week to overhaul a 1970s energy law that requires utilities to purchase power from small-scale renewable energy projects.

Chemical Security News

Exxon Mobil Settles With U.S. Over Texas Refinery Fire In 2013
Mar 7, 2019 | Reuters
By Makini Brice

The U.S. Justice Department and Exxon Mobil Corp have reached a settlement resolving Clean Air Act violations stemming from a 2013 fire at the company’s Beaumont, Texas, refinery that killed two employees and injured 10 others, the department said on Wednesday.
DOJ Penalizes Exxon Mobil For Refinery Fire Violations
Mar 7, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King

Exxon Mobil Corp. will pay $616,000 and take other steps to address Clean Air Act violations resulting from a fatal 2013 blaze at the company's Beaumont, Texas, refinery.
2 Kansas Companies Indicted Over Noxious Chemical Cloud
Mar 7, 2019 | Associated Press (The Washington Post)
By Heather Hollingsworth

Two companies were indicted Wednesday on federal charges after a mistake at a northeast Kansas distilling plant in 2016 released a noxious cloud of fumes that prosecutors say caused more than 140 people to seek medical treatment.

Transportation and Infrastructure News

The Federal Panel with Surprising Power
Mar 6, 2019 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Ian Jefferies

At the end of the last Congress, the Senate confirmed a flurry of nominations to federal agencies. One such agency, the Surface Transportation Board, will have a particularly unique opportunity to promote economic growth across the country.
WGA Seeks Infrastructure Budget Boost Prior to House SRF Hearing
Mar 6, 2019 | Inside EPA

The Western Governors Association (WGA) is urging the leaders of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee’s (T&I) water panel to boost funding for EPA’s clean water state revolving fund (RFS) in response to Western states’ infrastructure needs, ahead of a March 6 subcommittee hearing on the SRF.

Environment News

Feds Reverse Progress in Addressing Climate Risks, GAO Says
Mar 6, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith

The federal government isn’t doing nearly enough to address the risks it faces from climate change, exposing itself and American taxpayers to potentially billions of dollars in damages, the Government Accountability Office said in a new report.
House Oversight Plans Probe of Trump Environmental Policies
Mar 7, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott

House Oversight and Reform Committee Democrats are gearing up to investigate Trump environment and climate policies in the months ahead, the panel’s chairman said March 6.
Fireworks in the Senate over Green New Deal
Mar 6, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Manuel Quiñones

Republicans and Democrats sparred on the Senate floor this afternoon over the Green New Deal and climate policy in general.
Moderate Dems May Try To Counter Green New Deal
Mar 7, 2019 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink,

When Democrats took over the House, Energy and Commerce Republicans met to discuss their strategy on climate change. The result may be bipartisan action.
GAO Finds Climate Risk Needs ‘Significant Attention’
Mar 6, 2019 | Inside EPA

The Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) latest report of “high risks” to the federal government againsays limiting the fiscal exposure posed by climate change is an area that needs “significant attention,” inpart due to Trump administration efforts to revoke prior climate policies.
Environmentalists Threaten Suit to Force EPA Ozone NAAQS Findings
Mar 6, 2019 | Inside EPA

Environmentalists are threatening to sue EPA to force the agency to issue final decisions on whether areas around the country attained the 2008 federal ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), and to require that areas still violating the standard be “bumped up” to a more-serious nonattainment designation.
Carbon Capture Group Seeks Capitol Hill Leadership Focus on CCUS Policy
Mar 6, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan

A diverse coalition of industry, environmental groups and others is urging congressional leaders in both parties to take a greater interest in a range of policies to support carbon capture, use and storage (CCUS) technologies, a push that could enable the new Congress to take a targeted step to address climate change.
Senate Floor Erupts in Heated Debate over Climate Change
Mar 6, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Anthony Adragna

Democrats and Republicans traded heated barbs over climate change on the Senate floor today.
Climate Change Pervades Congress After Years Of Quiet
Mar 7, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Mark K. Matthews

Not the problem itself — that threat has been looming for a while now. But discussions about global warming have hit a fever pitch in recent months, often overwhelming other issues in Congress, on television and on the campaign trail.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Blog) Why Spray Foam… Why It Makes Sense…

Mar 6, 2019 | American Chemistry Matters

Since homeowners, construction professionals, and do-it-yourselfers have asked the question “how to do it better,” spray polyurethane foam (SPF) has often been the answer. Whether determining how to make a home more energy efficient, to improving building strength and durability, and to helping lower energy usage, SPF offers a highly effective solution.
SPF is a spray-applied plastic that is widely used to insulate buildings and seal cracks and gaps, making the building more energy-efficient and comfortable. SPF insulation is known to resist heat transfer extremely well, and it offers a highly effective solution in reducing unwanted air infiltration through cracks, seams, and joints. SPF’s long track record of insulating and consistent performance is why so many choose to have it installed.
Energy Efficiency Up, Energy Use Down
SPF plays a valuable and effective role in helping meet energy efficiency goals. SPF not only offers one of the highest R-values per inch, but it also works to seal homes – all with one product. Gaps, holes and air leaks—which can all be prevented—can make energy needs unnecessarily high and let valuable resources, such as conditioned air, go to waste. Air leaks waste up to 40% of the energy used to heat and cool a single family home. SPF however helps stop air leaks, acting as an air barrier and sealing cracks and gaps, keeping home owners’ energy needs down. In fact, if each of the 113 million single family homes in the United States used SPF, Americans could save up to $33 billion in energy needs each year. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Energy Star program estimates that by adding insulation and sealing air leaks, people can save up to 20% on their monthly energy bills.
And it’s not just about thermal insulation and air sealing the nooks and crannies on the inside of your home. “Cool roofs” are roofs designed to maintain a lower temperature than traditional roofs. Light in color and reflective of sunlight, they allow heat to escape, instead of absorb it. SPF applied to the roof of a home or building can provide similar performance when topped with a protective, reflective coating. Along with reducing your air conditioning needs, the roof is more protected, potentially extending its lifetime.
It’s What’s On the Inside that Counts
SPF can improve indoor environments beyond helping to keep temperatures consistent throughout the home and making them more comfortable. Sealing a building’s air leaks prevents drafts from windows, doors, attics and floor boards, but also works to minimize mold and mildew growth, reduce sound transmission, reduce pollen and dust levels, and prevent insect infestations where it is applied. A combination of open- and closed-cell SPF can help maximize noise reduction. Sealing gaps with SPF can provide a barrier against pollen and dust, reducing the entrance of external allergens for households with allergy suffers. Using SPF to block insects from entering can be especially useful in high peak insect seasons. All of this on top of controlling moisture in a building, which is one of the key variables that can lead to mold and mildew growth.
In An Emergency, SPF Can Help
While SPF can’t prevent natural disasters, it can help protect your home against them. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) classifies SPF insulation as highly resistant to floodwater damage: “These materials can survive wetting and drying and may be successfully cleaned after a flood to render them free of most harmful pollutants.” SPF can even help during a hurricane. In one study, a roof deck insulated with SPF demonstrated an ability to withstand wind speeds of a Category 4 hurricane.[1] SPF attaches the roof deck to the structure, helping to prevent the roof from blowing off.
A Smart Decision
SPF is well-studied and is subject to robust regulatory controls and stewardship programs. Most SPF is applied by trained professional contractors following safety precautions, and wearing the proper protective equipment when installing spray foam. After the SPF is sprayed and fully cured, the materials used to make it are inert and nontoxic, according to the EPA.[2]
SPF continues to prove itself to be among the most efficient and protective solutions for a home or building. Its multifunctional nature allows buildings and homes to be more durable, comfortable and appealing. With just one product, SPF insulates, seals against air leaks, and improves strength, saving time during construction, increasing comfort, making building maintenance easier and increasing the resilience and durability of the structure. It’s no wonder why so many people choose it.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2019/03/why-spray-foam-why-it-makes-sense/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Trade War Deal Should Address China’s Distorting Practices, Reduce Tariffs - ACC’s CEO

Mar 7, 2019 | ICIS

By Jonathan Lopez

LONDON (ICIS)--The potential resolution of the US-China trade war should involve the Asian superpower rolling back some of its “market distorting practices” and reduce the US tariffs imposed on Chinese products, according to the CEO at the US’ chemicals trade group the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
Cal Dooley (pictured) added that the resurgence of the US chemicals industry – facilitated by the shale gas boom fuelling ethane-based petrochemicals plants – has exports markets as a key target and trade barriers would make that endeavour more difficult.
“We are hopeful the US-China negotiations will reach a successful conclusion that will address some of the market distorting practises that China has employed in terms of state support for some of its industries, as well as addressing other concerns like the protection of intellectual property rights,” he said.
“We are hopeful it will be resolved in a way that will reduce the imposition of tariffs by the US to the degree that have been today, as well as resulting in a reduction of retaliatory measures imposed by China.”
However, the protectionist winds emanating from Donald Trump’s presidency in the US, which have worried the chemical industry since he took office, could be here to stay as rising political parties in several European countries are also calling for more protectionism.
As the US-China trade war started to bite several economic sectors in both countries, the two world’s largest economies, seem on course for an agreement.
Some Europeans, however, fear that the conflict’s resolution will mean the US turns its attention to Europe and its all-powerful automobile industry, a key end market for petrochemicals, like the director general at EU-wide trade group Cefic.
On several occasions, Trump has stated his desire to prop up the US automobile industry.
“The chemicals industry, and certainly in the US, is very committed to trade facilitation. We currently have a trade surplus in industrial chemicals of about $32bn due to increased production in the US. That will increase to almost $75bn in less than five years, so we need to have access to global marketplaces, with minimal market distortion,” said Dooley.
“We are working with almost every other sector of the US economy … to really work with the Administration, as well as Congress, to continue allowing the US being a leader in advancing trade liberalisation. It remains to be seen whether or not we’ll be successful … It’s too early to declare victory, or certainly to resign yourself to defeat.”
While the some petrochemicals industries, like polymers, could experience overcapacity in coming years due to the large expansions on the US Gulf coast, Dooley said he would not comment on pricing from his ACC post.
However, he added that the large capital expenditure (capex) in the US in the last 10 years was the proof that the country is a desirable place for industrialists to set up long-term businesses.
He said that in the last 10 years the petrochemicals industry has invested around $214bn in setting up new facilities in the US.
“In 2018, 49% of all capital investment in manufacturing in the US was accounted for by the chemicals industry, and it is important that a significant majority of that was foreign direct investment [FDI],” said Dooley.
“The global chemicals industry is investing in the US because they have the confidence that, thanks to our feedstock advantage, this is the most globally competitive platform to serve the global marketplace.”
On Thursday, analysts at the investment arm of Germany's Deutsche Bank said that there continue to be "positive headlines" on trade, giving credit to a report at newswire Bloomberg about Trump pressuring his trade team to reach a final deal soon to support beleaguered US equity markets.
"Separately, the South China Morning Post suggested that China will institute new rules to protect foreign investors from forced technology transfers to their Chinese partners, a key area of contention between the US and China in the past," said Deutsche Bank's Jim Reid.
"Such a move could help President Trump sell a negotiated deal as a 'win'. The same news outlet also reported Trump as saying yesterday that trade talks with China are going well and that either there would be a good deal or it’s not going to be a deal, but I think they’re moving along very nicely."
https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2019/03/07/10329607/trade-war-deal-should-address-china-s-distorting-practices-reduce-tariffs-acc-s-ceo/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) House Hearing Drills Down on Safety

Mar 6, 2019 | Politico Pro

By Kelsey Tamborrino

QUICK FIX
— Interior Department officials are on Capitol Hill today where they will likely be pressed by House Natural Resources Democrats on their enforcement of offshore drilling rig safety rules.
— An EPA water official will face lawmakers examining the toxic PFAS chemicals contaminating millions of Americans' drinking water.
— Michael Bloomberg announced he won't run for president but will instead devote his time to new energy and climate change initiatives.
** A message from Chevron:Chevron is celebrating the importance of role models in inspiring young women to pursue STEM education and careers. Watch our film to see how. **
WELCOME TO WEDNESDAY! I'm your host, Kelsey Tamborrino. Interstate Natural Gas Association of America's Martin Edwards knew former Rep. John McCormack chaired the first iteration of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, known then as the Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration. For today: Which president began the traditional of throwing the first pitch on opening day of baseball season? Bonus points for knowing which two teams played during that first game. Send your tips, energy gossip and comments to ktamborrino@politico.com. Follow us on Twitter @kelseytam, @Morning_Energy and @POLITICOPro.
DRIVING THE DAY
DEMOCRATS DRILL DOWN: Democrats on the Natural Resources Committee have demanded the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement hand over unredacted drilling applications following a POLITICO report that the agency had granted nearly 1,700 waivers in 20 months to offshore drilling safety rules that the Obama administration put in place following the 2010 BP oil spill. BSEE has struggled to explain the details of those waivers, and today Democrats will get a chance to ask Interior officials directly.
Doug Morris, the head of the BSEE's Offshore Regulatory Programs, is set to appear this afternoon at a hearing of the Energy and Minerals panel. Morris will be joined by Walter Cruickshank, head of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, which is developing a new offshore drilling lease plan.
Ahead of today's hearing, Diane Hoskins, campaign director for Oceana, told Pro's Ben Lefebvre that by granting offshore drillers such a large number of "variances" to follow alternative procedures, BSEE could be giving oil and gas companies too much leeway. "There are systemic failures in offshore drilling safety oversight and digging into the data from BSEE raises even more questions," Hoskins said.
BSEE said in an report provided to POLITICO that among the waivers granted in the 20 months after the Well Control Rule took effect in mid-2016, nearly 700 "alternate compliances" were approved by the Obama administration in its final six months in office, while the Trump administration granted 960, Ben reports. Read more.
ALSO ON THE HILL
ABOUT THAT PLAN: A House Oversight subcommittee today holds the first hearing on PFAS toxins since EPA released its "action plan" for the chemicals last month. EPA's water chief, David Ross, will take a seat at the witness table alongside Reps. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), who co-chair the Congressional PFAS Task Force and have raised concerns that the much-trumpeted EPA document is "just a vague plan leading to more inaction."
The Defense Department's top environmental official, Maureen Sullivan, will also testify. In anticipation of her testimony, the Environmental Working Group today unveiled an interactive map showing the 106 sites where the nonstick chemicals have contaminated drinking water or groundwater.
EPA groundwater cleanup guidance that could have major financial repercussions for DoD has been stuck in interagency review since August amid a dispute between the agencies over its stringency. If you go: The hearing is at 10 a.m. in 2154 Rayburn.
CASTOR EYES FOR FIRST CLIMATE HEARING: The chairwoman of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis told reporters she hopes to hold her panel's first hearing by the end of March and plans to meet with her ranking member, Rep. Garret Graves, this week, Pro's Anthony Adragna reports.
Rep. Kathy Castor and Graves said they didn't know each other particularly well, but Graves said he called the Florida Democrat shortly after his selection became official. He added he hoped to "redefine the narrative" on climate change issues to focus on issues like adaptation in addition to those concerning emissions reductions.
BRIEFED: Two of the 58 national security veterans who signed a letter urging President Donald Trump against launching a contrarian climate change advisory panel briefed the Senate Climate Action Task Force on Tuesday, according to an aide for Sen. Ed Markey. Sherri Goodman, the first ever deputy undersecretary of Defense for environmental security and Sharon Burke, former assistant secretary of Defense for operational energy, spoke about the impacts of climate change on national security.
NOT SURE WHAT'S UP: It's now been more than a month since Trump picked David Bernhardt to lead Interior permanently and Energy Chairman Lisa Murkowski told reporters she has no idea why his paperwork hasn't yet been sent over to the Senate. "Why do we not have it? What is up with that?" she asked. Her panel can't do anything on his nomination until the paperwork arrives.
WAITING ON THE VOTE: Two senior Senate Republicans said Tuesday a vote on the Green New Deal resolution, S. Res. 59 (116), might not happen until after a break scheduled for the week of March 18. "It may be likely after the March recess," Senate EPW Chairman John Barrasso said, adding he expected a vote next week on Trump's border wall emergency declaration. Sen. John Cornyn, formerly the chamber's No. 2, echoed that sentiment. Majority Leader Mitch McConnellsaid Tuesday the vote would be in the "next couple weeks."
HERE TO HELP: The Carbon Capture Coalition sent a letter to congressional leaders on the role of carbon capture in climate legislation. The letter lays out several areas where the coalition stands "ready to work" with lawmakers from both political parties, including on the expansion of the 45Q tax credit for carbon capture, utilization and removal projects, and on federal funding for research and development of the next generation of carbon capture technologies.
AROUND THE AGENCIES
BERNHARDT TO ISSUE FIRST ORDERS: Bernhardt is expected to sign his first two secretarial orders today, an Interior spokesperson told ME. The orders will "focus on conservation of big game habitat and public access to BLM lands for recreation, hunting and fishing," the spokesperson said.
Bernhardt will be in Denver today to deliver the keynote address at the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference's morning plenary session.
TRUMP TAPS ANOTHER TO TVA: Trump announced Tuesday his intent to nominate William Kilbride for the Tennessee Valley Authority for a five-year term expiring in 2023.
BEYOND THE BELTWAY
2020 WATCH: Former New York City Mayor and climate activist Michael Bloomberg will not run for president in 2020, he said in an editorial Tuesday. Bloomberg wrote that "the best way for me to help our country is by rolling up my sleeves and continuing to get work done."
To do that, Bloomberg will expand his support for the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign to retire every coal-fired power plant over the next 11 years. He will also help launch "a new, even more ambitious phase of the campaign" dubbed "Beyond Carbon" to move America away from oil and gas and toward a 100 percent clean-energy economy.
PAC LAUNCHES INSLEE AD: The super PAC supporting Washington Gov. Jay Inslee's bid for president is out with a seven-figure ad buy today — Act Now on Climate's first of the 2020 cycle. The ad says Inslee "transformed his state into a clean-energy leader." It begins on national cable today.
REPORT: ENERGY JOBS 'OUTPERFORM' OVERALL ECONOMY: Employment figures were strong across most of the energy sector in 2018 with the exception of areas like coal-fired generation, which shed some 6,600 jobs, according to a new report from Energy Futures Initiative and the National Association of State Energy Officials. "In spite of one of the highest levels of employment in recent U.S. history, the traditional energy and energy efficiency sectors continued to outperform the economy as a whole," the report states. Meanwhile, natural gas employment in electric sector increased by more than 5,200 jobs, a growth that outstripped that for wind energy firms last year. Read the report.
MOVERS AND SHAKERS
— Alex Hutkin is now manager of the Free Oil Markets Campaign at Securing America's Future Energy. He previously was deputy chief of staff and legislative director for Rep. Steve Russell (R-Okla.).
— Transmission trade association WIRES announced Executive Director Jim Hoecker retired, and it had kicked off a search for his replacement. Hoecker previously was the chairman of FERC from 1997 to 2001.
POLITICO PLAYBOOK: Washington is full of whispers … listen in with Playbook. Be in the know. Sign up today here.
THE GRID
— "Splitting apart PG&E could hurt California's carbon neutrality goals, Sierra Club says," UtilityDive.
— "Plan to focus oil rules on safety creates divide in Colorado," Associated Press.
— "Post-Hurricane Harvey, NASA tried to fly a pollution-spotting plane over Houston. The EPA said no," Los Angeles Times.
— "Exxon and Chevron just announced big plans to surge oil and gas output from top U.S. field," CNBC.
— "The head of Grand Canyon was target of 'unfounded' bullying and hostile work environment claims," KUER.
— "Search the thousands of disaster buyouts FEMA didn't want you to see," NPR.
HAPPENING TODAY
8:15 a.m. — National Association of State Energy Officials, the Energy Futures Initiative, and BW Research public release of the 2019 U.S. Energy and Employment Report.
9 a.m. — American Chemistry Council's 2019 GlobalChem Conference and Exhibition, 2500 Calvert St. NW.
9 a.m. — House Appropriations Interior-Environment Subcommittee hearing on "Public Witness Hearing — Tribal Programs: Day 1, Morning Session," 2007 Rayburn.
10 a.m. — House Oversight Environment Subcommittee hearing on "Examining PFAS Chemicals and their Risks," 2154 Rayburn.
10 a.m. — Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on economic benefits of highway infrastructure investment and accelerated project delivery, 406 Dirksen.
10:30 a.m. — House Ways and Means Committee hearing on "Our Nation's Crumbling Infrastructure and the Need for Immediate Action," 1100 Longworth.
1 p.m. — House Appropriations Interior-Environment Subcommittee hearing on "Public Witness Hearing — Tribal Programs: Day 1, Afternoon Session," 2007 Rayburn.
2 p.m. — House Natural Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee hearing on "Examining the Policies and Priorities of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, and the U.S. Geological Survey," 1324 Longworth.
2 p.m. — House Science Committee hearing on "Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Science and Technology," 2318 Rayburn.
2:30 p.m. — Middle East Institute and the Atlantic Council Global Energy Center discussion on "The Financial Markets of the Arab Gulf: Power, Politics and Money," 1319 18th St. NW.
5 p.m. — Johns Hopkins University Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies discussion on "India Energy and Climate Policies," 1619 Massachusetts Ave. NW.
5:30 p.m. — Resources for the Future discussion on "Paying for Pollution: Why a Carbon Tax is Good for America," 1400 16th St. NW.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/newsletters/morning-energy/2019/03/house-hearing-drills-down-on-safety-534803

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Colorado’s Ban On Banning Plastics Has Cities’ Plans To Outlaw Single-use Bags And Straws In Limbo

Mar 7, 2019 | The Colorado Sun

By Tamara Chuang

A little-known Colorado law written to protect recycling stands is in the way of cities that want to outlaw straws, plastic grocery bags and Styrofoam containers
n its way to considering a ban on those flimsy disposable plastic grocery store bags, the city of Denver found out it can’t.
Apparently, there is a Colorado law that bans municipalities from banning plastics, and Denver isn’t the only one to be taken aback.
This may seem peculiar in a state where at least nine communities already ban single-use plastic grocery bags, which can muck up recyclers’ sorting machines and survive for years in landfills. But there it is, in Section 7 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, 25-17-104:

On its way to considering a ban on those flimsy disposable plastic grocery store bags, the city of Denver found out it can’t.
Apparently, there is a Colorado law that bans municipalities from banning plastics, and Denver isn’t the only one to be taken aback.
This may seem peculiar in a state where at least nine communities already ban single-use plastic grocery bags, which can muck up recyclers’ sorting machines and survive for years in landfills. But there it is, in Section 7 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, 25-17-104:
Local government preemption. No unit of local government shall require or prohibit the use or sale of specific types of plastic materials or products or restrict or mandate containers, packaging, or labeling for any consumer products.Page 866 of this PDF of Colorado’s laws
“We’re one of 10 states that has a municipal preemption where cities are not allowed to do this,” said Jolon Clark, president of Denver City Council. “Our attorneys were like, ‘This is great that you want to talk about it, but just know that you’re not legally allowed to do that.’ ”
There’s an effort underway to press politicians to change the 1993 statute, which is crammed into the recycling section. Other attempts this session at the statehouse to put limits on throwaway plastics, like straws, food containers and those grocery bags have so far had no results.
A bill to prevent restaurants from offering plastic straws unless a customer requests one was put on hold indefinitely last week. Another bill to let local governments regulate disposable food containers has been sitting without a committee hearing for two months. But the real hurdle here may not be about recycling, but rather, preemption and whether local governments should be able to regulate recycling within city limits.
“It’s a matter of local control,” said Morgan Cullen, legislative and policy advocate at the Colorado Municipal League, adding that all eight towns that banned plastic bags are home-rule communities. “But until the courts make that determination, there’s a gray area. Even home-rule municipalities have to give credence to the possibility of a lawsuit for enacting an ordinance that would prohibit plastic bags.”
The uncertainty caused towns like Avon to limit its own desires. The town’s disposable plastic bag ban went into effect last May and tacked on a 10-cent fee for paper bags. But it excluded polystyrene foam containers, the common to-go food containers.
“We elected not to move forward with it at the time because of the uncertainty of the state statute,” said Preston Neill, Avon’s deputy town manager. “… But there seems to be support for initiatives like this based on adopted plans and the collective sentiment from comments at meetings.”
Aspen’s plastic bag ban started in 2012. Retailers charge a 20-cent fee for paper bags. Then the city was sued — but not for violating the state statute. Rather, lawyers for the Colorado Union of Taxpayers Foundation argued that the fee was a tax that required a vote by residents (as required by TABOR, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights — here’s an explainer). The case went all the way to the Colorado Supreme Court, which ruled last spring that, nope, the fee is a fee.
The preemption law? It never came up, said Liz O’Connell Chapman, Aspen’s waste reduction and environmental health specialist.
“I was flabbergasted. I didn’t even find out it existed until after the Supreme Court closed on our case and I was having discussions with someone about Styrofoam,” said Chapman, who advises any city interested in banning plastic bags to gather data on local bag use first. “That’s when I realized nobody had said anything about this for five years. Nobody mentioned this preemption thing. The people who sued us were not interested in preemption. That was not their beef. It was all about TABOR.”
The obscure state statute might not have been well known to locals but attorneys for eco-striving Colorado cities knew about it. Telluride, the first Colorado municipality to ban plastic bags, did so in 2010 but not without careful consideration of the statute, town attorney Kevin Geiger said.
“We were aware of this statutory provision and while it appears to be broadly worded, when you look at the legislative declaration of it and the context of the legislation in 1993, it’s pretty clear that it’s about local governments not interfering with the recycling of plastics and (it’s) not a broader regulation of plastics in general,” Geiger said.
Still, Telluride kept its ban to only plastic bags and not to “containers, packaging or labeling” as the law specifically mentions.
“My council has expressed a desire to go into single-use plastics, like the disposable forks handed out at restaurants, or straws. But this law has broader language of containers that has given us some pause,” Geiger added. “We’re going to wait a little bit and see what happens. If there’s going to be a legislative fix, we’re happy to wait a little bit longer.”Proposed, pending and failed bills
Keeping mum about plastic straws until a customer asked for one seemed like practical way for restaurants to cut down on costs and trash. Plastic straws are too small to effectively recycle at facilities.
And the thin tubes are blamed for cluttering up the environment, with at least one straw getting snorted up the nostril of a poor sea turtle, the unfortunate star of a distressing video credited with starting the current straw ban movement.
But Colorado’s House Bill 1143, or the “straws on request” bill, failed to find a compromise. Opponents, including the Colorado Municipal League, said there were too many exemptions — drive-thrus and food deliveries were excluded — and the bill took away the right of local governments to regulate straws in their own communities.
The Colorado Restaurant Association, which initially supported the measure, also walked away because the lack of a statewide standard would be confusing and costly for restaurants to implement, spokeswoman Carolyn Livingston said.
“Legislation giving each municipality the ability to have different rules, laws and enforcement would cause significant confusion for businesses as a patchwork of local laws are established by local governments,” she said. “Additionally, in metro areas, restaurants are competing with each other in jurisdictions that are separated by a street. … We’d prefer a level playing field for all restaurants.”
The bill was killed on Feb. 25.
Meanwhile, Senate Bill 34 would reword the existing state statute to allow local governments to set standards for “ready-to-eat food containers” to be recyclable or compostable. But two months after being introduced, the bill still hasn’t been heard in committee.
The American Chemistry Council, which lobbies for plastics manufacturers, opposed Avon’s ban on plastic food containers and specifically pointed out the state law. But also, said Keith Christman, the council’s plastics division managing director, bans don’t help the environment.
“They just switch from one product to another,” Christman said. “They don’t eliminate waste.”
Alternative food containers tend to be heavier than foam containers, cost more and often take more energy to produce, he said.
“And if you haven’t put in better waste management, all you’re doing is paying more money for alternatives that aren’t better for the environment,” he said, adding that the organization is committed to all plastic packaging being recyclable or recoverable by 2030.
Bill sponsor state Sen. Dominick Moreno, a Commerce City Democrat, said negotiations continue and the bill is not ready for debate.
“It’s possible,” Moreno added, “that the bill may take a different form, like a statewide ban on Styrofoam take-out containers.”
The Colorado Municipal League has bigger plans. It is working with unnamed state legislators to appeal the preemption so municipalities could move ahead with regulating plastic straws, containers and other plastics.
“We expect legislation in the 2019 session,” Cullen said.So why does this preemption law exist?
According to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, which oversees recycling in the state, the statute stems from the 1989 House Bill 1300.
The law, approved by former Gov. Roy Romer on May 17 that year, prevented local governments “from regulating the use of plastic materials or products.”
There’s no explanation about why the bill was proposed, but in the same paragraph, the law goes on to direct plastics manufacturers to use labels that identify what type of plastic is used in their products and authorizes the executive director of the state department of local affairs to start a pilot program for plastics recycling.
The intent was to encourage recycling but also prevent communities from limiting what types of plastics could be or not be used. It sits in the recycling section of the Colorado state statutes, said Cullen, with the Colorado Municipal League, who also checked with a predecessor to glean details of the law’s origin.
It was a time when incentivizing people to recycle was built into the law. And likely, Cullen added, “it was part of some sort of compromise with the industry in that if we’re going to continue to promote recycling, we would also require a statewide preemption of plastic products.”
Back then, America had a different mindset when it came to recycling. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, fewer people were recycling and U.S. recycling rates of municipal solid waste were at 16 percentin 1990. By 2015, the U.S. reached 34 percent, putting us well below countries like Germany (at 65 percent), South Korea (at 59 percent) and Slovenia (at 58 percent), according to Forbes.
The 1989 law was amended in 1993 with House Bill 1318, called the “Promotion of Disposal Alternatives.” At that time, the state statute added the language about municipalities not restricting or mandating containers, packaging and labeling.
“To put this into context, it was back in 1993 and no one was considering the prohibition of plastics,” Cullen said. “And now it’s 2019 and the general public has become more aware of the environmental costs of plastics and are beginning to petition their local governments about removing single-use plastics.”
And a few paragraphs earlier in the statute, is the legislative declaration that says the general assembly declares recycling “is a matter of statewide concern.”
“It’s pretty clear. They wanted to promote a market for recycling of materials,” said Geiger, the Telluride attorney. “Our conclusion was that this was really based on the state’s concern that they didn’t want local governments to interfere with the types of plastics recycled.”
Efforts are underway to remove the local preemption because until that happens, no town, city or municipality appears to be moving forward to ban plastic straws, food containers or plastic packaging.
However, still missing from the law is any hint of enforcement. And the state division in charge of recycling has this to say about that aspect and the state law:
“This particular provision was not written in a way that outlines enforcement authority or mechanisms,” Joe Schieffelin, the state’s solid waste program manager, said in an email. “As such, the Solid Waste Program does not enforce this section of statute. We advise municipalities to consult with their legal counsel if they have questions on this particular section of statute.”
https://coloradosun.com/2019/03/07/colorado-plastic-ban-law-cities/

Return to headline | Return to top

TSCA News

GAO Keeps EPA Toxics Analyses On High-Risk List, Seeks 'Sufficient' Funds

Mar 6, 2019 | Inside EPA

By Maria Hegstad

Rejecting arguments from EPA, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is continuing to list the agency's premiere chemical assessment programs as a “high risk” issue in need of senior management oversight and is urging Congress and the administration to ensure the agency has “sufficient” funds to ensure their successful implementation.
EPA had argued it has made “significant achievements” in implementing the 2016 overhaul to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and in reforming the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program, and that these steps justified removing them from the list of federal programs GAO says are vulnerable to waste, abuse or mismanagement.
But GAO in a March 6 report says the agency still needs to undertake several key steps before the programs come off the list. Until then, “EPA and Congress should consider ensuring that the resources dedicated to TSCA activities are sufficient to implement TSCA reform activities,” the report says.
“EPA needs to maintain leadership commitment and ensure that it has the resources and plans in place to facilitate progress,” says GAO, which notes it flagged implementation of TSCA as a high risk concern in 2009 -- years before the TSCA reform bill, known as the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, was signed into law in 2016.
In order to address GAO’s ongoing concerns about TSCA implementation, EPA will have to meet several criteria showing it is making progress on addressing the government watchdog’s criticisms. “For example, for the demonstrated progress criterion, EPA will need to respond to provisions in the Lautenberg Act, such as having 20 ongoing risk evaluations by December 2019 and making findings on the safety of all new chemicals,” the report says.
The latest release of the annual high risk list follows GAO’s March 4 release of a separate report on EPA's management of IRIS and TSCA implementation, which found, among other things, irregularities in how EPA leaders prioritized IRIS assessments of the risks to human health from chemicals.
In its response last month to a draft version of the March 4 report, EPA made the case for removing the TSCA and IRIS programs from the high risk list. “In its [2017] High Risk update, GAO concluded that EPA met the criteria for leadership commitment, but only partially met the criteria for demonstrating capacity, having a corrective action plan, having a monitoring program and demonstrating progress. We urge GAO to recognize the significant achievements that have taken place since the last update in both the TSCA and IRIS programs.”
But the high risk update references the March 4 report in justifying retention of the programs on the list, saying there are ongoing “challenges (e.g. process improvements)” in implementing the revised TSCA.
The March 4 report concluded that “EPA has demonstrated progress implementing TSCA by responding to TSCA’s statutory deadlines through the end of fiscal year 2018, including promulgating rules, developing guidance, and releasing reports. However, EPA faces key challenges to its ability to implement TSCA, such as managing the risks posed by ongoing litigation, ensuring appropriate resources, developing guidance to ensure consistency, and ensuring that the new chemicals review process is efficient and predictable.”
TSCA Implementation
GAO notes that environmentalists have filed suits over the Trump EPA’s early “framework” rules to implement TSCA, and a loss in any of those cases could force the agency to revise parts of those regulations, as well as ongoing chemical evaluations.
TSCA reform also “greatly increased” the workload for EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics (OPPT) and some OPPT staff told GAO their fears about inadequate staffing levels. Officials in OPPT’s Chemical Control Division (CCD) and Risk Assessment Division (RAD) in particular said they lack “sufficient resources.”
A prime area of concern for EPA and industry has been the backlog and delays in the new chemicals review program, resulting from statutory requirements for the reviews changing without a phase-in period. Since the June 2016 enactment of TSCA reform, OPPT has pulled EPA employees from other OPPT divisions, such as its green chemistry Safer Choice program, to deal with new TSCA responsibilities.
GAO's report states that OPPT's RAD “is particularly affected by the heavy workload. . . . The division must review all of the premanufacture notices for new chemicals and contribute to the first 10 existing chemical evaluations. Officials from [CCD] told us that [RAD] is struggling more because its work requires more technical employees.”
EPA officials told GAO that while they are hiring new employees, “it takes time to train new people, and this will initially increase workload.”
The agency said that in July 2018 OPPT had about 300 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff with an authorization to hire 40 more. In October 2018, OPPT told GAO it had hired or extended offers to between 20 and 25 of those 40 FTEs. “OPPT officials told us that reaching an appropriate level of FTEs -- including recruiting and retaining staff -- is challenging. OPPT officials said they expect that the recently announced initiative to implement direct hiring authority for scientific and technical positions will have a positive impact on these efforts,” GAO says.
But signaling the major workload facing OPPT staff, the March 4 GAO report notes that as of last October, almost all staff in the IRIS program are spending 25 percent or more of their working hours on TSCA implementation instead of IRIS assessments.
Although GAO found some support from EPA management and staff for a plan to reorganize OPPT to better implement TSCA, it also says there are concerns new divisions would lack adequate staff -- among other lingering staffing concerns including unfilled positions and high staff attrition levels.
Meanwhile, GAO also says it is “unclear” whether the new fees that EPA is charging industry to defray some of the increased costs of TSCA will be sufficient -- a concern that is shared by some environmental groups, though none ultimately sued the agency over its framework rule on fees.
GAO says that EPA officials “expect to collect an average of $20 million per year over the next three fiscal years. In fiscal year 2019, however, they expect to collect approximately $7 million to $8 million. . . . EPA estimates the average yearly cost of TSCA implementation for fiscal years 2019 through 2021 to be $80,178,000. EPA’s fiscal year 2019 budget justification shows $57,973,700 allocated to TSCA implementation.”
But GAO says EPA does not expect a FY19 budget shortfall because the agency has leftover FY18 funds for its FY19 requirements. The agency also gets support from other offices including the general counsel and research division, and expects FY19 costs and indirect TSCA costs to be lower than originally anticipated.
GAO also describes as key challenges for the agency to address the status of its efforts to develop guidance to ensure consistency in implementing the law, and making the new chemicals process efficient and predictable.
IRIS Concerns
GAO releases its High Risk List every two years, at the beginning of each new Congress, according to its website. The biennial list “covers programs vulnerable to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement, or in need of transformation. GAO uses five criteria to assess progress on high-risk areas: leadership commitment, agency capacity, an action plan, monitoring efforts, and demonstrated progress.”
While GAO see challenges for the TSCA program, it upgraded three of the five criteria for determining a high risk program, meaning the agency is making progress to getting the program off the list.
But on IRIS, GAO downgraded one of the criteria, changing its “leadership commitment” criterion for the IRIS program from the status of “met” in 2017 to “partially met” in 2019. EPA’s IRIS assessments are highly influential and often used in a host of agency regulatory decisions and other actions around the world.
The March 6 high risk report notes that in 2017 former Obama EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy identified action on toxics and chemical safety as one of her top seven priorities for the EPA. But “current EPA leadership” in the Trump administration “has not made a similar statement,” GAO notes.
Additionally, GAO raises concerns over EPA leadership's proposed cuts to the IRIS in the last two presidential budget proposals and the recent changes to the IRIS program agenda, which nearly halved its list of chemical assessments. “For the past two years, EPA’s budget justification for human health risk assessment work was reduced to about $22 million from its fiscal year 2017 budget of $40.5 million, contributing to a lower rating than we gave in 2017,” GAO states. “Congress did not support these reductions.”
GAO states that “EPA and Congress should continue to ensure that the resources dedicated to IRIS are sufficient to implement it and to maintain a viable database of chemical assessments.”
GAO also points to EPA's efforts last summer and fall to winnow IRIS' agenda from 22 assessments in progress to the 13 that appear on the new agenda that EPA published in December. GAO criticized the process in its recent standalone report, noting that EPA leadership prevented IRIS staff from releasing any documents for several months during the prioritization, while the process itself was opaque, even within the agency.
“EPA leadership’s long-term accountability for actions has been limited, as demonstrated by four IRIS assessments that were in the later stages of development on [IRIS'] 2015 Multi-Year agenda but have not been released, or included on the December 2018 list of assessments. EPA provided no information on the status of these assessments or whether it plans to discontinue working on them or restart them at another time.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/gao-keeps-epa-toxics-analyses-high-risk-list-seeks-sufficient-funds

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) New Chemicals Backlog May Be Unclogged With EPA Policy

Mar 6, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

The EPA hopes to clear a backlog of company requests to make new chemicals now that it has a clearer policy to identify possible future uses of those substances, an agency official said March 6.
The Environmental Protection Agency also may be able to allow more new chemicals enter commerce without placing unwarranted manufacturing or use restrictions on the company that originally requested to produce the new compound, Greg Schweer, chief of the EPA’s new chemicals branch, said during the 2019 Global Chemicals Regulation Conference.
“We’ve set some targets to reduce that backlog quite substantially now that we’ve made policy decisions” such as clarifying how the new chemicals program will define a compound’s “conditions of use,” Schweer said.

The agency is working to both meet the 90-day time limit the Toxic Substances Control Act provides for new chemical reviews and reduce the backlog of older requests that have already exceeded that timeline, the agency told Bloomberg Environment in an email following Schweer’s presentation.
The EPA has a backlog of about 200 new chemicals awaiting the agency’s decision on whether they can be put into commerce, according to its latest statistics updated on March 4.
That means the agency is currently reviewing about 500 new chemicals, or 200 more than its average of 300. Some of those 500 chemicals have been under review for more than a year.
Improvements Made
“Each submission is unique, and some may advance through the process at a faster rate than others,” the agency email said, adding that it has tried to improve its processes to speed up reviews and final safety determinations.

For example, the agency now much earlier in the process assigns program managers that companies can talk to about their new chemicals requests, said Rebecca Edelstein, who helps manage new chemical reviews.
Under the 2016 amendments to the law, no new chemical can be made unless its production has been approved by the EPA. Prior to the law’s overhaul, even if the EPA did nothing, a new chemical could enter commerce 90 days after a company submitted the required information to the agency.
The law requires the agency, as it reviews new chemicals, to consider their “conditions of use.”
The statute defines the term as meaning the “circumstances, as determined by the administrator, under which a chemical substance is intended, known, or reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed, distributed in commerce, used, or disposed of.”
When companies file their request to make a new chemical, they must submit a form called a premanufacture notice (PMN) describing the chemical’s intended use, Schweer said.
‘Reasonably Foreseen’ Use
The EPA’s challenge has been to figure out what constitutes a “reasonably foreseen” use of a new chemical, Schweer said.
The agency will use all available data, including information on similar chemicals, to help it determine the reasonably expected uses of a new substance, he said. Making these decisions will involve professional judgment and facts, he said.
Hypothetical, conjectured use scenarios will not be considered reasonably foreseen, Schweer said.
Chemical manufacturers should provide any information that could help the EPA understand actual exposures to the new chemical that workers or other people could experience and releases that occur, said Schweer and other agency analysts at the conference.
Use of Models
Without specific details, the EPA uses models and makes assumptions all of which are designed to assume exposure to a chemical is higher than it may be.
Each EPA speakers urged chemical manufacturers to provide the types of information recommended in the “Points to Consider” document it updated in June 2018.
“Ultimately we want the best assessment of your chemical,” said Jeff Gallagher, an environmental toxicologist at the EPA. “Information can only refine your assessment.”
The agency also anticipates the chemical manufacturers will comply with federal and state worker protection, disposal, and other regulations, he said.
This understanding should help the agency allow more new chemicals onto the market without restrictions being placed on the original manufacturer when its planned uses of that compound don’t raise undue concerns, Schweer said.
Significant New Use Rules
Concerns the agency has about potentially risky uses of that same chemical will be handled through proposed “significant new use rules,” he said.
Such rules, called SNURs, require manufacturers to get approval before they can make or use a chemical in a way the agency has said raises concerns.
That gives the EPA the opportunity to review the planned manufacturing process or use and determine whether controls on it are needed.
Last October, the EPA released its first batch of SNURs illustrating this type of control, Schweer said. He referred to a batch of rules covering 13 chemicals.
“We will be doing more in the future,” he said.
“That’s good news,” said Christina Franz, a senior director at the American Chemistry Council, the trade association that hosts the annual Global Chemical Regulations conference.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/new-chemicals-backlog-may-be-unclogged-with-epa-policy-1

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) ICCA seeks ‘Reinvigorated’ Post-2020 Global Chemicals Framework

Mar 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch

By Leigh Stringer

The International Council of Chemical Associations, the ICCA, will push for a "reinforced and reinvigorated" global chemicals programme at international discussions in the coming weeks.
The mandate for the current global framework – the UN's non-binding Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (Saicm) – ends in 2020, when a decision on what follows will be agreed at the fifth International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM5) in Bonn, Germany.
The ICCA will continue to oppose the idea of a binding global agreement for chemicals and waste, while supporting the continuation of the UN’s voluntary Saicm programme. It will be pushing its position at next week's fourth UN Environment Assembly (Unea-4) in Nairobi, Kenya (see box).
Speaking on its behalf, vice president of regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council, Mike Walls, told Chemical Watch to achieve such a programme, governments need to:agree to extend the Saicm mandate beyond 2020 – effectively reinforcing the multistakeholder approach as the desired pathway, and develop clear and tangible indicators to measure progress on sound chemicals management; andcommit, in the Saicm context, to broader pursuit of regulatory cooperation. For example, there are some elements of a chemical regulatory system that individual countries do not have to duplicate, says Mr Walls. "Australia, for example, relies on Canadian new chemical decisions." Such an effort, he adds, could identify specific areas to achieve efficiencies, while retaining sovereign rights over chemicals management decisions.
Additionally, a "mentoring programme" between developed and developing countries on key elements of basic chemicals schemes, including GHS implementation, could be established to help advance the safe management of chemicals and waste globally.Global treaty
A legally binding treaty on chemicals is being pushed by some ministers through the High Ambition Alliance, led by Sweden’s recently appointed deputy prime minister Isabella Lovin.
Disagreeing with a treaty approach, Mr Walls says: "We’re far more able to foster the development and implementation of solutions" through a flexible, voluntary programme.
A treaty, he adds, could take five years to negotiate and then another five to ten years to achieve full implementation.
"We see Saicm as a key international intergovernmental and industry effort to really foster the development of pragmatic solutions that can be applied to a variety of unique circumstances," says Mr Walls.2020 goal
The 1992 Rio Declaration first set out a mandate for addressing chemicals management globally. The Saicm goal of achieving the sound management of chemicals globally by 2020 was then agreed at the 2002 Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development.
Saicm was adopted in 2006.
According to a summary of the UN’s second Global Chemicals Outlook report – to be released during April’s Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) meeting – the 2020 goal will not be achieved. And exposure to substances of concern is likely to grow in line with the predicted growth of chemicals production over the next 30 years.
Mr Walls says he does not agree with this conclusion on the 2020 goal. "We've made significant progress towards that goal since the Saicm programme was launched."
"A more appropriate approach to the discussion is considering what we have achieved and how we can continue to build on successes as opposed to bemoaning the fact that we haven't completely achieved the 2020 goal as articulated in the Rio declaration," he added.Robust framework
"Discussion between NGOs, industry and government is proving incredibly effective," under Saicm, says Mr Walls.
"We have what we consider a robust mix of hard and soft international actions in the chemicals management arena," he adds, referring to three chemicals-related treaties – the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, which address particular aspects of chemicals management.
These agreements "should be fully implemented globally but unfortunately not all countries signed up have done so.
"What we've seen in the implementation of these mechanisms is that we need a more flexible, pragmatic and functional programme, at the operational level. And that's what we think Saicm does," he says.
The approach is "the right way to talk about the many areas where chemicals issues may be raised".Global meetings
Two upcoming global meetings will contribute to discussions on what form a post-2020 framework will take:the UN's fourth Environment Assembly (Unea-4) next week in Nairobi, Kenya with the theme ‘Innovative solutions for environmental challenges and sustainable consumption and production (SCP)’; andthe meeting of the Saicm Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) in Montevideo, Uruguay to discuss a future global policy approach to chemicals and waste.
https://chemicalwatch.com/74802/icca-seeks-reinvigorated-post-2020-global-chemicals-framework

Return to headline | Return to top
California Biomonitoring Programme Updates List Of Designated Chemicals

Mar 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch

The California Environmental Contaminant Biomonitoring Program has updated its list of designated chemicals.
Additions to the Biomonitoring California list include several chemicals newly measured by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and cover:
·         a new group of heterocyclic amines, mostly listed as known to the state to cause cancer under Proposition 65;
·         an additional phthalate alternative, di-2-ethylhexyl terephthalate;
·         additional flame retardants;
·         additional volatile organic compounds (VOCs);
·         1-Nitropyrene metabolites, which Biomonitoring California measures as biomarkers for diesel exhaust exposure; and
·         additional chemicals that belong to categories already covered as entire groups, such as brominated and chlorinated organic compounds used as flame retardants and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). This is for informational purposes only, since all members of those groups are already designated chemicals whether they appear on the list or not.
The state programme made other minor corrections, such as clarifying the definition of PFAS.
Updates were also made to the priority list, which represents the pool of substances from which the Scientific Guidance Panel will recommend for biomonitoring.

Three chlorinated phenols – pentachlorophenol, 2,4,5-trichlorophenol, and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol – were deleted from it, having been "mistakenly" copied to it in a prior version.

Biomonitoring California is a collaborative effort of three state departments - The California Department of Public Health (CDPH), the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).
https://chemicalwatch.com/74877/california-biomonitoring-programme-updates-list-of-designated-chemicals

Return to headline | Return to top
California to Survey Airports, Landfills, Wells for Contaminants

Mar 7, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Emily C. Dooley

California is launching a plan this month to require testing of drinking water wells, landfill facilities, and airport sites for so-called “forever chemicals” in an attempt to map out exposure to the contaminants.
Based on surveys, an estimated 3.5 million Californians use drinking water supplies that have detected these per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, above federal health advisory levels. But the extent of exposure, and how the contaminants are getting into drinking water supplies, isn’t known.
“This first step in the monitoring will start to fill in some of the blanks,” Darrin Polhemus, deputy director for drinking water programs for the California State Water Resources Control Board, said during a March 6 workshop.
Later surveys will include sampling at manufacturing sites, refineries, wastewater treatment plants, and areas burned by wildfire in 2017 and 2018, said Shahla Farahnak, assistant deputy director in the State Water Resources Control Board’s groundwater monitoring section.
The chemicals are found in food packaging, clothing, carpeting, nonstick products, and firefighting foam and don’t easily break down. They can accumulate in the body and lead to development issues in children, thyroid problems, cancer, and other ill health effects.
The man-made compounds are not regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Some states such as Vermont, Michigan, and New York have set or are setting limits or alert levels in the meantime, citing the public health risks.
Notification Levels
California has set notification levels for two compounds, but there are thousands of others.
“They are widely found in our environment,” said Corine Li, drinking water manager in EPAs Region 9, which covers California. “They are found in our homes. They are found in our products. They are found in industry.”
In February, EPA announced it would decide by the end of the year whether or not to set drinking water standards for the compounds. If the agency decides to set a limit, it has 24 months to proposed that threshold and another 18 months to finalize the standard, Li said, adding the challenge is assessing risk while factoring in cost.
EPA has set a health advisory level of 70 parts per trillion combined for two of the chemicals, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and for perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS).
Tests in California have detected concentrations of up to 8 million parts per trillion, the highest hit in the nation, at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake about 150 miles north of Los Angeles.
‘Raise the Urgency’
“We have a problem here and we need to raise the urgency,” said Andria Ventura, toxics program manager for Clean Water Action. “There could be hundreds, thousands of PFAS entering our water at any time.”
Industrial operations and consumer products are a source, but so is the military.
The Department of Defense has identified 401 active and closed military facilities in the nation where the release of PFOA and PFOS are known or suspected to have happened. Of those 53, or 13 percent, are in California, said Richard Mach, the Navy’s director of environmental compliance and restoration policy.
“That number will probably grow a little bit,” Mach said.
The Defense Department is trying to develop alternative foams, but they can take five times longer to put out fires.
“It’s critically important that we have an agent that can put out fires and save people and equipment,” he said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/california-to-survey-airports-landfills-wells-for-contaminants

Return to headline | Return to top
Congress Joins Fight Between Air Force and New Mexico

Mar 7, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By David Schultz

Congress is getting involved in an ongoing dispute between the U.S. Air Force and the State of New Mexico over who should pay to clean up water contaminated with toxic nonstick chemicals.
New Mexico Senators Tom Udall (D) and Martin Heinrich (D), along with Rep. Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.), introduced bills March 6 that push the EPA and Department of Defense to move more quickly to address military bases in their state that have water contaminated with chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.
The bills, which were not yet posted on the online congressional legislative tracker, would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a plan and budget request to start cleaning up these chemicals.
Several months ago, the New Mexico Environment Department issued a violation notice to the Air Force over contamination at two bases in the state. The Air Force responded by suing the state in federal court, arguing New Mexico does not have the authority to penalize it. That suit is ongoing.
The PFAS problems in New Mexico also came up during a March 6 hearing at a House Oversight subcommittee. David Ross, the top water regulator at the Environmental Protection Agency, said he’s been in discussions with the Department of Agriculture on how PFAS may affect livestock after reports that ranchers in New Mexico had to euthanize cows that drank contaminated water.
Air Force spokeswoman Maj. Lindy Singleton declined to comment for the story, citing a policy against weighing in on pending legislation.
The EPA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/congress-joins-fight-between-air-force-and-new-mexico

Return to headline | Return to top
Feature: The Extreme Challenge Of PFCs

Mar 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch

By Leigh Stringer

Per- and polyfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) – a subset of the broader group of substances known as PFASs – are used in a wide range of applications for their water, oil and stain resistance. These useful properties have been a major selling point for the outdoor apparel industry for decades, making it one of the most well-known downstream users of the chemicals.
However, as a result, the industry has been a focus of discussions on the environmental concerns surrounding these persistent substances.
Following a campaign started by the NGO Greenpeace in 2012, many outdoor companies began phasing out certain long-chain (C8) PFCs, such as PFOA and PFOS. Long-chain PFCs have for some time been identified as chemicals of concern due to their persistence and ecological toxicity. Global action, under the UN’s Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (POPs), has been taken on PFOS, while PFOA is under consideration.
And most recently, the US EPA has set out a number of actions to address concerns associated with PFAS chemicals.Industry efforts
The task of replacing PFCs – which have provided many of the outdoor industry’s products with some of their primary performance characteristics – is one of this decade's more significant challenges, says Dr Jane Turnbull, sustainability project manager for industry association the European Outdoor Group. But it is one that the industry is "tackling head on".
The outdoor sector, says Ms Turnbull, was singled out for their use of these chemicals and subsequently encouraged to rapidly phase out C8 substances PFOA and PFOS.
The ‘go to’ replacement has been short-chain (C6) PFCs. The fluorinated chemicals industry say the science supports the conclusion that the newer short-chain chemicals are not expected to present a significant risk to humans and the environment, unlike their long-chain relatives.
However, at a meeting last year, the expert committee of the Stockholm Convention agreed with "the growing consensus among scientists" that PFAS must be addressed as a class.
The Madrid Scientific Consensus Statement on PFASs asserts that it is essential "to take measures at the international level to reduce the use of PFASs in products and prevent their replacement with fluorinated alternatives in order to avoid long-term harm to human health and the environment".
Ms Turnbull says: "The change to C6 short-chain fluorine-based formulations was driven by this pressure and the need to continue to offer the high level of performance our industry is famed for and demanded by our customers". However, this was done "without publicly available data that was, it could be argued, needed to also understand shifting burdens into other stages of the product lifecycle".
"At the point that the changes were made, the evidence for lasting impact caused by C8 was still in its infancy, let alone a fuller understanding of what a switch to C6 would bring, beyond lower toxicity and bioaccumulation characteristics of short-chain chemistries," she adds.
To highlight this further, the German environment agency (UBA) recently proposed that the short-chain PFC PFHxA and its-related (C6) substances be classified as an SVHC. However, it withdrew the proposal following dissent from the UK and Finland.
"Our members recognise that they must make progress on finding effective alternatives to C6, lest they be left with flawed performance resulting in shorter lived products as the legislation surpasses them," says Ms Turnbull.
"The feeling now within the industry is to do the research right and ensure that the changes made and innovations that are developed are done so accurately and with the long view, to avoid further potential mis-steps and unforeseen implications," she adds.
Many promising alternatives to these substances are commercially available and in use, says Jessie Curry, sustainable business innovation manager from the Outdoor Industry Association (OIA).
The industry is moving towards assessing these against performance requirements, costs, design and development timelines.
This technological promise has seen some OIA members make public or internal commitments to phase out the use of fluorinated durable water repellent (DWR) treatments from their products, such as The North Face and Jack Wolfskin.
Some have gone a step further. Vaude, for example, says all products will be 100% PFC-free by 2020, while Paramo made a full transition in 2016, choosing to use PFC-free waterproofing products from its sister company Nikwax. Paramo says outdoor brands still use PFCs because "they are nervous that, without them, their products would not stand up to the technical demands required in wild conditions".
However, Paramo says it "has proven that high waterproof performance does not require PFC pollution" and that its clothing has "been used by many expeditions very successfully".Outdoor brands with PFC commitments:Vaude – all products to be 100% PFC-free by 2020;WL Gore & Associates – all materials to be PFC-free by 2023;Jack Wolfskin – phase out of PFCs from clothing items, packs and bags from spring/summer 2019; andThe North Face – 100% non-fluorinated DWR used on its apparel by 2020.
Others have taken different steps. For example, WL Gore & Associates – which makes Gore-Tex outdoor products – is transitioning to synthetic fluoropolymer PTFE membranes, which can be manufactured without using harmful PFCs, such as PFOA, as polymerisation aids. It is already using this in several of its products.
However, the company recently said that it will not meet its 2020 commitment to phase out the use of PFCs "of environmental concern" from 85% of its products due to "technical challenges". The company is on track, however, to meet its 2017 commitment to remove the chemicals from the remaining 15% of consumer fabrics by 2023.
"Although we had technical breakthroughs in finding new and high- performing materials free from PFCs of environmental concern, commercialising PTFE made without [these substances] will take longer than we originally expected," said Jon Hammerschmidt, sustainability technical champion for Gore Fabrics.
Gore has some of the world's leading textile and chemical scientists working for them and grappling with this subject, says Ms Turnbull.
"As such, if they say that they are coming up against 'technical challenges’ as needing more time to provide solutions at scale, then we should be in no doubt as to the complexity of the task," she says.
Ms Turnbull says that, given Gore’s ambition to address this issue, the company’s "admission of these challenges should be applauded".
We should acknowledge, she says, that it is better to do the research properly and get the right results. If achieved, it will bring "great benefits to the wider textile market and not just the outdoor clothing industry".Performance
The main challenge to fully replacing long-chain PFCs remains in the most technical products designed for extreme conditions, such as ‘hard shell’ outer jacket layers that are intended to be used in severe alpine environments.
"In these instances, the DWR performance is not only an aspect of comfort but also of safety, as any inability to regulate body temperature becomes a life-threatening scenario," says Ms Curry.
The challenge is in part due to the difficulty in finding replacement solutions that meet necessary performance requirements without compromising product durability or life span, which are a "key aspect in determining the overall environmental footprint of a product", says Ms Curry.
"Some studies have shown implications that certain non-fluorinated alternatives may require more wash, care and reapplication to maintain the original level of performance, which greatly increases impacts associated to the use phase," she says.
But, adds Ms Curry, there is also evidence that certain short-chain PFC treatments may be "as harmful to workers and the environment as their long-chain predecessors".
For this reason, she says, the industry continues to collectively seek and use data to make informed decisions on the chemistries and other treatments that go into products, while upholding necessary performance and durability requirements and avoiding the potential trap of "regrettable substitutions".The work of the OIA
The OIA's Sustainability Working Group and Chemicals Management Community of Practice has to "understand the product, environmental and performance issues associated with DWR in order to ensure product integrity and establish best practices in the industry", says Jessie Curry, OIA sustainable business innovation manager.
It encourages manufacturers across the industry to:know the specific DWR being applied to their products;assess product performance specifications and regulatory requirements; anddetermine if or what DWR solutions align with their needs.
The organisation also offers manufacturers a free resource for chemicals management.

Return to headline | Return to top
Democrats Launch Broad Inter-Agency Inquiry Into EPA's PFAS Policies

Mar 6, 2019 | Inside EPA

By Suzanne Yohannan

House and Senate Democrats are launching a broad investigation into the role EPA and other agencies played in development of its policies to address per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), renewing concerns that the Defense Department (DOD) and other officials may have blocked strict regulatory plans.
In similar letters sent to EPA, DOD, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) March 6, ranking Democrats on the Senate environment, health, armed services and homeland security and government affairs committees sought inter-agency correspondence and documents exchanged between EPA and other federal agencies on the agency's just-released action plan as well as a stalled EPA groundwater cleanup guidance.
OMB, HHS, and DOD “all participated in the inter-agency review of EPA's PFAS Action plan,” the senators note. “It is also our understanding that the groundwater cleanup guidelines for [perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)] and [perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)] have been held up at OMB since August 2018 due to an inter-agency dispute related to how stringent the guidelines should be."
And House lawmakers during a March 6 hearing on PFAS similarly pressed EPA on whether Trump administration officials have pressured the agency to back off from regulating PFAS.
Such advocacy renews concerns first raised by lawmakers and others in 2017 after Inside EPA and other outlets reported that DOD and EPA officials asked the White House to block release of a draft risk study by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), an agency within HHS, because they feared a “public relations nightmare,” as the draft adopted significantly stricter risk values than EPA's for PFAS chemicals.
While ATSDR released the draft report, the agencies' differences over how to assess the substances' risks continues and appears to be responsible for the delay of EPA's groundwater cleanup guidelines, as EPA, HHS and DOD are reportedly at odds over what cleanup levels to set.
The new oversight continues pressure from Democrats on EPA to take action on PFAS, a class of more than 4,000 chemicals that have been tied to various health effects and are causing heightened public concern over their presence in drinking water supplies around the country.
But EPA's PFAS action plan, released last month, stops short of firm commitments to regulate the chemicals in various media, though officials have said they intend to set drinking water and other regulatory standards.
For example, the senators note that when EPA released its plan Feb. 14, “it did not include a commitment to promulgate a drinking water standard” for PFOA and PFOS -- two of the most prevalent PFAS.
Rather, EPA deferred a decision on whether it will set enforceable drinking water standards for the substances until later this year.
They also appear to be increasing the pressure on EPA to release stalled groundwater cleanup guidelines -- which they say the agency “also failed to release . . . for PFOS and PFOA in tandem with the PFAS Action Plan, despite announcing that it would complete these guidelines by Fall, 2018.”
EPA water chief David Ross told a House subcommittee hearing March 6 that the groundwater cleanup recommendations will be released “in the very near future."
The senators -- Tom Carper (D-DE), Jack Reed (D-RI), Gary Peters (D-MI) and Patty Murray (D-WA) -- ask for responses to their documents request by March 22.
House Hearing
During the House Oversight and Reform environment subcommittee hearing, Democrats continued to raise questions about whether officials had pressured EPA to hold back on regulating PFAS.
For example, Subcommittee Chairman Harley Rouda (D-CA) pressed Ross on whether there has been any communication from the administration “directly asking you not to promulgate regulations in this area?”
Ross responded, “I am not aware of it, but we can double check that. As part of the inter-agency review process, people have diverse viewpoints. That's part of the system,” he added. “This country is founded on diversity of thought, and we want that diversity as we think about the right course of action going forward.”
Rouda, later responding to a reporter's question on whether he planned to follow up on the Senate request for inter-agency communications, said the subcommittee's legislative office would coordinate with Senate Democrats.
The House hearing also highlighted PFAS contamination at DOD facilities, where DOD has identified 401 active or closed bases with known or suspected releases of PFAS.
DOD says 24 of its drinking water systems contained PFOS and PFOA above EPA's non-enforceable drinking water health advisory. Defense Department Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment Maureen Sullivan at the hearing defended DOD's actions to address the chemicals in drinking water supplies by cutting off exposures and following the Superfund law to respond to contamination.
But Rep. Dan Kildee (D-MI), who has pushed for regulation of the class of chemicals, testified before the subcommittee, countering that the military has failed to act fast enough to halt the migration of contaminants from an Air Force base in his district.
“I believe that the Defense Department in particular has so far failed to act with the required urgency to address this growing public health and environmental crisis,” he testified. “Congress and the Defense Department must work together to do more to address PFAS chemical contamination, particularly in communities around military bases."
And the Air Force has disputed states' authority to force cleanups of PFAS, with the latest fight flaring up in New Mexico. The service in January sued the New Mexico Environment Department -- in a first-time attempt to blunt state requirements on PFAS -- arguing the state's hazardous waste definition in a recently renewed 10-year RCRA permit for Cannon Air Force Base should be vacated.
Meanwhile, New Mexico in a March 5 lawsuit sued the Air Force, arguing its releases of PFAS at Cannon and Holloman Air Force bases are violating the state's hazardous waste law, resulting in “an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and the environment.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/democrats-launch-broad-inter-agency-inquiry-epas-pfas-policies

Return to headline | Return to top
Lawmakers Demand Faster Action on PFAS

Mar 7, 2019 | E&E Daily

By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder

EPA and the Defense Department need to act faster on a family of chemicals contaminating drinking water, Oversight and Reform Committee Democrats said yesterday.
Members were examining per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, which are often called "forever chemicals" because of their persistence in the environment. The chemicals can be found in nonstick cookware, waterproof clothing and firefighting foam used during training exercises on military bases.
"We should all be angry that those who are willing to pay the ultimate price for our country have to worry about exposure to toxic chemicals," Environment Subcommittee Chairman Harley Rouda (D-Calif.) said during a hearing.
The Environmental Working Group, in anticipation, released a map of PFAS contamination at 106 military sites at levels above EPA's nonbinding health advisory of 70 parts per trillion.
The chemicals have been linked to cancer, low fertility and thyroid disease. "The information available is sufficiently alarming to trigger immediate action from this administration," Rouda said.
David Ross, EPA's assistant administrator for the Office of Water, disagreed. "Despite their everyday use, the body of science necessary to fully understand and regulate these chemicals is not yet as robust as it needs to be," he said.
EPA received criticism last month for its action plan to tackle the chemicals (Greenwire, Feb. 14). The plan promised to make a regulatory decision on whether to limit two of the best-studied chemicals — PFOA and PFOS — in drinking water by the end of the year.
Some experts, however, have said that the regulatory process could take up to a decade before guidelines are finalized.Hill scrutiny
In the Senate yesterday, lawmakers called for all the documents from four agencies related to EPA's action plan to "better understand the view of the agencies."
Democratic Sens. Tom Carper of Delaware, Patty Murray of Washington, Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Gary Peters of Michigan demanded papers from EPA, DOD, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Office of Management and Budget.
Ross skirted questions from Rep. Katie Hill (D-Calif.) on the role of David Dunlap, a political deputy in EPA's research office who previously worked for Koch Industries Inc., in decisions related to PFAS.
Democrats this week urged EPA to investigate whether Dunlap violated his recusal terms by participating in the health assessment of formaldehyde, which Koch produced through a subsidiary (Greenwire, March 5).
Lawmakers during the Oversight hearing also questioned Maureen Sullivan, DOD's deputy assistant secretary for environment.
"It's my view that the Defense Department, in particular, has so far failed to act with the required urgency to address this growing public health and environmental crisis," said Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.), co-chair of the bipartisan Congressional PFAS Task Force, who testified.
Sullivan defended DOD's work, noting that it is just one of the many users of the firefighting foam containing PFAS. She said the Pentagon no longer requires the use of the foam in training and testing.Mass. cleanup
Separately, the group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility released statements from EPA indicating help for a Massachusetts town contaminated with PFAS.
Documents PEER obtained under the Freedom of Information Act showed EPA and DOD officials struggling to address the contamination at a former military base.
Ayer, Mass., officials in June 2018 asked EPA to hold DOD accountable for the contamination and the cost of cleanup and testing.
The next month, then-EPA Region 1 Administrator Alexandra Dunn wrote to Sullivan urging DOD to address the issues at Fort Devens, or "EPA will pursue other options, including issuance of a Safe Drinking Water Act order."
Sullivan responded that DOD doesn't have the authority to pay the town for any cleanup or testing efforts. She said an order under the Safe Drinking Water Act would be "unnecessary and inconsistent."
EPA told PEER this week that DOD will assist the town by removing contamination in wells and providing funding for water treatment technology.
"PEER will be working to make the Army's treatment of Ayer standard for all military-caused PFAS contamination across the country," said New England Director Kyla Bennett.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/03/07/stories/1060123361

Return to headline | Return to top
Maryland Legislature Advances Paint Remover Ban

Mar 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch

Maryland’s Senate has voted in favour of a bill to ban the sale of paint removal products containing methylene chloride or N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP).
The measure (SB 82), which is now under consideration in the state Assembly, proposes a 1 January 2021 effective date on the prohibition. It passed the Senate on 20 February by a 40-7 margin.
Consideration of the legislation comes as a 2017 US EPA proposal under TSCA to ban methylene chloride paint strippers awaits finalisation. The agency faces multiple lawsuits for the ongoing delay.
https://chemicalwatch.com/74871/maryland-legislature-advances-paint-remover-ban

Return to headline | Return to top
GAO High-Risk List Flags EPA IRIS Management, Climate Change

Mar 7, 2019 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard

By Alex Guillén

The Government Accountability Office’s 2019 high-risk report said EPA’s management of a key toxic chemicals review program continues to be a significant concern as the watchdog downgraded political leadership’s commitment to the program.
The report — a biennial list of federal operations at risk of fraud, waste, abuse, mismanagement or inefficiency — notes the Trump administration's proposals to slash funding for the Integrated Risk Information System. IRIS has been on GAO's high-risk list since 2009. The warning comes just days after GAO issued a separate report detailing how EPA political appointees halted much of IRIS's work last year for a review of program priorities. Both GAO reports warned that halting IRIS chemical reviews can mean having to restart much of the work anew.
GAO gives EPA high marks on its commitment to implementing the updated Toxic Substances Control Act, though it warned much remains to be done in the coming years.
EPA said it is reviewing the report's findings. "EPA is committed to working with GAO to ensure we are improving the Agency’s processes for assessing and controlling toxic chemicals to protect human health and the environment," the agency said in a statement.
In addition, the new high-risk report flags government-wide management of climate change. The government "has not made measurable progress to reduce its fiscal exposure to climate change," the GAO concludes, citing hundreds of billions of dollars in costs related to extreme weather, flooding and wildfire.
The report also concludes the Interior Department needs to further act on risks related to oil and gas development on federal lands. The department needs to improve royalty collection, restructure its offshore oversight and improve hiring and training of qualified staff, GAO said.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard

Return to headline | Return to top
7th Circ. Remands SPX Win In Homeowner PCB Dust Suit

Mar 7, 2019 | Law 360

By Dave Simpson

Law360 (March 6, 2019, 11:01 PM EST) -- The Seventh Circuit remanded part of a decision that tossed homeowners' claims SPX Corp. contaminated their properties with PCBs, finding Wednesday that the lower court set the bar unnecessarily high for the couple to show a violation of federal law.

In a unanimous decision penned by U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Stephen Kanne, the panel found that when dismissing the suit from homeowners William and Nancy Liebhart, a Wisconsin federal judge "seemed to have overlooked" a sentence from the pertinent regulation that lays out how concentration of polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, should be determined.

Under the federal Toxic Substances Control Act, 50 parts per million of PCB — a carcinogenic substance banned by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency — is considered safe, with any amount at or below that total considered free of regulatory violation.

But the panel said that U.S. District Judge James D. Peterson seemed to determine the concentration based on the material onto which the PCB spilled — the Liebhart's properties — rather than based on the material that was itself spilled — a factory floor demolished by SPX.

"The Liebharts' complaint seems to have alleged that the concrete floor of the factory, which contained at least some contaminated areas above the 50-ppm threshold, was demolished and 'spilled' onto the Liebharts' property," the panel said, remanding the case to the lower court and ordering it to determine, with that in mind, whether the alleged violation falls within the meaning of the TSCA.

The Liebharts, who own three houses on the same block in a Wisconsin town, sued SPX in October 2016, alleging that the company's 2014 demolition of a nearby abandoned factory that previously produced transformers containing PCBs, caused toxic dust and debris to settle on their properties, endangering them and their tenants. They alleged violations to the TSCA and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

The suit also names TRC Environmental Corp., which was contracted by SPX to study factory property for PCB contamination, and Apollo Dismantling Services, which demolished the property.

In March 2018, the district court decided to exclude one of Liebharts' expert witness reports, finding, among other things, that they were "equivocal" on the issue of causation, hedging as to whether contamination on their properties was a result of the demolition, or whether it came from years of runoff from the factory itself.

It allowed the report from another of the couple's expert witnesses, Dr. David Carpenter, a physician, but axed his conclusion that "there is no 'safe' level of exposure to PCBs that does not increase the risk of disease," finding it was unsupported by the cited medical studies.

Without the expert witness testimony, the judge decided that the couple didn't have admissible evidence to support their claims and granted summary judgment against them, denying their request for leave to amend, and ordering them to cover the defendants' costs.

The Liebharts appealed, raising issues with five aspects of the decision.

On Wednesday, the panel addressed the appealed claims, rejecting several of them, but first — noting that "there's a larger issue looming in the background" — reviewed de novo the district court's interpretation of the TSCA and RCRA.

In addition to finding that the district court overlooked the concentration sentence in the TSCA, the panel also noted that, based on other precedential decisions, the RCRA requires only that the harm being alleged "may" be imminent.

"We take that to mean that the Liebharts must show that there are PCBs currently on the property that have the potential to substantially threaten their health at some point in the future if they continue to occupy the premises and prolong their exposure," the panel said.

On remand, the panel ordered the district court to reevaluate its exclusion of Carpenter's assertions about PCB safety and determine if his report "demonstrates that a substantial and imminent threat to the Liebharts' health may be present."

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday.

U.S. Circuit Judges Michael Stephen Kanne, William Joseph Bauer, and Michael B. Brennan sat on the panel for the Seventh Circuit.

The Liebharts are represented by Carey S. Rosemarin of Carey Rosemarin Law Office.

SPX is represented by Matthew J. Splitek of Quarles & Brady LLP.

The case is William Liebhart, et al v. SPX Corp., et al., case numbers 18-1918 and 18-2598, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

--Editing by Nicole Bleier.
https://www.law360.com/appellate/articles/1136096/7th-circ-remands-spx-win-in-homeowner-pcb-dust-suit

Return to headline | Return to top
Oregon Begins Rulemaking For Phasing Out Chemicals Of Concern

Mar 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch

By Kelly Franklin

Oregon has set in motion implementation of the final phase of its children product’s programme, which will focus on phasing out chemicals of concern.
The state’s Toxic-Free Kids Program requires manufacturers of covered products to notify the presence of any of 68 substancesincluded on the state’s High Priority Chemicals of Concern for Children’s Health (HPCCCH) list above de minimis levels.
But unlike similar laws in other states, Oregon’s contains a provision requiring manufacturers to remove chemicals of concern from certain products or seek a waiver for their continued use.
And rules to implement this ‘Phase 3’ of the programme are set to be developed this year.
The statute calls for the substance phase-outs to apply to children’s cosmetics, as well as products that are mouthable or marketed to children under the age of three.
It allows waivers to be granted either upon submission of an alternatives assessment demonstrating that removal of the chemical is not financially or technically feasible, or through a quantitative exposure assessment that shows exposure is not reasonably anticipated.
The requirement takes effect after a manufacturer’s third biennial report, which effectively sets 1 January 2022 as the earliest possible deadline.
The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) announced in an email to stakeholders several upcoming meetings of its Rules Advisory Committee.
These meetings, during which the OHA will propose new rules, are set to be held on 10 and 31 May, and 21 June. The 12 and 26 July have been reserved as additional dates, if needed.
Further details are expected in April.
https://chemicalwatch.com/74869/oregon-begins-rulemaking-for-phasing-out-chemicals-of-concern

Return to headline | Return to top
Brexit: Government Hopeful Of UK REACH IT Readiness

Mar 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch

The California Environmental Contaminant Biomonitoring Program has updated its list of designated chemicals.
Additions to the Biomonitoring California list include several chemicals newly measured by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and cover:
·         a new group of heterocyclic amines, mostly listed as known to the state to cause cancer under Proposition 65;
·         an additional phthalate alternative, di-2-ethylhexyl terephthalate;
·         additional flame retardants;
·         additional volatile organic compounds (VOCs);
·         1-Nitropyrene metabolites, which Biomonitoring California measures as biomarkers for diesel exhaust exposure; and
·         additional chemicals that belong to categories already covered as entire groups, such as brominated and chlorinated organic compounds used as flame retardants and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). This is for informational purposes only, since all members of those groups are already designated chemicals whether they appear on the list or not.
The state programme made other minor corrections, such as clarifying the definition of PFAS.
Updates were also made to the priority list, which represents the pool of substances from which the Scientific Guidance Panel will recommend for biomonitoring.

Three chlorinated phenols – pentachlorophenol, 2,4,5-trichlorophenol, and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol – were deleted from it, having been "mistakenly" copied to it in a prior version.

Biomonitoring California is a collaborative effort of three state departments - The California Department of Public Health (CDPH), the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).
https://chemicalwatch.com/74882/brexit-government-hopeful-of-uk-reach-it-readiness

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

ExxonMobil, Chevron Putting Bullseye on Permian

Mar 6, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence

By Carolyn Davis

The Permian Basin may face infrastructure constraints, a labor shortage and scarce services, but deep-pocketed Chevron Corp. and ExxonMobil Corp. plan to direct more talent and resources over the long term into the estimable oil and natural gas resources.
Chevron, which unveiled its near-term strategy Tuesday at the annual analyst security conference, expects to more than double Permian output to 900,000 boe/d by 2023, a nearly 40% increase from a previous forecast.
ExxonMobil, one day ahead of its annual analyst meeting, on Tuesday said it should produce more than 1 million boe/d from the New Mexico-West Texas behemoth by the end of 2024, an increase of nearly 80%.
Chevron is guiding for a fleet of 20 operated rigs in the Permian, as well as seven to 10 net nonoperated rigs over the period. ExxonMobil now has 48 rigs running across the play, with plans to raise up to 55 by the end of this year.
“We expect to deliver a 3-4% compound annual production growth rate through 2023,” Chevron upstream chief Jay Johnson said. “Our strong resource base gives us the flexibility and choices that allow us to fund the projects we believe will yield the best returns.”
Chevron’s best returns are in the Permian, CEO Michael Wirth said. Asked why, he had a simple explanation.
“It's good rocks.”
Chevron’s position in the Permian Basin “just continues to get better and underpins the depth of our resource base,” Wirth said. “Today, we are updating our assessment of resource to 16.2 billion unrisked boe, up about 75% from a little over 9 billion boe just two years ago.
“Continued appraisal success, improved drilling and completion performance, ongoing land optimization and ever improving technology have allowed us to characterize more benches and increase our inventory of resource. The same drivers have also increased the economic value of our acreage.”
In December the San Ramon, CA-based supermajor earmarked $20 billion for 2019 organic capital and exploratory (C&E) spending, a near-$2 billion boost year/year, with $7.6 billion specifically targeting the U.S. upstream. Between 2021 and 2023, annual C&E now is set at $19-22 million. The ratable investment should deliver steady growth, according to Johnson.
Based on Chevron’s valuation models, the Permian position has more than doubled using the same price assumptions. Based on what the company has determined to date, Wirth expects to see other operators also find more compelling value from their Permian leaseholds.
“I believe you will see a dramatic re-rating of this asset,” Wirth told analysts.
The company’s unique position in the Permian is “characterized by long-held acreage, zero-to-low royalty on more than 80% of our land position, and minimal drilling commitments,” Johnson said. These attributes, as well as deploying better technologies, are driving higher returns, stronger cash flows, and increased value.
Last year, Chevron added 150,000 more acres to its Permian leasehold through swaps, joint ventures (JV) and farmouts, which provided room to add 1,600 long-lateral wells.
In the Delaware sub-basin, the average estimated ultimate recovery for wells put online last year was 2 million boe, while in the twin Midland it was 1.3 million boe.
What the executives made clear is that Chevron does not need to sanction any major capital projects for the next five years, but it has many options to do so if it wants. By the end of 2023, resources in hand are forecast to contribute around 1.5 million boe/d of new production.
“With the majority of our new production coming from shale and tight assets, our growth is disciplined and ratable with lower risk,” Johnson said.
Chevron expects to reach $30 billion of cash generation at $60/bbl Brent oil prices in 2019, which would be used to fund C&E, as well as a 6% annual dividend increase and $4 billion in share repurchases.
“Chevron is operating from a position of strength,” Wirth said. “The balance sheet is strong. Our dividend breakeven is low. We’re disciplined with capital. And we’re generating strong free cash flow. Chevron has an extremely compelling investment proposition that is going to continue over the long-term.”
ExxonMobil’s Permian Output To Hit 1 Million Boe/d
In parallel with Chevron’s news, ExxonMobil said it plans to increase its Permian output to 1 million boe/d as early as 2024. The size of its resource base in the Permian is about 10 billion boe, but the company expects that to grow as analysis and development activities continue.
“We’re increasingly confident about our Permian growth strategy due to our unique development plans,” said Senior Vice President Neil Chapman. “We will leverage our large, contiguous acreage position, our improved understanding of the resource and the full range of ExxonMobil’s capabilities in executing major projects.
“Our plans are attractive at a range of prices and we expect them to drive more value as we continue to lower our development and production costs.”
Permian investments are expected to produce double-digit returns, even at low oil prices, according to ExxonMobil. At $35/bbl oil, for example, Permian production would have an average return of more than 10%.
The anticipated increase in production would be supported by further evaluation of the supermajor’s Delaware holdings. The resource is expected to fuel infrastructure development to secure capacity to transport oil and natural gas to ExxonMobil Gulf Coast refineries and petrochemical operations through the Permian Highway Project and Double E Pipelinenatural gas systems, as well as the Wink-to-Webster Pipeline LLC oil pipeline.
The Kinder Morgan Inc.-led Permian Highway, a 2 Bcf/d natural gas system sanctioned last year, would transport supply through a 430-mile pipeline from Waha in West Texas to Katy, outside of Houston, with connections to the Gulf Coast and Mexico markets.
A Summit Midstream Partners LP subsidiary last fall began testing support for Double E via binding open season to move Permian gas from the New Mexico Delaware to the Gulf Coast and into Mexico. Although ExxonMobil was not linked to the project at the time, Summit said it had a long-term binding commitment with an undisclosed foundation shipper for up to 500,000 Dth/d of firm transportation capacity.
The 1 million b/d, 36-inch diameter Wink oil pipeline, advanced in late January with JV partners Plains All American Pipeline LP and Lotus Midstream LLC, would move oil from the Permian to the Texas coast.
One of its key advantages in the Permian, according to the executive team, is the extensive leasehold, which runs across more than one million net acres. The contiguous position allows multi-well pads in large development corridors that connect to gathering systems, reduce development costs and accelerate production growth.
Infrastructure is underway to support volume growth, with construction plans at 30 sites to enhance oil and gas processing, water handling and provide takeaway capacity. Construction activities include central delivery facilities designed to handle up to 600,000 bbl of oil, 1 Bcf/d of gas and enhanced water-handling capacity through 350 miles of already constructed pipeline.
“These investments support growth plans and ensure that as production levels continue to rise, we are well positioned in processing and transportation capacity,” Chapman said. The investment plans are expected to also reap benefits for the region in property tax revenue, economic development and creating jobs.
Chevron Eyes More Unconventional Hotspots
In addition to the Permian, Chevron also is working on shale and tight assets in Canada, Appalachia and Argentina, using learnings from the Permian to reduce costs.
Chevron plans to launch pilot programs this year on 162,000 net acres in the northern part of Argentina’s Vaca Muerta formation in Neuquén province. Executives see the potential for about 2,000 wells at the El Trapial, Loma de Molle Norte and Narambuena deposits.
“We believe these three areas could offer an incremental 2 billion boe of resource,” Johnson said. In terms of infrastructure, “if those pilots are successful, there is already an existing oilfield in El Trapial, so there is some basic infrastructure already in that general area. But clearly with the capacity that we could go to, we'd have to see some further build out of infrastructure.”
Infrastructure in southern Vaca Muerta at Loma Campana, where Chevron has a JV with Argentina’s YPF SA, “is really not a limitation, it’s just been...at what pace do we want to develop.”
Loma Campana development costs are estimated at $11/boe, with average well lengths of 7,500 feet. Estimated ultimate recovery has increased by 80% since 2016 and development costs have decreased by 45%. The focus for 2019 is on “high density completions” and improving hydraulic fracture efficiency. The company is planning 60-70 horizontal wells across the 210,000 net acre leasehold in Vaca Muerta this year.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/117626-exxonmobil-chevron-putting-bullseye-on-permian

Return to headline | Return to top
Feds Give Kinder Morgan Permission to Introduce Feed Gas at Elba Island LNG

Mar 6, 2019 | Houston Chronicle

By Sergio Chapa

Houston pipeline operator Kinder Morgan is one step closer to placing its $2 billion Elba Island LNG export terminal in Savannah, Ga., into service.
In a Wednesday morning order, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission gave Kinder Morgan permission to start introducing feed gas into the first of 10 production units being built at the liquefied natural gas plant.Recommended Video
Kinder Morgan began the weeks- to months-long startup process for the liquefaction plant in early February. Being able to introduce feed gas is another step towards being the facility into commercial service.
Once all 10 production units are operational, the facility will be able to produce up to 2.5 million metric tons of LNG a year.
Elba Island LNG is being developed as a joint venture of Kinder Morgan and EIG Global Energy Partners, a private equity firm based in Washington, D.C.
Originally built as a facility to import natural gas, record production in U.S. shale basins prompted Kinder Morgan to seek permission from the federal government to reconfigure part of the facility into an export terminal that will include 10 production terminals, known as trains.
The company received a permit to build the export terminal in June 2016. The first of the 10 trains is expected to be fully operational and capable of producing exports by the end of the first quarter.
Founded in 1997 and headquartered in downtown Houston, Kinder Morgan employs more than 11,000 people across the United States. Canada and Mexico.
The company made a $1.48 billion profit on $14.1 billion of revenue in 2018.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Feds-give-Kinder-Morgan-permission-to-introduce-13667004.php

Return to headline | Return to top
Republican Bill Looks To Overhaul PURPA Law

Mar 7, 2019 | E&E Energywire

By Jeremy Dillon

Michigan Republican Rep. Tim Walberg reintroduced legislation this week to overhaul a 1970s energy law that requires utilities to purchase power from small-scale renewable energy projects.
H.R. 1502 is unlikely to move forward this Congress, especially with Democrats in control of the chamber with an eye toward pushing more renewables onto the grid.
But the legislation embodies concern about companies gaming Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) provisions and making electricity more expensive.
"The energy landscape has changed significantly over the last 40 years, and many challenges of that era no longer exist," Walberg said in a statement.
"Domestic energy resources are abundant, and it's high time to modernize this law to reflect the new realities in our energy markets and to lower the utility bills of Michiganders and Americans across the country," he said.
Similar legislation was introduced last year. The Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing on PURPA but did not move to vote on the proposal.
Originally enacted in 1978, the law was meant to boost domestic energy and promote renewables. It requires producers to purchase power from qualifying facilities.
In an age of cheap natural gas and utility-scale renewable projects, PURPA fixed-price contracts can sometimes work as a drag on energy prices, opponents say.
Among its provisions, the legislation looks to make sure more than two qualifying facilities owned by the same operator are not placed within 1 mile of each other.
The bill would lower the threshold for energy required for purchase to 20 megawatts. It would also enable states to waive the purchase obligation if power from the qualifying facilities is not needed.
Even though Walberg's bill is unlikely to move anytime soon, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission may take some action to tinker with PURPA's regulatory responsibilities.
A collection of conservative groups, led by Trump transition team members Myron Ebell and Tom Pyle, wrote to FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee to urge the commission to take up a "comprehensive" PURPA overhaul.
Citing the increase of domestic energy supplies, the groups argued that the law effectively acts as an energy mandate, distorting the market.
"Yet in the face of this, PURPA's stale, static federal mandates remain in place, distorting markets and harming consumers," the groups said.
"Moreover, to the extent allowable by law, we urge FERC to pursue comprehensive PURPA reform, covering not only the so-called 'one-mile rule,' but also, among other things, the methods by which states calculate avoided cost for qualifying facilities and PURPA's outdated mandatory purchase obligation," the group added.
Chatterjee told the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners during its winter meeting that PURPA ranked among the top policy priorities he would like to see the commission tackle in the coming year (Energywire, Feb. 14).
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/03/07/stories/1060123383

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

Exxon Mobil Settles With U.S. Over Texas Refinery Fire In 2013

Mar 7, 2019 | Reuters

By Makini Brice

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department and Exxon Mobil Corp have reached a settlement resolving Clean Air Act violations stemming from a 2013 fire at the company’s Beaumont, Texas, refinery that killed two employees and injured 10 others, the department said on Wednesday.
Under the consent decree, the company must pay a $616,000 civil penalty, hire a third-party auditor and purchase a vehicle for the Beaumont Fire and Rescue Service valued at $730,000, the department said in a statement.
The 2013 fire broke out at the refinery when workers removed bolts from a section of a heat exchanger using a torch, which released hydrocarbons, the Justice Department said.
A heat exchanger heats raw material entering a unit and cools product leaving a unit by having them pass close to each other in a dense piping system.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s inspection after the incident uncovered violations of Chemical Accident Prevention provisions, according to the Justice Department.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxon-mobil-usa/exxon-mobil-settles-with-us-over-texas-refinery-fire-in-2013-idUSKCN1QN2WZ

Return to headline | Return to top
DOJ Penalizes Exxon Mobil For Refinery Fire Violations

Mar 7, 2019 | E&E Energywire

By Pamela King

Exxon Mobil Corp. will pay $616,000 and take other steps to address Clean Air Act violations resulting from a fatal 2013 blaze at the company's Beaumont, Texas, refinery.
After the fire, which killed two workers and injured 10, an EPA inspection revealed alleged releases of toxic substances. The Justice Department and EPA yesterday announced a settlement that will require Exxon to pay a civil penalty, make $730,000 in safety investments and hire a third-party compliance auditor.
"The deaths and injuries resulting from the 2013 fire at Exxon Mobil's Beaumont refinery are a terrible tragedy," Jeffrey Bossert Clark, assistant attorney general for DOJ's Environment and Natural Resources Division, said in a statement last night.
"Today's settlement sends a clear message to companies handling hazardous substances in their operations that they must take the necessary steps to protect their workers under the environmental laws or face the consequences of vigorous enforcement," he said.
A proposed consent decree outlining the settlement is currently pending before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
"We rely on companies to carefully follow environmental regulations, which are designed — above all — to protect human health," said EPA Region 6 Administrator Anne Idsal.
"As the incident at Exxon Mobil's facility shows, failing to comply with these rules can have devastating consequences," she said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/03/07/stories/1060123391

Return to headline | Return to top
2 Kansas Companies Indicted Over Noxious Chemical Cloud

Mar 7, 2019 | Associated Press (The Washington Post)

By Heather Hollingsworth

Two companies were indicted Wednesday on federal charges after a mistake at a northeast Kansas distilling plant in 2016 released a noxious cloud of fumes that prosecutors say caused more than 140 people to seek medical treatment.
The three-count indictment alleges that Midwest Grain Products Inc., of Atchison, Kansas, and Harcros Chemicals Inc., of Kansas City, Kansas, violated the Clean Air Act and put the public in danger. The indictment, which the U.S. attorney’s office announced, alleges that the chlorine gas cloud formed after a driver for Harcros pulled a truck into Midwest Grain’s facility in Atchison to deliver sulfuric acid.
An operator for Midwest Grain helped the driver access the transfer equipment. When the driver mistakenly connected the sulfuric acid line to the sodium hypochlorite line, toxic gas began to form. The indictment alleges both men violated safety rules by failing to verify that the connection was correct and failing to monitor the transfer.
The noxious cloud covered the city for 45 minutes in October 2016 until emergency personnel arrived to turn off the flow. By then, 4,000 gallons (15,141 liters) of sulfuric acid and 5,800 gallons (21,954 liters) of sodium hypochlorite had mixed, prosecutors say.
That caused nearby homes and schools to evacuate in Atchison, which has about 11,000 residents and is about 50 miles (about 80 kilometers) northwest of Kansas City. A webpage , a phone line and an email address have been set up for victims to provide and receive information.
MGPI Processing Inc., the parent company of Midwest Grain Products, said in a statement that it is reviewing the allegations and “has been focused on the Atchison community, our employees and cooperating fully with safety officials since this incident.” A Harcros official didn’t immediately return a phone message seeking comment.
The companies are charged with violation of general duty, knowingly releasing a hazardous pollutant and negligently releasing a hazardous pollutant. The charges carry fines of up to $1.7 million.
The Midwest Grain plant has had other incidents, including a small explosion in another building in February 2016 in which no injuries were reported. The plant was also the site of a 2002 explosion and fire that damaged the plant’s distillery and injured a few people.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/energy-environment/2-kansas-companies-indicted-over-noxious-chemical-cloud/2019/03/06/b5831db2-4071-11e9-85ad-779ef05fd9d8_story.html?utm_term=.0d2d181f44e7

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation and Infrastructure News

The Federal Panel with Surprising Power

Mar 6, 2019 | The Hill - Congress Blog

By Ian Jefferies

At the end of the last Congress, the Senate confirmed a flurry of nominations to federal agencies. One such agency, the Surface Transportation Board, will have a particularly unique opportunity to promote economic growth across the country.
The STB is a surprisingly important adjudicatory and regulatory panel because it has a direct impact on the viability of privately-owned freight railroads, which touch nearly every sector of our economy, from consumer goods to energy products, and from automobiles to lumber used to build homes. Though the railroad industry was partially deregulated in 1980, the agency maintains economic oversight of the industry’s business dealings and serves a crucial role adjudicating and mediating disputes between railroads and their customers.
Thus, STB actions can have major consequences, depending on how it implements its authority through regulation. Ill-advised actions by the STB – for example, attempting to micromanage routing and railroad pricing decisions – could ripple throughout the 140,000 mile U.S. rail network. That would hinder U.S. commerce and ultimately increase consumer costs.
The right balance must be struck between government regulation and market forces, a balance that does not hinder economic activity. It’s a theme appreciated and understood by many policy experts in Washington– and is hopefully valued by the new members at the STB. While everyone agrees that the STB, like most of government, can be made more efficient, most observers would agree that the system in place today works well for the U.S. economy.
Indeed, the STB has a real opportunity to leave its mark in ensuring viable transportation options for the future, and it can make progress in that regard by scrapping a handful of regulatory proposals.
For instance, the STB should rescind a proposal that would force a railroad to move customer freight cars over its tracks and then hand them over to competitors. Such a proposal would disrupt railroad operations in the U.S and would clearly deter investment. Why would any business continue to substantially invest if it could not reap the benefits of its investment? The proposal lacks any credible regulatory impact analysis – as detailed recently by analysts at the American Action Forum and Mercatus Center.
The STB commissioners should also scuttle possible changes to a complex regulation known as revenue adequacy. Placed on the books decades ago, this measure was originally intended to ensure that each railroad earn at least enough return on investment to sustain its network now and in the future.
But instead of annually determining which carriers, if any, earn enough revenue to be deemed revenue adequate, the concern is that the STB could use revenue adequacy to force railroads to lower prices or pay refunds for select shippers. The STB should reject calls to use this measure as a cap on railroad revenue without any consideration of the market demand for railroad service, which is sorely needed to safely serve customers.
Given that railroads, unlike other freight transportation modes, fully cover the costs of their privately-owned infrastructure, STB policies should encourage investment, not deter it.
When Congress reauthorized the STB in 2015, it explicitly refrained from directing the STB to make major changes. For the benefit of the U.S. economy, we should all hope that the STB seizes the opportunity to stand up for a remarkably successful framework.
Ian Jefferies is president and CEO of the Association of American Railroads.
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/432892-the-federal-panel-with-surprising-power

Return to headline | Return to top
WGA Seeks Infrastructure Budget Boost Prior to House SRF Hearing

Mar 6, 2019 | Inside EPA

The Western Governors Association (WGA) is urging the leaders of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee’s (T&I) water panel to boost funding for EPA’s clean water state revolving fund (RFS) in response to Western states’ infrastructure needs, ahead of a March 6 subcommittee hearing on the SRF.
In a March 5 letter to Reps. Grace Napolitano (D-CA) and Bruce Westerman (R-AR), chairman and ranking member of T&I’s Water Resources and Environment panel, WGA reiterates several of its recent resolutions calling for increased federal funding for water infrastructure and backing state primacy in overseeing water quality, including for preserving states’ authority for reviewing federally permitting pipelines and other energy projects.
“Aging infrastructure for existing water and wastewater facilities and the need for additional water projects cannot be ignored,” a state resolution says. “Infrastructure investments are essential to our nation’s continued economic prosperity and environmental protection, and they assist states in meeting federally-mandated standards."
“Western Governors also urge Congress and the Administration to ensure that the SRF Programs provide greater flexibility and fewer restrictions on state SRF management,” says the group, which represents 19 western states.
WGA sent the letter in advance of the panel’s March 6 hearing on federal investments in clean water infrastructure. The same day as the letter, Napolitano and a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced a bill seeking to boost authorized levels of EPA's clean water SRF to $4 billion annually, more than double its current appropriations.
The bill also would authorize billions of dollars to address sewer overflows, fund states' Clean Water Act (CWA) implementation and augment existing sources of water.
The bill's annual authorization of $4 billion for the clean water SRF is a significant boost over previously authorized levels and recent appropriations of roughly $1.3 billion. It enjoys support from 80 municipal, industry and environmental groups, though some environmental groups are calling for increasing the authorization to $6 billion annually.
WGA, in addition to backing increased investment in EPA’s clean water SRF, also highlights numerous other state concerns included in a recent letter and pair of June resolutions that include topics not directly relevant to the subcommittee hearing on “The Clean Water State Revolving Fund: How Federal Infrastructure Investment Can Help Communities Modernize Water Infrastructure and Address Affordability Challenges."
The states’ resolutions on water quality and water resource management generally back state primacy in water regulation, calling for state input on Trump administration revisions to EPA’s 2015 CWA jurisdiction rule; flexibility for addressing nutrient pollution from non-point sources through state standards, incentives, or control strategies rather than numeric federal criteria; and “good Samaritan” protections for volunteers cleaning up abandoned hardrock mines from liability for continuing discharges after project completion.
WGA also includes its Feb. 20 letter to then-Acting and now Senate-confirmed EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler and Army Corps of Engineers chief R.D. James floating options to speed states’ reviews under CWA section 401 of federally permitted pipelines and other projects while preserving states' authority to conduct the reviews.
The February letter, also signed by groups of state legislators and regulators, pushed back against reports that the Trump administration is planning to curtail states' power in order to speed the reviews. It followed James’ Dec. 13 memo signaling plans for a 60-day default timeline for states’ 401 reviews of dredge-and-fill permits.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/wga-seeks-infrastructure-budget-boost-prior-house-srf-hearing

Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

Feds Reverse Progress in Addressing Climate Risks, GAO Says

Mar 6, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Abby Smith

The federal government isn’t doing nearly enough to address the risks it faces from climate change, exposing itself and American taxpayers to potentially billions of dollars in damages, the Government Accountability Office said in a new report.
Federal management of damage from climate change is one of just three areas—out of the 35 the government watchdog identified in its 2019 High Risks List—where the government has retreated rather than made progress, according to the March 6 report.
The regression is driven in large part by Trump administration moves to undo Obama-era directives requiring federal agencies to incorporate climate risks into their planning, according to the GAO, the nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress.
On climate change, the federal government faces substantial fiscal risk due to increasing disaster costs, the GAO found.
“We’ve had very costly storms, but the federal government’s cost to respond to this since 2005 is approaching half a trillion dollars to be able to handle this area,” Gene L. Dodaro, comptroller general of the GAO, told senators at a March 6 hearing.
“There’s a lot of exposure the federal government has” to climate risks, he added.
The High-Risk List, which the GAO updates every two years, assesses economic, efficiency, security, and other challenges the government faces.
Lack of Leadership
The GAO report identified a lack of leadership from the White House on managing climate risks. The report points to President Donald Trump’s revocation of Obama-era executive orders meant to prepare federal agencies for climate change.
Dodaro in the hearing expressed particular concern about Trump’s withdrawal of the federal standard for flood hazard mitigation. That standard, set in a 2015 executive order from former President Barack Obama, required buildings and other infrastructure that received federal funding to be built to withstand increased flooding due to rising sea levels and other climate change impacts.
“It seems to me that investing some money upfront in mitigation and planning to have more resiliency with our infrastructure is critically important,” Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), ranking member on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said.
Peters said Trump’s withdrawal of the flood standard “makes no sense whatsoever.”
‘Wrong Direction’
In its report, the GAO doubled down on recommendations that the federal government develop a comprehensive plan to manage climate change risk.
But it isn’t clear the Trump administration would listen. For example, the report noted the White House budget office rejected an April 2018 recommendation from GAO to provide Congress with information about what federal programs are exposed to climate change risks.
The White House is also exploring plans offered by William Happer, a National Security Council technology adviser who rejects mainstream climate science and the risks of global warming, to re-evaluate whether and how climate change poses risks to national security.
“Leadership at the national level is vital and can encourage progress at state and local levels,” Rachel Cleetus, policy director and lead economist for the Union of Concerned Scientists Climate and Energy Program, said in a statement. “Continuing in the wrong direction will not only impose mounting costs on taxpayers, but could also jeopardize the health, safety and livelihoods of people around the country.”
“The federal government must invest ahead of time to help communities prepare instead of just picking up the pieces after disasters strike,” Cleetus added.
Congress Takes Action
Dodaro, the GAO head, praised steps by Congress to ensure the Defense Department plans for climate risks and to make federal funds available for communities to build up resilience before natural disasters.
Congress, in the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, required the Defense Department to submit a report detailing the damages military installations could face from climate change.
The Defense Department needs to have climate resilience policies and procedures in place as it builds out and modernizes its infrastructure, Dodaro said. He stressed the Defense Department’s plan must extend beyond U.S. borders because “we have a lot of facilities around the world that are at risk.”
Dodaro noted the department is working to redo the plan required by Congress after some lawmakers raised concerns it wasn’t sufficient. The GAO will look at that plan once it is submitted and have additional recommendations, he said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/feds-reverse-progress-in-addressing-climate-risks-gao-says

Return to headline | Return to top
House Oversight Plans Probe of Trump Environmental Policies

Mar 7, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Dean Scott

House Oversight and Reform Committee Democrats are gearing up to investigate Trump environment and climate policies in the months ahead, the panel’s chairman said March 6.
Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) said he is considering a range of environmental issues from water contamination to climate change. He said he’s biding his time to see what other chairmen do on the issues before diving in himself.
“We will probably get to it maybe in June or July,” Cummings told Bloomberg Environment.
Cummings said he wants to “make sure we are not duplicating effort,” particularly on climate change, by the leaders of two other committees: Energy and Commerce, chaired by Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and a new House select climate panel, led by Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.).
The committee’s current focus has been on repeated demands for documents related to various investigations into President Donald Trump, as well as a high-profile hearing last month with Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen.
“There’s a lot going on at EPA that ought to concern us,” said Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-Va.), who chairs Oversight’s Government Operations Subcommittee.
He cited rollbacks of climate regulations and water protection requirements for coal ash, as well as the president’s 2017 decision to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate pact.
The Oversight panel held a March 6 oversight hearing on the Government Accountability Office’s latest “high-risk” report that highlighted climate change as an issue deserving far more attention from Congress and the executive branch. It also held a separate hearing that day on a class of nonstick chemicals that have contaminated drinking water.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/house-oversight-plans-probe-of-trump-environmental-policies

Return to headline | Return to top
Fireworks in the Senate over Green New Deal

Mar 6, 2019 | E&E News PM

By Manuel Quiñones

Republicans and Democrats sparred on the Senate floor this afternoon over the Green New Deal and climate policy in general.
Numerous Republican senators, as expected, lined up to speak against the progressive resolution to tackle climate change and social inequality.
Democrats, as part of their counterattack, repeatedly interrupted their GOP colleagues to ask whether they believed in man-made climate change.
When Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) was speaking, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) asked, "What would he do about climate change?" Schumer added, "We know what he's against. What is he for?"
Cornyn replied, "I know what their talking points are now." He continued attacking the Green New Deal as a "travesty."
North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis pointed at the divide within the Democratic caucus over the resolution. He asked, "Do you actually support the Green New Deal?"
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), responding to GOP claims that the resolution would cost $94 trillion, shouted: "That is a made-up number by the Koch brothers."
An analysis from the conservative group American Action Forum said the Green New Deal would cost between $52 trillion and $94 trillion during the course of the next decade.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/03/06/stories/1060123333

Return to headline | Return to top
Moderate Dems May Try To Counter Green New Deal

Mar 7, 2019 | E&E Daily

By George Cahlink,

When Democrats took over the House, Energy and Commerce Republicans met to discuss their strategy on climate change. The result may be bipartisan action.
"I wanted our members, and I met with each one on our committee individually or in small groups, to tell me where they're at and where they thought we should go," ranking member Greg Walden (R-Ore.), formerly the panel's chairman, told reporters last week.
Their decision, evident in the hearings held so far in the Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change, was to develop their own message on the issue and to do away with the denial that has long defined the GOP.
"We now are speaking for our party on that committee and not allowing others to tell the public what they think Republicans are about," Walden said.
"I suffered through a lot of that and just ignored it. I said, 'I'm not going to ignore it anymore; I'll say what I'm for and what I'm not for.'"
The result is climate kumbayah on Energy and Commerce and an acceptance of science from its GOP members that would have been shocking just a few years ago and is still unusual in other committee rooms.
The chummy atmosphere on the House's pre-eminent climate panel is raising hopes among Democrats that they might be able to substantively tackle climate change in the 116th Congress, after all.
"I think the reality is, if you listen to their rhetoric, that the Republicans on our committee have changed," E&C Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) told E&E News. "In other words, they're now suggesting that they want to address climate change, and they recognize that climate change is real."
He added, "I think we should take advantage of it and see if we can get them to agree to some measures."
At a hearing on the Paris climate agreement last week, Pallone criticized subcommittee ranking member John Shimkus (R-Ill.), who had suggested in his opening statement that the agreement was not appropriately vetted by Congress, noting the alleged lack of emissions reductions in other countries. But Pallone was pointedly sure not to go too far.
"I'm not sure I want to criticize Mr. Shimkus, because he's probably more of an ally on this than many on the other side of the aisle," Pallone said.
Shortly thereafter, during Walden's opening statement, the pair bantered back and forth off the microphone, chuckling. The joke was apparently so funny that Pallone wandered over to staffers standing beside the dais and told it to them, too, laughing the entire time.
Shimkus, in particular, seems to have evolved on the issue quite a bit. At the hearing last week, he called for "smart and pragmatic" action on climate change.
He also authored an op-ed with Walden and former E&C Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) last month in RealClearPolicy in which the trio said they have better ideas for addressing climate than Democrats.
Compare that with 2009, when Shimkus said climate change was against his religious beliefs because God promised not to destroy the world again after the Great Flood in the Bible (Climatewire, March 1).
Shimkus credited his change in tone to a trip he took to Greenland "five or six years ago" with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
"If you go to Greenland, you have to accept the fact that their climate today is different than their climate was 100 years ago," he said in an interview. "They're growing vegetables where they didn't used to grow vegetables, they're worried about a northwest passage and they've got tourists up there now."4 'buckets'
But Walden suggested that Republican attitudes haven't actually changed much. Rather, they have a fresh message.
"If you go back and look at what we did, it was positive, innovative developments on the energy grid, on alternative energy, look at the hydro relicensing legislation we passed, to simplify that," he said. "If you look at the things we worked on and passed, they have positive climate impacts."
Shimkus gave a similar account, though he acknowledged a shift in his own views. Each Congress is "like a new child," he said, and the purpose of the Republican meetings was to take the temperature of the hearing room.
"Do you have any fire and brimstone people? Or where are we at today?" Shimkus said. "And that is reflected in our tone in bringing this debate to the forefront."
Walden, who in the past has not disputed human-caused climate change, boils down GOP ideas for addressing climate change into four "buckets": innovation, conservation, adaptation and preparation.
"I think it's a worldview that accepts that the climate's changing, and industry is a contributor to it, we're going to need to do something about it, and we need to innovate our way out of it," Walden said.
Walden and his group of members are still contending with other factions of the GOP that remain solidly skeptical about climate science.
On the Natural Resources panel, for instance, Republicans shut down a hearing on climate change denial last month because they didn't believe it was in their jurisdiction (E&E News PM, Feb. 26).
In the Senate, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee is moving forward with hearings on climate, but on the floor GOP leaders are focused on attacking the Green New Deal (E&E News PM, March 6).
Walden said he "can't control" the opinions of members off the committee, nor of President Trump, who has continuously promoted false statements and conspiracy theories about climate science. But the Energy and Commerce panel is where the sausage gets made, so to speak, on energy policy.
"Somebody's going to develop these new technologies," Walden said. "It ought to be us."'Bipartisan, bicameral success'
For all that talk, however, there are still few specific emissions reductions strategies coming from the Republican side of the dais. And it's clear many of their members don't believe the bell has tolled for the fossil fuel industry just yet.
At the E&C hearing last week, Republicans remained skeptical of the Paris Agreement and made claims about international emissions reductions with varying levels of accuracy (Climatewire, March 4).
They also repeatedly brought up the riots in France over the government's fuel tax hikes in an effort to discredit taxation as a solution to climate change.
In the op-ed, Shimkus, Walden and Upton suggested "doubling down on innovation" by promoting renewable energy, carbon capture and nuclear development and removing barriers to advanced battery development.
"Innovation" has become a go-to climate buzzword for Republicans, but it's not always clear exactly how it translates into policy, outside of pumping money into the Department of Energy's research and development offices (E&E Daily, Nov. 28, 2018).
Indeed, part of the op-ed is a retrospective, touting U.S. emissions reductions over the past few decades, rather than looking at the steep declines scientists say will be needed to prevent average global temperatures from exceeding 1.5 degrees Celsius over preindustrial levels.
And not surprisingly, Republicans on the committee still appear to oppose carbon pricing regulations, though Walden didn't rule them out when asked about them last week. Shimkus did not shut the door either but was still skeptical of the idea.
"I think that pricing will come out of the Ways and Means Committee, so we would have to see what they came out with," Shimkus said. "I'm not really a big fan of taxes. I'm still a Republican."
Shimkus added that he doesn't think Republicans are necessarily obliged to come up with their own specific climate plan, despite their barrage of attacks against the progressive Green New Deal in recent weeks.
"I think our obligation is to work with the Democrats," he said. "They're in the majority. We don't have to lead with bills."
Still, Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), who leads the Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee, said the "innovation" rhetoric, at least, could translate into some bipartisan policy wins.
In the committee's immediate jurisdiction, that could include boosting funding for DOE research and beefing up energy efficiency programs, he said.
"Some of it is appropriations, some of it is not only reauthorizing programs, but maybe upgrading them and expanding them, especially with energy efficiency, weatherization and conservation efforts," Tonko said. "But we're encouraged by what the tone is."
Shimkus said he doubts Republicans would be "upset with those types of proposals." The real debate for the GOP when it comes to broader greenhouse gas emissions reductions policy is how to do it without putting a dent in the economy, he said.
He's also a fan of propping up nuclear power to reduce emissions, hailing from Illinois, a state that gets a substantial chunk of its power from nuclear.
On the Senate side, they could get a hand in those efforts from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, where Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) held a hearing this week on climate change and the electricity sector (E&E News, March 6).
There, as on the Republican side of E&C, the conversation was focused on "innovation" and propping up renewables and battery storage through DOE's research programs.
Murkowski told reporters after the hearing that there's still "a lot of work ahead of us," noting that there isn't talk yet about legislation to reform or prop up those programs.
Tonko suggested that the early agreement on expanding research and energy innovation programs could coalesce into a "package" of bills and even be a steppingstone to a price on carbon, one of his preferred policy ideas to fight climate change.
"I'm encouraged," he said. "I think there is some of that doable agenda that we want to go through where I think we can strike bipartisan, bicameral success, and I think the message here that we're receiving from everyone in the first two hearings is that there's urgency."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/03/07/stories/1060123387

Return to headline | Return to top
GAO Finds Climate Risk Needs ‘Significant Attention’

Mar 6, 2019 | Inside EPA

The Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) latest report of “high risks” to the federal government againsays limiting the fiscal exposure posed by climate change is an area that needs “significant attention,” inpart due to Trump administration efforts to revoke prior climate policies.
Climate risk is one of three high-risk areas that have “regressed in their ratings against our criteria forremoval from the High Risk List,” since GAO last issued a high risk report in 2017, the office says.
The March 6 report cites the rising number of natural disasters and need for federal assistance as a “keysource” of fiscal exposure. Federal disaster funding reached $430 billion between 2005 and 2018, withprojections that the cost will increase “as extreme weather events become more frequent and intense dueto climate change.”
The report cites five areas where government-wide action is needed to reduce exposure, including thefederal government’s role as the insurer of property and crops; the provider of disaster aid; the owner oroperator of infrastructure; the leader of a strategic plan that coordinates efforts between federal, state, localand private sectors; and the provider of data and technical assistance for decisionmakers.
GAO also cites the Fourth National Climate Assessment report from November to note that neither globalefforts to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions nor regional adaptation efforts approach the scope “neededto avoid substantial damage to the U.S. economy, environment, and human health over the comingdecades.”
It adds: “Government-wide action is needed to improve the nation’s resilience to natural hazards andreduce federal fiscal exposure to climate change impacts. However, the federal government has not mademeasurable progress since 2017 to reduce its fiscal exposure to climate change, and in some cases, hasrevoked prior policies designed to do so.”
Three exposure criteria identified in 2017 remain at “partially met” and one remains at “not met.” The ratingfor the monitoring criteria regressed to “not met” in part due to the White House Council on EnvironmentalQuality’s (CEQ) revocation of a guidance for how agencies should consider climate change in NationalEnvironmental Policy Act reviews.
“We had previously found that this guidance helped partially meet this criterion. Without such guidance,agencies no longer have White House direction to consider climate change impacts, such as sea level rise,when planning federally-funded infrastructure,” the report says.
CEQ has sent a replacement guidance for interagency review but it is expected to be far narrower than therevoked document.
In addition to the regressions -- which also include the revocation of Executive Order 13690 thatestablished a federal flood risk management standard -- GAO notes that the administration has notimplemented several other GAO recommendations.
The government has yet to implement its 2015 recommendations to establish a comprehensive investmentstrategy identifying, prioritizing and implementing federal disaster resilience investments to reduce fiscalexposure; nor has it created a national climate information system.
Since first adding climate to the high-risk list in 2013, GAO has made 62 recommendations, with 12 issuedsince the 2017 update. “As of December 2018, 25 remain open. The federal government needs a cohesivestrategic approach with strong leadership and authority to manage climate change risks across the entirerange of federal activities."
In response to the listing, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) in a statement says it is notable thatthe climate risk was singled out for its regression since GAO issued its prior report.
“Continuing to in the wrong direction will not only impose mounting costs on taxpayers, but could alsojeopardize the health, safety and livelihoods of people around the country,” UCS says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/gao-finds-climate-risk-needs-%E2%80%98significant-attention%E2%80%99

Return to headline | Return to top
Environmentalists Threaten Suit to Force EPA Ozone NAAQS Findings

Mar 6, 2019 | Inside EPA

Environmentalists are threatening to sue EPA to force the agency to issue final decisions on whether areas around the country attained the 2008 federal ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), and to require that areas still violating the standard be “bumped up” to a more-serious nonattainment designation.
In a March 4 letter, Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) give EPA 60 days notice of their intent to sue over the agency’s delayed process for redesignating areas for the 2008 ozone limit of 75 parts per billion (ppb) set by the George W. Bush administration. The Obama EPA in 2015 tightened the limit to 70 ppb.
“Although EPA has initiated proposals for certain moderate nonattainment areas, these not only fail to address all such areas, but EPA also failed to finalize them by” the Clean Air Act’s deadline of Jan. 20 this year, the groups say.
The areas in question are currently classified as in “moderate” nonattainment, but if they fail to attain the NAAQS they face being bumped up to “serious” nonattainment. “Serious” status gives areas longer to attain but also obliges them to impose tougher pollution controls on industry.
The groups say EPA has failed to finalize determinations and publish them in the Federal Register for the Baltimore, MD; Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI; Dallas-Fort Worth, TX; Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Loveland, CO; Greater Connecticut, CT; Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX; Imperial County, CA; Mariposa County, CA; Nevada County (Western part), CA; New York-New Jersey-Long Island, CT-NJ-NY; Phoenix-Mesa, AZ; San Diego County, CA; and Sheboygan County, WI, nonattainment areas.
Environmental groups have already filed comments critical of some of these proposed determinations, opposing EPA’s proposal to grant some areas a one-year compliance extension to meet the NAAQS rather than face an immediate reclassification to “serious” nonattainment.
Groups including CBD, WildEarth Guardians, National Parks Conservation Association, Colorado Sierra Club, Clean Wisconsin and others filed comments opposing a one-year extension for the Denver metro area and parts of Wisconsin, suggesting the potential for litigation if EPA finalizes the extensions as proposed.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/environmentalists-threaten-suit-force-epa-ozone-naaqs-findings

Return to headline | Return to top
Carbon Capture Group Seeks Capitol Hill Leadership Focus on CCUS Policy

Mar 6, 2019 | Inside EPA

By Lee Logan

A diverse coalition of industry, environmental groups and others is urging congressional leaders in both parties to take a greater interest in a range of policies to support carbon capture, use and storage (CCUS) technologies, a push that could enable the new Congress to take a targeted step to address climate change.
But the advocacy underscores the tricky politics for both parties that has long surrounded CCUS -- with some Democrats loathe to support federal efforts that enable fossil fuel use and many Republicans hesitant to support explicit policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The most recent push comes in a March 5 letter from the Carbon Capture Coalition to the top Democratic and Republican leaders in both the House and Senate, asking the lawmakers to advance a series of proposed measures that would aid CCUS, potentially in a broader infrastructure or budget bill.
“We urge you to include [CCUS] as an essential component of a broader strategy to decarbonize power generation and key industry sectors by midcentury,” the letter says.
The coalition cites enactment in the prior Congress of an expanded “45Q” tax credit for CCUS technologies, but says “significant additional policy support is needed if we are to [encourage] investment sufficient to drive commercial deployment on the scale” experts say is necessary to sharply limit global warming.
CCUS refers to a suite of technologies to capture carbon dioxide before it goes up industrial smokestacks or even from the ambient air, and then permanently sequester such emissions underground or use them in a range of products.
The coalition broadly calls for “additional federal incentives” for CCUS, support for infrastructure related to the technology and expanded research and development efforts.
That likely references bipartisan legislation dubbed the USE IT Act that includes provisions to boost CCUS research and CO2 pipelines, though the letter does not specifically mention the bill and could also be alluding to other policies, such as preferential tax treatment for CCUS projects.
The Senate environment committee late last month held a hearing on the bill, which is sponsored by six Republicans and seven Democrats in the Senate. A bipartisan companion measure has also been introduced in the House.
GOP lawmakers have pointed to the legislation as a concrete step they are willing to take to reduce GHG emissions, while bashing more ambitious proposals from progressives such as the Green New Deal (GND).
'Whatever Works'
Democrats at the recent hearing generally embraced USE IT as an incremental step to address GHGs, but some expressed concern that the measure could simply encourage more fossil fuel use, including natural gas that contributes methane, the potent GHG.
While many progressive environmental groups have long opposed CCUS for this reason, even sponsors of Democrats' GND resolution say a broader climate plan could include carbon capture.
Specifically, the resolution's language calling for 100 percent of electricity to come from “clean, renewable, and zero-emissions energy sources,” is consistent with calls from many in both parties to define clean energy as much broader than renewable power, including nuclear energy and CCUS.
In line with that flexibility, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) during a press conference to unveil the proposal noted that the resolution is silent on specific technology prescriptions and could allow for CCUS. “We are open to whatever works,” he said, saying such questions are up to committees in Congress drafting specific legislation.
In addition, observers have said that the success of the 45Q legislation provides a path for enacting complementary CCUS policies in the new Congress, even though Democrats have re-taken control of the House.
While the Carbon Capture Coalition's letter does not mention specific legislative vehicles that CCUS provisions could be attached to, many have speculated that the technology could be included in any broader infrastructure bill, and that tax- or spending-related provisions for CCUS could be part of broader budget legislation.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/carbon-capture-group-seeks-capitol-hill-leadership-focus-ccus-policy

Return to headline | Return to top
Senate Floor Erupts in Heated Debate over Climate Change

Mar 6, 2019 | Politico Pro

By Anthony Adragna

Democrats and Republicans traded heated barbs over climate change on the Senate floor today.
GOP senators bashed the Green New Deal — a nonbinding resolution that calls for rapidly decarboninzing the economy — as socialist and a threat to the U.S. economy, but Democrats repeatedly interrupted their colleagues' floor speeches to demand alternative ideas to address climate change. The unusual showdowns highlight the extent to which both parties are seeking political advantage as voters are showing increasing concern about rising temperatures and extreme weather but remain sensitive to the health of the economy.
Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) first asked Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) whether she considers climate change real, driven by human activities and if Congress should take immediate steps to combat it.
Ernst said she does "believe climate change is real. And we have seen climate change for centuries," but she did not acknowledge that humans are responsible. Schatz tried to ask her to clarify, but Ernst left the floor.
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer then interrupted Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) to argue that "we’ve not heard anything from the other side about what they’re for with climate."
Cornyn did not directly respond.
“I know what their talking points are now, but I don't believe what we ought to do” is the Green New Deal, he said. “We should not have a socialist power grab of the entire U.S. economy.”
Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.) responded to an interruption from Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) by endorsing carbon capture and sequestration technologies and additional energy efficiency measures.
"I believe the climate is changing, I believe all flora, fauna and human beings have some impact on that," Young said. "I also believe fervently that we can protect our environment without wrecking our economy."
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) later accused Republicans of relying on a "made up number from the Koch brothers" to attack the proposal, prompting his to be gaveled down by the presiding officer. Markey was referring to an analysis from the Republican-aligned American Action Forum estimating it would cost $93 trillion.
Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) had already offered climate policy like legislation boosting carbon capture and sequestration technologies: "There are Republican solutions and ideas that are focused on innovation, not regulation. Republicans will continue to offer them."
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has promised to bring the resolution S. Res. 59 (116) to the floor in the next few weeks.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2019/03/democrats-spar-with-republicans-on-floor-for-climate-plan-1244527

Return to headline | Return to top
Climate Change Pervades Congress After Years Of Quiet

Mar 7, 2019 | E&E Climatewire

By Mark K. Matthews

All of a sudden, it's gotten really hard to escape climate change.
Not the problem itself — that threat has been looming for a while now. But discussions about global warming have hit a fever pitch in recent months, often overwhelming other issues in Congress, on television and on the campaign trail.
How long it will last is anyone's guess, but several lawmakers and activists said the buzz has reached a level unmatched since congressional Democrats tried to pass cap-and-trade legislation 10 years ago.
"For the first time in a long time, the Senate is finally debating the issue of climate change, and it's about time, if you ask me," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) in a floor speech yesterday.
One driving factor, of course, was the introduction last month of a symbolic resolution meant to support the Green New Deal, a well-branded and ambitious plan to tackle climate change with a government-led jobs program (E&E Daily, Feb. 7).
It hasn't hurt either that the proposal is being championed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), a charismatic freshman lawmaker with a huge media following.
"Since @RepAOC and I introduced the #GreenNewDeal a few weeks ago, Americans have been talking about climate change on a scale that I haven't seen in more than a decade," wrote Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) in a Twitter post this week. "We've ignited a national debate on climate change, and we must keep pushing!"
The discussion isn't just about the Green New Deal, though.
In his floor speech, Schumer called for the creation of a Senate committee on climate change that would mirror a panel on the House side.
"Over the next few decades, climate change will affect every part of American life," said Schumer. "If there was ever an issue that demanded particular focus from this chamber, it's climate change."
His request — which Senate Republicans are unlikely to support — is one part of a full-court press by congressional Democrats.
They've demanded a full day of debate on global warming, sought to pass a messaging resolution declaring that climate change is real and dangerous, and held more than a dozen hearings on the topic since January (Greenwire, Feb. 28).
"A decade ago we came close to passing legislation, but I think this moment is unprecedented in terms of the political energy behind climate action," said Elizabeth Gore, senior vice president for political affairs at the Environmental Defense Fund. "There have been 17 climate-related hearings in the House — and the creation of a new committee focused on this issue — just since the start of this year."
That hasn't been lost on Democrats running for the White House in 2020.
Several have signed on as co-sponsors of the Green New Deal, from Sen. Kamala Harris of California to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee launched his bid by saying he'd make "defeating climate change our nation's No. 1 priority."
Even former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg — who this week backed out of the presidential sweepstakes — declared his intent to spend big on a new effort to wean the United States off fossil fuels (E&E Daily, March 6).
"At the heart of Beyond Carbon [campaign] is the conviction that, as the science has made clear, every year matters," he wrote.
Republicans have gotten into the discussion, too — though often for different reasons.
For many, the Green New Deal has offered a convenient foil for them to paint liberals as socialist or out of touch.
"Nothing encapsulates the Democrats' hard left turn towards socialism more than the 'Green New Deal,'" Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) wrote yesterday on Twitter.
But the attention from the right hasn't been all about the Green New Deal.
On Tuesday, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) used her perch as chairwoman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to hold a hearing on climate change and the electricity sector.
"We do have a considerable role to play in developing reasonable policies that can draw bipartisan support that I think will be a pragmatic contribution to the overall discussion," she said (Climatewire, March 6).
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), who leads the Agriculture Committee, said this week that his panel would soon examine the effects of climate change and severe weather on farming.
"Nobody that I know of in farm country does not realize we have climate change," Roberts toldthe Bloomberg news service.
Some House Republicans, too, have called on their colleagues to confront climate change after years of mostly ignoring the problem.
"We must address climate change in ways that focus on American prosperity and technological capabilities while maintaining America's leadership in clean and renewable energy innovation," wrote Republican Reps. Greg Walden of Oregon, Fred Upton of Michigan and John Shimkus of Illinois wrote in a recent op-ed.
It's enough of a change that one former Republican lawmaker called it "historic and unprecedented."
"You have senior Republicans acknowledging this threat [and] recognizing that the government has a role in addressing it — directly challenging the president and the administration on some of their views," said former Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), who stood almost alone last year in championing a carbon tax bill. "This is an important political moment in our country, and whenever we get a bipartisan climate solution ... we will look back at this time and say this was the beginning."
Media attention, too, has followed the discussion.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) has been keeping an eye on how often climate change is mentioned during the Sunday news talk shows, and he noted recently that there was a big uptick even between January and February.
"This month, #climatechange was mentioned 10 times on Sunday shows' programming & 7 of these were part of a substantial discussion on #climate," he wrote on Twitter. "A big increase from last month. That's progress."
Overhanging all the discussion, however, are two central questions — how long the momentum will last and whether the discussion will lead to a significant change in U.S. policy.
For now, both Democrats and Republicans are debating global warming with the belief they can gain politically by highlighting climate change and the Green New Deal.
To that end, several Senate Democrats and Republicans took to the floor yesterday to debate the issues, often heatedly.
But given President Trump's dismissiveness of climate change, it's highly unlikely he and Congress will agree to an aggressive answer to global warming.
That means much of the issue's fate will rest with the outcome of the 2020 elections, both for Congress and the White House.
And for some activists, that's a fine enough reason to keep talking.
"In 2016, climate change was barely discussed in the presidential debates," wrote activists with the Sunrise Movement, who have championed the Green New Deal, in a Twitter post last week. "In 2020, it's going to be a top issue."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/03/07/stories/1060123363

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested