Preview Newsletter
AM ACC Clips Report - April 1, 2019
-
Hearing on the EPA Budget
Apr 2, 2019 | House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies
Location: 2359 Rayburn / 10:00 AM -
Hearing on the Energy Budget
Apr 2, 2019 | Energy and Natural Resources
Location: 366 Dirksen / 10:00 AM -
Hearing on Pipeline Safety
Apr 2, 2019 | Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials
Location: HVC-210 Capitol / 10:00 AM -
Hearing on Climate Change and National Security
Apr 2, 2019 | Foreign Affairs
Location: 2172 Rayburn / 10:00 AM -
Hearing on Science, Energy and Environmental Programs Budget
Apr 2, 2019 | Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
Location: 2362-B Rayburn / 1:45 PM -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Leading Index Now In Contraction
Mar 29, 2019 | Nasdaq
By Steven Hansen
This week was loaded with data releases showing a mixed economic picture. One leading index which is not well known has fallen into contraction. -
Wheeler, Perry and Host of Admin Officials Due on the Hill
Apr 1, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Manuel Quiñones
Several hearings this week may focus on the disconnect between the White House's spending blueprint and statements from top officials and President Trump. -
EPA Issues First TSCA Section 6 Final Rule in Thirty Years
Mar 29, 2019 | The National Law Review
By Ryan J. Carra, Mark N. Duvall and Timothy M. Serie
Until today, EPA had not adopted a final risk management rule under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act in 30 years. -
First 40 Candidate Chemicals for Prioritization Under TSCA Announced
Mar 29, 2019 | The National Law Review
By Ryan J. Carra, Mark N. Duvall and Timothy M. Serie
EPA has taken another step in implementing the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
Company Reveals Amount of Toxic PFAS Substitute It Sent to Plant in South Jersey
Mar 31, 2019 | State Impact Pennsylvania
By Jon Hurdle
The chemical company Chemours shipped thousands of pounds of a toxic PFAS substitute to its Chambers Works site in South Jersey between 2015 and 2018, and generated specific quantities of chemical waste at the plant over a longer period. -
Whitmer Establishes PFAS Regulation Policy, Developing Water Standards, Action Response Team
Mar 31, 2019 | The Michigan Daily
By Catherine Nouhan
On Tuesday, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer released a statement saying Michigan will establish polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) drinking water standards this year. -
As Bayer's Roundup Cancer Costs Accumulate, Questions Linger About the Wisdom of Its Monsanto Merger
Mar 30, 2019 | Fortune
By David Meyer
Bayer has to pay out $81 million in damages to a man who claims the Roundup weedkiller caused his cancer, a jury ruled Wednesday. -
(ACC Mentioned) New Plastics-To-Fuel Plants Tighten Squeeze on Oil Demand Outlook
Apr 1, 2019 | S&P Global Platts
A new breed of plastic recycling plants capable of recovering crude and fuels from plastic waste is piling more pressure on global oil demand forecasts. -
Federal Judge Halts Trump Effort to Open Arctic Waters for Drilling
Mar 31, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jill Burke
A federal judge in Alaska struck down an executive order from President Donald Trump that had opened Arctic waters and deep canyon shelfs in the Atlantic to oil and gas activity. -
Court's Revival of Obama-Era Bans Snarls Trump Agenda
Apr 1, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer and Pamela King
A federal court's decision last week to reinstate Obama-era prohibitions on leasing in parts of the Arctic and Atlantic oceans marks a serious setback to the Trump administration's offshore drilling ambitions. -
Trump Permit Revives Pipeline Work
Mar 29, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey and Tim Cama
President Trump today issued a presidential permit authorizing the construction, operation and maintenance of the Keystone XL oil pipeline. -
FERC Faces Major Court Risk In Suit Over Broad GHG Reviews For Pipelines
Mar 29, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is considered vulnerable in litigation challenging its policy to avoid considering the upstream and downstream greenhouse gas impacts from most natural gas pipeline projects, with a significant number of groups on both sides joining the suit. -
EPA Allows Producers to Self-Report Violations
Apr 1, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
The Trump administration has launched its plan for letting oil and gas producers self-report air pollution violations to EPA, part of its effort to forge a more collaborative approach with industry on environmental enforcement. -
EPA Issues Audit Policy for New Oil & Gas Upstream Facilities
Mar 29, 2019 | Inside EPA
EPA has issued its long-awaited voluntary audit policy giving penalty relief to new owners of upstream oil and gas facilities who voluntarily disclose -- and address -- certain Clean Air Act violations, defending the plan against a range of criticism by noting that the program’s primary objective is to reduce emissions, rather than collect penalties. -
Colorado House Passes Oil Bill, With Industry-Friendly Changes
Mar 29, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Catherine Traywick
A proposal to overhaul the way Colorado regulates oil and gas development is close to becoming law, after Democratic leaders agreed to a handful of minor changes sought by drillers. -
FERC Issues Draft Review of Stalled Ore. Export Facility
Apr 1, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Jeremy Dillon
A liquefied natural gas export facility in Oregon that's faced delays from fierce local opposition took a step forward late last week when staff at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission released a draft environmental impact statement. -
Belmont Cracker Plant Would Impact Economy Throughout Eastern Ohio
Mar 31, 2019 | The Daily Jeffersonian
By Ray Booth
Nicholas A. Homrighausen, executive director of Community and Economic Development in Harrison County, considers economic growth in broad terms and long terms. And he says the development of a world-scale petrochemical plant in Belmont County has the potential to change the economic structure throughout the region. -
Houston Chemical Disaster Zone Remains No-Go Two Weeks After Blaze
Mar 31, 2019 | Bloomberg
By Joe Carroll and Kevin Crowley
Two weeks after a chemical storage complex near Houston erupted in flames and menaced tens of thousands of people with dangerous fumes, the site remains too hazardous for investigators to approach. -
Will Rail Freight Service Benefit From Better Technology?
Mar 29, 2019 | FreightWaves
By Jim Blaze
Today, freight railroading has the opportunity to use two business processes to support better customer rail freight service, improve safety and generate higher returns for railroad investors. -
North Dakota Opposes Oil Train Restriction Proposed in Washington State
Apr 1, 2019 | Bismarck Tribune
By Amy Dalrymple
Legislators in Washington state are considering new regulations to reduce the volatility of Bakken crude oil shipped by rail. -
Global Growth Is Supercharging Emissions — and We’re Running out of Time to Help
Mar 30, 2019 | The Washington Post
The International Energy Agency reported last Monday that global energy-related greenhouse emissions rose 1.7 percent in 2018. -
EPA Defends Air Permit ‘Significant Impact Levels’ Against Sierra Club Suit
Mar 29, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA, backed by the oil industry, is defending its use of “significant impact levels” (SILs) -- a screening tool to exempt industry air permit applicants from undergoing a full analysis of likely emissions impacts of their projects -- against environmentalist litigation arguing the tool allows unlawful increases in pollution. -
D.C. Circuit Poised to Hear Suit Over Ending ‘Once in’ Air Toxics Policy
Mar 29, 2019 | Inside EPA
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is poised to hear oral argument April 1 in a suit filed by California and environmentalists over EPA air chief Bill Wehrum’s memo scrapping a “once in, always in” policy, which critics say makes it easier for facilities to escape strict air toxics controls by lowering emissions. -
Global GHG Offset Program Is on Life Support
Apr 1, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Nathanial Gronewold
The United Nations' signature greenhouse gas emissions offsetting program is slowly dying. -
Messaging War Continues With Trio of Hearings
Apr 1, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, a 2020 Democratic presidential contender, will headline another busy week for climate on Capitol Hill. -
Group Tied to Shadowy Network Created $93T Estimate
Apr 1, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
When it comes to the $93 trillion estimate for the Green New Deal, created by its critics, the answer is found in a network of interlinked groups: a think tank, its political arm and a super political action committee. -
New York State Bans Single-Use Plastic Bags
Apr 1, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Keshia Clukey
Single-use plastic bags will be banned in New York State as of March 2020 under a deal reached as part of the state’s $175.5 billion budget.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Apr 2, 2019 | House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies
-
Apr 2, 2019 | Energy and Natural Resources
-
Apr 2, 2019 | Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials
-
Hearing on Climate Change and National Security
Apr 2, 2019 | Foreign Affairs
-
Hearing on Science, Energy and Environmental Programs Budget
Apr 2, 2019 | Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Leading Index Now In Contraction
Mar 29, 2019 | Nasdaq
By Steven Hansen
This week was loaded with data releases showing a mixed economic picture. One leading index which is not well known has fallen into contraction.
The headlines of this release stated:
The Chemical Activity Barometer (CAB) rose 0.1 percent in March on a three-month moving average (3MMA) basis, the first gain in five months.
It was the second sentence which stated the important content:
On a year-over-year (Y/Y) basis, the barometer is down 0.3 percent (3MMA).
According to the American Chemistry Council who produces the Chemical Activity Barometer:
The Chemical Activity Barometer is a leading economic indicator derived from a composite index of chemical industry activity. The chemical industry has been found to consistently lead the U.S. economy's business cycle given its early position in the supply chain, and this barometer can be used to determine turning points and likely trends in the wider economy. Month-to-month movements can be volatile so a three-month moving average of the barometer is provided. This provides a more consistent and illustrative picture of national economic trends.
Applying the CAB back to 1912, it has been shown to provide a lead of two to fourteen months, with an average lead of eight months at cycle peaks as determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research. The median lead was also eight months. At business cycle troughs, the CAB leads by one to seven months, with an average lead of four months. The median lead was three months. The CAB is rebased to the average lead (in months) of an average 100 in the base year (the year 2012 was used) of a reference time series. The latter is the Federal Reserve's Industrial Production Index.
As this is a relatively new leading index, our biggest concern is backward revision (which degrades real-time accuracy). Thankfully (providently?) backward revisions have been relatively small to date.
No single economic forecasting index has proven to have all the answers because the reason the economy recesses is a combination of changing dynamics.
Economic Releases This Past Week
The Econintersect Economic Index for March 2019 insignificantly declined and remains below territory associated with normal expansions. The question remains whether this downward trend will continue. Note, our index is built on data sets which were not affected by the government shutdown - and it is most likely that other recent economic forecasts you have seen fudged the missing data. A forecast with fudged data is simply a guesstimate.
The following table summarizes the more significant economic releases this past week. For more detailed analysis - please visit our landing page which provides links to our complete analyses.
This week the data was mixed but little showing an improving economy - and, there is little to indicate that a recession is waiting in the wings.
https://www.nasdaq.com/article/chemical-leading-index-now-in-contraction-cm1122236
-
Wheeler, Perry and Host of Admin Officials Due on the Hill
Apr 1, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Manuel Quiñones
Several hearings this week may focus on the disconnect between the White House's spending blueprint and statements from top officials and President Trump.
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler will make his first appearance on Capitol Hill for this latest round of budget hearings.
Wheeler will have to defend the administration's proposal to slash his agency by nearly a third, particularly tomorrow during a House panel hearing controlled by Democrats.
Last month the president talked about spending for the Great Lakes just weeks after his budget proposed to dramatically reduce cleanup efforts.
"I support the Great Lakes. Always have. They are beautiful," Trump said during remarks in Michigan.
"They are big, very deep, record deepness, right? And I'm going to get, in honor of my friends, full funding of $300 million for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative," he said.
Energy Secretary Rick Perry will also return to the Hill tomorrow to appear before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
He will have to respond to questions about the administration's repeated efforts to slash technology appropriations, even as he himself has indicated his support of congressional efforts to dramatically increase such spending.
Back on the Hill, as well, will be NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine. Lawmakers on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee may press him on climate change.
Other hearings will feature witnesses from the National Park Service, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Interior Department bureaus.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/04/01/stories/1060137501
-
EPA Issues First TSCA Section 6 Final Rule in Thirty Years
Mar 29, 2019 | The National Law Review
By Ryan J. Carra, Mark N. Duvall and Timothy M. Serie
Until today, EPA had not adopted a final risk management rule under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act in 30 years. That drought has ended, now that EPA has published a final rule restricting consumer use of methylene chloride for stripping paint and coatings. 84 Fed. Reg. 11420 (Mar. 27, 2019). The final rule will prohibit the manufacture (including import), processing, distribution of methylene chloride for consumer paint and coating removal. The rule will also require manufacturers, processors, and distributors of methylene chloride for any use to provide downstream notifications of the restriction, and will impose certain recordkeeping requirements.
The final rule will go into effect on May 28, 2019, as Subpart B of a new 40 C.F.R. Part 751. Companies that import and export methylene chloride, or mixtures containing methylene chloride, for any use should be aware of the effects of this action on imports and exports.
EPA decided not to extend the ban on use of methylene chloride in paint strippers to commercial use. Instead, it has opted to publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) soliciting public comment on potential training, certification, and limited access requirements that would apply to use of methylene chloride in commercial paint and coating removal. 84 Fed. Reg. 11466 (May 27, 2019). Public comments on the ANPRM are due by May 28, 2019.
This decision not to apply the consumer use ban to commercial use as well was anticipated and criticized during a hearing on March 13 of the Environment & Climate Change Subcommittee of the House Energy & Commerce Committee. As the ANPRM notes, however, the approach taken in the ANPRM is somewhat similar to that taken under REACH with respect to commercial use of methylene chloride in paint stripping. Annex XVII allows Member States to authorize professional use under specified restrictions, but only in such Member States; otherwise, professional use is prohibited. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control has designated paint or varnish strippers containing methylene chloride as a priority product under its Safer Consumer Products program. The listing applies to both consumer and commercial use. 22 C.C.R. § 69511.3.Prohibition on Methylene Chloride in Paint and Coating Removers for Consumer Use
Background and Regulatory History
Per EPA data, methylene chloride was imported or domestically manufactured in amounts exceeding 250 million pounds in 2015. Less than 10% of that amount was for paint and coating removal. Other uses included adhesives, pharmaceuticals, metal cleaning, chemical processing, and chemical feedstock. (EPA is reviewing some of those uses in an ongoing risk evaluation for methylene chloride under section 6(b)(2)(A).) EPA determined that there have been at least 53 fatalities since 1976 resulting from acute consumer or commercial worker exposure to methylene chloride during paint or coating removal.
Under section 6(a) of TSCA, if EPA makes a determination that a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment under the conditions of use, EPA must promulgate a rule imposing restrictions so that the substance no longer presents an unreasonable risk. In the 2012 TSCA Work Plan, EPA ranked methylene chloride high for health hazards and exposure potential. Methylene chloride also appeared on the 2014 update to the TSCA Work Plan. EPA published a risk assessment for methylene chloride in 2014.
On the last day of the Obama Administration, EPA proposed to prohibit both consumer and commercial use of methylene chloride for paint and coating removal. 82 Fed. Reg. 7464 (Jan. 19, 2017). The final rule prohibits only consumer use, with commercial use addressed by further rulemaking.
Prohibitions and Obligations
Once effective, the final rule will prohibit the manufacture, processing, and distribution, as well as retail sale, of methylene chloride for paint and coating removal for all consumer uses. Commercial use of methylene chloride will not be restricted.
The final rule will require manufacturers, processors, and distributors (excluding retailers) of methylene chloride for any use to notify downstream recipients of the prohibitions by adding the following language to sections 1(c) and 15 of SDSs: “This chemical/product is not and cannot be distributed in commerce (as defined in TSCA section 3(5)) or processed (as defined in TSCA section 3(13)) for consumer paint or coating removal.”
Finally, manufacturers, processors, and distributors of methylene chloride for any use must maintain the following documentation for three years from the date of shipment: the entities to whom the methylene chloride was shipped; a copy of the downstream notification provided; and the amount of methylene chloride shipped.
Effect on Imports and Exports of Methylene Chloride
Importers and exporters of methylene chloride for any purpose should be aware of how this final rule may affect them.
Importers of methylene chloride are subject to section 13 import certification requirements and regulations issued thereunder. 19 C.F.R. §§ 12.118-12.127. Such importers are required to certify that shipments of methylene chloride comply with all applicable TSCA restrictions, which will include the new final rule once it takes effect.
In addition, exporters of methylene chloride must comply with section 12(b) export notification provisions. 40 C.F.R. Part 707, Subpart D. This is not a change, however, since the proposed section 6 rule added methylene chloride to EPA’s list of chemicals subject to export notification requirements.ANPRM on Methylene Chloride for Commercial Paint and Coating Removal
As explained in the ANPRM, EPA is considering a regulation that would limit commercial use of methylene chloride for paint and coating removal to individuals who have certified they are able to engage in safe work practices. EPA acknowledges that a more restrictive approach may not be necessary due to robust worker protection programs that comply with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s methylene chloride standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1052, which also has a training requirement.
EPA is seeking comments by May 28, 2019, on the following questions:
Is a training, certification, and limited access program an appropriate method for addressing risks presented by methylene chloride for commercial paint and coating removal?
Would such a program sufficiently address any existing risks?
What metrics should EPA use to measure the effectiveness of such a program?
Would such a program allow some use of methylene chloride for commercial paint and coating removal to continue?
Do existing commercial users have existing work practices, controls, or training?
Should EPA consider requirements other than a training, certification, and limited access program?
Manufacturers (including importers), processors, distributors, and retailers of methylene chloride – including mixtures that contain methylene chloride – should evaluate how EPA’s actions regarding this chemical may affect their compliance programs and markets.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-issues-first-tsca-section-6-final-rule-thirty-years
-
First 40 Candidate Chemicals for Prioritization Under TSCA Announced
Mar 29, 2019 | The National Law Review
By Ryan J. Carra, Mark N. Duvall and Timothy M. Serie
EPA has taken another step in implementing the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). It has announced the first set of 20 candidate chemicals for possible designation as high-priority substances and the first (possibly only) set of 20 candidate chemicals for possible designation as low-priority substances. 84 Fed. Reg. 10491 (March 21, 2019).
This signals the beginning of EPA’s prioritization process to determine whether the 20 candidates for designation as high-priority substances may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment under the conditions of use. If EPA makes that determination at the end of this prioritization process, EPA will designate those substances as high priorities for risk evaluations and will begin those risk evaluations. On the other hand, where EPA has sufficient information, it will designate a chemical substance that does not meet this standard as a low-priority substance and take no further action.
EPA is accepting initial comments on these 40 candidate chemicals until June 19, 2019. Under section 6(b)(2)(B), EPA must publish final high- and low-priority designations by December 22, 2019. First 20 Candidate Chemicals for Designation as High-Priority Substances
EPA identified 7 chlorinated solvents:
p-Dichlorobenzene, CAS No. 106-46-7
1,2-Dichloroethane, CAS No. 107-06-2
trans-1,2- Dichloroethylene, CAS No. 156-60-5
o-Dichlorobenzene, CAS No. 95-50-1
1,1,2-Trichloroethane, CAS No. 79-00-5
1,2-Dichloropropane, CAS No. 78-87-5
1,1-Dichloroethane, CAS No. 75-34-3
It identified 5 phthalates:
Dibutyl phthalate (DBP) (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1,2- dibutyl ester), CAS No. 84-74-2
Butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP) - 1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1- butyl 2(phenylmethyl) ester, CAS No. 85-68-7
Di-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) - (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1,2- bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester), CAS No. 117-81-7
Di-isobutyl phthalate (DIBP) - (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1,2- bis-(2methylpropyl) ester), CAS No. 84-69-5
Dicyclohexyl phthalate, CAS No. 84-61-7
It identified 3 halogenated flame retardants:
4,4’-(1-Methylethylidene)bis[2, 6-dibromophenol] (TBBPA), CAS No. 79-94-7
Tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP), CAS No. 115-96-8
Phosphoric acid, triphenyl ester (TPP), CAS No. 115-86-6
Finally, it identified 5 other substances:
Ethylene dibromide, CAS No. 106-93-4 (a chemical intermediate)
1,3-Butadiene, CAS No. 106-99-0 (a monomer, regulated by OSHA as a carcinogen, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1051)
1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-hexamethylcyclopenta [g]-2-benzopyran (HHCB), CAS No. 1222-05-2 (a fragrance chemical)
Formaldehyde, CAS No. 50-00-0 (a chemical intermediate, the subject of a controversial IRIS assessment, and regulated by OSHA as a carcinogen, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1048)
Phthalic anhydride, CAS No. 85-44-9 (a phthalate precursor)
In identifying candidate chemicals for designation as high-priority substances, EPA looked to its 2014 TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments. Section 6(b)(2)(D) requires EPA to give preference to chemical substances that are listed on the 2014 TSCA Work Plan that either: (a) have a persistence and bioaccumulation score of 3; or (b) that are known human carcinogens and have high acute and chronic toxicity. EPA included the hazard, exposure, and persistence/bioaccumulation scores from the 2014 TSCA Work Plan for each candidate chemical in the Federal Register notice as a basis for their selection. EPA also considered whether chemical substances were similar and whether there is existing EPA work or other publically-available risk assessments on these chemical substances.
Among the chemicals on the 2014 TSCA Work Plan that meet those preference criteria but were not included among the 20 candidates for designation as high priority are:
Arsenic and arsenic compounds (acute and chronic toxicity from inhalation exposures)
Cadmium and cadmium compounds (acute and chronic toxicity from inhalation exposures)
Chromium and chromium compounds (acute and chronic toxicity from inhalation exposures)
Cobalt and cobalt compounds (Persistence & Bioaccumulation Score of 3)
Lead and lead compounds (Persistence & Bioaccumulation Score of 3)
Long-chain chlorinated paraffins (C18-20) (Persistence & Bioaccumulation Score of 3)
Medium-chain chlorinated paraffins (C14-17) (Persistence & Bioaccumulation Score of 3)
Molybdenum and molybdenum compounds (acute and chronic toxicity from inhalation exposures)
Nickel and nickel compounds (acute and chronic toxicity from inhalation exposures)
Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4), CAS No. 556-67-2 (Persistence & Bioaccumulation Score of 3)
Pigment Yellow 83 (Butanamide, 2,2’-[(3,3’-dichloro[1,1’-biphenyl]-4,4’-diyl)biz(azo)bis[N-(4-chloro-2, 5- dimethoxyphenyl)-3-oxo-), CAS No. 5565-15-7 (Persistence & Bioaccumulation Score of 3)
As part of the prioritization process, EPA is required to consider, without consideration of costs or nonrisk factors, whether a candidate chemical may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment because of a potential hazard and a potential route of exposure under the conditions of use. EPA must designate a candidate chemical as a high-priority substance if it concludes that it may present an unreasonable risk. Once EPA designates a chemical substance as a high-priority substance, it must initiate a risk evaluation for such chemical substance. See TSCA section 6(b)(1)(B)(i); 40 C.F.R. Part 702, Subpart A.
EPA’s prioritization designation is not a risk finding. Designating a chemical substance as a high-priority substance does not mean that the substance presents an unreasonable risk, but rather that the chemical substance may present an unreasonable risk and therefore warrants a risk evaluation. 40 C.F.R. § 702.17.First 20 Candidate Chemicals for Designation as Low-Priority Substances
EPA identified the following list of candidate chemicals for designation as low-priority substances:
1-Butanol, 3-methoxy-, 1-acetate, CAS No. 4435-53-4
D-gluco-Heptonic acid, sodium salt (1:1), (2.xi.)-, CAS No. 3113-65-5
D-Gluconic acid, CAS No. 526-95-4
D-Gluconic acid, calcium salt (2:1), CAS No. 299-28-5
D-Gluconic acid, .delta.-lactone, CAS No. 90-80-2
D-Gluconic acid, potassium salt (1:1), CAS No. 299-27-4
D-Gluconic acid, sodium salt (1:1), CAS No. 527-07-1
Decanedioic acid, 1,10-dibutyl ester, CAS No. 109-43-3
1-Docosanol, CAS No. 661-19-8
1-Eicosanol, CAS No. 629-96-9
1,2-Hexanediol, CAS No. 6920-22-5
1-Octadecanol, CAS No. 112-92-5
Propanol, [2-(2-butoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]-, CAS No. 55934-93-5
Propanedioic acid, 1,3-diethyl ester, CAS No. 105-53-3
Propanedioic acid, 1,3-dimethyl ester, CAS No. 108-59-8
Propanol, 1(or 2)-(2-methoxymethylethoxy)-, acetate, CAS No. 88917-22-0
Propanol, [(1-methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)bis(oxy)]bis-, CAS No. 24800-44-0
2-Propanol, 1,1’-oxybis-, CAS No. 110-98-5
Propanol, oxybis-, CAS No. 25265-71-8Tetracosane, 2,6,10,15,19,23-hexamethyl-, CAS No. 111-10-3
EPA explained that the selection of candidate chemicals for designation as low-priority substances was based on low hazard, as the initial criterion. EPA also looked at whether these chemical substances have been evaluated by EPA or other governmental bodies from OECD member states. EPA relied on its Safer Chemicals Ingredients List and Chemical Assessment Management Program (ChAMP) as sources of chemical substances that have already been evaluated to some degree.
Under section 6(b)(1)(B)(ii), EPA will designate a chemical substance as a low-priority substance if EPA concludes, without consideration of costs or other nonrisk factors, that the substance does not meet the standard for designating a chemical substance as a high-priority substance (i.e., that the chemical substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment because of a potential hazard and a potential route of exposure under the conditions of use). Notably, EPA must have sufficient information upon which to make this determination.
If EPA designates a chemical substance as a low-priority substance, EPA’s review of the chemical substance ends. However, EPA can reevaluate a low-priority substance if new information regarding the chemical substance comes to light that calls into question its designation. Section 6(b)(3)(B); 40 C.F.R. § 702.13.
If EPA finds that the chemical substance may present an unreasonable risk or the Agency does not have sufficient information to make this determination, EPA must designate the candidate chemical as a high-priority substance and conduct a risk evaluation on the chemical substance. Therefore, it is important that manufacturers and processors of these candidate chemicals provide information to EPA to ensure that EPA has sufficient information upon which to base its decision.The Prioritization Process and Next Steps
Section 6(b)(2)(B) requires EPA to ensure that risk evaluations are being conducted on the first 20 high-priority substances no later than December 22, 2019 (i.e., three and a half years after enactment of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act). EPA must also designate at least 20 low-priority substances by December 22, 2019.
EPA is providing a 90-day comment period for stakeholders to submit information regarding these 40 candidate chemicals. Companies with an interest in any of the candidate chemicals should consider submitting comments and information to EPA.
During the prioritization process, EPA must conduct a risk-based screening of the candidate chemicals that considers their hazard and exposure potential, conditions of use or significant changes in conditions of use, and manufacturing or processing volumes or significant changes in such volume. EPA will then publish a proposed designation for each candidate chemical as either a high- or low-priority substance. This must set forth the information, analysis, and basis for EPA’s proposed designation. EPA must provide 90 days for interested stakeholders to comment on proposed designations. Once EPA has considered comments on proposed designations, EPA will designate each chemical substance as a high- or low- priority, and begin risk evaluations for all high-priority substances.
EPA must issue proposed priority designations no later than September 22, 2019, in order to meet its December 22, 2019, statutory deadline to designate 20 high- and low-priority substances, but will likely need to do so well before this deadline to consider comments received on the proposed designations.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/first-40-candidate-chemicals-prioritization-under-tsca-announced
-
Company Reveals Amount of Toxic PFAS Substitute It Sent to Plant in South Jersey
Mar 31, 2019 | State Impact Pennsylvania
By Jon Hurdle
The chemical company Chemours shipped thousands of pounds of a toxic PFAS substitute to its Chambers Works site in South Jersey between 2015 and 2018, and generated specific quantities of chemical waste at the plant over a longer period.
The company’s newly released report, which it sent to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, raises fresh concerns over the possible contamination of local drinking water.
In the report, the company quantified nine shipments of GenX, a replacement for the PFAS chemical PFOA, to the plant over the three-year period. It also provided exact quantities of GenX waste that were generated as part of waste streams containing other materials between 2009 and 2017.
The inbound shipments ranged from 3,451 kilograms (7,608 pounds) in January 2016 to 2,043 kg (4,504 pounds) in June 2017.
New Jersey regulators have set safe health limits measured in parts per trillion for some other PFAS chemicals in drinking water.
Although GenX has not been studied as fully as better-known PFAS chemicals like PFOA and PFOS, some scientists and state officials believe it is just as risky to human health as the chemical it is designed to replace. PFOA and other PFAS chemicals are linked to some cancers, immune-system problems, high cholesterol, and other illnesses. They have been found in many public and private water systems around the country, including New Jersey.
In North Carolina, GenX from a Chemours plant at Fayetteville was found in the Cape Fear River, prompting state environmental officials to order the company to halt discharges of all fluorinated compounds in 2017.
Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, said the quantities of GenX shown by the document are significant, and represent a threat to air and water around the plant.
“You are talking about chemicals that in parts per billion or trillion are harmful, and here we have 10 thousand pounds or more,” Tittel said.
He said the shipments represent another potential source of contamination to a site that has been badly polluted since it opened in the late 19th century.
Chemours, which was spun off from DuPont in 2015, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The document, dated May 18, 2018, was obtained from the state Department of Environmental Protection through an open-records request from the environmental group Delaware Riverkeeper Network.
On Monday, the DEP said Chemours is currently using GenX and other PFAS-replacement chemicals for manufacturing at the Chambers Works site, and is discharging the chemical into water and air. In an order that also accused four other companies of PFAS pollution, the DEP noted that GenX has been found in some residential water wells near the Salem County site. Tracy Carluccio of Delaware Riverkeeper Network, a longtime campaigner for tighter curbs on PFAS chemicals, said the new information about GenX at Chambers Works may prompt the DEP to increase financial penalties on Chemours.
“DEP expressly says they’ll be looking at and requiring funding to clean up the replacements as well, so Chemours is not off the hook at all,” she said. The company was also targeted this week by New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal, who filed a natural resource damage suit against the company, accusing it of contaminating the Chambers Works environment.
While the existence of GenX shipments to the plant was previously known, the document — though partially redacted — provides the first public evidence of shipment quantities, their timing, and the amount of GenX waste generated over years.
It also contains a series of responses from Chemours to the EPA’s questions about how and when the company has been using GenX at the plant, whether it was made there, and whether it generated waste.
The company said the chemical, also known as HFPO-DA, had never been manufactured at Chambers Works but was brought to the site as a raw material. It is used in the manufacture of Krytox, an industrial lubricant.
Asked by the EPA whether there was any GenX waste present at the site, Chemours produced a table showing seven types of waste generated each year between 2009 and 2017, and what quantity of GenX was in each batch. It said all waste was shipped off site for treatment including incineration.
But some parts of the document were redacted, obscuring the company’s responses to EPA questions including what pathways allowed the escape of GenX into the environment at the plant, and how the company treats for the chemical.
Asked to provide details of any GenX spills at the site, the company denied there had been any.
“We are not aware of any spills of HFPO-DA at the Chambers Works site,” the company said in its response.
https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2019/03/31/company-reveals-amount-of-toxic-pfas-substitute-it-sent-to-plant-in-south-jersey/
-
Whitmer Establishes PFAS Regulation Policy, Developing Water Standards, Action Response Team
Mar 31, 2019 | The Michigan Daily
By Catherine Nouhan
On Tuesday, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer released a statement saying Michigan will establish polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) drinking water standards this year. PFAS has been an issue for Michiganders and the Ann Arbor community over the past few years and has become increasingly concerning, especially after Ann Arbor reported an increase in PFAS levels since 2016.
PFAS are chemicals used in cookware and water retardant products. Some scientific studies have shown PFAS chemicals can have significant health consequences such as learning and growth impairments in children, weakened immune systems and increased risk of cancer. The EPA’s decision against a PFAS limit in drinking water would mean PFAS chemicals would remain largely unregulated.
“All Michiganders deserve to know that we are prioritizing their health and are working every day to protect the water that is coming out of their taps,” Whitmer said in the press release. “As a result, Michigan will begin the process to establish PFAS drinking water standards that protect public health and the environment.”
Because the Trump administration continues to allow PFAS to be unregulated in the United States’ water bodies, Whitmer determined moving forward independently of the federal government was a necessary action.
“Michigan has long advocated that the federal government establish national standards to protect the nation's water from PFAS contamination, but we can no longer wait for the Trump Administration to act,”Whitmer’s press release read.
Whitmer hopes to be more proactive than the federal government by creating a PFAS Action Response Team. By July 1, 2019, this response team, made up of scientists, should have set the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for Michigan.
Whitmer also provided a deadline of October 1 to create a plan to enforce the MCL.
“Additionally, I’m directing the Department for Environmental Quality to immediately file a Request for Rulemaking to establish enforceable MCLs for PFAS in our drinking water supplies. The proposed regulations will be completed on an accelerated schedule with input from stakeholders by no later than October 1, 2019,” Whitmer wrote in the press release. “These actions will move us a step closer towards finding real and permanent solutions to ensuring that all Michiganders know that they can trust their drinking water.”
Whitmer’s proposal to create the Michigan PFAS Action Response Team has garnered support from U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Ann Arbor. Dingell once again called on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set a national maximum contaminant level for all PFAS compounds so there is one national standard for all water systems to ensure safe drinking water.
“PFAS contamination affects all corners of Michigan,” Dingell wrote in a press release. “Governor Whitmer is taking critical action to address PFAS contaminations and clean up our drinking water. Setting a maximum contaminant level in Michigan this year will make sure all residents know about contamination in a timely manner and we are able to take action to clean it up.”
LSA senior Ben Harshberger, who is studying environmental studies and evolutionary and ecology biology, is pleased by the action Governor Whitmer is taking for Michiganders’ health.
“Even though the Trump administration isn’t concerned over the water quality throughout the United States, it’s nice to know that we live in a state that is not only concerned about the well-being of its citizens, but is also willing to take steps towards prioritizing our health by creating standards for our drinking water,” Harshberger said.
Dingell continued to reveal the scope of the issue nationally and discussed how Whitmer’s policy will benefit Michigan in an issue putting many states in disarray.
“Whitmer’s leadership is needed more than ever since the EPA refuses to act to set one national protective standard for all PFAS chemicals,” Dingell wrote in the press release. “PFAS is not just limited to Michigan or the Great Lakes region. Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Colorado, and Texas have been hit hard by contamination. And more than 100 military sites from coast to coast have contaminated drinking or groundwater. The time to act is now. If the Administration refuses, Congress will.”
https://www.michigandaily.com/section/government/whitmer-establishes-pfas-regulation-policy-developing-water-standards-action
-
As Bayer's Roundup Cancer Costs Accumulate, Questions Linger About the Wisdom of Its Monsanto Merger
Mar 30, 2019 | Fortune
By David Meyer
Bayer has to pay out $81 million in damages to a man who claims the Roundup weedkiller caused his cancer, a jury ruled Wednesday. In a similar ruling last year, the sum was $289 million, reduced to $78 million on appeal. Since that first verdict, Bayer’s shares have lost 40% of their value—and there are still around 11,300 such cases waiting in the wings.
All of which begs the question: was it foolhardy for Bayer to buy Roundup maker Monsanto?
Some, including activist Bayer shareholder Christian Strenger, say indeed it was. Strenger has filed a motion of no confidence in Bayer’s board ahead of the German giant’s annual general meeting next month, and it includes a litany of complaints about the “almost complete failure to deliver the key objectives presented by [Bayer CEO Werner] Baumann in May 2016 for the Monsanto acquisition.”
But before looking at Strenger’s argument, let’s rewind to examine the rationale behind that $66 billion whopper of a deal.Why Bayer bought Monsanto
Bayer bought Monsanto as part of its reinvention as a life-science firm with a focus on health and agriculture. At the time the deal was proposed in 2016, the competitive landscape of the agricultural-science space was shifting dramatically—Dow and DuPont were merging, and so were ChemChina and Syngenta. Bayer wanted to become a bigger player in seeds and genetically modified crops, and Monsanto offered just that.
Monsanto was also an early mover in the burgeoning “digital agriculture” arena, explains Sanjiv Rana, the editor-in-chief of Informa crop protection analysis outfit Agrow. “The acquisition gave Bayer an advantage in the field,” he said.
But there were problems from the get-go.
Firstly, the deal raised antitrust concerns in the U.S.—it only went ahead after the companies agreed to the Justice Department’s demands that Bayer sell off its Roundup-competing Liberty herbicide business, along with its cotton, canola, soybean and vegetable seed businesses, various research and development projects, and Bayer’s own digital agriculture business. Chemicals company BASF was the lucky buyer, paying $9 billion.
And then there was the glyphosate issue. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) an agency of the World Health Organization (WHO,) issued a report in early 2015 that said the pesticide, which is Roundup’s active ingredient, was “probably carcinogenic to humans.” A second report from the WHO and United Nations then clarified that glyphosate was “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet.” This was in linewith other findings on the matter. However, eating Roundup residue is one thing and spraying the stuff over many years—as both successful plaintiffs did—is another.
The IARC report, which established that glyphosate was probably carcinogenic, was partly based on studies of farmers who had been exposed to the substance. So why have regulators not cracked down? “Many regulatory agencies rely primarily on industry data from toxicological studies that are not available in the public domain,” says the IARC in a Q&A on its study. “In contrast, IARC systematically assembles and evaluates all relevant evidence available in the public domain for independent scientific review.” In essence, the IARC, not a regulatory authority itself, looked at different sets of data from those considered by regulators, avoiding industry studies that it couldn’t verify were accurate.Strenger’s argument
Strenger, who is a prominent German governance expert, told Fortune the most important question as the cancer cases proceed is whether “[Monsanto’s marketing operation did] too little in terms of warning signs.”
“Mr. Baumann from Bayer always refers to 800 opinions that glyphosate is a safe product,” said Strenger. “But the big issue is how was it applied, and was it sold properly with sufficient warning signs.”
Strenger argues in his no confidence motion that Bayer underestimated the legal risks of the 3,600 outstanding glyphosate-related lawsuits that were already underway before the deal closed, in part because Monsanto was prohibited by the U.S. Department of Justice from giving Bayer full details of all the cases.
“[Bayer] should have insisted,” he said. “These were not military secrets. Bayer should have told Monsanto, ‘Either you get the DOJ to permit disclosure, or we’re not going to proceed with the transaction.'” However, Strenger suggests, after two years of dealing with issues such as the deal’s antitrust implications, Bayer’s board may have been tempted to be “lenient with a proper analysis of the legal situation.”
Bayer rejects that notion. A spokesperson insists that, in the run-up to the Monsanto acquisition, Bayer’s board “performed this risk assessment based on an information and update process which was in all respects adequate for an acquisition of such a scale.”
“Of course, in the context of the acquisition, the board of management also reviewed the risks connected with Monsanto’s glyphosate business,” the spokesperson said. “This risk assessment clearly showed that, when used as directed, the products of Monsanto containing glyphosate are safe. Based on the views held by regulatory authorities worldwide and scientists, the board of management assessed the legal risks in connection with the use of glyphosate as low.”
As for Strenger’s point that thousands of lawsuits were already underway before the deal’s mid-2018 closure, the spokesperson argues that only 120 lawsuits had been pending at the time of the merger agreement in September 2016.
Strenger also claims that Bayer underestimated the forced divestitures, saying the sales cut the projected deal synergies by 20%. “Most divestments were generally expected,” said Bayer’s spokesperson. “Some additional divestments were not expected.”‘Hard to foresee’
In the view of Agrow’s Rana, there “really isn’t much of a case against Monsanto” as regulators hadn’t identified Roundup as being risky, and the company therefore wasn’t obliged to put cancer warnings on Roundup packaging, “but juries get swayed by emotions and that’s what has happened in both cases.”
“So, although a thorough due diligence must have been done by Bayer, it would have been hard to foresee the emotional impact on the outcome of these cases,” he said. “The upcoming annual general meeting will likely be a tumultuous one, but I doubt a no-confidence vote would get through.”
To this point, Bayer’s spokesperson noted that “in its latest meeting, the supervisory board expressly confirmed again that it unanimously supports the board of management and its strategy, including the acquisition of Monsanto.”
As for the potential liabilities, Rana noted that, in the first successful Roundup lawsuit—the one involving groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson—the judge assessing the jury’s damages verdict ended up cutting the damages down to less than a third.
“When judges come into the picture, the decisions are likely to be less emotion-driven,” Rana said. “Bayer just might see it through even though it seems to be facing insurmountable odds at present.”
Evaluating the Bayer board’s judgement ultimately comes down to that: how badly the lawsuits end up hurting the company. Pointing to the share price losses that have taken place since the Monsanto takeover closed last June, Strenger said “the market seems to assume losses in the double-digit billion area.” But with so many suits lined up, it’s hard to know for sure what the final tally will look like.
“From a legal perspective, one has to keep in mind that management’s accountability must be based on the facts that were available at the time the decision was made rather than on the information available with hindsight,” said Andreas Cahn, executive director of the Institute for Law and Finance at the Goethe University in Frankfurt.
But from a business perspective, it’s all about the outcome.
http://fortune.com/2019/03/30/bayer-monsanto-merger-roundup-cancer/
-
(ACC Mentioned) New Plastics-To-Fuel Plants Tighten Squeeze on Oil Demand Outlook
Apr 1, 2019 | S&P Global Platts
A new breed of plastic recycling plants capable of recovering crude and fuels from plastic waste is piling more pressure on global oil demand forecasts.
While mechanical recycling of plastics has been around for years, advanced or chemical processing relies on combinations of pyrolysis, catalytic cracking and gasification to create synthetic fuels or feedstocks which can be fed into a conventional refinery.
The growing backlash against single-use plastics, in particular, has seen a number of companies looking to launch these new plants at commercial scale. Austrian company OMV's ReOil process dissolves and then cracks waste plastics into a short-chain "premium" light crude. The synthetic crude is then channeled into its Schwechat refinery to become fuel or feedstock for the plastics industry.
"It is the sweetest crude oil that I have ever seen in my life," OMV's CEO Rainer Seele said in a November strategy presentation. "That means that if you introduce it into the process, you would have no SOx and no NOX emissions."
OMV's pilot ReOil plant at it Schwechat refinery can produce up to 100 liters of synthetic crude per hour from 100 kilograms of waste plastic. Plans for a commercial plant will scale up the process to 2,000 kg/hour of used plastic.
Finland's Neste, the world's biggest producer of renewable diesel from waste, is also developing ways to turn liquefied plastic waste into a raw material, with plans to proceed to an industrial-scale trial this year. Neste hopes to process more than 1 million mt/year of plastic waste by 2030.
In the US, BP has agreed to buy up to 16 million gallons/year of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel and naphtha blendstocks from Ohio-based plastics-to-fuel maker RES Polyflow. The company's first commercial production plant, due on stream this year, is designed to tackle low-value, mixed plastic waste which typically ends up in landfills or fouling the environment.
PETCHEM DEMAND BOOM
Although starting from a very low base, chemical recycling technology is gaining traction and, given further policy support, has the potential to eat into future oil demand, already under siege from the boom in electric vehicles and a shift to gas.
Led by plastics demand, the petrochemical industry is set to be the single biggest driver of oil consumption by sector over the coming decades, adding 5 million b/d of new demand by 2040, according to the International Energy Agency.
But the growing slew of policy initiatives to boost plastics recycling rates means more waste should be available as the chemical technology matures.
"These could reduce or cause peak petrochemical demand growth in the future, especially considering a significant amount of aromatics and olefins are used within the plastics industry," consultancy Wood Mackenzie's senior vice president for chemicals Steve Zinger told a petrochemical industry conference in San Antonio last week.
Given the expected volume growth in plastic recycling, S&P Global Platts Analytics forecasts that more than 12% of total global virgin polymer demand will be made up of recycled plastics in 2030, up from 7% in 2015.
WAR ON PLASTICS
There is certainly no shortage of raw plastic waste to process. Currently, only 15% of commodity plastics are recycled globally with the majority ending up in landfills, furnaces or in the environment.
Europe has the highest recycling rates with about a third of the 27 million mt/year of plastic waste generated currently collected for recycling. But Brussels wants to move even faster, targeting an increase in the amount of plastic recycling to 50% by 2030.
In the US, the American Chemistry Council estimates that just a quarter of recoverable plastics destined for landfill could support the production of 59,000 b/d of clean diesel and 29,000 b/d of naphtha from advanced recycling.
Higher average collection rates for recycling would mean a step change in recycled fuels from plastics, reducing refiners demand for crude oil.
The IEA estimates that a doubling of recycling rates to 34% globally would lead to a reduction in oil demand of 1.5 million b/d by 2040 compared to its base case scenario.
Coupled with tighter expected regulations on plastics, a doubling of recycling rates will reduce global oil demand by about 3 million b/d in 2040, BP recently forecast.
Some believe the impact of potential bans on plastics and greater recycling on oil demand is still being underestimated.
BP's former chief economist Christof Ruhl has warned that lower use of single-use plastics, in addition to a rise in the penetration of recycled plastic to 25% by 2040, would shrink oil demand from petrochemicals in 2040 by more than 20%.
"[This] could bring projected peak oil demand forward by a decade," Ruhl said in a February article. "If companies push ahead with investment based on standard forecasts to expand petrochemical operations, stranded assets may lie ahead."
Widespread bans on single-use plastics and packaging are complicated by the carbon footprint of their alternatives such as glass and metals. That means chemical recycling will likely have a much bigger role to play. Either way, oil demand forecasts come out losing.
https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/oil/040119-new-plastics-to-fuel-plants-tighten-squeeze-on-oil-demand-outlook
-
Federal Judge Halts Trump Effort to Open Arctic Waters for Drilling
Mar 31, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jill Burke
A federal judge in Alaska struck down an executive order from President Donald Trump that had opened Arctic waters and deep canyon shelfs in the Atlantic to oil and gas activity.
The March 29 decision by U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason restores Obama-era protections for the Chuckchi and Beaufort seas in the Arctic Ocean, as well as waters in the Atlantic. It covers a vast expanse of nearly 130 million acres of federal waters.
“It’s a big decision because it’s the court telling the president that he’s overstepping his authority,” Erik Grafe, an Anchorage-based attorney with Earthjustice who argued the case on behalf of 10 plaintiffs, told Bloomberg Environment.
The ruling halts six near-term lease sales off the coast of Alaska, with some going out to bid later this year, Grafe said.
“This decision closes 98 percent of the Arctic Ocean to leasing, so it throws a wrench in those plans,” he said.
Environmentalists have held that development exposes the Arctic Ocean to too much risk, while oil and gas interests have argued it’s too oil-rich to let sit idle.
Outer Continental Shelf Lands ActDuring oral arguments in November in U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, Steven Rosenbaum, a lawyer for intervenor American Petroleum Institute, told the court federal studies show 9.25 billion barrels of technically and economically producible oil could be submerged below the the Chuckchi Sea, with another 6 billion barrels available in the Beaufort Sea.
The case centered on a section of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act that gives the president power, with congressional approval, to bring submerged lands into protection, through a process known as “withdrawals.”
Grafe’s clients argued Trump overstepped his constitutional authority when he reversed three orders by President Barack Obama. Judge Gleason agreed.
In her order she called Section 5 of Executive Order 13795 “unlawful and invalid,” and ruled that “the previous three withdrawals issued on January 27, 2015 and December 20, 2016 will remain in full force and effect unless and until revoked by Congress.”
The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act grants the president the authority to protect, but doesn’t grant the authority to undo protections, Grafe argued. “That’s because the Constitution in the Property Clause vests Congress with the authority to manage public lands,” he said.
Because Congress remained silent on whether a president may undo protections, Gleason found that Congress had not delegated its authority for such reversals.
Alaska Backed Trump EffortsDuring the case, the Justice Department, the American Petroleum Institute and the state of Alaska attempted to persuade Gleason that preventing a president from returning lands previously withdrawn for protection back into play was an overreaching restriction.
“I strongly disagree with this ruling, which asserts that past presidents can bind their successors and only Congress can overturn those decisions,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski, (R-Alaska) said early March 31 in a statement. “That is not the correct interpretation of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and could have catastrophic impacts for offshore development, which creates jobs, generates revenues, and strengthens our national security. I expect this decision to be appealed and ultimately overturned—if not by the Ninth Circuit, then by the Supreme Court.”
A call to Alaska governor Michael Dunleavy’s staff for comment on the decision was not immediately returned.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/federal-judge-halts-trump-effort-to-open-arctic-waters-for-drilling-1
-
Court's Revival of Obama-Era Bans Snarls Trump Agenda
Apr 1, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer and Pamela King
A federal court's decision last week to reinstate Obama-era prohibitions on leasing in parts of the Arctic and Atlantic oceans marks a serious setback to the Trump administration's offshore drilling ambitions.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska on Friday struck down President Trump's 2017 decision to reopen Alaska's Beaufort and Chukchi seas and canyon areas in the Atlantic to oil and gas exploration.
Judge Sharon Gleason vacated a provision of the president's 2017 executive order on offshore drilling — a rare direct rebuke to a presidential decree. Her findings present major stumbling blocks for the Trump administration's broader ocean energy strategy.
Environmental groups sued over the order two years ago, arguing that Trump lacked authority to reverse previous protections. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act gives presidents the power to withdraw areas from development, they said, but only Congress can undo those withdrawals.
Gleason, an Obama appointee, agreed.
"The text of Section 12(a) [of OCSLA] refers only to the withdrawal of lands; it does not expressly authorize the President to revoke a prior withdrawal," she wrote. "Congress appears to have expressed one concept — withdrawal — and excluded the converse — revocation."
Gleason's offshore decision is one of environmentalists' biggest wins to date over the Trump administration's efforts to expand fossil fuel development.
"Offshore drilling and the associated threat of devastating oil spills puts coastal economies and ways of life at risk while worsening the consequences of climate change," League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski said in a statement Saturday. "President Trump wanted to erase all the environmental progress we've made, but we fought back and we won."
The case was LCV's first-ever federal lawsuit. The Sierra Club and eight other conservation groups joined in the case, represented by Earthjustice and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Gleason's ruling throws a wrench in the Trump administration's plans to open nearly all of the U.S. outer continental shelf to oil and gas development. The first draft of the Interior Department's five-year leasing plan expanded offshore drilling beyond the Gulf of Mexico into Pacific, Atlantic and Alaska waters.
An interim update is imminent.
Gleason's decision also thwarts plans by Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to hold a lease sale later this year in Alaska's Beaufort Sea.
"Once again, the courts are reminding Donald Trump that he is not above the law, and he can't just sell off America's public lands and waters with no regard for the climate or the public interest," Lena Moffitt, director of the Sierra Club's Our Wild America campaign, said in a statement.
The legal debate in the offshore lawsuit mirrors arguments over the president's power to shrink or eliminate national monuments under the Antiquities Act. And it raises presidential power questions also arising in non-environmental cases across the country.
Gleason's ruling explored both the text and purpose of OCSLA, which Congress passed in 1953. She noted that lawmakers approved the legislation to establish federal jurisdiction over the outer continental shelf and to put Interior in charge of oil and gas development there.
"Although Congress clearly sought more leasing, it did not seek unbridled leasing," the Anchorage judge wrote.
Interior declined to comment on the ruling, which came just hours after Gleason delivered another blow to the agency, scrapping a land deal critical to the development of a controversial road through Alaska's Izembek National Wildlife Refuge (E&E News PM, March 29).
The government could challenge the rulings at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
In a statement, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said the offshore ruling incorrectly interpreted federal law and would have "catastrophic impacts."
"I expect this decision to be appealed and ultimately overturned," she said, "if not by the Ninth Circuit, then by the Supreme Court."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/04/01/stories/1060137653
-
Trump Permit Revives Pipeline Work
Mar 29, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey and Tim Cama
President Trump today issued a presidential permit authorizing the construction, operation and maintenance of the Keystone XL oil pipeline.
The order does not mention an environmental review.
The White House issued the order approving the pipeline's construction and operation under conditions TransCanada Keystone Pipeline LP laid out. In doing so, Trump also announced he's revoking a previous permit issued March 23, 2017, by the State Department.
The new permit immediately authorizes TransCanada Corp. to begin building the $8 billion, 1,200-mile pipeline to carry oil sands crude from Alberta to Texas refineries.
The permit appears intended to shield the Keystone XL decision from judicial scrutiny and from being overturned by federal courts. Instead of being issued by the State Department after an environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act, the new permit cites only Trump's authority as president.
In November 2018, a federal judge halted construction and ordered the government to take a closer look at climate impacts from Keystone XL after the president revived the project shortly after taking office (Energywire, Dec. 18, 2018).
Judge Brian Morris for the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana found the Trump administration did not do a thorough job of analyzing emissions — and other impacts — from the oil conduit. His decision largely relied on NEPA and the Endangered Species Act, neither of which is mentioned in today's permit.
NEPA, a 1970 law meant to ensure federal agencies consider the environmental impacts of their actions and the opinions of locals, applies only to federal agencies, not to actions taken solely by the president.
For now, the injunction against Keystone XL construction is still in place. The Trump administration or TransCanada may cite the new permit and ask that the injunction be lifted.
TransCanada cheered Trump's new permit and thanked him for it.
"President Trump has been clear that he wants to create jobs and advance U.S. energy security and the Keystone XL pipeline does both of those things," Russ Girling, the company’s president, said in a statement.
"The Keystone XL pipeline has been studied more than any other pipeline in history and the environmental reviews are clear — the project can be built and operated in an environmentally sustainable and responsible way," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/03/29/stories/1060134441
-
FERC Faces Major Court Risk In Suit Over Broad GHG Reviews For Pipelines
Mar 29, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is considered vulnerable in litigation challenging its policy to avoid considering the upstream and downstream greenhouse gas impacts from most natural gas pipeline projects, with a significant number of groups on both sides joining the suit.
The case, Otsego 2000 v. FERC, will be heard April 11 by Judges Merrick Garland, David Tatel and Robert Wilkins of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The case focuses on a New York pipeline upgrade project, with FERC announcing its new GHG review policy in a decision rejecting requests to reconsider a permit approval.
A similar case challenging a lack of GHG review for a Tennessee pipeline, Birckhead, et al. v. FERC, is also on the D.C. Circuit’s oral argument calendar that day.
The two lawsuits are among about a half dozen challenging the adequacy of FERC’s climate considerations in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews for pipeline approvals. Energy analysts say that even though FERC has had some court victories on the issue, it is most vulnerable in the Otsego challenge because it is seeking to set a precedent allowing it to avoid broad consideration of GHGs going forward and crafted the precedent in a way that limited parties to the case.
The analysts, from ClearView Energy Partners, also note that the outcome of Otsego could affect a pending White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance for how agencies should consider GHGs in NEPA reviews. CEQ in 2017 withdrew a detailed Obama administration guidance and is moving forward with a more limited guide after suffering significant court losses on GHG NEPA grounds, including over the high-profile Keystone XL pipeline to bring tar sands from Canada to the Gulf Coast.
If FERC prevails, it could signal that CEQ moves ahead with a much narrower guide, though if it loses, then CEQ likely must consider requiring broader climate considerations.
The analysts expect FERC to face mixed outcomes in the suite of cases, with Otsego and Birckhead being the most challenging. ClearView expects Tatel to press FERC to explain why it is abandoning quantification of GHGs in NEPA reviews when it has done so in past cases. And while the analysts say they will “be looking to see whether FERC’s rationale proves persuasive” to the panel, they do predict “a strong probability that the court will grant these appeals, remanding -- if not vacating -- these certificates.”
ClearView expects FERC to prevail in other cases with GHG-related challenges where it has quantified both direct and indirect emissions.
The D.C. Circuit has already held that neither FERC nor the Department of Energy are required to broadly consider GHGs when they approve liquified natural gas export terminals.
Earlier this year, a three-judge panel including Tatel sharply rejected environmentalists’ efforts to force FERC to monetize the GHG damages using the social cost of carbon (SCC). During Jan. 28 arguments in Appalachian Voices, et al. v. FERC, et al., over the Mountain Valley Pipeline, Tatel suggested environmentalists “forfeited” their argument -- and failed to give the court a basis for setting aside the approval -- because they did not rebut FERC’s defense of its decision not to monetize the project’s GHG impacts with the SCC.
Just weeks later, the court dismissed the case in an unpublished opinion.
No ‘Absolute Rule’
FERC’s effort to minimize GHG considerations in the New York and Tennessee projects -- vehemently opposed by the two Democratic members of the commission -- seeks to distinguish those projects from a major 2017 D.C. Circuit holding in Sierra Club v. FERC requiring the commission to assess the downstream GHG impacts when it approved a Southeastern pipeline network to bring natural gas to power plants in Florida.
A key difference, FERC argues, is that the end user is unknown for the New York and Tennessee projects, and thus the downstream GHG effects are too speculative to be considered as an indirect effect in NEPA reviews.
FERC says in a March 8 reply in Otsego that the Sierra Club decision “did not replace the Commission’s obligation to analyze potential impacts on a case-by-case basis with an absolute rule that downstream emissions are always an indirect effect of natural gas transportation projects.” It adds that this pipeline upgrade, which lacks a specific end user, “does not support a finding that any increase in [GHGs] associated with the end use of gas is reasonably foreseeable.”
The environmentalist challengers in Otsego and Birckhead want the court to force FERC to uphold the precedent in Sierra Club to consider the downstream GHG impacts of gas pipelines and also require upstream considerations as well, which was not an issue in Sierra Club.
In addition, New York has complained that FERC set a sweeping policy in a proceeding for a relatively minor project in a deliberate attempt to avoid judicial review. The only commenters on the reconsideration petition -- and the only groups that had standing therefore to sue -- were the environmental group Otsego 2000 and a local couple.
In a sign of its significance, Otsego has attracted numerous amicus filings, including a March 8 brief by Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Washington and the District of Columbia that asks the court “to recognize the straightforward principle, acknowledged by this Court just last year, that projects intended to increase the supply and transportation of natural gas also increase the amount of natural gas produced and consumed, with resulting environmental impacts, including [GHGs] that contribute to climate change. Pipelines and compressor stations do not operate in a vacuum.”
The states add that FERC’s policy on GHGs was announced “in a procedurally defective manner,” using an order on a rehearing motion brought by a single party “to announce a legal interpretation of NEPA that would allow it to ignore most [GHGs] resulting from future natural gas projects, and to unnecessarily end its policy of estimating [GHGs] from all future projects.”
Another March 8 filing from Sierra Club calls FERC’s action here “a dangerous abdication of responsibility by a federal agency in charge of fossil fuel projects that will produce millions of tons of [GHGs].”
FERC Support
Supporting FERC and project developer Dominion Transmission is a March 8 amicus brief from the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) arguing that FERC “correctly concluded” that its NEPA review of the project “did not need to include an analysis of distant, causally attenuated [GHGs].” It adds that Sierra Club “addressed only downstream emissions and involved a proposed project serving specific identified electric generation facilities. Petitioners improperly seek to broaden Sabal Trail to reach the very different circumstances of this case--and apparently all pipeline projects nationwide.”
Also, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce along with oil and gas and manufacturing groups say in their March 8 amicusbrief that petitioners’ “absolute rule is contrary to law and would mire FERC and countless projects into needless speculative analysis. Instead of accepting Petitioner’s invitation to rewrite the law, this Court should continue to allow FERC to exercise its expertise in determining the effects of a project it is charged with approving.”
Meanwhile, a different three-judge D.C. Circuit panel, which consisted of Garland, Tatel and Judge Patricia Millett, heard arguments late last year in another related challenge on NEPA and GHGs over the Atlantic Sunrise pipeline.
The case, Allegheny Defense Project, et al. v. FERC, is likelyw the next to be decided, with the ClearView analysts suggesting the project will be upheld, given that both Tatel and Garland during the arguments “appeared inclined to conclude that FERC’s quantification of emissions and comparisons may have been adequate.” The analysts note that environmentalists did not have “strong answers to what exactly FERC failed to do when considering the estimates it did generate.”
Upstream Impacts
And in yet another case, which is still in the briefing stage, environmentalists are more squarely focused on upstream GHG impacts, such as induced natural gas production, of the PennEast pipeline in Delaware Riverkeeper, et al. v. FERC. In that case, FERC submitted a March 21 brief defending its exclusion of those emissions.
“The Commission considered [GHG] emissions and reasonably concluded that environmental effects from natural gas production are generally neither caused by a proposed infrastructure project nor reasonably foreseeable consequences of a project’s approval,” the filing says, adding that FERC “correctly found that impacts related to upstream production, including [GHGs], are not reasonably foreseeable. The record before FERC lacked sufficient information both as to the origin of the gas to be transported and forecasts to allow any meaningful prediction of production-related impacts.”
INGAA filed a March 28 amicus brief on FERC’s behalf, while the Environmental Defense Fund, the Institute for Policy Integrity and Niskanen Center filed amicus briefs late last year on behalf of environmentalist petitioners. The environmentalists’ reply is due in early May, and briefing is slated to wrap up in early June. Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled.
ClearView says this case is “another attempt to take a bite of the upstream apple,” though it does not predict a specific outcome.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/ferc-faces-major-court-risk-suit-over-broad-ghg-reviews-pipelines
-
EPA Allows Producers to Self-Report Violations
Apr 1, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
The Trump administration has launched its plan for letting oil and gas producers self-report air pollution violations to EPA, part of its effort to forge a more collaborative approach with industry on environmental enforcement.
Trump appointees at EPA have faced harsh criticism that they're going easy on polluters. But in their announcement Friday, they said the self-audit program will actually lead to cleaner air by giving companies an incentive to come forward.
"New owners of oil and gas facilities may be particularly well positioned to identify and address emission violations," said EPA enforcement chief Susan Bodine. "This program offers these new owners incentives to ensure their newly-acquired facilities are in, or come into, compliance."
The proposal would allow companies that acquire new oil and gas operations to review newly purchased operations and report any problems to the agency. The companies would then have a flexible timeline to fix the problems. In exchange, EPA would waive all or most of the civil penalties that would normally apply.
The plan addresses emissions from storage tanks at well sites used to hold oil, petroleum liquids and wastewater. The tanks are one of the biggest sources of pollution from oil and gas operations, and EPA said regulators have found that a significant amount of violations and pollution from them.
Oil and gas companies complained bitterly to Trump appointees about an Obama-era enforcement initiative focused on the tanks (Energywire, Jan. 17, 2018).
Volatile organic compounds such as benzene can leak from pressure-relief valves or from improperly secured hatches. In many cases, truck drivers open the tanks to the atmosphere when they measure the liquids that collect in tanks. Several workers have died from the effects of the toxic gases (Energywire, May 30, 2017).
New owners will generally have nine months after acquiring the wells to tell EPA they want to participate. Companies that acquired wells in the past year can also participate. Also, the agency said it can reject applications for operations where violations have already been discovered.
Critics have suggested that allowing new owners the chance to self-report lets the previous owners off the hook for violations they've committed. But EPA said it reserves the right to go after previous owners when circumstances warrant.
"A seller that did not discover, disclose, and correct violations when it operated a facility should not benefit from this program because the facility's new owner decides to undertake such actions," agency officials wrote in a fact sheet accompanying Friday's announcement.
EPA has had a "new owner" program for traditional manufacturing plants since 2008. The agency struggled with applying it to the oil and gas industry because a typical oil field can include hundreds of tanks and other facilities.
Trump appointees have undertaken a number of other actions to make environmental enforcement friendlier to regulated companies. They have changed national enforcement initiatives to "compliance" initiatives and plan to end initiatives focused on animal waste pollution and the oil and gas industry (Energywire, Aug. 24, 2018).
EPA enforcement has dropped under Trump, continuing a trend begun during the Obama administration amid shrinking budgets. The 10,600 inspections performed by EPA last year were an 11 percent drop from fiscal 2017. Inspections have been trending downward since 2010, when there were twice as many (Energywire, Feb. 11).
Recently released enforcement numbers show a 47 percent increase in the number of facilities involved in self-reporting violations. But the number of violations reported remained roughly the same as at the end of the Obama administration.
House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) has called EPA enforcement under Trump "abysmal." Bodine has defended her tenure, saying it's not true that the agency has gone soft on polluters (Greenwire, Feb. 26).
The agency's inspector general recently began an assessment of long-term enforcement trends (E&E News PM, Nov. 6, 2018).
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/04/01/stories/1060137635
-
EPA Issues Audit Policy for New Oil & Gas Upstream Facilities
Mar 29, 2019 | Inside EPA
EPA has issued its long-awaited voluntary audit policy giving penalty relief to new owners of upstream oil and gas facilities who voluntarily disclose -- and address -- certain Clean Air Act violations, defending the plan against a range of criticism by noting that the program’s primary objective is to reduce emissions, rather than collect penalties.
The March 29 policy includes a template that lays out eligibility and terms. It notes, for example, that after a company submits a report, EPA will determine which violations occurred and whether they were satisfactorily corrected and if so, then the agency will absolve the company of having to pay a civil penalty.
It is unclear if the final program satisfies concerns raised by the oil and gas industry in comments on a draft of the plan floated last year. They asked that it be scaled back to minimize hurdles they said would curtail rather than expand use of the voluntary audit policy, which is intended to reduce equipment leaks of the potent greenhouse gas methane along with ozone-forming volatile organic compounds.
For example, the American Petroleum Institute (API) targeted the May 4 draft policy’s model agreement as imposing a “one-size-fits-all” approach requiring facilities to comply with state or industry best practices and guidelines, which API said is beyond the scope of EPA’s Clean Air Act authority.
API along with the Independent Petroleum Association of America also warned that the policy would create regulatory confusion in states with delegated authority to implement federal laws and have their own audit policies.
EPA did split this program from its overarching Audit Policy and a separate New Owners Policy, the agency notes in a document explaining is rationale, providing a draft agreement template and summarizing -- but not responding -- to comments. It says it may continue to revise the program based on feedback.
“The Program is designed to encourage self-disclosures of violations that will, once corrected, yield significant pollutant reductions and public health and environmental protections,” EPA says. “New owners of upstream oil and natural gas facilities satisfying the Program’s conditions will receive penalty reductions beyond those provided in” other EPA enforcement discretion programs.
Enforcement chief Susan Bodine said in a statement that new facility owners “may be particularly well positioned to identify and address emission violations.”
EPA also defended limiting the relief to new owners, while arguing they are not getting a pass because the agency says “circumstances of new ownership warrant special consideration” and are opportunities “to efficiently secure significant public health and environmental protections and Clean Air Act compliance sooner than might otherwise occur.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-issues-audit-policy-new-oil-gas-upstream-facilities
-
Colorado House Passes Oil Bill, With Industry-Friendly Changes
Mar 29, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Catherine Traywick
A proposal to overhaul the way Colorado regulates oil and gas development is close to becoming law, after Democratic leaders agreed to a handful of minor changes sought by drillers.
The measure, which would give local governments more power to regulate drilling, passed the House of Representatives on a vote of 36-28 March 29.
It now goes back to the Senate for a perfunctory concurrence vote, and then heads to Governor Jared Polis’ (D) desk for signature.
Key InsightsThe measure would significantly change the way drilling is permitted in Colorado, giving local governments more power to regulate development by companies such as Anadarko Petroleum Corp., Noble Energy Inc. and ConocoPhillips, three of the biggest acreage holders in the state.
Still, lawmakers adopted several amendments sought by the oil and gas industry, including language that limits the scope of local authority.
Under the new provisions, governments would be able to regulate “surface impacts” rather than “oil and gas development” and new rules would have to be “necessary and reasonable” to protect public health and safety -- a higher legal bar than the original bill had set.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/colorado-house-passes-oil-bill-with-industry-friendly-changes
-
FERC Issues Draft Review of Stalled Ore. Export Facility
Apr 1, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Jeremy Dillon
A liquefied natural gas export facility in Oregon that's faced delays from fierce local opposition took a step forward late last week when staff at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission released a draft environmental impact statement.
The review is the latest regulatory hurdle for the $10 billion Jordan Cove LNG project and its corresponding 229-mile Pacific Connector pipeline to move forward under the Trump administration.
FERC declined to grant a permit to build and operate the pipeline in 2016, one of the first times the agency turned down such a project. The commission at the time said developers had failed to secure voluntary agreements with many of the landowners along the pipeline route (Energywire, March 18, 2016).
If approved, the Jordan Cove project on Oregon's Pacific coast in Coos Bay would be one of the lone export facilities on the West Coast. It would enable easier transport of Western states' natural gas to energy-hungry Asian countries.
The draft EIS concludes that "constructing and operating the Project would result in temporary, long-term, and permanent impacts on the environment," according to a FERC release. The commission's staff found that those effects "would not be significant or would be reduced to less than significant levels" if developers took actions to avoid, minimize or mitigate those impacts.
But FERC staff also found that the project would hold repercussions for housing and the bay's landscape and would likely "adversely affect 13 federally-listed threatened and endangered species," including the marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl and coho salmon.
"Specifically, we conclude that constructing the Project would temporarily but significantly impact housing in Coos Bay and that constructing and operating the Project would permanently and significantly impact the visual character of Coos Bay," staff wrote.
FERC will take public comment through July 5, and could issue a final decision in 2020.
The Trump administration has voiced strong support for the project. But local environmental advocates said they're ready to oppose Jordan Cove at every turn — just as they did for the two previous permit campaigns.
"Today's DEIS provides no additional evidence of need or market support for this project," said Rhett Lawrence, conservation director of the Sierra Club's Oregon Chapter.
"Oregon communities shouldn't be left to pay the price of our clean air and water just so that fossil fuel executives can build a pipeline that they hope somebody will someday want to use."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/04/01/stories/1060137913
-
Belmont Cracker Plant Would Impact Economy Throughout Eastern Ohio
Mar 31, 2019 | The Daily Jeffersonian
By Ray Booth
Nicholas A. Homrighausen, executive director of Community and Economic Development in Harrison County, considers economic growth in broad terms and long terms. And he says the development of a world-scale petrochemical plant in Belmont County has the potential to change the economic structure throughout the region.
Dana Saucier and Matt Engelhard of JobsOhio recently joined Homrighausen for a discussion about the economic impact of what is commonly called a “cracker” plant.
What is a cracker plant?
A cracker plant separates ethane from natural gas to produce the small hydrocarbon gas known as ethylene, the building block of plastics and other industrial products.
Like many hydrocarbons, ethane, a colorless and odorless gas, is isolated by the cracker plant and used as a petrochemical by-product. Its chief use is as feedstock for ethylene production.
The plants use extreme heat to “crack” the molecular bonds in ethane and create smaller molecules to produce the ethylene. The ethylene is further processed to create a resin that is used to produce plastics products.
Ethylene is used in the production of polyester resins, films and fibers, and for making water-based adhesives, paper, antifreeze, coolant, aircraft de-icers and solvents. It is also used to ripen fruit and a welding gas, but has many more everyday applications.
Ethylene is a critical building block for the petrochemical industry, and is among the most produced organic compounds.
While it has not reached final approval, the U.S. subsidiary of PTT Global Chemical (PTTGC America) has selected a site in Mead Township along the Ohio River in Belmont County, for the possible construction of the world-scale petrochemical complex.
PTTGC America’s Board of Directors approved the execution of an agreement between PTTGCA and a subsidiary of Daelim Industrial Co., Ltd., a leading Korean construction and chemical company, to conduct a feasibility study and secure funding for the development of the complex.
PTTGC America chose the site because of its location on the Marcellus and Utica shale region and its tremendous access to major highway, rail, pipeline and port infrastructure that would increase efficiency while reducing the environmental and financial costs of transportation.
Site preparation has started with the removal of trees. Key approvals have also been received from the Environmental Protection Agency.
Homrighausen notes that Harrison County is in good position to take advantage of any potential development with its existing infrastructure and space to build.
“What we have is the ability to deliver stock to the shell cracker,” Homrighausen said. “When and if it moves forward, we will be able to provide feed stock which allows us to supply plastic and polymer plants in addition to those companies that need the ethane or propane, etc. It allows us to be at the table with those companies. We have land available for development and if the cracker plant becomes a reality we have already done the groundwork to attract companies.”
Saucier said that when the discussion about the cracker plant started, JobsOhio “immediately put together a whole analysis chain, looking at the chemical chart and looking at those raw materials all the way down to the consumer levels, including uses of ethylene and then polyethylene. Many different companies use these, such as auto components, medical components and other downstream Ohio companies.”
Homrighausen agreed, saying “We’re right smack dab right in the middle to attract all that industry. Whatever kind of pipelines there are, we can tap into it. Whatever your need is, we can address it.
“I feel encouraged from Harrison County perspective. What’s been transpiring, from clearing trees to the EPA rulings, are huge points for me to make with companies.”
Saucier noted it’s been a relatively short time for what has been transpiring.
“The shell play started in February of 2011, which is really just a few short years ago,” he said. “There has been $70 billion dollars in upstream, midstream and downstream developments. Upstream is drilling. Midstream is what Nick is talking about, taking raw products, separate into different components and all those things in pure components. Harrison County is kind of ground zero for that. When you look at last nine years, $70 billion is an astonishing number. If you look at this region, including western Pennsylvania and northern West Virginia, it’s the third largest developer in the industry.”
https://www.daily-jeff.com/news/20190331/belmont-cracker-plant-would-impact-economy-throughout-eastern-ohio
-
Houston Chemical Disaster Zone Remains No-Go Two Weeks After Blaze
Mar 31, 2019 | Bloomberg
By Joe Carroll and Kevin Crowley
Two weeks after a chemical storage complex near Houston erupted in flames and menaced tens of thousands of people with dangerous fumes, the site remains too hazardous for investigators to approach.
Intercontinental Terminal Co. is still trying to drain millions of gallons of volatile oil byproducts from tanks damaged in the four-day blaze that began on March 17. The ground around the tanks is also saturated in dangerous fluids, severely restricting access to the facility 20 miles (32 kilometers) east of downtown Houston. On Friday, the company said they may be able to allow some access early this week.
ITC and its top executive, Bernt Netland, have been chastised by elected officials for their handling of the unfolding disaster that cast a mile-high plume of black smoke over the fourth-largest American city for days, paralyzed its eastern suburbs and severed Houston’s waterborne access to the Gulf of Mexico. Harris County Fire Marshal Laurie Christensen’s probe of the event has so far been restricted to off-site interviews.
“We haven’t been able to gain access to the site yet,” said Rachel Moreno, a spokeswoman for the fire marshal. “They’re still doing emergency operations and we need to wait until it’s safe for the investigators to go in.”Benzene Eruptions
Christensen’s investigators won’t enter the site until the remaining tanks are emptied and other hazards have been mitigated, Moreno said. Clouds of cancer-causing benzene have continued to waft over the disaster site as well as nearby factories and suburbs, including one early Friday, according to ITC.
Oil tankers and other ships headed for the manufacturing nexus along the Houston Ship Channel have been backing up in Galveston Bay and the Gulf because of runoff from ITC’s facility that polluted the waterway. The U.S. Coast Guard commander for the region said he doesn’t know when things may return to normal.
Almost 20 miles of rubber barriers have been deployed to halt the spread of the oily sheen and protect oyster beds. Ferry service in the area remains shut down and the annual re-enactment of the 1836 Battle of San Jacinto that won Texas independence from Mexico has been canceled.
ITC, a unit of Japanese conglomerate Mitsui & Co., may be facing billions of dollars in damages, penalties and clean-up costs. Every day the ship channel is closed erases $300 million from the local economy, Harris County Commissioner Adrian Garcia said. And that doesn’t take into account what ITC may owe the companies whose chemicals were burned and lost in the fire and subsequent spill.Owners Notified
Brent Weber, the senior vice president of sales and marketing who’s become the face of ITC’s response, declined to identify the owners of the chemicals, byproducts of the oil-refining process.
“ITC is a storage terminal only so out of respect for our customers’ confidentiality we do not release that information, but, yes, the customers of that product have been notified and we’ve been in constant contact with all of our customers,” Weber said on Friday.
Other entities investigating the incident include the U.S. Chemical Safety Board and the Labor Department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has sued the company for violating air-pollution laws.
Lawmakers may also take ITC leaders to task. State Senator Carol Alvaradowants the company hauled before the Select Committee on Texas Ports that she vice-chairs.
“I’m sure that because of this incident, it’s causing people to pause and maybe rethink some of the infrastructure around” the region, Alvarado said. “Who would have thought that this fire would have caused this ripple effect that is impacting potentially the global market?”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-31/chemical-disaster-zone-remains-no-go-zone-two-weeks-after-blaze
-
Will Rail Freight Service Benefit From Better Technology?
Mar 29, 2019 | FreightWaves
By Jim Blaze
Today, freight railroading has the opportunity to use two business processes to support better customer rail freight service, improve safety and generate higher returns for railroad investors. The senior management of North American railroads can integrate the benefits of precision scheduled railroading (PSR) with the robust new private communications networks and two- to four-meter accuracy of positive train control (PTC) technology.
PSR seeks to improve return on investment with cargo delivery that is more “truck-like” in terms of reliability. The initial PSR results have been financial in nature. Shareholders, rather than freight customers, are receiving the early PSR benefits in the form of higher dividends and increased stock buybacks.
Leaders like Canadian National (CN) chief executive officer Jean-Jacques Ruest are seeking a balanced outcome of increased customer service and returns to shareholders. At a recent Next Generation conference, Ruest stated that the emphasis on PSR cost savings is not sufficient to grow CN’s railway business. He is taking a marketing approach instead of just a financial one.
So far, the “precision” part of PSR has not produced outstanding results. Rail car arrivals at final destinations are not yet “truck-like” (in terms of on-time delivery). By using more scheduled train operations, the arrival time of rail cars at a shipper‘s dock has marginally increased from a range of 50 to 70 percent to a pattern of 75 to 80 percent.
At the same time, financial improvements from the PSR model are producing annual earnings per share increases in the double-digit range. Returns on balance sheet assets have improved from an 8 to 12 percent range to a 15 percent or higher range since PSR was implemented widely.
How can precision scheduled railroading improve even more? The answer is in the roll-out of the PTC safety device system.
The digital age business hypothesis is that PSR and PTC can support each other.
The simple message is that the solution to better precision-like scheduling of freight cars could be satisfied using the precise “GPS-like” features of PTC for train and crew dispatching.
When Congress passed the federal law that mandates PTC (the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008), it wanted a train control system designed for a minimum level of functionality to prevent: train-to-train collisions; over-speed train derailments; incursions into established work zone limits along tracks; and the movement of a train through a switch left in the wrong position that could cause a crash into freight cars on sidings adjacent to warehouses or industrial plants. That was the minimal expected functionality of PTC.
To be blunt, the railroads have collectively failed almost entirely to implement PTC. On October 29, 2015, the Positive Train Control Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015 (PTCEI Act) was signed into law to extend the original statutory deadline for full implementation of PTC systems from December 31, 2015, to December 31, 2018. The PTCEI Act also established six criteria that a railroad must meet in order to qualify for an alternative schedule. Under the terms of the Act, each railroad was to fully implement a PTC system certified by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) on all required main lines by December 31, 2018 (unless the railroad qualified for and obtained FRA’s approval of an alternative schedule). Railroads that received FRA approval must meet a deadline for full PTC system implementation no later than December 31, 2020.
There are 41 railroads that were required by Congress to implement PTC systems by December 31, 2018. Only four railroads self-reported that they fully implemented an FRA-certified and interoperable PTC system on all of their required main lines.
As of December 31, 2018, 33 railroads had submitted a written notification requesting FRA’s review and approval of an alternative schedule, and each railroad provided documentation intended to demonstrate that they met – or, in many cases, exceeded – the six statutory criteria necessary to qualify for an alternative schedule under the PTCEI Act.
Based on FRA’s review of railroads’ supporting documentation, the federal agency had approved nine railroads’ alternative schedules as of December 28, 2018. Among the railroads with approved alternative schedules were: BNSF Railway; Canadian Pacific Railway; CSX Transportation, Inc.; Kansas City Southern Railway; Norfolk Southern Railway; and Union Pacific Railroad.
Yet, PTC with its GPS real-time monitoring could be a game-changer, helping railroads compete against trucking’s superior digital capabilities.
Think of it this way. For many years, any trucking company or trucker using one of multiple GPS packages, or even the Waze app, has been able to track his or her vehicle location with precision. Truck and automobile drivers can estimate their final destination arrival (even if it is hundreds of miles away) within one or two minutes of driving time. Railroads have not been able to do that.
Now they can.
With the PTC navigation aids and a robust private railroad communications system integrated into PTC, railroads can now develop such digital software applications.
To date, only a few railroads (like BNSF) have signaled to their customers and investors that they are committed to both the safety and the improved train and carload movement aspects offered by PTC.
The Holy Grail-like mission of PSR has been to create, then monitor and execute rail carload freight movement using a carload trip plan. The North American railroads have been chasing that goal for about three decades.
The PTC network of GPS constant position-reporting of trains on the rail industry’s private radio network is the missing part.
Leaders like BNSF’s CEO Matt Rose and FRA’s administrator Ron Batory are on record as defining this advanced Next Generation PTC Version Two as an accuracy enabler.
At this time, traditional train dispatching efficiency is only about two-thirds to three-quarters effective according to Zeta Tech Associates Inc studies and other sources.
Typical location information when a train is in a long signal block (perhaps 10 to more than 20 miles long) can be computed with PTC to exact head-end and rear-end location within six to 12 feet of track.
That accuracy improvement can increase the number of trains moved along an otherwise restricted trains-per-day section of railroad. The improvement with software advances can be in the 20 percent or better range.
The possible improved rail yard to rail yard movement and arrival of trains at the next yard or customer delivery point can also be improved. The target for carload freight delivered to a track siding at a plant or warehouse is 85 to 95 percent on-time as originally scheduled in a rail car’s trip plan. Not exactly truck-beating performance. However, it is a huge improvement for freight customers who must suffer with today’s 50 to 60 percent on-time percentages.
What are the key components of PTC that will improve train and carload movement that are different than the use of GPS in trucking?
The critical components of a railroad PTC system are: the on-board engineer’s computer; the private communications digital network; the central dispatcher’s computer console; the back-office data warehouse for PTC “reads/writes” actions; the way side track switch (open or closed) sensors operate; and the continuous GPS “reads” and transmissions.
Railroads won’t need to use cell phones or public cell networks to communicate in real and continuous time with trains.
Writing and testing software to integrate things like rail car weights from automatic equipment identification (AEI) using radio frequency technology into braking algorithms and testing rail car trip plans is going to take some time. Early technical results may still be six months or more away.
The technical delivery of better performance may not come from engineers or marketing folks. It is more likely that systems integrators in the Information Technology departments will create these new digital application packages.
Ironically, the GPS enabler in systems comes from a federally mandated $10 billion capital investment in PTC. This amount equates to a decade or more of railroads’ typical research and development programs, which are generally funded at 1 percent of revenue.
In summary, rail freight could see a 20 to 33 percent improvement in on-time customer arrival service levels. This is still not “truck-like.” But it is much better than today. Railroad car cycle times might improve by 20 to 30 percent.
Therefore, PTC may cause an unexpected commercial utility of GPS data that could pay huge dividends for railroads and their customers. In other words, shippers and freight rail car owners could see a huge productivity gain.
This is a benefit that is long overdue…
https://www.freightwaves.com/news/railroad/will-rail-freight-service-benefit-from-better-technology
-
North Dakota Opposes Oil Train Restriction Proposed in Washington State
Apr 1, 2019 | Bismarck Tribune
By Amy Dalrymple
Legislators in Washington state are considering new regulations to reduce the volatility of Bakken crude oil shipped by rail.
But North Dakota’s top oil regulator says the proposal is not backed by science and he’s requested state dollars to sue the state of Washington if the legislation advances.
The Washington Senate voted last month to require a lower vapor pressure limit for Bakken crude shipped through the state by rail, a measure aimed at protecting communities from fiery derailments.
“People and their safety must come first. Experts know that highly flammable Bakken oil poses greater risk, and it’s time to take meaningful action to reduce the threat of a serious catastrophe,” said Senate Majority Leader Andy Billig, D-Spokane, in a statement after state senators approved the bill.
North Dakota regulations that took effect in 2015 require companies to remove the most volatile gases from Bakken crude oil to ensure the vapor pressure doesn’t exceed 13.7 pounds per square inch.
North Dakota officials set that threshold based on a national standard for stable crude oil, which is 14.7 psi, and taking into account a margin of error of 1 psi for sampling and measuring, said Lynn Helms, director of the Department of Mineral Resources.
Under the bill in the Washington Legislature, a facility may not store or offload crude oil produced from the Bakken unless the oil has a vapor pressure of less than 9 psi.
Helms said removing the light hydrocarbons from Bakken crude to achieve that vapor pressure would “devalue the crude oil immensely.”
“If this becomes law, crude oil will no longer come there from North Dakota. It will find another home because it would be devalued,” Helms told members of the North Dakota Industrial Commission last week.
Helms traveled to Washington last month to testify against the bill now being considered by a House committee.
Helms said he told legislators there is no scientific basis to support a vapor pressure limit of 9 psi. Helms indicated he encouraged legislators to wait for the results of a Sandia National Laboratories study that was commissioned by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Energy.
“I assured them that if that study says something different than what North Dakota has adopted, we would look at making changes,” Helms said.
Refineries in Washington are the top destination for Bakken crude-by-rail deliveries, with an average of 200,000 barrels traveling to the state per day, according to the North Dakota Pipeline Authority. That is the equivalent of about 20 trains per week.
Total daily rail shipments average about 300,000 barrels per day from North Dakota. The West Coast received 62 percent of Bakken crude-by-rail shipments in December, while the East Coast received 28 percent and the Gulf Coast received 10 percent, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Rail transportation of Bakken crude peaked in 2014 at more than 800,000 barrels per day, but rail volumes decreased as the state developed more pipeline capacity.
Helms cautioned that, if Washington were to effectively ban North Dakota crude oil, the refineries there would likely instead import oil from West Africa that would travel on large crude oil carriers through Puget Sound.
Helms said he’s talked to North Dakota’s Senate Appropriations Committee about adding $500,000 to a litigation fund in the event legislators in Washington approve the bill. Helms said North Dakota would “certainly take legal action.”
Billig, the primary sponsor of the legislation, was not available for an interview on Friday. The House committee is expected to take action on the bill this week.
In a press release about the legislation, Washington Senate Democrats cited derailments of Bakken crude oil, including the Lac-Megantic derailment that killed 47 people in 2013.
They also highlighted a 2016 derailment and fire in the Columbia River Gorge in Mosier, Ore., that burned for 14 hours and required the evacuation of much of the town. The Federal Railroad Administration said the Bakken oil on that train had a vapor pressure of 9.2 pounds per square inch.
Previously, a petition led by the attorney general of New York pushed federal authorities to require a Reid Vapor Pressure limit of less than 9 psi. However, the Reid Vapor Pressure is a different method of measurement than what North Dakota uses in its regulations. The Washington legislation does not specify the method of measuring vapor pressure.
Scott Skokos, president of the Dakota Resource Council, also advocated for a lower vapor pressure limit for North Dakota when the state recently considered changes to its oil conditioning rules.
“The 9.0 standard is something many people are thinking about,” Skokos said.
Kari Cutting, vice president of the North Dakota Petroleum Council, said there is no evidence that a vapor pressure of 9 psi improves safety. She said federal rules adopted in 2015 by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration have made crude by rail transportation safer.
“You cannot make crude oil a non-flammable liquid,” Cutting said. “You have to make sure it’s in a robust rail car, that there’s speed restrictions, track maintenance and track inspections.”
https://bismarcktribune.com/bakken/north-dakota-opposes-oil-train-restriction-proposed-in-washington-state/article_31531027-04f4-573f-ace2-d4382e4c42f1.html
-
Global Growth Is Supercharging Emissions — and We’re Running out of Time to Help
Mar 30, 2019 | The Washington Post
The International Energy Agency reported last Monday that global energy-related greenhouse emissions rose 1.7 percent in 2018. The robust global economy spiked demand for energy, which increased 2.3 percent, and fossil fuels met most of that demand. Global coal use ticked up 0.7 percent, almost entirely in China and India. In the United States, oil and natural gas consumption increased. The world must find a way to grow without supercharging greenhouse emissions.
Another major contributing factor to the increase in energy demand was an uptick in heating and air conditioning in response to record-breaking temperature anomalies in some areas. This suggests that global warming will create a vicious cycle in which temperature extremes encourage greater use of heating oil, electricity and other fuels to control interior environmental conditions. If greater use of heating and air conditioning results in more greenhouse emissions, the long-term need for artificial temperature regulation will only increase.
Breaking the link between economic growth and greenhouse emissions will require more effort than world governments are applying. That starts with the United States, which is the largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases. Republican views on climate change run from rank denial — President Trump — to well-meaning timidity — Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who just released a welcome but far-from-comprehensive plan to boost clean-energy research. Democrats agree on the problem but are struggling to resist an unhelpful far-left takeover of climate policy. More importantly, they cannot legislate without greater GOP buy-in.
But the time in which global warming could be construed as mainly a challenge for the big Western economies is long past. More than any others, China and India hold the climate’s future in their hands. China, the world’s largest current greenhouse-gas emitter, generates four times as much coal-fired electricity as the United States does, and a major industrial group just proposed hiking that by a third. There is also evidence that building has resumed on coal-fired power plants on which the Chinese government had previously halted construction. India, meanwhile, is also boosting coal consumption, and it lacks China’s commitment to a vast increase in renewables. China and India face huge challenges in raising their millions out of poverty. But it would be foolhardy to do so at the expense of future generations’ well-being.
Now would be the time for a global leader to pressure these governments to take the long view. But even if the U.S. president cared to do so, the United States lacks the moral authority because the federal government is doing far too little to cut emissions at home. The Paris agreement was supposed to provide a forum in which to pressure big emitters to clean up their act, but the United States has renounced the global accord.
There is not much time left to change this picture.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/global-growth-is-supercharging-emissions--and-were-running-out-of-time-to-help/2019/03/30/5465fc24-5189-11e9-a3f7-78b7525a8d5f_story.html?utm_term=.b6b95ebe972d
-
EPA Defends Air Permit ‘Significant Impact Levels’ Against Sierra Club Suit
Mar 29, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA, backed by the oil industry, is defending its use of “significant impact levels” (SILs) -- a screening tool to exempt industry air permit applicants from undergoing a full analysis of likely emissions impacts of their projects -- against environmentalist litigation arguing the tool allows unlawful increases in pollution.
State and federal air regulators use SILs to determine whether the likely emissions effect of a new or modified air pollution source would necessitate a full-blown cumulative impacts analysis. These analyses are onerous and time-consuming, and they can impede construction of projects should the total projected additional emissions exceed certain thresholds.
Under the new source review (NSR) permit program, applicants must demonstrate that their emissions will not result in a violation of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). In areas meeting the NAAQS, projects must not exceed the available “increment,” or maximum allowable increase, of air pollution, lest they contribute to a NAAQS exceedance. NSR requires permit applicants in such areas to apply for prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permits.
SILs, a device long used by EPA, allow projects to escape full NSR review if their projected emissions standards are less than the level deemed “significant,” and hence de minimis.
In Sierra Club v. EPA, environmentalists are urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to vacate EPA’s April 2018 guidance setting SILs for both ozone and particulate matter (PM) in the PSD program.
The memo “authorizes permitting authorities to skip the required demonstration and allow construction of a proposed source if the source shows its individual air pollution impact is less than a SIL, without looking at whether a NAAQS or increment violation will actually occur or worsen. The SILs Memo thus illegally abrogates the Clean Act’s primary way of preventing significant deterioration,” Sierra Club said in its Nov. 9 opening brief.
The group says the memo contravenes the Clean Air Act’s requirement that projects do not “cause or contribute to” exceedances of NAAQS or increments.
But in its March 26 brief, EPA says the guidance is not “final agency action” subject to judicial review. The memo merely provides recommendations to air regulators, the agency says, and is not legally binding. Also, “SILs have been used for decades, consistent with EPA regulations,” and the 2018 guidance merely sets new thresholds for ozone and PM SILs. EPA says this refutes Sierra Club’s claim that the agency is advancing a “novel methodology disconnected from the statute.”
Substantively, EPA relies on claimed statutory ambiguity to defend the legality of SILs. The guidance “is consistent with the Court’s case law finding that the term ‘contribute’ does not have a plain and obvious meaning and is ambiguous in the context of air pollutant emissions,” EPA says.
Therefore, “EPA reasonably interprets the language to allow permitting authorities to conclude that modeled air quality impacts below the recommended SILs, based on consideration of the facts in each permitting action and the statistical analysis developed by EPA, do not cause or contribute to a violation in the modeled area.”
‘Valuable Benefits’
The American Petroleum Institute (API) in a March 25 amicus brief backs EPA. “SILs are expertly determined threshold values permitting agencies may rely on to approve proposed projects with de minimis emissions, without forcing applicants to model all sources of emissions within a radius of up to 50 kilometers of the project,” API says.
“The SILs approach -- which permitting agencies have lawfully used since the inception of the PSD program in 1977 -- provides valuable benefits to applicants and agencies alike. This Court should reaffirm that permitting agencies can continue using SILs as they have for decades,” API says.
The D.C. Circuit has previously vacated and remanded individual SIL values to EPA as arbitrary, but has not rejected the concept of SILs itself. In its January 2013 ruling in a suit also styled Sierra Club v. EPA, the court agreed with the Obama EPA that the agency’s own 2010 rule on PM2.5 SILs should not have granted a blanket exemption from PSD review for sources emitting under the SILs.
In his opinion for the court, Judge David Sentelle vacated and remanded the PM SILs at issue. “We disagree with the Sierra Club that it is necessary to decide the EPA's authority to promulgate SILs at this point. To do so would require that we answer a question not prudentially ripe for determination,” Sentelle wrote.
On remand, “EPA may promulgate regulations that do not include SILs or do include SILs that do not allow the construction or modification of a source to evade the requirements of the Act as do the SILs in the current rule. In such an event, we would not need to address the universal disallowance of all de minimis authority,” Sentelle adds.
The current lawsuit, however, addresses a guidance, rather than regulation, allowing EPA to claim that the policy is non-binding and leaves to discretion of regulators whether emissions “cause or contribute” to NAAQS violations.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-defends-air-permit-%E2%80%98significant-impact-levels%E2%80%99-against-sierra-club-suit
-
D.C. Circuit Poised to Hear Suit Over Ending ‘Once in’ Air Toxics Policy
Mar 29, 2019 | Inside EPA
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is poised to hear oral argument April 1 in a suit filed by California and environmentalists over EPA air chief Bill Wehrum’s memo scrapping a “once in, always in” policy, which critics say makes it easier for facilities to escape strict air toxics controls by lowering emissions.
The long-running policy held that industrial sectors subject to strict Clean Air Act maximum achievable control technology (MACT) emissions standards as “major” air toxics sources must always adhere to those limits, even if they reduce emissions below the air law’s major source threshold. Supporters say the policy helps to ensure that regulated facilities always keep air toxics emissions low to best protect human health.
But industries argue that it is unfair to keep facilities subject to MACT standards if they cut emissions enough to qualify as “area” sources, which are generally subject to less-stringent controls.
Wehrum agreed, and on Jan. 25 he issued a memo ending the long-standing once in, always in policy and clearing the path for companies to escape MACT controls if they reduce emissions sufficiently. Wehrum in the memo argued that scrapping the policy could help to reduce regulatory burdens on affected facilities.
The agency is also pursuing a formal rulemaking to codify the contents of the memo, sending it for mandatory White House pre-publication review in February.
California and environmental groups sued over the Wehrum memo in the D.C. Circuit, which will have to weigh whether the memo is subject to judicial review and, if so, consider the merits of the petitioners’ attacks on the memo.
Critics say Wehrum’s memo is procedurally flawed and based on an incorrect interpretation of the Clean Air Act, and that it is unlawful to allow facilities subject to MACT standards to escape those controls by reducing emissions. They also say that the memo is a final agency action the D.C. Circuit can review.
Wehrum’s memo “bears the hallmarks of a final agency action: it is ‘effective immediately’ and binds the agency, in this instance, to a definitive reversal of a legal determination it applied for [23] years. The possibility of a future formal rulemaking does not alter the finality of EPA’s action. Review of EPA’s action is ripe because it presents a presumptively reviewable legal question under the Clean Air Act,” California argued last month.
EPA counters that the memo is a non-binding document exempt from judicial review, and points to the fact it is developing a rule on this topic that opponents could litigate once the agency finalizes it.
Even if the court rejects that argument and proceeds to consider the merits of the memo, the agency in a December brief argued that Wehrum’s decision is lawful. The memo “merely communicates EPA’s plain-language reading” of the air law, “which will, in turn, be applied in subsequent administrative actions -- it is neither a legislative rule that required notice and comment nor a final action subject to immediate judicial review,” the agency says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/dc-circuit-poised-hear-suit-over-ending-%E2%80%98once-%E2%80%99-air-toxics-policy
-
Global GHG Offset Program Is on Life Support
Apr 1, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Nathanial Gronewold
The United Nations' signature greenhouse gas emissions offsetting program is slowly dying.
The Clean Development Mechanism was born from the Kyoto Protocol. It will quietly end in 2020, when the protocol is set to be overtaken by the Paris climate accord, unless the program's proponents can convince governments to let it live on as a means to cover emissions from the fast-growing aviation sector.
Some nations want to see the CDM continue under the Paris Agreement. But the program's harshest critics are pushing back, and the chances of keeping the CDM alive in its current form are diminishing.
CDM credits, called Certified Emission Reductions (CERs), are virtually banned from the European Union's carbon market. Prices for CERs have crashed, and monitors report that some projects are shutting down because they can't afford to continue without revenue from the sale of offsetting credits. The credits used to trade for around $10 but now go for well under $1 (trading is conducted in euros).
New project registrations have dried up completely. The last project — an energy efficiency initiative in Hyderabad, India — was registered in July 2018. There are now no new offsetting projects requesting admission into the system, according to the CDM's data.
"I think there's a strong voice now from civil society that's been calling for an end to the CDM for a long time," said Gilles Dufrasne, a policy officer with Carbon Market Watch. "There's a lot of uncertainty around whether it's going to continue operating and what is going to be used after 2020."
The CDM was designed to offset industrialized countries' greenhouse gas emissions while spreading the benefits of renewable energy and "green" technology to the developing world. Through the mechanism, wealthy nations could partially meet their emissions reduction goals — either through developing offsetting projects directly or by financing projects through the purchase of CERs from third-party developers. Offices of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bonn, Germany, vet and regulate projects and credits.
Over 8,000 projects have registered since the CDM's launch; at least 7,800 remain in the system. More than 80 percent of the offsetting projects are located in the Asia-Pacific region.
Since its origin, billions of dollars in proceeds for CER sales have flowed to developers and carbon market traders. Efforts are underway to see that flow continue, mainly via the International Civil Aviation Organization. ICAO is finalizing a new Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation, or CORSIA. The organization agreed to offsetting project eligibility criteria during closed-door negotiations in March.
But skeptics don't think CDM projects meet this criteria. And if ICAO bends the rules enough to ensure they do, then critics warn a flood of CDM credits could swamp CORSIA, allowing airlines to purchase cheap, old offsets while achieving no actual new net greenhouse gas emissions reductions.
Carsten Warnecke, who worked on the Clean Development Mechanism in the past and is now a founding partner of the NewClimate Institute, said the mechanism's future is up to the parties to the UNFCCC.
"There is no reason to operate two systems, two mechanisms in parallel," Warnecke said. "One should replace the other."
There's a chance that nations will use negotiations over Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which allows nations to create market-based carbon mechanisms, to start anew. Some of the CDM's legacy could continue, but newer, stricter criteria would be used to underwrite new projects. The fate of legacy CERs and older projects remains an open question.Controversy
The CDM has been plagued by controversy from almost the beginning.
Environmentalists fumed when the mechanism awarded so-called clean coal projects CER credits on the argument that newer technology emitted less carbon dioxide than older plants. A more devastating blow came when outside observers noticed that the vast majority of credits were flowing to a small number of industrial refrigerant gas manufacturers. It was later determined that companies were arbitrarily manufacturing listed greenhouse gases for the sole purpose of destroying them to be awarded CERs.
The industrial gas scheme has been corrected and is no longer an issue, Dufrasne said. But he said a question of the "additionality" of projects lingers. Essentially, it is too easy for projects that would have existed anyway without the CDM to register and obtain credits. The general expectation is that the program finances projects that otherwise wouldn't be viable.
Over time, the Clean Development Mechanism lost favor in the E.U. Emissions Trading System (ETS). At first, only certified "green CERs" were allowed into that market, meaning credits not obtained from coal or other questionable projects. Now, very few ETS authorities will accept any CER use by regulated entities.
A new blow comes from Asia, where most CDM projects are found and where airline travel is expanding most rapidly in line with swiftly growing economies. But interest has evaporated there, as well.
China, India, South Korea and Indonesia were once enthusiastic participants (along with Brazil), but are no more. For all of 2018, just six new projects were registered. Only about 40 projects were registered in the year prior, mostly in India. None have registered this year so far.
In contrast, the CDM once registered hundreds of projects each year, with requests coming in so frequently that its Executive Board and administrators found themselves overwhelmed and struggling to cope with the backlog.
The CDM's Executive Board met in Bonn last week, but its agenda was thin. No new projects are requesting registration, and none are up for review, according to the mechanism's records. The CDM's online records show that projects are more likely to be deregistered lately than issued new CERs: Nine projects in South Korea, India and Thailand were deregistered last year.'CDM does not meet those criteria'
The International Civil Aviation Organization is hosting a meeting in Seoul, South Korea, this week to discuss CORSIA's future in the Asia-Pacific region. Fans of the Clean Development Mechanism are hopeful that governments will breathe new life into it via the developing aviation emissions rules.
Dufrasne, however, doesn't see that happening.
CORSIA "has set out clear criteria that the programs must meet, and I think that it's pretty clear that the CDM does not meet those criteria, so it shouldn't be eligible," he argued. "I don't think the CDM is fit for purpose for functioning after 2020."
Warnecke and his colleagues also warn that any unlimited use of CERs into the new CORSIA system would render the aviation climate change initiative useless.
In a letter published in the journal Nature Climate Change, NewClimate Institute, the Stockholm Environment Institute and the Environmental Systems Analysis Group at Wageningen University and Research caution that CORSIA must enforce strict criteria for eligibility, which most existing credits may not meet. Ideally, only projects registered after 2020 would pass scrutiny, they argue.
If not, "offset supply from already implemented greenhouse gas abatement projects registered under the Clean Development Mechanism alone could exceed demand from International Civil Aviation Organization's scheme," the three organizations warn in their letter. They say applying older CDM projects and credits would result in "no notable emissions reductions beyond those that would occur anyway and neither offer incentives for new investments nor reward previous investments in offset projects."
In other words, an already oversupplied credit market would drag the aviation emissions program down with it.
Warnecke clarified that his institute takes no position on whether or not the Clean Development Mechanism should continue or be allowed to die. He is making the case that CORSIA criteria need to be robust if the ICAO hopes to make any real impact on the climate change problem.
"If the CDM will continue and we will see new offsets being generated after 2020, that's a question that needs to be addressed by the UNFCCC and that's not yet decided," he said.
Dufrasne and Carbon Market Watch, by contrast, want to see the Clean Development Mechanism ended for good. He says the Climate Action Network, an alliance of over 1,000 global nongovernmental organizations, agrees.
Dufrasne said it would make sense for the institutional capacity that the CDM created in Bonn continue, but under an entirely different system and operating under new rules and criteria.
In other words, if the CDM is on life support, then nations should pull the plug, Dufrasne argued.
"We think that none of the credits in the CDM should be eligible after 2020," he said. "All projects, methodologies and all infrastructure that is used for the CDM should be reassessed against whatever rules and criteria are agreed upon under Article 6."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/04/01/stories/1060137847
-
Messaging War Continues With Trio of Hearings
Apr 1, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, a 2020 Democratic presidential contender, will headline another busy week for climate on Capitol Hill.
He will testify tomorrow at a hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change to examine state and local action on climate change — one of a trio of House climate messaging hearings slated for this week.
The Foreign Affairs Committee will also take a look at the effects of climate change on national security. And after an organizational meeting last week, the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis will hold its first hearing, featuring "young leaders" who are urging Congress to act on climate change.
It's all part of a Democratic caucuswide effort to message on climate change, but policy substance may be hard to come by. The party does not have a comprehensive plan on hand to address climate change, as some activists may have hoped, and Democrats are taking their time.
Rather, with a divided Congress unlikely to pass much of anything, party leaders have indicated that they will take a piecemeal approach to climate, saving broader — and potentially divisive — measures until after the 2020 elections.
Inslee's testimony could demonstrate exactly why leadership is taking that approach.
As governor, he has repeatedly failed to implement carbon pricing schemes, most recently as a ballot measure that was soundly defeated in the 2018 midterms (Climatewire, Jan. 18).
And as a member of the House, Inslee was a prominent supporter of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill that floundered in the Senate in 2009.
Republicans on the committee are likely to probe him on those initiatives. While the subcommittee's Republicans have almost unanimously acknowledged the existence of man-made climate change in recent months, they still generally oppose carbon pricing.
They have also spoken out strongly against the Green New Deal, the ambitious progressive climate plan, which Inslee has praised as a presidential candidate.
Still, the hearing will be another step in the slow plod toward climate legislation by subcommittee Chairman Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) .
Tonko is a co-sponsor on H.R. 9, the climate bill that leadership unveiled last week to go alongside other messaging bills on elections and campaign finance and gun control.
Lawmakers from both parties have introduced various other measures to price carbon or fund grants for climate adaptation. But in a sign of leadership's more cautious approach, H.R. 9 is not the kind of major climate legislation that environmental activists have been pushing for years.
It would attempt to prevent the Trump administration from pulling out of the Paris climate agreement and give it 120 days to come up with a plan to reduce emissions (Greenwire, March 27).
Still, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) made clear last week that she wants every committee chair to hold climate hearings.
Pelosi suggested that effort, continuing this week, may yield a bill to reduce emissions on the scale scientists say is neccessary to curb catastrophic climate change.
"This bill yesterday was not our bill," Pelosi said of H.R. 9. "This bill was announcing the continuation of the hearings that we're having on the climate crisis, whether we're dealing with it in terms of a public health issue, a national security issue, an economic issue to create jobs or a moral issue to preserve the planet."
"But from our standpoint, we've only just begun," she added.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/04/01/stories/1060137483
-
Group Tied to Shadowy Network Created $93T Estimate
Apr 1, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
What's in a number?
When it comes to the $93 trillion estimate for the Green New Deal, created by its critics, the answer is found in a network of interlinked groups: a think tank, its political arm and a super political action committee. Add a web of secret donors, and eager lawmakers, and you have the blurry outlines of an echo chamber that propels an unverified claim into the orbit of Washington politics.
Round and round it goes.
The price tag was tallied by the American Action Forum. The group, which counted Elaine Chao as a director until shortly before she became President Trump's Transportation secretary, has received financial support from conservative groups that fund political attacks through undisclosed donors. They, in turn, have sometimes been funded by fossil fuel lobbying interests opposed to environmental regulations.
The $93 trillion price tag exemplifies the way political arguments flow in Washington — on both sides of the aisle. Some of the deadliest ammunition against policy proposals often come from think tanks that are connected to other ideologically driven groups and propped up by unknown funders.
"The problem is there is a whole lot of money sloshing around Washington, and it usually represents the interests of individuals and interests with a whole lot of money, and it tilts the system away from ordinary Americans," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, which advocates for reducing the influence of big money in politics.
In this case, the estimated cost of the Green New Deal was produced by a think tank whose status as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit prohibits it from getting involved in politics. That's not the case for its sister organization, the similarly named American Action Network. It's also a nonprofit, but its designation as a 501(c)(4) allows it to be an "action tank" that's able to use some political language.
Then there's the network's super PAC. The Congressional Leadership Fund is purely political, and it's been running attack ads against Democrats and the Green New Deal — even if those lawmakers haven't endorsed the ambitious climate plan.
Collectively, the three groups represent a nexus of potent Washington interests that are bankrolled by anonymous donors who have given the network millions of dollars. It's not an unusual story. It happens all the time in the realm of Washington politics, by both political parties.
The American Action Forum — which created the questionable estimate of $93 trillion — has received several million dollars from its sister group, the American Action Network. The two organizations share board members and the same address on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C. The American Action Forum does the wonky work, while the American Action Network takes "direct action" politically.
"AAF will stay neutral in elections, and by and large will leave its sister organization, the American Action Network, to engage in any appropriate direct legislative advocacy in support of the policy proposals it discusses," the group states on its website.'They want to take away your car'
Those political attacks are sometimes informed by the number-crunching work of the nonpolitical think tank. In this case, the $93 trillion estimate for the Green New Deal bounced from its offices on Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol, and beyond.
On Friday, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said in a tweet that the Green New Deal would increase the cost of electricity for every Texan up to $3,800 annually. He cited the American Action Forum, whose president concedes that the price tag is just a guess.
Last month, a group of House Republicans held a press event to rail against the Green New Deal, with one criticizing it as "genocide."
Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) challenged Democrats to prove that the price tag was wrong.
"The Democrats and their allies dispute the various estimates that show the Green New Deal would cost $93 trillion, then I say one thing, prove it," he said. "Let's see your numbers, let's hold hearings, let's pull the curtain back and see where the socialist Democrats stand and how the American people might feel about a 22 percent increase in their energy costs. Frankly, House Democrats, I think, are afraid to have this debate in public and in their committees."
President Trump has also cited the figure.
"They want to take away your car, reduce the value of your home and put millions of Americans out of work, spend $100 trillion, which, by the way, there's no such thing as $100 trillion," Trump said at a rally in Texas last month.
Activists and the roughly 100 Democratic lawmakers who support the Green New Deal have not put a price on the ambitious plan. So far it's just a resolution, and supporters say it's a starting point for a larger conversation around legislation to address climate change. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has not put a price on the plan either.
A valid cost estimate of the Green New Deal can't happen until specific proposals are released with a timetable for their completion, said Robert Stavins, director of Harvard University's Environmental Economics Program.
"Given that the Green New Deal proposal itself is nothing more nor less than an outline of some long-term goals without there being any detailed description or even general specification of how the goals would be achieved with specific public policy and specific action, any kind of estimate of the cost is going to be exceptionally speculative," he said.
Until then, the $93 trillion number will remain part of the nation's political dialogue. The economist who oversaw the estimate, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said his group, the American Action Forum, crunched the numbers without any input from its politically active sister organizations.
His group, he said, operates independently from the American Action Network and is not connected to the Congressional Leadership Fund. He denied that they operate as some sort of nexus, though it does approach policy from the center-right.
"Our donors, the people who fund us, are a collection of individuals, trade groups and corporations, and we're missing the traditional support that foundations have," Holtz-Eakin said. "It is easy for this to be portrayed as shady, I get that."
Nevertheless, the three organizations — the think tank, the "action tank" and the super PAC — share a web of connections.
Fred Malek, a longtime Republican donor and former CEO of Marriott hotels who died last week, was chairman of the American Action Forum. He also co-founded the American Action Network and was chairman of the Congressional Leadership Fund.
Former Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman (R) is listed as sitting on the board of the American Action Forum. He's also chairman of the American Action Network and a co-founder of the Congressional Leadership Fund.
Dan Coston is president of the American Action Network and the Congressional Leadership Fund. Coston raised $213 million for the two organizations in the last election cycle, according to the groups. The super PAC received money from Chevron Corp., ConocoPhillips, Occidental Petroleum Corp., Marathon Petroleum Corp., Koch Industries Inc. and Alliance Coal LLC, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
The Congressional Leadership Fund shares some staff members with the American Action Network, according to tax documents. The group is located at the same address as the American Action Network and the American Action Forum.
The three groups are also linked by money.
The American Action Network donated more than $4 million to the American Action Fund between 2012 and 2017, according to tax records and the Center for Responsive Politics. And during the last election cycle, the American Action Network gave $25 million to the Congressional Leadership Fund.
The super PAC is running attack ads against the Green New Deal — and Democratic lawmakers.Millions or trillions?
Within days of the Green New Deal's unveiling, the Congressional Leadership Fund launched attack ads against vulnerable House Democrats. It tried to connect the climate plan to joblessness. The ads targeted two black members of Congress and showed an image of a homeless white man. Neither of the lawmakers, Reps. Antonio Delgado (D-N.Y.) and Colin Allred (D-Texas), has co-sponsored the plan.
The American Action Fund estimated that the Green New Deal could cost between $51 trillion and $93 trillion. It assumes that much of those costs will come from policy ideas unconnected to climate. It estimated that the plan's call for universal health care would cost $36 trillion, guaranteed jobs would cost $6.8 trillion to $44.6 trillion, and a low-carbon power grid would cost $5.4 trillion. A green housing program would cost $1.6 trillion to $4.2 trillion, and a net-zero transportation system would cost $1.3 trillion to $2.7 trillion, according to the American Action Fund.
"Given the attention the GND has received, it is worth assessing its proposals, yet its breadth makes it daunting to apply the standard tools of policy analysis," the group acknowledges in its analysis.
The group's president, Holtz-Eakin, an economist who headed the Congressional Budget Office under President George W. Bush, said he was trying to create a cost spectrum of the Green New Deal. He acknowledges that the estimate is imprecise.
"I think of this as answering the question 'Is this a proposal that's going to cost tens of millions of dollars or tens of billions of dollars or tens of trillions of dollars?' and to my eye, the answer is the latter, and it informs the debate in that way," he said in an interview. "For me, the order of magnitude matters the most."
Holtz-Eakin has been critical of climate science while also recognizing that increased carbon dioxide emissions pose an economic threat. He was the chief economist for the presidential campaign of the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), and he advocated for a limited carbon tax in the past.
He says his group is not influenced by its political sister, the American Action Network.
The American Action Network does not disclose its donors. But tax returns show that it's received money from fossil fuels groups. The American Petroleum Institute donated $250,000 in 2012, and the American Natural Gas Alliance gave $35,000 in 2010, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
The American Action Network has also received millions of dollars from conservative dark money groups that don't disclose their donors. That includes $500,000 from Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, an offspring of the American Crossroads super PAC founded by Karl Rove.
Meanwhile, the American Action Forum received at least $150,000 from Donors Trust, which in turn received millions of dollars from the Koch brothers network, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
There is no indication that any of the groups have violated the law. And there are similar groups on the left that share board members between educational arms and super PACs. The Sierra Club does not disclose all of its donors, and it has an affiliated super PAC, Sierra Club Independent Action.
For decades, clean-government groups have called on organizations like the American Action Network to reveal their funders, said Wertheimer, the president of Democracy 21. Innocuous-sounding names leave the public guessing about a group's political motivations, he said.
"It bothers people to see ads running by groups that are taking potentially controversial positions without knowing who's funding them, particularly if the groups have names that don't tell you much," Wertheimer said. "If you had the name that said 'energy companies for fossil fuels,' you would know what they're about regardless of who is funding them."
The American Action Forum, American Action Network and Congressional Leadership Fund are part of a common template orbiting the federal government, said Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a law professor at Stetson University and author of "Corporate Citizen? An Argument for the Separation of Corporation and State."
Each arm operates independently and performs its specialized functions in accordance with the law. Though they're technically separate, the work of one feeds the other, providing fuel for a policy fight and the financial muscle to wage battle against political adversaries.
"There are a lot of people with Ph.D.s, or law degrees for that matter, who will write you a white paper for enough money," Torres-Spelliscy said. "You can think about the entire climate change 'debate.' It's not a real debate among serious scientists, but you have a few fringy ones who will take the money and run, and dispute what 99 percent of real scientists think, and then it gets couched in our political discourse as if it's a real scientific debate when it's not."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/04/01/stories/1060137815
-
New York State Bans Single-Use Plastic Bags
Apr 1, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Keshia Clukey
Single-use plastic bags will be banned in New York State as of March 2020 under a deal reached as part of the state’s $175.5 billion budget.
The announcement from legislative leaders on the 2019-20 spending plan came in the early hours of March 31. The deal was struck between Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) and Senate and Assembly majority leaders.
The legislation, part of the Transportation, Economic Development and Environmental Conservation budget bill, passed in the Assembly 100 to 42, and Senate 39 to 22, according to unofficial vote tallies. It will now go to Cuomo for approval.
New York is the second state, after California, to ban single-use plastic bags.
The ban includes bags provided at the checkout of grocery stores, convenience stores, retailers, and superstores such as Walmart. It does not affect bags used for restaurant carryout orders, those used to package things like raw meat or produce, or provided by pharmacies to carry prescription drugs.
Under the legislation, counties and cities can opt to place a 5-cent fee on paper bags, 3 cents of which will go to the state’s Environmental Protection Fund and 2 cents will stay in the locality to fund a reusable distribution bag program for low and fixed-income consumers. If a locality does not run a program, that money will go to the state to fund a reusable bag program in that area. Smaller local government entities such as towns and villages can make the decision to opt in, and the retailer will keep the fee revenue.
The fee will not apply to customers using supplemental nutrition assistance programs.
Reusable Bags to Become ‘Commonplace’“When we look back a few years from now, it’s just going to be commonplace for people to have reusable bags with them,” Sen. Todd Kaminsky (D-Long Beach), chairman of the Senate Environmental Conservation Committee, said in an interview.
While environmental groups applauded the move, it elicited concerns from the business community.
For Avi Kaner, co-owner of Morton Williams supermarkets, the ban will mean spending more on bags, with paper bags costing about 10.5 cents and plastic about 2.5 cents, he said.
“It’s a substantially higher cost to the retailer as supermarkets are closing right and left in New York City,” Kaner said. “This puts yet a further strain on supermarket economics in the city.”
The family-owned chain has 15 supermarkets located primarily in Manhattan, and one in New Jersey. Additional regulations and expenses for supermarkets have placed added pressure on the industry, Kaner said, adding that Morton Williams plans to close its store in the Bronx next month because it can’t keep up with rising costs.
Kaner said the fee should go to the retailer to make up for the added costs.
‘Good Start’Darren Suarez, senior director of government affairs for the Business Council of New York State, said his group would have preferred a phase-in to allow for consumers to adjust to the change.
“Overall we’re interested in seeing growth in legislation that encourages more individual stewardship, so that there is not continued growth in this space or another space on solid waste, that replaces individual behavior with state action,” Suarez said.
The New York City Council had passed legislation in 2016 to impose a fee of 5 cents per bag, however it was blocked by the state Legislature and governor, who then put in place a task force to look into options for a statewide plan.
Environmental groups said the legislation should have required a statewide fee on paper bags, as California did.
“It’s a little at risk how effective this is going to be statewide, because counties are going to have to opt into the fee,” said Liz Moran, New York Public Interest Research Group policy director. “At the end of the day what pays the price is the environment. Paper bags are very water intensive, they’re carbon intensive and so consequently we have a lot of similar concerns to plastic bags with paper. Banning the plastic bags is a good start, but we’re worried the state will have to come back to the drawing board on the 5-cent fee.”
The budget also did not include legislation expanding the 5-cent fee on bottles to include noncarbonated, nonalcoholic beverages such as juices, sports drinks, cider, tea, and coffee.
One version of the expansion of the Returnable Container Act, commonly referred to as the Bottle Bill, would also place a fee on wine, hard cider, and liquor bottles, among other changes. Lawmakers have indicated they wanted to discuss the legislation outside of the budget.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/new-york-state-bans-single-use-plastic-bags-1
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested