Preview Newsletter

AM ACC Clips Report - March 15, 2019

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Eastman Chemical, Conduit Global Cutting Jobs in Tennessee
Mar 14, 2019 | AP (In the Washington Post)
By Adrian Sainz

Eastman Chemical Co. said Thursday that it is cutting an undisclosed number of jobs globally, citing “the ongoing U.S.-China trade dispute” and an economic slowdown in Europe.
(ACC Mentioned) Waste Alliance Aims to Broaden Membership Reach
Mar 15, 2019 | ECN (In ICIS)

The Alliance to End Plastic Waste (AEPW) launched by industrial companies in January is set to broaden its membership to national chemicals trade groups as well as non-governmental organisations (NGOs), according to the CEO at US trade group the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
Wheeler: 'the State of Our Agency Is Strong'
Mar 14, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Kevin Bogardus

EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler recounted the agency's accomplishments and its plans ahead in a speech this afternoon to all employees.
Wheeler’s Promise Of EPA ‘Certainty’ Agenda Draws Skepticism, Derision
Mar 14, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey

EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler’s promise that the agency's agenda will bring regulatory “certainty” is drawing a mix of skepticism and derision from observers including industry and state officials who say it either exaggerates the benefit of some actions or ignores controversial -- and legally uncertain -- rollbacks that risk creating more uncertainty.

TSCA News

EPA Updates TSCA for First Time in 40 Years
Mar 15, 2019 | Ecotile Nes
By John Mowbray

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released the first update of its Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory, for 40 years, which shows that over half of the listed substances are no longer being sold on the US market.
EPA Posts New Rules for TSCA Asbestos Review
Mar 15, 2019 | Conservative Daily News
By Thomas Anderson

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released new rules for the risk evaluation of asbestos as part of the new updates to the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Washington Bill to Save Orcas Makes Waves With Chemical Industry
Mar 15, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky

A bill that would give Washington state regulators the power to ban toxic substances in an effort to protect critically endangered killer whales is getting pushback from the chemicals industry.
(ACC Mentioned) Maryland Eyes First Statewide EPS Food Service Ban
Mar 15, 2019 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken

Maryland could be the first state to ban expanded polystyrene food service packaging, with the lower chamber of the state's Legislature adopting the restrictions by a wide measure March 12.
(ACC Mentioned) Maryland Could Be the First State to Ban Styrofoam Food Containers
Mar 15, 2019 | Pacific Standard
By Kelley Czajka

A bill awaiting the governor's signature could make Maryland the first state to ban Styrofoam cups and food containers.
Agencies Accused of Urging Weaker PFAS Standards
Mar 14, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder

Agencies including the Defense Department have been accused of pressuring EPA to weaken cleanup standards for two types of chemicals contaminating hundreds of military facilities.
EU Ruling Raises Question on Gray Area Between Waste, Chemicals
Mar 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner

A European Union court ruling on an Eastern European waste dispute highlighted a possible gap in EU legislation, which might lead to the disposal of chemical substances that could be recycled.
REACH and CLP Hub: Dossier Updates and Enforcement
Mar 15, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Sini Suomela

Sini Suomela, head of REACHLaw’s OR and registration practice, discusses dossier updates and enforcement
Companies Lack Knowledge of Chemical Rules, Swedish Audit Finds
Mar 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Marcus Hoy

One third of Sweden’s companies didn’t know about the existing information requirements for potentially hazardous substances on the European Union’s REACH chemicals list, the country’s Chemicals Agency (Kemi) said.
As EPA, DOD Battle, New Jersey Adopts Strict Groundwater PFAS Level
Mar 14, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan

New Jersey regulators have set strict health-based groundwater cleanup standards for two common per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), adopting interim levels that are forty times more stringent than those being pushed by the Defense Department (DOD) in an ongoing fight with EPA over federal cleanup levels.

Energy News

State Attorneys Preview ANWR Challenge
Mar 15, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King

Sixteen state attorneys are setting the stage for likely litigation against the Trump administration's plan to sell oil and gas leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Nixed Nevada Oil, Gas Leases Give Environmentalists Rare Win
Mar 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Lee

Environmentalists scored a rare win March 14 when the U.S. Forest Service canceledan oil and gas lease sale in northeastern Nevada amid significant public opposition.
FERC Considering Houston Office to Address LNG Backlog
Mar 14, 2019 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Eric Wolff

FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee said the agency is considering opening a Houston office to expedite the processing of LNG permits.
Reporters Notebook: Gulf Coast Is the New Middle East
Mar 15, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Rob Gavin

The geography of energy is shifting. At one time, when policy oil industry executives and policy makers spoke of the Gulf, they were invariably speaking of the Persian Gulf.
All-Clean Power Goals Trending Among Climate-Wary States
Mar 15, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Bobby Magill

One hundred percent carbon-free electricity mandates are becoming a trend nationwide—but only in blue states, not red ones.

Chemical Security News

Judge Lets Climate Case Proceed Against Exxon
Mar 15, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Daniel Cusick

A legal effort to hold industry accountable for pollution spills linked to sea-level rise gained ground Wednesday when a federal judge allowed a civil lawsuit targeting a petroleum storage facility outside Boston to proceed.

Transportation and Infrastructure News

Environment News

GOP Lawmaker: Green New Deal 'Tantamount to Genocide'
Mar 14, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Anthony Adragna

House Republicans launched a biting attack Thursday against an aggressive Democratic Green New Deal plan to tackle climate change, with one senior GOP lawmaker contending it would be “tantamount to genocide.”
Green New Deal Too Much for Moderate Democrats
Mar 15, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nick Sobczyk

Several moderate Democrats said yesterday they would vote against the Green New Deal if it came to the House floor, preferring instead to focus on climate policy they see as more pragmatic.
House GOP Wants Hearings on Green New Deal (1)
Mar 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker

The Republican leaders of 11 House committees are calling on Democratic leadership to hold hearings on the Green New Deal in an effort to cast the plan as a bad idea for Americans.
Green New Deal to Get Senate Vote in Coming Weeks
Mar 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker and Dean Scott

Senators could take their first vote on a resolution favoring a dramatic shift away from fossil energy the week of March 25, after they return from next week’s congressional recess.
Groups Urge EPA to Scrap Mercury Rule Redo
Mar 14, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly

Days away from what could be an overflow public hearing, representatives of public health groups urged EPA to scrap plans for revisiting its regulations on power plant mercury emissions or at least look at the potential impact more closely.
Heinrich Talks Public Lands, Green New Deal
Mar 15, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Kellie Lunney

Close observers of the delicate negotiations surrounding the public lands package during the past several months all knew who the four corners were: Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) in the upper chamber...
U.S. Blocks Global Resolution on Efforts to Cool Earth
Mar 15, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick

The United States joined Saudi Arabia to derail a U.N. resolution that sought to improve the world's understanding of potential efforts to lace the sky with sunlight-reflecting aerosols or use carbon-catching fans.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Eastman Chemical, Conduit Global Cutting Jobs in Tennessee

Mar 14, 2019 | AP (In the Washington Post)

By Adrian Sainz

Eastman Chemical Co. said Thursday that it is cutting an undisclosed number of jobs globally, citing “the ongoing U.S.-China trade dispute” and an economic slowdown in Europe.
In a statement from company spokeswoman Betty Payne, the chemical and plastics manufacturer said it has seen reduced demand for its products and must do more to manage costs amid “tremendous uncertainty.”
Eastman says it is delaying salary raises for employees in certain jobs. The Kingsport, Tennessee-based company also said it is making “a modest and targeted” workforce reduction. Payne would not share specific details.
“We are operating in a difficult business environment, and we had hoped and expected to see stronger signs of economic recovery by now,” the statement said.
Eastman makes chemicals, fibers and plastics for a variety of uses in consumer products, including protective coatings and films used in decorative packaging, according to its website. The company spun off from Eastman Kodak and became an independent corporation in the 1990s.
The company reported $10.2 billion in sales revenue last year. CEO Mark Costa said in a Jan. 31 financial report that Eastman had a challenging fourth quarter as demand for specialty products in China fell.
Chemical companies have been caught up in the tariffs battle between the U.S. and China. Hundreds of chemicals and plastics imports from China have been targeted by the U.S., and China has retaliated with tariffs on exports, lobbying group the American Chemistry Council said in September.
Chemical industry tariffs are valued in the billions of dollars on both sides, the council said in a statement. The council calls the tariffs a tax that could lead to increases in prices of consumer products.
“The tariffs will cut off U.S. manufacturers from international supply chains and from importing inputs that help keep them competitive in the global marketplace,” said Ed Brzytwa, the council’s director of international trade.
Job cuts also have been disclosed in the Memphis area, across the state from Kingston. Call center operator Conduit Global plans to lay off 112 employees next month at its facility in the Memphis suburb of Cordova.
The Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development sent a letter to state officials and members of Congress on March 4 informing them that Conduit plans to make the layoffs effective April 30. No reason for the cuts was provided in the letter.
The $8 million call center opened in 2014 with plans to hire 1,000 workers over several years. The next year, the New York-based company said it was cutting 600 jobs after losing Verizon as a customer.
A Memphis workforce development board will help get necessary services to the employees, who did not have a collective bargaining agreement, the letter said.
Conduit was awarded a $1.25 million grant in December 2013 that was contingent on creating 1,000 jobs by Dec. 15, 2018, said Scott Harrison, a spokesman for the Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development. The grant had a provision for the recovery of grant funds, Harrison said, and the department is gathering more information on the situation.
Conduit also received a $750,000 job training grant, which is reimbursable based on hiring, Harrison said. Conduit has been reimbursed for about $262,000 of that total, but those funds are not subject to any “clawback” provision, he said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/eastman-chemical-conduit-global-cutting-jobs-in-tennessee/2019/03/14/e1f5b07a-468f-11e9-94ab-d2dda3c0df52_story.html?utm_term=.5f54a7389e87

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Waste Alliance Aims to Broaden Membership Reach

Mar 15, 2019 | ECN (In ICIS)

The Alliance to End Plastic Waste (AEPW) launched by industrial companies in January is set to broaden its membership to national chemicals trade groups as well as non-governmental organisations (NGOs), according to the CEO at US trade group the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
Cal Dooley, who also serves as council secretary of the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA), added that a key challenge with plastic waste would be to reuse it in order to bring economic benefits to the often-impoverished communities from which a large portion of it is derived. The ACC CEO, who is set to retire from that post at the end of 2019, added he was hopeful that executing the AEPW strategy, by proving that the plastic waste problem can be tackled, would bring on board some environmental groups who have given a cold reception to the initiative.
Dooley has been a key promoter of the AEPW, and he delayed his retirement as CEO of the ACC in order to help with its initial months of development. Launched in January, the AEPW is formed of major industrial groups, including several petrochemicals companies like Germany’s BASF, US groups Dow Chemical and LyondellBasell, as well as consumer groups like Procter & Gamble (P&G), or services and engineering firms like Veolia, among others.
The Alliance’s members have so far committed over $1bn to tackle the problem, and Dooley said that over the course of the next five years the figure should increase to around $1.5bn.
He said the organisation would not disclose, however, the exact amount each company is contributing with, adding that this is based on the size of each participant.
AEPW TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE
“What distinguishes the AEPW from other initiatives trying to address the problem of marine debris and waste is that the AEPW is going to be the largest private sector initiative in terms of the scope of engagement, as well as the amount of resources that will be deployed to show a tangible impact on eliminating plastic waste,” said Dooley.
However, large environmental groups have been sceptical about the initiative. At the time of the AEPW launch, Greenpeace said it was “a desperate attempt from corporate polluters” to keep the status quo, adding that plastics were “a lifeline for the dying fossil fuel industry” and the AEPW showed how far companies were willing to go in order to preserve it.
Dooley preferred to see the glass half-full, arguing that by opening up the AEPW in the future he hoped green groups would come on-board.
“The model is to provide opportunities for strategic partners that could represent some of the leading NGOs, perhaps in the environmental community as well as some key partners like Circulate Capital, and there will also be advisory roles for some of the national organisations,” he said, mentioning ACC itself or the EU’s chemicals trade group Cefic, among others.
Circulate Capital is one of the AEPW’s collaborating organisations and aims to be an incubator fund that will target both infrastructure and innovation.
Another key offshoot is Renewlogy, which oversees the Renew Oceans initiative that aims to clean up plastic waste from rivers and find ways to reuse and recycle it.
“We are absolutely confident that, if we execute the plan and the vision of the Alliance, we can demonstrate that by this collective effort we are going to deploy more resources and we are going to be able to capitalise the expertise and technical capabilities of some of the Alliance’s member companies,” said Dooley.
“We are going to have the ability to make more tangible impact in eliminating plastic waste from the environment than any other initiative that is in place today. We are confident that the success we are going to achieve will result in increasing support from the environmental community, as well as governmental entities that we’ll be partnering with.”
EMPOWERING THOSE MOST AFFECTED
Dooley was clear that the plastic waste problem stems mostly from emerging economies, especially in Asia, and conceded that the success of the initiative could only be measured by the ways the collected waste is reused – and the return on the capital invested.
“We will be developing metrics to ensure that there is a return on the investment we are making. [We’ll establish] criteria to identify those strategic partners … to ensure we are going to see a tangible impact on reducing plastic waste,” he said.
“We are looking at how we can bring private sector dollars into efforts and initiatives to eliminate plastic waste, but also have the chance to be catalytic capital that can leverage public sector dollars that can increase the resources that are being deployed.”
He added that the Renew Oceans initiative had already partnered with US-headquartered broadcaster National Geographic to deploy small-scale technologies in the Ganges River in India, aiming to “empower small, often impoverished” communities to have an opportunity to make a profit from plastic waste.
“[They could benefit] by converting the plastic waste into different types of fuels which they can utilise or sell. This will have multiple benefits, from removing waste from the Ganges River but also providing much-needed financial resources for citizens of India that are at very low income levels,” said Dooley.
“[We need] innovation that will result in the reformulation of some packaging materials and products, which will facilitate greater percentage of recyclability of those materials. Also developing the technologies that can recapture the value in terms of energy, but also developing technologies that can take the plastic waste stream back into a monomer that can be used perhaps as a feedstock.”
Moreover, he went on to say that while the industrialised, mostly western, countries have already achieved important infrastructure to recycle plastics, the key in emerging countries will be to develop waste management systems that allow them to effectively recover municipal waste that currently ends up in the environment.
CIRCULARITY AND CHEMICALS FIRMS
A true circular economy is still a dream scenario. The head of the EU’s chemicals regulator conceded in an interview with ICIS that most of the materials needed for a circular economy are yet to be invented, and said that the endeavour of circularity may take more than 50 years to be deployed.
Moreover, by reusing more materials, chemicals companies would need to, firstly, invest heavily to develop new materials which can be circular and, secondly, turn into some sort of recyclers as well as creators.
Dooley said that circularity would not be a threat to the business of traditional chemicals companies per se, because they would adapt and enhance the circularity of the materials they produce.
“[Our members are committed to] technologies that can recapture the value of a waste stream by enhancing the ability to recycle it, by ensuring we are capturing the energy in that waste stream as well as recovering and reusing the molecules,” he said.
“If you look at the global demographics, there will continue to be increasing consumption of plastics, exceeding GDP growth, and there are going to be great opportunities for companies throughout the value chain to capitalise on this, increasing market demand that will use virgin products as well as utilising and reusing products of which we can recapture the value.”
https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2019/03/14/10333335/waste-alliance-aims-to-broaden-membership-reach/

Return to headline | Return to top
Wheeler: 'the State of Our Agency Is Strong'

Mar 14, 2019 | E&E News PM

By Kevin Bogardus

EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler recounted the agency's accomplishments and its plans ahead in a speech this afternoon to all employees.
The address, which was delivered in the Map Room in EPA headquarters as well as broadcast internally on work computers, was not open to the press. E&E News obtained a recording of the EPA administrator's speech.
Wheeler, who was confirmed last month by the Senate to lead the agency, praised EPA employees throughout the more than half-hour-long speech. He said the address was meant for them only and would not be released to the media.
Wheeler, who repeated in the speech several talking points that he has already shared in public forums, also plans to hold the event each year while he is administrator to reflect on EPA's accomplishments. He said he hoped the tradition will continue at the agency.
"This is my state of union to EPA employees and the EPA family," Wheeler said, while noting next year is the agency's 50th anniversary and that 10 employees have been with the agency since its beginning.
Wheeler listed several accomplishments by EPA in recent years, including cleaning up toxic waste sites under the Superfund program; moving forward on regulatory proposals like redefining the Waters of the U.S. rule, the renewable fuel standard, as well as the Affordable Clean Energy and Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient rules dealing with carbon and auto emissions; implementing the new Toxic Substances Control Act; developing the lead action plan; and enforcement achievements, like the Fiat Chrysler settlement.
Wheeler also talked about the Office of Mission Support, which is leading EPA's reorganization efforts. He said the agency's planned regional realignment is moving forward and that all 10 regional offices will be reworked by the end of April.
He described being summoned from EPA's Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility to receive a call from Air Force One last July. President Trump was on the line to say he would become acting EPA administrator. Wheeler's predecessor, Scott Pruitt, had resigned facing allegations that he had misused his public office.
"'This is the White House switchboard, will you please hold for Air Force One?' I said, 'Sure, happy to,'" Wheeler said to laughs from the crowd. "It was kind of a sudden change in my life over the next 24 hours or so after that."
Wheeler also described his plans for EPA over the coming year, which include delivering a major speech on drinking water next week as well as reconvening a recycling summit this year. He said EPA would put forward the new lead and copper rule in 2019 as well as move away from animal testing.
The administrator also said he would advance EPA's "secret science" proposal in a manner that protects confidential information. He acknowledged the proposal is considered "a little controversial" but said the public has a right to know.
Wheeler talked about the state of EPA's workforce, noting that many EPA employees are eligible to retire in the coming years. The agency could not anticipate having employees stay with it for decades.
"We cannot expect that of the workforce going forward and must plan accordingly," he said.
Wheeler also said the accomplishments of EPA over the past 49 years in protecting the environment and public health were not of one administration but rather of its staff. He thanked EPA staff members for their service.
"This is a transformative time at EPA. My goal is to leave the agency stronger than I found it," he said. "The state of our agency is strong and is growing stronger each year."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/03/14/stories/1060127359

Return to headline | Return to top
Wheeler’s Promise Of EPA ‘Certainty’ Agenda Draws Skepticism, Derision

Mar 14, 2019 | Inside EPA

By Doug Obey

EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler’s promise that the agency's agenda will bring regulatory “certainty” is drawing a mix of skepticism and derision from observers including industry and state officials who say it either exaggerates the benefit of some actions or ignores controversial -- and legally uncertain -- rollbacks that risk creating more uncertainty.
“[The agenda] only provides legal certainty if one is assuming that the Trump administration proposals are going to be held up in court,” says an industry attorney, who notes that big-ticket plans to repeal and replace the Obama EPA’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) climate rule for power plants and its Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction standard, are still in the proposal stage, already face lawsuits and are guaranteed to be challenged once finalized.
Another industry observer says, “I can see why EPA would want to move away from every [Trump EPA] initiative being classed or considered deregulatory” in favor of touting a broader “certainty” agenda.
The second source suggests that Wheeler’s promise of certainty might be premature given the lingering uncertainty about the fate of many of the deregulatory items on his agenda. “It looks to me that the [certainty] theme got ahead of the agenda. Or maybe it just was 'certainty week' in the press shop.”
EPA did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
Speaking March 11 at the CERAWeek energy conference in Houston, Wheeler said, “What is our formula for improving the environment and economy at the same time? Providing greater regulatory certainty to the American public."
He listed three types of certainty: for states, localities and tribes that are the ‘primary enforcers’ of many environmental laws, within EPA's programs, and in “risk communication.”
For example, he said the CPP replacement known as the Affordable Clean Energy Rule (ACE) gives states and utilities more certainty to “invest in new technologies and continue to provide affordable and reliable energy.”
And the administration’s plan to undo the Obama-era Waters of the United States rule and replace it with a much narrower CWA standard similarly is aimed at “clearly defining the difference between federally protected waterways and state protected waterways,” Wheeler said.
Steps to make EPA programs more certain include mandating “yes or no” permit decisions within six months of an application, and refocusing on “real environmental problems” in tandem with an emphasis on voluntary audit programs. He said such programs had already yielded a 47 percent increase in facilities that voluntarily disclose violations and certified their return to compliance with EPA regulations in fiscal year 2017-2018.
On risk communication, he vowed to “speak with one voice” in explaining to the public what are, and are not, environmental and public health risks. The Flint, MI, lead in drinking water contamination crisis is the “poster child for our need to improve risk communication,” Wheeler said.
He also talked about bolstering domestic energy and touted U.S. energy for sale as cleaner and more reliable than energy supplies from Russia or China. And in doing so, he took a swipe at Democrats’ Green New Deal that promotes alternative energy, saying they are “oblivious to how far we've come but also where we are headed.”
As part of those remarks, he also referenced some pending EPA efforts to “fine tune and target the [Clean Air Act new source performance standards (NSPS)] for oil and gas, so they reduce the most harmful pollutants without imposing unnecessary regulatory burdens”
‘Certainty Of More Uncertainty’
But industry, state and environmentalists say in response to Wheeler’s remarks that the agency’s deregulatory agenda might create more uncertainty -- at least in the short-term as rollbacks are under development or being litigated -- for example the growing fight over freezing Obama-era vehicle fuel economy and GHG standards.
“Wheeler did promise you ‘certainty,’ automakers, wrote Natural Resources Defense Council's Clean Air, Climate & Clean Energy Program Director John Walke in one of several Tweets reacting to the speech. “The certainty of more protracted litigation, more upheaval and public anger and political backlash. The certainty of more uncertainty."
Missing from the speech was “the certainty of reducing pollution, the certainty of improving America's health, the certainty of upholding U.S. environmental laws, and the certainty of addressing dangerous climate change,” Walke said.
State officials say the vehicle GHG rollback is an example of a Trump administration priority creating more uncertainty rather than less. Miles Keogh, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies that represents many state and local air regulators, in a March 11 interview with Inside EPA raised concerns about the effort.
“There was a national [vehicle] program that was in place, and one way to create certainty is to leave it alone,” he said, faulting the plan that also includes undoing California’s waiver to set stricter vehicle GHG limits.
“California has been operating on its waiver authority under the Clean Air Act since 1970 and that feels like certainty,” he added. “Revoking the waiver and changing things now feels like introducing uncertainty.”
Keogh also faulted Wheeler for vowing to give states certainty as the “primary enforcers” of many environmental laws, saying the claim is undermined by EPA’s fiscal year 2020 budget request that would cut $76 million from the current $228 million in grants that help states administer federal air programs under delegated authority. Even the current funding is already squeezing states who received the same amount over a decade ago, in 2004, he said.
And Keogh noted concerns over dwindling EPA enforcement resources, saying that giving states certainty on their role as enforcers does not justify the agency “dropping off of the map on enforcement” and assuming states will pick up the slack without adequate funding or other resources.
Other Trump regulatory priorities risk more uncertainty, with a former government official saying the rollback of the Obama-era mercury and air toxics rule for power plants does nothing to give that sector regulatory clarity.
And an industry attorney says the plan to replace the WOTUS rule with a much narrower CWA standard is just the latest in a “moving target” of jurisdiction policies over several decades, exacerbating uncertainty on that issue.
Meanwhile, Wheeler’s reference to revising the oil and gas NSPS is prompting push-back from key industry players who fear any changes could be a prelude to blocking future methane limits on existing facilities
Large oil and gas producers -- most recently Shell -- are calling for EPA to retain direct limits on the sector’s emissions of the GHG methane and put methane curbs on existing facilities. The agency should “continue the direct regulation of methane emissions,” Shell's U.S. Operations Chair Gretchen Watkins told the CERAWeek conference, “We need to do more.”
The industry observer gives EPA a “mixed” review on its certainty agenda, praising efforts to revise the air law’s new source review (NSR) permit program, which Wheeler did not mention in his speech. Environmentalists fear the changes will make it easier for facilities to avoid triggering NSR permit mandates.
But the source questions Wheeler’s reference to the ACE rule as a “certainty” agenda item, saying its predecessor CPP “was pretty ‘certain’ in the sense of state budgets” for meeting GHG reduction goals. The fight over the CPP was more over EPA’s authority in how it regulated power plants GHGs, the source notes.
Other observers say there is no short-term certainty from ACE given it is still in the proposed stage, litigation over the final rule will take years, and a future administration could halt or amend the rule.
Risk Communication
Sources similarly give a tepid response to Wheeler’s remarks on the need to improve the agency’s communication of health and environmental risks as a way to provide more certainty. “There isn't any real rulemaking or proposal tied to the theme in the speech, the industry observer says. “It just references Flint, MI, which arguably was much more about transparency and regulatory compliance than risk communication.”
The former government official says, “Flint was not a ‘risk communication’ issue. It was high lead blood levels in children because EPA do its damn job. Changing communications around lead poisoning doesn't make somebody well.”
Certainty now appears to be a “code word for not doing something but it doesn't recognize that there are a number of programs that require EPA to act,” the source argues.
And a future change in administration -- whether in the 2020 presidential election or, if Trump wins reelection, in the 2024 presidential election -- ensures a change of direction in environmental policy that undermines any certainty from the current EPA’s agenda, the source notes. “For every reaction there is an equal and opposite backlash.”
https://insideepa.com/weekly-focus/wheeler%E2%80%99s-promise-epa-%E2%80%98certainty%E2%80%99-agenda-draws-skepticism-derision

Return to headline | Return to top

TSCA News

EPA Updates TSCA for First Time in 40 Years

Mar 15, 2019 | Ecotile Nes

By John Mowbray

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released the first update of its Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory, for 40 years, which shows that over half of the listed substances are no longer being sold on the US market.
Of those chemicals currently been sold on the US market, the composition of around 20 per cent or roughly 10,000 formulations are not known since they have confidential identities. EPA is now developing a rule outlining how the Agency will review and substantiate all CBI (Confidential Business Information) claims.
Within this update, it’s possible that chemicals in the textile sector may have been reclassified as ‘inactive’, and as such manufacturers and importers will be required to check and resubmit necessary paperwork.
“It’s important for us to know which chemicals are actually in use today,” said Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Assistant Administrator Alexandra Dapolito Dunn. “This will help us with our work prioritising chemicals, evaluating and addressing risks. This information also increases transparency to the public.”
https://www.ecotextile.com/2019031524150/dyes-chemicals-news/epa-updates-tsca-for-first-time-in-40-years.html

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Posts New Rules for TSCA Asbestos Review

Mar 15, 2019 | Conservative Daily News

By Thomas Anderson

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released new rules for the risk evaluation of asbestos as part of the new updates to the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The agency introduced a new use rule (SNUR) proposal that would allow the EPA to prohibit new uses of asbestos, the mineral linked to mesothelioma, a deadly cancer. This is the first time the EPA issued such an action.
The SNUR would require the EPA’s approval before any asbestos-containing goods could be manufactured, processed or imported. The EPA would also be able to evaluate the intended use of asbestos and, if necessary, take action to limit or prohibit its use.
Environmental groups and anti-asbestos advocates, naturally, are skeptical of the SNUR proposal. They believe the new rules will undermine the TSCA and will completely ignore the health concerns of asbestos use and disposal.
They also bring up concerns about how theEPA will evaluate asbestos. They claim that the EPA will not take into account many sources of asbestos when evaluating the substance.
Asbestos is no longer mined in the U.S., but it’s still legal. In fact, we imported 705 metric tons of raw chrysotile asbestos in 2016. Most of the imports are used by the chloralkaline industry, which uses asbestos diaphragms when manufacturing chlorine. Gaskets and friction products, like brake pads, also use asbestos.
The mineral may also inadvertently be found in talc-based products. In fact, Johnson & Johnson faces a$4 billion verdict in a case that alleges a connection between its baby powder products and ovarian cancer.
The SNUR does not actually apply to new uses of asbestos. Instead, it applies to pre-1989 uses of the mineral that are still legal – but no one is using them today.
Essentially, the new rule stipulates that if companies want to start reusing asbestos in certain ways, they will need to seek the EPA’s approval first. The EPA has identified15 product categories in which there are older-but-previously-developed uses that would be subject to the review process. This includes gaskets, adhesives, and high-grade electrical paper.
The SNUR does not change the earlier ban on asbestos, and it would not make legal any uses that were previously outlawed.
The EPA maintains that the proposed rule actually strengthens regulatory oversight of the mineral.
Under the newly-modified TSCA, the EPA is mandated to reevaluate chemicals on a regular basis. Asbestos was chosen as one of the first chemicals to receive new scrutiny.
https://www.conservativedailynews.com/2019/03/epa-posts-new-rules-for-tsca-asbestos-review/

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Washington Bill to Save Orcas Makes Waves With Chemical Industry

Mar 15, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Paul Shukovsky

A bill that would give Washington state regulators the power to ban toxic substances in an effort to protect critically endangered killer whales is getting pushback from the chemicals industry.
The bill would regulate the presence of a chemical in a consumer product and could lead to outright bans in order to protect either humans or killer whales, also known as orcas.
The 75 orcas that remain in the waters north of Puget Sound, down from a high of 98 in 1995, live in family pods that spend much of the year wending their way through the relatively narrow passages of the San Juan Archipelago—a maritime gateway to ports, fossil fuel terminals, and refineries on both sides of the Canadian border.
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) convened a Southern Resident Orca Task Force last year and bills to improve salmon habitat, protect the orca from vessels, and reduce the chances of an oil spill passed their legislative chambers of origin by large margins and appear on a path to passage.
Not so the toxics bill, SSB 5135, which would give the state’s Department of Ecology the specific authority to ban toxics without first getting legislative approval. It barely passed the Senate on a party-line vote and is now in the House.
“These same chemicals that are showing up in our homes, our breast milk, our drinking water are the same chemicals that are showing up in orcas and throughout the food web and in sediments in Puget Sound,” according to Ivy Sager-Rosenthal, a spokeswoman for Toxic-Free Future. She said the source of the contamination is the same: consumer products, including televisions, carpeting, and food packaging.
‘Unchecked Authority’
Only California has such an orca protection law and the chemical industry wants to keep it that way, according to spokespeople for the American Chemistry Council and its nemesis Toxic-Free Future, which wrote the bill.
“This legislation gives the Department of Ecology unchecked authority to regulate products sold in the state and the creation of another list of chemicals, without allowing stakeholder engagement,” American Chemistry Council spokesman Andrew Fasoli wrote in a March 12 email.
The chemicals industry mounted a major lobbying effort to stop the bill in the Senate, Sen. Christine Rolfes (D), the bill’s prime sponsor, told Bloomberg Environment in a March 13 interview.
“The vote was as close as it gets, 25-24,” said Rolfes, chairwoman of the Ways and Means Committee. “Only Democrats voted for it.”
The other orca recovery bills drafted largely by the governor’s office sailed through, many hashed out in the consensus atmosphere that infused Washington state in 2018 after nightly television news aired the tragic spectacle of a mother orca hauling her dead calf around for days.
Protection or Presumption?
Rolfes and Toxic-Free Future see the chemicals measure as protecting both people and orca.
“Any fish or mammal—including us—that accumulates biotoxins will be cleaner,” Rolfes said. “They’ll have less cancer; they’ll have less hormone disruption. And with humans, if we aren’t exposing our infants to toxic baby bottles or toxic clothing or toxic carpeting, you could start seeing results a lot faster.”
Sylvain De Guise, a University of Connecticut veterinarian, toxicologist, and immunologist whose work focuses on marine mammals, called the bill a “no-regrets statute. There’s nothing bad that can happen by regulating what we discharge into the environment for killer whales or for people.”
The Washington state bill allows regulators to put “a restriction or prohibition on a priority chemical” used in consumer products, including perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS chemicals; phthalates; organohalogens and certain other flame retardants; phenolic compounds such as bisphenols; and polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs.
Longer-Term Benefits
“We know that several of those are endocrine disruptors,” De Guise said. He suspects it will take decades rather than years for the chemicals to fade out of killer whale tissue. “The benefits are going to be in the longer term.”
But the American Chemistry Council has several concerns with the bill in its present form.
“The bill makes a presumption that the presence of any identified high priority chemical in a consumer product means that the product is potentially harmful,” Fasoli said in his email.
The bill is scheduled for public hearing March 21 in the House Committee on Environment and Energy, where Democrats hold a wider majority than they do in the Senate.
Rolfes gives it a “good” chance of passage. Inslee would almost certainly sign it into law.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/washington-bill-to-save-orcas-makes-waves-with-chemical-industry

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Maryland Eyes First Statewide EPS Food Service Ban

Mar 15, 2019 | Plastics News

By Steve Toloken

Maryland could be the first state to ban expanded polystyrene food service packaging, with the lower chamber of the state's Legislature adopting the restrictions by a wide measure March 12.
The 97-38 vote in the House of Delegates follows a March 5 vote, by a 34-13 margin, in Maryland's Senate to adopt a similar measure. The measure now shifts from the Legislature, which is controlled by Democrats, to Republican Gov. Larry Hogan.
Plastics industry groups are calling on him to veto it.
"We strongly oppose this legislation and urge Gov. Hogan to protect the interests of Maryland businesses and residents by vetoing it and pursuing policies that will have real, positive impacts on recycling and sustainability across the state," Omar Terrie, director of the Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group in the American Chemistry Council, said in a March 13 statement.
PFPG said a ban could lead to more solid waste, energy use, water use and greenhouse gases emissions from alternative products, and claimed it would raise costs for Maryland restaurants.
"Polystyrene foam packaging and containers provide business owners and consumers with a cost-effective and environmentally preferable choice that is ideal for protecting food and preventing food waste, particularly when used for foodservice," Terrie said. "Foam packaging is generally more than 90 percent air and has a lighter environmental impact than alternatives."
But the legislation's supporters said it's a step toward cleaning up pollution from single-use plastics. And they defended a focus on EPS by pointing to new data showing that the trash wheels pulling garbage from Baltimore's touristy Inner Harbor have collected more PS packaging than plastic bottles or bags.
"One of the problems that we are facing and that we're set to solve is the problem of plastics, and the problem of plastics that are ubiquitous in our world and in our state," said Del. Brooke Lierman, D-Baltimore, and the bill's sponsor in the House of Delegates.
Since they started operating in 2014, more than 1 million PS packaging containers have been collected by the trash wheels, compared with more than 850,000 plastic bottles and 626,000 plastic bags, according to the Waterfront Partnership of Baltimore, which operates the wheels.
State Sen. Cheryl Kagan, D-Montgomery, who pointed to the trash wheel figures during a floor debate, said the foam ban was needed to both clean up litter and to keep PS and toxins the out of food chains.
"This kind of expanded polystyrene foam absorbs toxic chemicals, that's what the problem is," she said. "It ends up in our roadways, it ends up in our waterways. Mammals eat it, fish eat it and then we eat the fish."
During the March 5 floor debate in the state Senate, several amendments that would have created exemptions in the bill were defeated. One would have exempted cities and counties if they set up EPS recycling programs, and others would have called for more public education campaigns around PS foam, boosted foam recycling programs and exempted religious groups and charities from the ban.
Opponents pointed to rising costs — Meals on Wheels was against the legislation because it would add 9 cents to the cost of every meal it prepares, said Sen. Stephen Hershey, R-Kent.
He also argued that paper packaging may not work as well as EPS in some instances, and said paper packaging can use "highly toxic" PFOS fluorinated compounds as coatings that remain in the environment for a long time.
Others said the state should focus more on recycling.
"I think we're a little hypocritical if we ban it but don't provide any provision for recycling," said Sen. Adelaide C. Eckardt, R-Caroline. "We may ban this, but we are still going to have polystyrene around. Many of our small rural counties are going to find this pretty burdensome."
Hershey, an opponent of the legislation, noted it would not ban PS foam packaging for televisions or other non-food service applications, and he too questioned why the legislation should not include more provisions for recycling.
"Have you bought a TV lately and seen the amount of Styrofoam?" he said. "You're still going to have this stuff coming in in floods."
But Kagan, the sponsor of the bill in the Senate, said recycling of EPS food containers is very difficult economically for local governments. She said more than half of the state's residents already live in places with local EPS foam bans, including Montgomery and Prince George's counties and the city of Baltimore.
She said Anne Arundel county, which includes the state capitol of Annapolis, adopted its own EPS restrictions in February.
"There's not a market for expanded polystyrene foam [recycling]," she said, and noted one EPS recycling drop-off site in Maryland does not take EPS contaminated with food.
Kagan argued that none of the amendments would have done anything substantial on recycling, and said local governments remain free to set up their own recycling operations regardless of the bill.
The legislation would take effect July 1, 2020 and set fines of up to $250 for violations.
It would not ban EPS packaging used in food that is packed and then shipped to the final point of sale, like EPS egg cartons delivered to a grocery store. The state Senate held a lengthy debate over the egg carton provision and its impact on Maryland farmers who produce and package eggs, in a Feb. 28 floor debate.
https://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20190314/NEWS/190312221/maryland-eyes-first-statewide-eps-food-service-ban

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Maryland Could Be the First State to Ban Styrofoam Food Containers

Mar 15, 2019 | Pacific Standard

By Kelley Czajka

A bill awaiting the governor's signature could make Maryland the first state to ban Styrofoam cups and food containers.
The material is already banned in Maryland's two most populous counties. Currently, a total of 12 states and Washington, D.C., have local bans on these foam food containers. You won't be able to find Styrofoam at restaurants in New York City, Miami Beach, Seattle, Maui County, or Los Angeles County, among many other cities and counties across the country. At least 65 ordinances exist to ban foam containers in California at the local level. Recent efforts in California and Hawaii to ban Styrofoam at the state level failed to pass into law, though lawmakers are pursuing other bills to ban single-use plastics.
Maryland's proposed law would prevent food service businesses and schools from providing or selling any foam food containers, plates, cups, trays, or egg cartons. The ban, which would go into effect on July 1st, 2020, has made it through the state Senate and House of Delegates, leaving it up to Republican Governor Larry Hogan to sign it into law. The Washington Post reported that the bill had enough support in both chambers of the legislature to override a veto, should Hogan choose to issue one. He has not expressed a public stance on the issue.
Though Styrofoam is a brand-name, it's frequently used to describe all expanded polystyrene foam, a type of lightweight plastic that often ends up in waterways. Environmental advocates claim it is a major source of pollution because it floats and tends to break down into smaller and smaller pieces without ever biodegrading, making it difficult to clean up. Additionally, foam absorbs harmful toxins from the water; when marine life mistake small foam pieces for food, these toxins make their way up the food chain to humans, Ashley Van Stone, executive director of the non-profit Trash Free Maryland, told CNN.
"Maryland may be a small state, but we have the chance with this legislation to LEAD the country on eliminating this horrible form of single use plastic from our state," state Delegate Brooke Lierman, the sponsor of the bill, wrote in a Facebook post. "We have a duty to future generations to clean up the mess that has been made—this bill is an important step!"
Small business owners point to the relatively high cost to use more environmentally friendly recyclable or biodegradable materials, and note that such materials may not be sturdy enough to contain hot liquids and sauces.
"In an industry with razor sharp profit margins, these costs will negatively impact Maryland restaurateurs and be passed along to hard working Maryland families," the American Chemistry Council, a trade association for chemical companies, wrote in a statement urging Hogan to veto the bill. The council also contends that foam actually has a lighter environmental impact than alternative packaging options.
Still, advocates maintain that Styrofoam is more harmful to marine life than other types of plastic containers.
https://psmag.com/news/maryland-could-be-the-first-state-to-ban-styrofoam-food-containers

Return to headline | Return to top
Agencies Accused of Urging Weaker PFAS Standards

Mar 14, 2019 | E&E News PM

By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder

Agencies including the Defense Department have been accused of pressuring EPA to weaken cleanup standards for two types of chemicals contaminating hundreds of military facilities.
EPA proposed groundwater cleanup recommendations for PFOA and PFOS — two types of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. That proposal has been held at the Office of Management and Budget since August 2018.
That delay is because DOD, NASA and the Small Business Administration are pressing for a less stringent cleanup standard of 400 parts per trillion, as opposed to EPA's current health advisory of 70 ppt, according to Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.).
"Giving in to this pressure will leave countless Americans at risk of drinking water contamination," Carper tweeted today.
The senator asked EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler to "take prompt action" to finalize groundwater cleanup standards for the chemicals in a letter dated yesterday.
The New York Times first reported the Pentagon's actions this morning, citing Carper and federal officials briefed on the negotiations.
DOD declined to comment on Carper's letter, but Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) questioned DOD acting Secretary Patrick Shanahan about the accusations at a hearing this morning.
Shanahan said he wasn't aware of the report but promised to look into it.
EPA did not respond to an inquiry about Carper's letter. The agency has faced criticism for its PFAS action plan released last month, which pledged to propose drinking water regulations for the two chemicals within the year (Greenwire, Feb. 14).
The tougher the cleanup standards set by EPA, the costlier the cleanup will be for DOD, which used firefighting foam containing the chemicals on military bases for decades.
In a report to Congress last year, the Pentagon estimated that 380 ppt is an appropriate groundwater cleanup level for PFOA and PFOS, but it noted that a clear federal standard is needed to move forward.
The lack of a groundwater standard is creating "rising frustration among states and communities concerning cleanup at DoD installations," the report said.
PFAS have been linked to cancer, low fertility and thyroid disease.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/03/14/stories/1060127357

Return to headline | Return to top
EU Ruling Raises Question on Gray Area Between Waste, Chemicals

Mar 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Stephen Gardner

A European Union court ruling on an Eastern European waste dispute highlighted a possible gap in EU legislation, which might lead to the disposal of chemical substances that could be recycled.
The Luxembourg-based Court of Justice on March 14 dismissed a case brought by the European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, which had alleged the Czech Republic infringed EU law by refusing to take back a shipment of hazardous waste.
Under EU law on waste shipments, hazardous waste can only be transported across national borders if the receiving country is notified. In this case, the receiving country, Poland, said the waste had been shipped illegally and the Czech Republic should come and collect it.
But the Czech authorities didn’t, on the grounds that the substance—a refinery byproduct composed of tar acid, carbon dust, and calcium oxide—couldn’t be waste because it had been registered under the EU’s REACH chemicals law (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation, and authorization of chemicals).
A volume of 20,000 metric tons of the substance was shipped to Poland in 2010 and 2011, where a portion of it was burned as fuel in a cement works.
The EU court found the commission had failed to demonstrate that the substance was waste, and therefore was wrong to say the Czech Republic had infringed EU law.
“We took note of the ruling of the Court and we are currently analyzing it,” European Commission spokesman Enrico Brivio told Bloomberg Environment.
Gray Area
The ruling highlighted a gray area in EU law that should be clarified in case it undermines the bloc’s recycling and circular economy goals, said Geert Van Calster, a lawyer at Belgium’s KU Leuven Institute for European Law.
Chemical substances that are classified as waste are exempt from the registration requirements of REACH, and some companies had preferred to classify certain substances as waste to avoid the REACH registration process, Van Calster said.
Because of the limitations in EU waste shipment law on transporting hazardous waste across borders, other companies might want to register byproducts or substances that would normally be regarded as waste under REACH, so they could sell them across the EU, Van Calster said.
The EU might need to develop criteria that provide a “precise delineation between REACH and waste,” or byproducts that could be fed back into industrial processes might end up being treated as waste and disposed of, he said.
The court ruling showed “the definition of waste has large implications, not only because people are affected, but also because specific rules apply to the shipment of wastes,” said Elise Vitali, chemicals project officer at environmental group the European Environmental Bureau.
The European Chemicals Agency said in a March 14 statement that even if substances that are actually waste are registered under REACH, “it would not lead to an exemption from the requirements of the waste legislation if it can be shown that it is waste rather than a substance under REACH.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/eu-ruling-raises-question-on-gray-area-between-waste-chemicals

Return to headline | Return to top
REACH and CLP Hub: Dossier Updates and Enforcement

Mar 15, 2019 | Chemical Watch

By Sini Suomela

Sini Suomela, head of REACHLaw’s OR and registration practice, discusses dossier updates and enforcement
Many companies have the impression that they can forget their REACH registrations after receiving the registration number. This is not the case. Companies have the responsibility to keep their registrations up to date and follow up on any changes. Updates can take place spontaneously but also through enforcement actions and/or request by Echa. REACH enforcement in 2019 will have a project targeting registrations and the quality of them.Dossier updates
REACH Article 22 places a mandatory requirement to update registration dossiers without undue delay if there are changes in the registration information. These include, but are not limited to:
·         changes in company status;
·         substance composition;
·         tonnages;
·         uses; and
·         properties of the substance.
However, as these spontaneous updates are based on voluntary action, the vast majority of updates are triggered by Echa’s own regulatory activities, not by the registrants.

Companies lack incentives to update, even though it is a mandatory requirement, and there is a perception that "no additional work is needed" after the registration number is received. This means that new regulatory measures are definitely needed to ensure that companies update their REACH registration dossiers at fixed regular intervals, for example every three years as recommended by an expert group to Echa.
The recommendation would be best achieved through a "clarification or update" of Article 22, which might be feasibly done through an implementing regulation. Now, the situation is unfair as some companies are taking their responsibilities seriously and using time and resources for the update work, and some only start to act when an authority is pushing them. Lack of updates, of course, also pose a threat to chemical safety if the information in the registrations is not up to date.
Companies could also use up-to-date registrations as a marketing tool to show their customers that the company is taking chemical safety seriously and is regularly updating the registration information. Echa’s dissemination tool nowadays shows which registrants have updated their dossier, showing a black dot (•) next to the name of those registrants that have updated their dossier at least once since registration, and displays a IUCLID symbol under the year of the latest dossier update.
'It is important to keep funds in a REACH budget to be prepared for future additional costs'
Some updates require only the lead registrant to update the dossier on behalf of all registrants and do not require co-registrants to submit an updated dossier to Echa. However, these updates still require cost sharing and they might lead to additional costs for all registrants. It is important to keep funds in a REACH budget to be prepared for future additional costs.
On the other hand, when letter of access costs are regularly recalculated, it is also possible that the registrants get refunds from the Sief. Another important part of the update work is to keep available resources for the required work. Time is needed of course for the submission of the update, but also often for answering different questions and even for testing. Hopefully, also REACH enforcement and inspectors will focus more on dossier updates in the future.Enforcement
REACH enforcement is not the responsibility of Echa but of the national authorities in each member state. However, Echa coordinates the work of the Forum for Exchange of Information on Enforcement (Forum), a network of member-state authorities responsible for enforcement. The Forum has, for example, the following tasks:
·         spread good enforcement practice;
·         propose and coordinate harmonised enforcement projects;
·         identify enforcement strategies, as well as best practice in enforcement;
·         develop working methods and tools of use to local inspectors; and
·         work together with industry to make enforcement as efficient and practical as possible.
In 2019, REACH registrations are a big focus point for the authorities. EU national enforcement authority inspectors will focus on registration obligations – including substances registered as intermediates – under the seventh REACH enforcement project (REACH-EN-FORCE-7).
They will check whether companies that needed to register substances on their own or in mixtures after the last registration deadline in May 2018 have a valid registration. In addition to checking full registrations, inspectors will examine intermediate registrations to see whether substances registered as intermediates fulfil the necessary requirements – that a substance is only manufactured and used under strictly controlled conditions. The inspectors will also work closely with custom authorities to ensure control of imported substances.
The project will start its operational phase at the beginning of 2019 and run for one year. It will be followed by a one-year reporting period. Results are expected at the end of 2020.

Echa is, of course, also involved in enforcementactivities as it has the the power to withdraw registrations. One focus point in the last few years has been the Osor principle (one substance, one registration).
The Forum has pointed out that if breaches of obligations for joint submissions cannot be solved, Echa may revoke the registration if it fails the Osor principle. Echa will contact all registrants of the substance (outside and within the existing joint submission), remind them of their collective obligation to agree on the joint submission of data and set a deadline by which they need to find an agreement. If some registrants still breach the joint submission obligation, Echa may take regulatory action, including revoking registration decisions.
Echa is also trying to remove duplicate registrations from its records, including multiple joint submissions using the same EC number. In these cases, the two joint submissions can either combine (if the substance identity matches) or the other joint submission will receive a new EC name and number.
It is very important for non-EU manufacturers that have registered their substances through an Only Representative (OR) to remember
Companies who have registered substances must be ready for enforcement inspections at all times. There is no time to make dossiers compliant once the inspectors come, but everything must be in order at all times. REACH compliance is a continuous effort, not a one-time exercise.
Summary
In general, it is always best to update registration dossiers as soon as new information becomes available. When the authorities or Echa request updates, there is only a limited time to submit the information. If a company has not been prepared at all for updates and, for example, needs to start finding service providers, compiling data etc, time might well run out.
REACH compliance doesn’t mean only having a registration number. Every company should take responsibility for its data and not forget its REACH responsibilities, even though the registration deadlines have passed. If your company is being inspected by the national authorities, it is easier to show compliance when you know that your dossiers are up to date and you know that all the data is still valid.
https://chemicalwatch.com/news/

Return to headline | Return to top
Companies Lack Knowledge of Chemical Rules, Swedish Audit Finds

Mar 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Marcus Hoy

One third of Sweden’s companies didn’t know about the existing information requirements for potentially hazardous substances on the European Union’s REACH chemicals list, the country’s Chemicals Agency (Kemi) said.
Kemi’s 2018 audit of compliance with the EU’s REACH (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation, and authorization of chemicals) looked at 80 companies and 220 products made mainly of soft plastic, such as home furnishings, bags, sports articles, car interior electronics, clothing, shoes, mattresses, and yoga mats.
It discovered that restricted substances or banned substances were found in 39 products and an third of the audited companies lacked full knowledge of the REACH notification rules.
A total of 14 products contained banned substances such as lead and short-chained chloroparaffins while 25 contained substances of very high concern (SVHC) such as phthalates, Kemi found.
As a result of the audits, eighteen companies have been reported to prosecutors.
Buyer Beware
While SVHC aren’t banned under REACH, they are included on the REACH Candidate List and subject to strict notification requirements.
As a result, suppliers of products that contain more than trace amounts of SVHC must provide safety data sheets to purchasers, while business-to-business suppliers of products containing substances of very high concern in concentrations above 0.1 percent must provide sufficient information to allow safe use.
“As a company, if you buy goods from an EU supplier, you must get information about whether the goods contain substances on the REACH Candidate List,” Kemi Inspector Karin Rumar told Bloomberg Environment March 14.
“If, on the other hand, you buy from an overseas company, you have to make clear demands on the supplier as to which legislation the product should follow.”
It’s Complicated
Companies should be diligent in choosing their suppliers and spell out REACH requirements for restricted and banned substances in contracts, according to Kemi.
“It’s difficult to obtain the right information, especially since many components are manufactured outside of Europe and the distribution chains can quickly become long and complicated,” said Kristina Neimert Carne, head of chemicals policy at consultancy IKEM. “Industry is working hard to overcome these problems, but it is challenging.”
Companies “should set clear requirements for their suppliers with regard to specific substances and materials,” Kemi said in a statement.
Sweden’s audits were part of an EU-wide project aimed at checking compliance registration and notification requirements under REACH, according to an official at the European Chemicals Agency.
A full report that includes data from 15 EU nations is due to be published in September, he said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/companies-lack-knowledge-of-chemical-rules-swedish-audit-finds

Return to headline | Return to top
As EPA, DOD Battle, New Jersey Adopts Strict Groundwater PFAS Level

Mar 14, 2019 | Inside EPA

By Suzanne Yohannan

New Jersey regulators have set strict health-based groundwater cleanup standards for two common per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), adopting interim levels that are forty times more stringent than those being pushed by the Defense Department (DOD) in an ongoing fight with EPA over federal cleanup levels.
The Garden State's action marks the latest sign that states facing PFAS contamination are not waiting for EPA to take action to address the contaminants, continuing to expand a patchwork approach on the substances.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) March 13 set new interim specific groundwater quality standards for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) at 10 parts per trillion (ppt), effective immediately, with the department's site remediation program saying in a March 13 notice the standards will apply to all cleanup sites.
“If either or both PFOA or PFOS are detected in ground water at concentrations exceeding their respective interim specific ground water standard, then a remedial investigation and, if necessary, a remedial action of ground water shall be conducted pursuant to” New Jersey site remediation rules, the notice says.
It also calls for sites to be evaluated to determine if PFOA or PFOS were likely to have been manufactured, used, handled, stored, disposed or discharged at the site.
According to the NJDEP website, groundwater quality criteria for Class II groundwater are “numeric, health-based concentrations or levels of constituents (pollutants) that, when exceeded, pose an unacceptable human health risk from exposure through consumption of potable water supplies (drinking water).”
They do not consider feasibility, treatability or cost factors, and reflect “the most recent toxicological information to ensure adequate protection of human health,” it says.
The state's standards contrast sharply with those DOD and other federal agencies have been pushing in a dispute with EPA that is delaying issuance of interim federal groundwater cleanup recommendations for PFOA and PFOS.
While EPA has floated a plan to set the level at 70 ppt, equivalent to its 2016 lifetime health advisory for the two chemicals, combined, Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), the ranking Democrat on the Senate environment committee, says DOD -- joined by the National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA) and the Small Business Administration (SBA) -- are opposing such a limit and insisting on a screening level of 400 ppt, which would significantly reduce the number of sites and cleanup costs the federal agencies face.
In a March 13 letter, Carper urged EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler to “resist these or any other efforts to weaken the clean-up standard and quickly finalize guidelines that are sufficiently protective of human health and the environment.”
Carper and other Democrats have long been concerned that DOD and other federal agencies are blocking release of EPA's guidelines -- despite the agency's commitment in its PFAS action plan to issue the document. Last week, the lawmakers sought documents from EPA and the other agencies into why the guide has been delayed.
And during a March 6 House hearing, EPA water chief David Ross told the panel that the groundwater cleanup recommendations will be released “in the very near future," though DOD Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment Maureen Sullivan told the same hearing that “a very, very rough back-of-the-envelope calculation” estimates that cleanup of PFOA and PFOS will add about $2 billion to DOD's existing cleanup liability of $27 billion.
400 ppt Screening Level
The senator's new letter to Wheeler appeared to provide some answers about why EPA's guidelines have been delayed, saying sources have told his office that the other agencies “have urged for the adoption of a much higher 400 ppt clean-up standard and a 1200 ppt emergency level.”
Carper said that while EPA had recommended that cleanup be triggered for a combined standard of 70 ppt, the other agencies had pressed for each chemical to be treated separately -- even if each chemical was found at levels marginally below the 400 ppt level. He added that while EPA has resisted the agencies' proposals, DOD and NASA “continue to refuse” to remediate their contamination at levels below 400 ppt, though they have reportedly agreed to remediate up to 70 ppt if contamination exceeds 400 ppt.
“This means that people who live both on and off contaminated federal sites would not be assured of protection from contamination well in excess of the 70 ppt level that EPA has said is needed to protect sensitive and other populations with a margin of protection from lifetime exposures,” he said.
During a press call with reporter’s March 14 on the DOD-EPA dispute, Environmental Working Group (EWG) senior scientist Dave Andrews said groundwater cleanup standards should not be any weaker than drinking water levels, noting that the goal should be to ensure that contamination from a site is not shifted to those downstream of the pollution -- such as drinking water sources.
He called DOD's push for a weaker standard “quite egregious,” and said it showed the department to be “moving in the opposite direction of independent scientists, state scientists and other regulatory agencies across the country.”
Andrews says it is “not entirely clear how” DOD developed the 400 ppt level. But he points to DOD's June 2018 report to Congress on alternatives to aqueous firefighting foam that contain PFAS, where the DOD spelled out a process it has used for developing an estimated Superfund groundwater cleanup level of 380 ppt.
In it, DOD said that it uses the same reference dose that EPA used for its 70 ppt drinking water health advisories, to determine the need for cleanup as well as the risk-based cleanup levels for groundwater. “Following EPA's [Superfund] risk assessment process, DoD estimates that the groundwater cleanup levels for PFOS or PFOA are approximately 380 ppt,” the report says.
“It seems to be that they are effectively calculating their own safe drinking water exposure level of close to 400 parts per trillion,” Andrews said. He noted that in the June 2018 report, DOD goes on to recognize the dilemma raised by this. The report says if PFOS or PFOA levels in groundwater are between 70 and 380 ppt, “responsible parties will face the challenge of explaining to communities the difference between the 70 ppt guidance for drinking water and the approximately 380 ppt risk-based groundwater cleanup level.
“This site-by-site approach would create tremendous risk communication challenges for all concerned parties -- states, EPA, DoD, and community leaders -- when explaining how the groundwater cleanup levels are protective of human health,” the report says.
DOD-State Disputes
The federal fight over a cleanup level comes as DOD is disputing state regulators over groundwater cleanup levels.
In Michigan, the Air Force and state are in dispute resolution over cleanup of the former Wurtsmith Air Force Base.
Arnie LeRiche, a retired EPA engineer who now sits on the Wurtsmith restoration advisory board, said on the EWG press call that Michigan set a 12 ppt standard for groundwater flowing into a surface waterbody -- a measure that has triggered resistance from the Air Force. The service is in dispute resolution with the state and is particularly fighting the addition of filters or other remediation measures along 12 miles of contaminated groundwater flow into surface water bodies, he said. In 2016, Air Force started to significantly push back when it realized the state had a standard, he said.
Michigan estimated the cost for 18 filter units to address the issue would each be $3.5 million, he said.
New Mexico is also embroiled in a fight with the Air Force over cleanup of groundwater contaminated with PFAS stemming from firefighting foam used at two Air Force bases.
During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing this week, Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) questioned Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson on the service's stance that it lacks the legal authority to provide clean water to agriculture users whose supply has been contaminated, noting legislation he is sponsoring would change that.
Wilson told him that he was correct that the service “has the authority to provide clean water to people but not for agricultural use under the current law.” She committed to work with him on the legislation, although she claimed she was unfamiliar with draft legislation his office had shared.
Udall noted that his office has been sharing drafts with Wilson's office for three months, “and I think you knew this is what I was going to ask about,” he said, expressing disappointment.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-dod-battle-new-jersey-adopts-strict-groundwater-pfas-level

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

State Attorneys Preview ANWR Challenge

Mar 15, 2019 | E&E Energywire

By Pamela King

Sixteen state attorneys are setting the stage for likely litigation against the Trump administration's plan to sell oil and gas leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
The Bureau of Land Management's first review of a program to develop the refuge's 1.5-million-acre coastal plain, also known as the 1002 area, flouts the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the state attorneys general wrote Wednesday in their comments on the draft environmental impact statement (EIS).
"In its haste to issue oil leases, the Trump administration has failed to take the legally required 'hard look' at the severe environmental impacts of industrializing the coastal plain — the biological heart of the Arctic Refuge," said David Hayes, executive director of the New York University School of Law State Energy & Environmental Impact Center, which leads multistate lawsuits by Democratic attorneys general.
Among other criticisms, the state attorneys say BLM failed to properly evaluate the climate change costs, migratory bird impacts and other environmental consequences of leasing in the refuge, also known as ANWR.
"BLM's analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative greenhouse gas emissions is fatally flawed and the DEIS arbitrarily fails to quantify the proposed Lease Program's climate impacts using the social cost of carbon or another metric despite quantifying and evaluating program benefits," they wrote.
The draft EIS does not reconcile the possibility of low interest in oil leases with Congress' reasoning for launching the Arctic refuge program, the state attorneys wrote.
"[T]he proposed Leasing Program is unlikely to yield the anticipated $1.1 billion in federal revenues to offset the lost revenue associated with passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, because Arctic Refuge oil reserves currently are uneconomic to produce and likely will remain so," according to their comment.
That estimate, calculated by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, assumes that two lease sales in the refuge would draw $2.2 billion in revenues, which would then be divided between Alaska and the federal government.
Under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the state is entitled to a 90-10 revenue split, but a provision in the 2017 tax bill crafted by Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski stipulated a 50-50 share.
The state attorneys filed their comments at the close of BLM's deadline for public feedback on the draft EIS. A final EIS and record of decision is forthcoming.
Those documents are designed to incorporate comments fielded during the draft EIS stage.
BLM is likely to face legal action from states, environmental groups and other parties that oppose the leasing program.
"Given the weighty and long-term consequences of the proposed Leasing Program, the undersigned Attorneys General on behalf of their States and their residents, demand that BLM's evaluation of the environmental consequences and climate impacts associated with Arctic Refuge development be sufficiently robust, thorough, and public — as mandated by NEPA — before moving forward with the proposed Leasing Program," the attorneys general wrote.
Tensions over ANWR
Alaska Native communities have for decades fought over development in the refuge.
Groups like the Gwich'in Steering Committee say drilling would interfere with the migratory paths of Porcupine caribou, which are critical to their subsistence.
Other Alaskans have decried the limits decisionmakers in the continental United States have imposed on economic development in the Last Frontier.
"The legislation I released tonight will put Alaska and the entire nation on a path toward greater prosperity by creating jobs, keeping energy affordable for families and businesses, generating new wealth, and strengthening our security — while reducing the federal deficit not just by $1 billion over 10 years, but tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars over the decades to come," Murkowski said upon announcement of her tax bill provision to open up two ANWR lease sales.
The multistate critique of the draft EIS came from 16 attorneys general, all Democrats, across the Lower 48. Bob Ferguson of Washington state and Maura Healey of Massachusetts led the comments.
BLM's leasing program EIS is separate from an environmental assessment — a less robust NEPA review — of seismic testing permits that would allow companies to measure the coastal plain's oil and gas potential.
Green groups have accused BLM of trying to fast-track the seismic approvals without proper public involvement.
Interior Department officials said last month that no seismic studies would be conducted this winter in the refuge.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/03/15/stories/1060127399

Return to headline | Return to top
Nixed Nevada Oil, Gas Leases Give Environmentalists Rare Win

Mar 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Stephen Lee

Environmentalists scored a rare win March 14 when the U.S. Forest Service canceledan oil and gas lease sale in northeastern Nevada amid significant public opposition.
But the outcome isn’t necessarily repeatable across the country because other political factors were also at play. The sale was to be held in Elko County, a deep-red region where President Donald Trump won 73 percent of the vote, and many Republican voters in Elko opposed the leasing plan.
“This was Trump’s base,” said Patrick Donnelly, Nevada state director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “This wasn’t just the lefty environmentalists. We had a huge swath of the sportsmen community, people who love to hunt and fish.”
The lease sale, proposed by the Trump administration in October 2017, would have put 54,000 acres in the Ruby Mountains up for grabs.
Nevada has only one small crude oil refinery and limited amounts of natural gas, according to the Western States Petroleum Association. It depends heavily on oil and gas imports from outside its borders, the trade group said. No one from the group responded to a request for comment.
Strong Public Engagement
The Forest Service conceded that its decision was the result of some 14,000 public comments, and that it was concerned about harm to wildlife, recreation, and the area’s natural beauty.
“Receiving so many comments shows how engaged the public is with this project,” said William Dunkelberger, the Forest Service’s forest supervisor at the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest.
“Their involvement is critical in getting a firm understanding of what concerns our communities have, what they value, and how our work and decisions can best serve their needs,” Dunkelberger said.
In January, hundreds of Nevadans showed up to voice their opposition to the leasing plan at meetings in Elko, Reno, and Las Vegas, Donnelly said.
But the agency also said it had found “unfavorable geologic conditions in the area, meaning that there is little to no potential of oil and gas resources in the area.”
The leasing opponents also enjoyed the support of Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.). Last April she sent a letter to the Forest Service calling attention to the mule deer, bighorn sheep, and greater sage grouse that live in the Ruby Mountains.
“It’s very rare for a sitting U.S. senator to engage in land management proposal at this level, a local level,” Donnelly said.
Cortez Masto also introduced a Senate bill in January (S. 258) that would permanently ban oil and gas leasing in the Ruby Mountains.
The Forest Service said it will post a legal notice about the cancellation in the Elko Daily Free Press. The public can submit comments for 45 days after the notice publishes.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/nixed-nevada-oil-gas-leases-give-environmentalists-rare-win

Return to headline | Return to top
FERC Considering Houston Office to Address LNG Backlog

Mar 14, 2019 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard

By Eric Wolff

FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee said the agency is considering opening a Houston office to expedite the processing of LNG permits.
Chatterjee told the CERAWeek conference today the agency is seeking lawyers and engineers to help it pore over the massive applications for LNG permits, and he said he’d met with Houston’s mayor to discuss the possibility.
“I think the idea of a Houston office is a good one,“ he told reporters after his speech. “This is where the expertise is, a lot of young people coming out of school trained to do this kind of work, the type that’s hard to find. And not everyone wants to move to Washington, DC.“
FERC’s staff is already “working to the bone” to process the backlog of LNG export applications, he said.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard

Return to headline | Return to top
Reporters Notebook: Gulf Coast Is the New Middle East

Mar 15, 2019 | Houston Chronicle

By Rob Gavin

The geography of energy is shifting. At one time, when policy oil industry executives and policy makers spoke of the Gulf, they were invariably speaking of the Persian Gulf.
Today, they’re talking about the Gulf of Mexico.
Texas and the U.S. Gulf Coast have become the new Middle East, a center of energy production and exports that is having outsized influence on the global oil markets. As the International Energy Agency concluded in its five year forecast for of the world’s oil industry, the United States, led by Texas, will dominate the growth of production and exports in coming years.
The changing geography and intensifying battle for markets between Texas shale drillers and OPEC were key themes at CERAWeek by IHS Markit, the annual Houston conference that attracts the biggest names and thinkers in the energy industry. Not so long ago, OPEC viewed shale as a niche industry with little staying power, one that it aimed to crush in late 2014 when it decided to keep pumping crude and add to the global oil glut to drive prices down and shale drillers out of business.
On Wednesday, Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber, minister of state for the United Arab Emirates and chief executive of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Co.,conceded that shale was here to stay.
The focus of the geographical shift is the Permian Basin, where production of 4 million barrels a day is approaching that of Saudi Arabia’s Ghawar oil field, 5 million barrels day. With Exxon Mobil and Chevron planning to boost their Permian production to a combined 2 million barrels a day over the next few years, Permian output is forecast to hit 6 million barrels a day.
Much of that oil - and the associated natural gas — is headed for export markets, which are spurring a vast expansion that could make the energy complex that hugs the U.S. Gulf Coast unrivaled in the world. Tens of billions of dollars are pouring into export terminals for crude, liquefied natural gas and natural gas liquids. Billions more are flowing to petrochemical plants that are making and exporting plastics.
Super tankers that once offloaded crude and LNG in Gulf Coast ports are now taking on these Texas products, delivering cargoes to fast growing Asian economies hungry for energy. Those shipments are helping to make the Panama Canal as important to energy as the Suez Canal.
The irony is that all of this is happening as the world tries to wean itself from fossil fuels. California, for example, plans to make itself fossil-fuel free by 2045. Costa Rica recently said it aims to achieve the same goal by 2050. As a result, the U.S. Gulf Coast’s ascendance could face a limited horizon.
Amid the uncertainty, one thing is for sure: climate change is not going away. The urgency to do something is only going to intensify.
The future of the Gulf Coast may well depend on whether the energy industry can, in fact, do something. It would likely require diverting some of the billions of dollars flowing to export terminals, chemical plants and pipelines into technologies that lower the amount of carbon dioxide pouring into the atmosphere.
Some companies have already started, spending to develop systems to remove carbon from emissions and the atmosphere.
The energy industry is famous for its innovation. The question is whether the same ingenuity that shifted the geography of energy can be applied to saving the planet — and the Gulf Coast economy.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Reporters-Notebook-Gulf-Coast-is-the-new-Middle-13690827.php

Return to headline | Return to top
All-Clean Power Goals Trending Among Climate-Wary States

Mar 15, 2019 | E&E Daily

By Bobby Magill

One hundred percent carbon-free electricity mandates are becoming a trend nationwide—but only in blue states, not red ones.
New Mexico on March 12 became the third state after Hawaii and California to pass legislation setting a 100 percent zero-carbon electricity mandate.
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) is expected to sign the bill, which requires the state’s public utilities to obtain all their electricity from zero-carbon sources excluding nuclear energy by 2045, and for electric cooperatives to go carbon-free by 2050.
Hawaii passed the nation’s first such mandate in 2015, followed by California and Washington, D.C., in 2018. Similar bills and proposals are pending in Washington state, New York, and several other states.
New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (D), who supports nuclear as a source of carbon-free energy, signed an executive order in 2018 setting a 100-percent clean energy target for 2050.
“It feels like there’s a lot of momentum now. It’s really quite dizzying how many propositions have come up in various states,” Doug Vine, a senior energy fellow at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions in Washington, D.C., told Bloomberg Environment.
Motivated by Climate Change
As the cost of wind and solar power continues to fall and states—especially those under the full political control of Democrats—grow concerned about vulnerability to climate change, more of them are considering ways to wean their electric power grids off of fossil fuels.
“States, cities, businesses and others are being directly affected by the devastating impacts of extreme weather and climate disasters—from wildfires and sea level rise and increased inland flooding,” said Julie Cerqueira, executive director of the U.S. Climate Alliance.
The U.S. Climate Alliance represents 23 states and U.S. territories that have committed themselves to carbon cuts under the Paris climate agreement. All of those states but three—Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maryland—have
Democratic governors.
Cerqueria highlighted Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, and Washington state as without a 100 percent renewable mandate but with governors who have committed to putting those states on track to reach that threshold by 2050 or earlier.
“Many of these states also have ambitious greenhouse-gas reduction targets,” Cerqueria said. “To achieve them, a low- or zero-carbon grid will be essential.”
Noah Long, a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said it’s “a good question” as to whether any Republican-dominated state may soon consider 100 percent renewable energy targets.
One of the three U.S. Climate Alliance states with GOP governors may be the most likely, but no such mandate has been proposed there, he said.
“We’d like to see it become a completely nonpartisan issue, but we’re not there yet,” Long said.
Legislation Over Executive Action
The broad impact of state-level clean energy targets will extend far beyond any individual state’s greenhouse gas emissions reductions that will result from the targets, said Michael Wara, a climate and clean energy scholar at Stanford Law School.
“When one state takes action, it gives confidence to other states that they can take action, too,” Wara said. “The U.S., China and all the other nations of the world need to have confidence that everyone’s going to act. States within the U.S. face the same challenge.”
Though some states, such as New Jersey, have instituted clean energy targets through executive action, “legislation is essential,” because it sends a message that there will be a long-term market for clean energy regardless of the agenda of the legislature or governor at a given moment, Wara said.
“The only way to really be credible is a law,” Wara said. “That’s the gold standard. That said, executive orders are an important way to get the ball rolling.”
Costs Too High?
Major utilities in California vigorously opposed the state’s renewables mandate before it passed in 2018, citing potential high energy costs. But state officials and lawmakers said they wanted the state to set an example for others to commit to decarbonization.
Major utilities remain skeptical. Their trade group, the Edison Electric Institute, believes cost and technological advancements in electric storage will determine if such 100 percent renewables mandates are realistic.
“How much do you want to pay for that?” EEI general counsel Emily Fisher said. “To think about what the system looks like in 2035 and 2045, you’re making a lot of assumptions about technological evolution.”
Though wind and solar power are declining in cost, the cost of large batteries and other energy storage technology must decline sharply over the years so renewable energy can be used when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing, she said.
Nuclear power, which makes up abut 20 percent of the U.S. power supply, is also essential to decarbonization, but some states are eager to dispense with it, she said.
“What tools are you taking off the table by focusing exclusively on renewables?” Fisher said.
Different Approaches
Each state is taking a slightly different approach to power sector decarbonization.
The New York State Senate is considering a bill that would direct the state energy planning board to study the technical feasibility of an electric power system that operates only on renewable energy.
The bill was introduced after New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) in January proposed a state “Green New Deal,” which would require the state to obtain all of its power from renewables by 2040.
The Washington State Legislature is considering a bill that would require the state’s electricity supply to be 100 percent carbon neutral by 2030 and totally carbon free by 2045. The bill, part of Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee’s climate agenda, passed the Senate and is now before the House.
The bill’s chief sponsor, state Sen. Reuven Carlyle (D-Seattle) said he is confident the bill will pass but that it will be difficult for Washington state to rid itself of its last coal and natural gas-fired power plants because the state already uses mostly clean energy.
In neighboring Oregon, Gov. Kate Brown (D) said in an interview she wants to see a state carbon cap-and-trade bill pass before considering a law that would boost the state’s mandate to obtain 50 percent of the state’s electricity from renewables by 2040. She signed the 50-percent mandate into law in 2016.
“We can take a very clear leadership role here,” Brown said. But pursing a 100 percent renewables mandate “depends on a whole lot of factors in how successful we are in terms of getting this [cap and trade] bill across the finish line.”
Enabling Markets, Not Mandates
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) said in his 2019 State of the State address that the state is committed to achieving “100 percent renewable energy” by 2040, but he isn’t issuing an executive order and not pursuing a legal mandate that legislates a specific 100 percent target.
Instead, Colorado is taking a “bottom up” approach to decarbonization that will attempt to accelarate the transition away from fossil fuels by “enabling markets” instead of using mandates, said Will Toor, executive director of the
Colorado Energy Office.
That will include supporting the goal of the state’s largest utility, Xcel Energy, to cut its greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2030, and to help electric cooperatives to encourage their power supplier to wean itself from coal power, Toor said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/all-clean-power-goals-trending-among-climate-wary-states

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

Judge Lets Climate Case Proceed Against Exxon

Mar 15, 2019 | E&E Climatewire

By Daniel Cusick

A legal effort to hold industry accountable for pollution spills linked to sea-level rise gained ground Wednesday when a federal judge allowed a civil lawsuit targeting a petroleum storage facility outside Boston to proceed.
Chief Judge Mark Wolf of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts let multiple claims go forward that allege Exxon Mobil Corp.'s Everett oil terminal on the Mystic River poses dangerous risks to nearby residents.
Exxon asked Wolf to throw out the lawsuit filed by the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) in 2016 and amended in 2017 (Climatewire, Oct. 3, 2016). In a bench order, Wolf denied Exxon's petition on 12 of 15 counts and ordered the oil giant to answer the lawsuit's charges by April 4.
The case is unrelated to an investigation by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey (D), who claims that Exxon misled investors about climate change impacts (Greenwire, Jan. 7).
Exxon has disputed the claims about the Everett terminal's safety and exposure to flood risk. A spokeswoman declined further comment.
The suit is one of two brought by the Boston-based conservation group that could define the way oil companies address operational risks from rising seas, storm surge and other extreme weather events that scientists have linked to climate warming. The second suit targets Royal Dutch Shell PLC facilities in Rhode Island.
According to CLF, Exxon failed to safeguard the Everett terminal's storage tanks and other infrastructure against the effects of climate change — including rising seas and stronger storm surge.
As a result, residents of Everett, a city of 44,000 along the Mystic River and its tributaries, risk being inundated by petroleum-laden floodwaters and other pollutants as seas rise and the terminal becomes more exposed to extreme weather, such as the January 2018 "bomb cyclone" (Climatewire, Jan. 10, 2018).
In the suit, CLF claims that the 110-acre site comprising several ship berths, roughly 30 petroleum storage tanks and associated above-ground pipelines "has not been properly engineered, managed and fortified to protect it from the impending threat of these climate change-related impacts."
Plaintiffs are seeking a jury trial and $110 million in civil penalties against Exxon.
In a statement, CLF President Bradley Campbell said Exxon "has put vulnerable communities and the harbor at risk as part of its pattern and practice of deceiving regulators and the public about the risks of climate change."
"Exxon has known about these risks and its ongoing spills for years and is failing its most important duty under the law: to avoid spills of oil and hazardous substances that threaten public health and the environment," he added.
The site, which hosted an oil refinery from 1921 to the mid-1960s before being repurposed into a bulk storage facility, has a checkered environmental record.
In 2006, a storage tank at Everett leaked roughly 15,000 gallons of diesel fuel into the Island End and Mystic rivers, resulting in federal criminal charges and a $6 million fine imposed by the Justice Department in 2008.
Two years later, Exxon and two affiliated companies paid a $2.9 million civil penalty to resolve charges that it had made unpermitted changes to the vapor collection and recovery system used to control emissions of volatile organic compounds at the Everett terminal.
Regulators further charged that Exxon had failed to adequately control VOC emissions while loading gasoline tanker trucks and did not comply with emissions monitoring, repair and reporting requirements at Everett and another bulk terminal in Springfield, Mass.
Michael Gerrard, a professor of professional practice at Columbia Law School and expert on litigation involving climate change, said the Everett case could become a model for local communities seeking to remedy long-standing environmental hazards by focusing on the effects of climate change — sea-level rise, storm surge and flooding — rather than its cause, the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
"We saw after some of the most recent hurricanes, especially Harvey in the Houston area, that these threats to industrial sites are not merely theoretical. They are real," Gerrard said.
He also noted that the group's use of the Clean Water Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act as the basis for its claims may hold up better in a lawsuit involving a legacy facility like the Everett terminal, which has been permitted to continue operating even as environmental regulations have tightened.
"It's much harder to fight an old facility than a new one," Gerrard said. "The discretionary decisions about them were made decades ago and are often beyond challenge."
CLF's parallel lawsuit in Rhode Island involves Shell's storage terminal at Fields Point on the Providence River. If the terminal is compromised by flooding, it could result in toxic pollutants flowing into the river and Narragansett Bay.
Shell has said the group's claims, filed in federal district court in Providence, are based on speculation and exaggerate the facility's exposure to risk.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/03/15/stories/1060127373

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation and Infrastructure News

Environment News

GOP Lawmaker: Green New Deal 'Tantamount to Genocide'

Mar 14, 2019 | Politico Pro

By Anthony Adragna

House Republicans launched a biting attack Thursday against an aggressive Democratic Green New Deal plan to tackle climate change, with one senior GOP lawmaker contending it would be “tantamount to genocide.”
Republicans have sought to portray the Green New Deal proposal as a "socialist" takeover of the economy that would destroy the U.S., even though the non-binding resolution introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is vague in its call to transition to a clean economy, create jobs and refurbish buildings to become more efficient.
But Utah Rep. Rob Bishop, the top Republican on the Natural Resources Committee, amped up the rhetoric again at a press conference, saying the components of the Green New Deal are “tantamount to genocide” for rural residents in the country.
He quickly added that his comment was “maybe an overstatement, but not by a lot.”
Democrats, who are planning to continue a slate of hearings on climate change but have not planned to dig into the Green New Deal resolution, H. Res. 109 (116), quickly latched on to the comments as evidence Republicans will work to thwart any action on climate change.
”It’s no longer enough to say Republicans aren’t taking climate change seriously,” Natural Resources Chairman Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said. "These stunts are getting more desperate and disconnected from reality."
Speaker Nancy Pelosi didn't address Bishop's specific comments, but said any specific policies would be worked out in committees, and she praised the Green New Deal for raising the profile of climate change, which she called a “moral issue.”
“We all have a responsibility to pass this planet onto future generations in a responsible way,” Pelosi told reporters. Earth is “God’s creation and we have a moral responsibility of being good stewards to it.”
Sierra Club quickly jumped on the comments by Bishop, who has previously claimed the Green New Deal would ban hamburgers.
“Congressional Republicans’ abhorrent, extremist rhetoric is completely unacceptable," Sierra Club Legislative Director Melinda Pierce said in a statement. "Their continued climate denial and refusal to take action further proves that when faced with the opportunity to actually tackle the climate crisis and inequity, Congressional Republicans will always resort to dangerous, bombastic language to avoid doing their jobs.”
Several of the other six House members issued more measured statements than Bishop's, and they sought to put the onus on Democrats to defend it.
“Frankly, I think House Democrats are afraid to have this debate,” Energy and Commerce ranking member Greg Walden (R-Ore.) said, adding that if Democrats don’t believe a suspect $93 trillion figure from a Republican-aligned group they should offer their own. That Republican figure is based on assumptions of the costs of universal health care and jobs programs rather than the costs of transitioning to carbon-free electricity and transportation.
Democrats have largely said the Green New Deal represented a reaction to years of Republican inaction on climate change in the face of new, dire scientific warnings that countries need to be on a path to quickly cut greenhouse gas emissions if the planet is to avoid catastrophic changes. And on Wednesday, the U.N. Environment Program issued an annual report that warned tens of millions of lives were at risk because of climate change and other unsustainable human activities.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who also attended the GOP press conference on Thursday, was unable to point to specific legislation Republicans preferred to address climate change as an alternative to the Green New Deal.
In the Senate, Republicans have devoted lengthy floor remarks and press conferences in recent weeks to bashing the resolution.
“The proposal we are talking about is, frankly, delusional,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Wednesday on the floor. “It is so unserious that it ought to be beneath one of our two major political parties to line up behind it.”
Multiple Republican senators told POLITICO they expect McConnell to call a vote on the resolution, S. Res. 59 (116), shortly after it returns from next week’s constituent work period.
Amid the escalating war of words over the Green New Deal, Democrats are gearing up to begin their climate legislation push in earnest in the House. Rep. Paul Tonko(D-N.Y.), chairman of the E&C's Environment and Climate Change panel, told POLITICO he met Wednesday with utilities as he prepares to kick off a series of hearings on climate-related legislation like measures on energy efficiency, an enhanced weatherization assistance program, charging stations and new investments in advanced energy research.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2019/03/gop-lawmaker-green-new-deal-tantamount-to-genocide-1270839

Return to headline | Return to top
Green New Deal Too Much for Moderate Democrats

Mar 15, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Nick Sobczyk

Several moderate Democrats said yesterday they would vote against the Green New Deal if it came to the House floor, preferring instead to focus on climate policy they see as more pragmatic.
All four co-chairs of the New Democrat Coalition Climate Change Task Force — Reps. Don Beyer and Elaine Luria of Virginia, Sean Casten of Illinois, and Susan Wild of Pennsylvania — told reporters at a roundtable they would vote no on the progressive climate plan.
"The Green New Deal is a political document," Casten said. "If we all passed it tomorrow, it wouldn't make a lick of difference."
Their divides with progressives are clearly not hardened. Casten, who spent decades working in clean energy before coming to Congress, said the Green New Deal has brought positive political energy to climate change, and Beyer said it "really did change the conversation in an important way."
It also may not matter. Some members and aides have speculated that the resolution won't get a vote, unless Republicans force one with a procedural move in an attempt to send a message.
But the moment underscored how difficult it will be for Democrats to craft a climate plan that their whole caucus can get behind. While progressives have gotten virtually all the media attention in recent months, any major legislation would have to please New Democrat, a large group of moderate, business-friendly members.
The New Democrat pitch: Any future solution will come from the middle.
The caucus ballooned to 101 members in the 116th Congress, in part by picking up 40 freshmen.
Members such as Beyer and Casten have deep histories working on climate change issues, but they said the Green New Deal is too vague and veers into too many ancillary areas.
The resolution from Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) would call for a 10-year economic mobilization to transition the country to all renewable energy. It would also express support for universal health care and other items from the progressive wish list, all in sweeping terms. The goal is to build momentum for climate action heading into the 2020 elections.
New Democrat said it would prefer to offer alternatives that keep their eye on the prize of reducing emissions, an opinion that appears to be shared by most of the coalition.
Just 17 percent of coalition members have signed on as co-sponsors of the resolution, compared with 38 percent — 90 out of 235 members — of the full Democratic caucus.
But even among the four climate co-chairs, there isn't a consensus on what, exactly, would be the best policy to tackle climate change.
Beyer, a member of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, is a lead sponsor on a carbon cap-and-dividend bill, the "Healthy Climate and Family Security Act," and has generally been a vocal backer of carbon taxes. Casten said he prefers cap and trade, while Luria stressed the importance of keeping nuclear power as part of the energy mix.
"I am a firm believer in cap and trade because I think that energy markets are replete with sticks," Casten said. "They're very short on carrots, and I think a carbon tax in theory does not work. Cap and trade in theory works."
In the near term, major climate legislation won't pass the Republican Senate or get a signature from President Trump. Casten said he wants to work on creating more incentives for investment in clean energy and reform the Clean Air Act to make it easier for regulated facilities to invest in energy efficiency.
Luria added that the tax code could be an area for bipartisan work. Automakers, for instance, have been pushing to expand the electric vehicle tax credit to remove or raise the 200,000-unit cap on manufacturers, although the Trump administration and conservatives have pushed to scrap it altogether.
Casten said the Green New Deal is "wonderfully ambitious" and "wonderfully loud," but ideally it shouldn't cause divisions too deep when the wheels hit the road on climate legislation.
"Philosophically, there's differences in the way people like to approach things," Luria said. "Some people might be big and bold and come out with something that's less achievable in the long run. And I like to chip away at things in a more pragmatic, achievable way."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/03/15/stories/1060127405

Return to headline | Return to top
House GOP Wants Hearings on Green New Deal (1)

Mar 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Tiffany Stecker

The Republican leaders of 11 House committees are calling on Democratic leadership to hold hearings on the Green New Deal in an effort to cast the plan as a bad idea for Americans.
The ranking members sent House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) a letter March 14 asking her to direct the chairs of committees to hold hearings on H.Res. 109, the resolution introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) that lays out an ambitious blueprint to dramatically reduce fossil fuel use in the next decade.
“Only through the scrutiny of the legislative process can the American people get a true sense of how these proposals and soundbites translate into actual policy,” Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif) said at a March 14 press conference.
Natural Resources Ranking Member Rob Bishop (R-Utah) said the resolution was “tantamount to genocide; that may be an overstatement but not by a whole lot.”
And Energy and Commerce Ranking Member Greg Walden (R-Ore.) said the effort was led by the “socialist left” and that environmental outcomes “do not have to be achieved at the expense of American workers, property and national security.”
The ranking members of the Energy and Commerce, Natural Resources, Ways and Means, Judiciary, Agriculture, Education and Labor, Transportation and Infrastructure, Oversight and Reform, Foreign Affairs, and Financial Services, as well as the Science, Space and Technology, committees signed the letter.
Pelosi said the Green New Deal would get a hearing in all the relevant committees to decide on the best approach, and called it a “high priority” issue.
“But I’m not standing by any characterization that the Republicans have of anything,” she said at a March 14 press conference, when asked about Republicans’ critiques of the climate blueprint.
“Unfamiliar as they may be with sending items to committee, because that’s not what they ever did, this is what we will be doing, sending it to committee.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/house-gop-wants-hearings-on-green-new-deal-1

Return to headline | Return to top
Green New Deal to Get Senate Vote in Coming Weeks

Mar 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Tiffany Stecker and Dean Scott

Senators could take their first vote on a resolution favoring a dramatic shift away from fossil energy the week of March 25, after they return from next week’s congressional recess.
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) took a step toward voting on the Green New Deal (S.J.Res.8) March 14 when he filed cloture on the measure.
The resolution was introduced by Democrats, but Republicans believe forcing Democrats to vote on the ambitious measure could hurt them politically, in particular the presidential nominees that have supported it.
“This dangerous fantasy would burn through the American people’s money before it even got off the launch pad,” McConnell said of the resolution March 13.
The resolution McConnell is moving to a vote is drawn from a Democratic-authored Green New Deal resolution (S. Res. 59) that outlines a 10-year plan with trillions in estimated government funding to help shift the U.S. to 100 percent renewable and zero-emission energy sources.
Votes on Alternative Unclear
All of the Democratic senators running for president in 2020—Cory Booker (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Kamala Harris (Calif.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.)—as well as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have endorsed the Green New Deal.
Other prominent Democrats, however, have declined to back the resolution, saying an issue as important as climate change calls for a far more deliberative debate.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has said that Democrats wouldn’t be intimidated by the “cynical stunt” of voting on the resolution.
It’s unclear whether the Senate will have additional votes on other alternatives, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) told Bloomberg Environment.
Those alternatives are expected to include a Democratic-led resolution to force Republicans to say whether they believe climate change is occurring, is caused by human activity, and should be addressed.
Because McConnell has filed cloture only on the resolution itself. “it’s not obvious to me how you would have additional votes,” the former Senate majority whip told reporters.
House Republicans sent Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) a letter March 14 asking for hearings on the Green New Deal.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/green-new-deal-to-get-senate-vote-in-coming-weeks

Return to headline | Return to top
Groups Urge EPA to Scrap Mercury Rule Redo

Mar 14, 2019 | E&E News PM

By Sean Reilly

Days away from what could be an overflow public hearing, representatives of public health groups urged EPA to scrap plans for revisiting its regulations on power plant mercury emissions or at least look at the potential impact more closely.
The proposed rule is an attempt "to really undermine what has been an effective pollution cleanup," Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, said on an afternoon conference call with reporters.
"It attempts to ignore the full range of benefits," he said, resulting from what are formally known as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS).
Under the proposal, published last month, EPA would leave the actual emissions limits untouched but revoke the legally required determination that it is "appropriate and necessary" to regulate releases of mercury and other hazardous pollutants from coal- and oil-fired power plants (Greenwire, Feb. 6).
As justification, the agency points to a 2015 Supreme Court ruling that noted a small fraction of MATS' expected benefits were directly tied to reductions in mercury, while the bulk came from expected declines in particulate pollution, according to the official regulatory impact analysis accompanying the 2012 standards.
But studies since then suggest the quantifiable health gains of curbing mercury emissions amount to several billion dollars annually, far above the figure in the EPA analysis, according to a Syracuse University paper released late last year.
That analysis "doesn't really reflect the most recent scientific information," Charles Driscoll, an environmental engineering professor at the university, said on the call.
Other speakers, including top officials with the Children's Environmental Health Network, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments and American Lung Association, agreed a fresh analysis is warranted if EPA pursues the draft rule.
Mercury is a neurotoxin that can affect babies' brain development, among an array of harmful health effects.
Although the EPA proposal does not take direct aim at MATS' emissions limits, the agency is seeking comment on the possibility of repealing them as well. In addition, many critics expect that coal companies would sue to fully overturn the standards if the appropriate and necessary determination were revoked.
The one public hearing on the proposal is scheduled for Monday at EPA headquarters. While the agency has not yet released a list of registered participants, one group alone, Moms Clean Air Force, said today that more than 30 members have signed up to speak.
The group has also requested that EPA hold at least three hearings, with one of those in Chicago to address concerns about mercury pollution in the Great Lakes.
Asked for comment, agency spokeswoman Enesta Jones said in an email this evening that no other hearings are planned at this point. As EPA develops the final rule, Jones said, "written comments will receive the same consideration as oral comments delivered during the public hearing."
The deadline for written comments is April 17.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/03/14/stories/1060127347

Return to headline | Return to top
Heinrich Talks Public Lands, Green New Deal

Mar 15, 2019 | E&E Daily

By Kellie Lunney

Close observers of the delicate negotiations surrounding the public lands package during the past several months all knew who the four corners were: Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) in the upper chamber, and Reps. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) and Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) in the lower chamber.
But Murkowski, Cantwell and others also singled out Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) for his hard work, particularly behind the scenes, in helping achieve what the Trust for Public Land on Tuesday called "the biggest legislative victory for conservation in a decade."
Heinrich "played an incredible leadership role" in the achievement, Cantwell said at a press conference after the Senate passed the package in February.
"If there's ever a second the committee doesn't understand the heart and soul of public lands, I guarantee Sen. Heinrich is right there to remind them," the Washington Democrat said at the time.
Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) said he and Heinrich kept in touch via text when the package was moving through the upper chamber, keeping each other updated on how many votes they had on their respective sides of the aisle. When all was said and done the measure passed overwhelmingly, 92-8.
"Just working together," Daines said at the press conference. "And that's what the American people expect us to do."
A second-term senator who also served two terms in the House, Heinrich is an engineer by education and a lifelong environmentalist.
A former outfitter guide who hunts, hikes and boasts a better than working knowledge of various flora and fauna, Heinrich sits on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and is known for a low-key, policy-driven demeanor respected by Democrats and Republicans.
In 2014, he and then-Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) spent six days on the Marshall Islands to demonstrate their fire-building and shark-dodging skills, and bipartisanship of course, in a Discovery Channel show "Rival Survival."
Lawmakers and other supporters of the public lands package, which permanently reauthorizes the Land and Water Conservation Fund, consistently have praised it for being bipartisan. And it was: Congress passed the legislation overwhelmingly in both chambers (E&E Daily, Feb. 27).
But it hasn't always been that way on public lands, Heinrich said in a recent interview with E&E News.
"I would say six to 10 years ago, public land and conservation issues were much more partisan, and we didn't have as many partners," the Democrat said. "So we need to build on this. This package shows that when Congress wants to, it can still get big things done."
Heinrich talked to E&E News in the Capitol shortly before the president signed the LWCF package into law about lands politics, the Green New Deal, the deferred maintenance backlog at national parks and whipping votes with Daines.
The legislative process for the lands package was kind of arduous, given it was bipartisan and bicameral.
I think it's a pretty amazing that it was this bipartisan and bicameral. I think if you saw the same package under the Obama administration, you'd see a very different vote pattern. It took the pressure off of people.
Five years ago, we were fighting an all-out battle for the legitimacy of public lands. The very idea of public land in the public trust was under attack from some of the same people who called this package "Mom and apple pie."
I think that's a big victory because it's a direct result of the breadth of support that came together around public lands in response to those attacks.
I know Chairman Grijalva was under some pressure to add certain things into the package when it arrived from the Senate that could have endangered it. What do you know about that? Was there similar pressure exerted on Murkowski, Cantwell and [current ranking member Sen. Joe] Manchin [D-W.Va.]?
I think everyone on the Senate side recognized that this thing was pretty precariously balanced, and it was a bit like a game of Jenga. You can add or pull out blocks, and eventually the whole thing is going to come crashing down.
You have to be very careful on how you build these things to maintain the kind of depth of support that you know you can get through a cloture vote, you know you can get it passed through both houses.
I'm grateful to Chairman Grijalva for realizing that the best course of action at this point was to move this forward and to try and build another package [later].
I'm not a patient person, but if there is one place I've learned patience it's in these lands bills because they really do take a long time to balance, to fully engage all the constituency groups, to vet all of the issues to come up with something that is truly right.
What were the obstacles in the Senate at the end? I know Sen. [Mike] Lee [R-Utah] wanted to include an exemption from the Antiquities Act for his state.
Which was just an absolute deal-killer, right? So, Sen. Lee was where too much of the Republican Party was five years ago — inherently hostile to the concept of public lands, to conservation laws and programs that have built a public estate that is the envy of the world, because anybody, no matter how skinny their wallet is, can go on summer vacation and take their kids to these places. That doesn't exist in Western Europe, that doesn't exist in the rest of the world.
I just think some of these members have read too many think tank papers and not spent enough time with their own constituents who, irrespective of where you are on the political spectrum, either hunt, camp, fish, recreate, do something on these public lands, and how much economic activity is now a direct result of those activities.
The good news is what happened there is that people on both sides of the aisle were so frustrated about the inability to get a reasonable bipartisan package on the floor at the end of the last Congress that, on the floor all of us were working to try and make something happen (E&E Daily, Dec. 20, 2018).
What were you and Sen. Daines texting about during the lands package deliberations?
Oh, we were just making sure we had the votes. We were both just doing informal whip operations to make sure that we weren't losing people, that we had who we thought we had, that the numbers were going to add up to what we needed, and in the end, we were well above that. But, it's just a testament to the fact that we were not going to leave anything to chance.
The texting and informal whip counts. Was that unusual in terms of how you all work on legislation?
That's the stuff that creates trust around here, and that is what this place does not have enough of. It should be the norm, right? You should have ranking members and chairs going down to the floor to defend bills and appropriations packages and say, "Yeah your amendment might be great but don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If we accept your amendment, we are just going to knock this whole bill down, that's a poison pill."
That stuff used to happen all the time around here; it doesn't now. And partly it doesn't because of the lack of trust. So, whenever you can build these bipartisan coalitions, it teaches you who you can trust, who you can work with, and who at the end of the day is just not going to be your partner. And that has enormous value for really getting legislation done.
As far as where we go from here on LWCF, you got the permanent reauthorization, which people are very happy about it. And the next lift, to borrow Sen. Manchin's words, is the mandatory funding component [for the program]. That seems like it could be an uphill battle.
Getting permanent reauthorization was an uphill battle, so the good news is LWCF really has maintained a level of bipartisan support that makes me at least cautiously optimistic that that's something we can accomplish.
Is that something supporters are looking to accomplish this session? Are you working on that strategy with your colleagues?
My general view is once you have a policy that is well-crafted and has good, both broad and deep, support, there will come a moment when you have an opportunity to move it forward.
We need to be working together on both sides of the aisle to find that moment when we can get this done. And that will be determined not by us, but by what fiscal vehicles are moving and what budget deals are being made.
All of those things, I think, we need to be looking out for LWCF to figure when the right time is and strike while the iron is hot.
There was some momentum on the parks maintenance backlog last fall. It sort of died down because the public lands package was trying to get across the finish line, and they made a determination to separate that out. Where do you see that heading this congressional session? Could it end up in an infrastructure package?
I do think if we can get an overall infrastructure package that is bipartisan that that is a really smart place to put this. When you think of parks backlog, somehow you think it's just picnic tables, but it is really water lines. So much of it is roads.
It's physical infrastructure that if you don't take care of it, you're not saving money, you're actually deferring maintenance. If you talk to the bond folks that rate every city and county in the country, they will tell you deferred maintenance, that's debt.
Whether it's a stand-alone package for parks or whether it is an inclusion in a larger infrastructure package, which frankly I think the White House would be wise to realize is the only bipartisan deal around here that comes immediately to mind, that is something people care about on all sides of the political spectrum, so lean in. It's an opportunity.
I also think that while [former Interior] Secretary [Ryan] Zinke was very supportive of this, it was coming together as his tenure was starting to have its obvious challenges. So much of what happens around here comes down to timing.
Unfortunately the parks backlog package was a victim of that. It still also has huge champions. People who are passionate about it on both sides of the aisle, and that's why I feel like we still have a chance there.
Do you support the Green New Deal?
I love the idea of having a Green New Deal. I'm not the best person when it comes to communication and resolutions, and things like that. But when it comes to building a plan to get us to a responsible level of decarbonization and try to stay under 1.5 or 2 degrees C, I am all in.
We are working very hard to make sure that we can actually put together the policies that will accomplish the level of change that I think the Green New Deal is articulating.
[Senate Minority] Leader [Chuck] Schumer called for a climate crisis panel, similar to what the House has. I guess that's up to [Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell.
Right. I haven't seen any level of leadership on climate from Sen. McConnell. However, I have seen a marked shift in how Republicans are talking about and viewing climate because everybody is seeing that we waited too long.
I mean, the changes are now real for folks. The wildfires are happening in Republican and Democratic states, the floods are happening in Republican and Democratic states. So, there are a lot of Republican members who are trying to get right on this issue, trying to navigate that in a way that doesn't immediately get them out of office.
I think we simultaneously need the urgency and the aspiration of the Green New Deal because this is a big existential problem. All the science tells us that. At the same time, to get things across the finish line, we are going to need some pragmatism and willingness to work with both sides.
This interview was edited and condensed.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/03/15/stories/1060127363

Return to headline | Return to top
U.S. Blocks Global Resolution on Efforts to Cool Earth

Mar 15, 2019 | E&E Climatewire

By Jean Chemnick

The United States joined Saudi Arabia to derail a U.N. resolution that sought to improve the world's understanding of potential efforts to lace the sky with sunlight-reflecting aerosols or use carbon-catching fans.
The two countries were joined by Brazil in blocking the resolution at the U.N. Environment Assembly conference in Nairobi, Kenya, earlier this week. The measure asked the world's decisionmaking body on the environment to commission a report outlining research and planning related to carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management. Those controversial efforts are still in the planning stage and are not operational.
Switzerland and nine other nations originally asked the U.N. Environment Programme for guidance on possible future governance options and analysis of the implications of geoengineering, but they agreed to substantially reduce the scope of their resolution in hopes that the United States, Saudi Arabia and Brazil would allow it to move forward. The final version, which failed to gain consensus Wednesday, would have asked UNEP only to provide a compilation by next year of current scientific research on geoengineering and U.N. bodies that have adopted resolutions regarding it.
The proponents wished to see UNEA become the institutional home for geoengineering within the U.N. structure. But sources said the United States in particular insisted that questions about geoengineering be left to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a scientific body with a narrow focus on global warming. Geoengineering will be a key part of the IPCC's upcoming Sixth Assessment Report to be published in 2021 and 2022, and sources say the U.S. negotiators refused to agree to any other study or assessment that would be published before it.
The United States' focus on the IPCC raised eyebrows. Both the United States and Saudi Arabia angered parties at the U.N. climate talks in Katowice, Poland, in December by questioning IPCC's work. The two countries joined Russia to block a popular proposal to "welcome" last year's landmark IPCC report that said the world must act aggressively to counteract climate change within 12 years. The special report said that failing to do so would result in catastrophic effects.
In Nairobi, atmospheric chemist and State Department official Farhan Akhtar led negotiations for the United States on the geoengineering resolution last week. The State Department didn't provide comment for this story.
Environmentalists expressed disappointment.
"There's definitely a lot of frustration on the part of those countries that have fought for the resolution in the last two weeks and have tried to improve it and find consensus," said Linda Schneider, a senior program officer with Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung.
Besides Switzerland, the motion was backed by Burkina Faso, Micronesia, Georgia, Liechtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Montenegro, New Zealand, Niger and Senegal. Other parties, including some European nations and Bolivia, argued for even stronger language for using caution in approaching geoengineering. None of them opposed the final resolution.
The final version of the measure included a lengthy preamble that expressed concern about the "potential transboundary risks and adverse impacts of carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management on the environment and sustainable development." It also emphasized the importance of "applying the precautionary principle" when fiddling with the world's thermostat.
Daniel Bodansky, a professor of law at Arizona State University and an expert on international climate agreements, criticized the resolution for painting direct air capture of carbon dioxide and solar radiation management with the same brush.
"I can understand fears about the latter," he said. "But I find it much more difficult to understand objections to the former. Lumping them together as 'geoengineering' makes no sense to me, since they don't pose similar risks."
Some experts suggest that there could be unwanted side effects from infusing the atmosphere with aerosols, like more severe weather.
While Bodansky said there are potential risks associated with solar radiation management, or SRM, he noted that the proposed resolution didn't balance those with the dangers of runaway climate change.
"It seems to me inconsistent to say, on the one hand, that global warming is the biggest problem that humanity faces, and then go on to say, on the other hand, but we shouldn't even do research on SRM because it may pose risks," he said. "Either climate change is the biggest problem we face or it's not. And if it is, then it's all hands on deck."
Bodansky also argued that the IPCC was the appropriate body to explore issues of geoengineering. Last year's special report found that there are no possible pathways to maintain the threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming that don't include large-scale carbon dioxide removal. The report also noted possible governance challenges.
The Swiss resolution's preamble recognizes the IPCC's work on the issue and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change's authority over climate mitigation and adaptation. The Convention on Biological Diversity and the London Convention on the prevention of marine dumping have also weighed in on geoengineering in the past.
But Schneider of Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung said the U.N. Environment Assembly's broad purview made it the ideal forum to oversee future geoengineering experiments or governance issues.
Questions of artificially altering the world's climate are "much broader than just a climate discussion and involve impacts on the environment on ecosystems on human rights and democracy," she said. "From our perspective, it would have been really good to also anchor that discussion in UNEA and the environment program, to make sure that we would get a broader perspective on the impacts."
The list of Switzerland's co-sponsors shows that climate-vulnerable countries want broader oversight of geoengineering, too. Countries with small governments lack the personnel to sift through numerous reports, and they stand to suffer if the practices result in unintended consequences. Micronesia, late during last year's meeting of the Montreal Protocol, proposed language calling for an assessment of possible impacts on the stratospheric ozone layer from geoengineering after an advisory panel warned that SRM could harm it. It wasn't adopted, but the country plans to offer a similar proposal at this year's conference.
Janos Pasztor, executive director of the Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative, said carbon capture and SRM would ultimately need to be treated separately when it came to global governance issues.
Mitigation means reducing emissions, and direct carbon removal will likely become a larger part of nations' goals under the Paris Agreement, he said.
"When it comes to solar radiation management, that's where the challenge is. There's no home," said Pasztor, who is a former U.N. official.
Climate advocates and progressive countries also worry that the existance of tools to cool the atmosphere could blunt interest in climate mitigation and adaptation, and lengthen global reliance on fossil fuels. But they acknowledge the need to start a conversation about it.
"I think governance is an incredibly vital component of geoengineering," said Shuchi Talati of the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Even if you're opposed to geoengineering, you need a governance mechanism to be able to enforce that. So international conversations will absolutely be necessary."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/03/15/stories/1060127413

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested