Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - April 3, 2019
-
Interior Dept. Watchdog Reviewing Allegations That Acting Secretary Violated Trump Ethics Pledge
Apr 3, 2019 | Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin
The Interior Department’s Office of Inspector General is reviewing allegations that acting secretary David Bernhardt may have violated his ethics pledge by weighing in on issues affecting a former client, the office confirmed Tuesday. -
EPA to Finalise 13 Snurs in the Face of NGO Protest
Apr 3, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA is set to finalise 13 TSCA significant new use rules (Snurs) issued in the absence of consent orders, despite NGO concern that such an approach is "unlawful". Proposed in October last year, the rules represent the first... -
Part 3: Busting More Industry-Perpetrated Myths About New Chemicals and Worker Protection Under TSCA
Apr 3, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
I have been blogging in the last few weeks about myths the chemical industry is perpetrating about the adequacy and legality of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent reviews of the risks that chemicals just entering the... -
Wheeler Sees Problems in Kigali Amendment on HFCs
Apr 3, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Alex Guillén
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler today said he believes there are legal and regulatory problems related to the proposed Kigali amendment to the Montreal Protocol that aims to phase down use of the hydrofluorocarbons. -
US Stakeholders Launch Ingredient Transparency Initiative
Apr 3, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
US organisations Clean Production Action and the Interstate Chemicals Clearinghouse are partnering to develop "a set of common principles and data practices" around chemical ingredient transparency. Finding "common ground among... -
EU Considers Implementing Regulation on REACH Authorisation Changes
Apr 3, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The EU is considering drafting an implementing Regulation to clarify that companies may need to apply for a review of their authorisation decisions if they increase their use of authorised substances. In a paper submitted to a meeting of... -
New York Cautions FERC on Waiving State's Constitution Pipe Review
Apr 3, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
New York regulators warned FERC this week that if it waives the state’s water quality certification (WQC) review for the Constitution Pipeline project it should expect a swift appeal to the courts, where the state argues a waiver would stand... -
Some Frack-Sand Miners, Facing Excess Supply, Seek New Markets
Apr 3, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Wethe
For the last six years, Kevin Bowen has made good money selling sand to shale frackers who use it for drilling. It was hard not to. The industry has been booming in the oil fields of West Texas. But today the U.S. frack-sand industry... -
California's Oil Industry Collapses Despite Shale Boom
Apr 3, 2019 | Rigzone
By Jude Clemente
Not that long ago, California was the second most vital U.S. oil producing state. Since peaking in 1985, however, output has plunged almost 60 percent to 460,000 barrels per day (bpd). This collapse is made even more discouraging by the... -
Film Focuses on Human Impact of ANWR Drilling
Apr 3, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Kellie Lunney
A new short film focuses on an Alaska Native community's anxiety over its long-term food security and survival after Congress voted in 2017 to open part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration. The 13-minute... -
What We Know About the Company Behind the KMCO Crosby Plant Fire
Apr 3, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
The Crosby chemical plant where a fire Tuesday killed one and injured two is owned by the specialty chemical company KMCO LLC, a subsidiary of an Austin private investment firm. KMCO's CEO John C. Foley early Tuesday... -
Worker Killed in Texas Chemicals Plant Fire
Apr 3, 2019 | The Chemical Engineer
By Adam Duckett
ONE worker has been killed and two seriously injured in a chemicals plant fire in Texas, US. The incident at the plant in Crosby run by KMCO occurred at around 10am local time on 2 April. Crosby is around 40 km northeast of Houston and... -
State Sues over Deadly Texas Plant Fire
Apr 3, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
The state of Texas has filed a court petition seeking action against a company whose plant caught fire near Houston yesterday. One worker was killed and two were injured critically in the fire at the KMCO chemical plant in Crosby.. -
Ewire: Trump Seeking Climate 'Victories' Ahead of 2020 Campaign
Apr 3, 2019 | Inside EPA
President Donald Trump's re-election effort is reportedly seeking a list of climate change “victories” he can tout on the 2020 campaign trail, even as the president repeatedly questions mainstream climate science and mocks low-carbon... -
Democratic Seat-Flippers Taking a Pass on Green New Deal
Apr 3, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
Rep. Mike Levin (Calif.) is one of only two co-sponsors of the Green New Deal resolution representing a district that flipped from Republican to Democrat in the 2018 midterm elections. It’s not an unusual position for him. Levin... -
2020 Democrats Go Silent After Senate’s Green New Deal Debacle
Apr 3, 2019 | Roll Call
By David Winston
In the awkward aftermath of the Green New Deal’s rollout, perhaps the most appropriate question for its supporters, especially the Democratic presidential field, is one often posed by tennis bad boy John McEnroe: “You cannot be... -
Paris Climate Bill to Get Vote in Early May, House Chairman Says
Apr 3, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
ouse leaders are pushing to bring the first Democratic climate legislation of this Congress to the floor in the first week of May, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said April 3. The bill, H.R. 9, would put the U.S... -
EPA-Funded Group: Life Expectancy Shrinking Because of Bad Air
Apr 3, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Dirty air will shave almost two years off the average life expectancy of a child born today, according to a worldwide overview that finds that nations are making uneven progress toward confronting the problem. Overall, indoor and...
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Interior Dept. Watchdog Reviewing Allegations That Acting Secretary Violated Trump Ethics Pledge
Apr 3, 2019 | Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin
The Interior Department’s Office of Inspector General is reviewing allegations that acting secretary David Bernhardt may have violated his ethics pledge by weighing in on issues affecting a former client, the office confirmed Tuesday.
The move comes as the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is preparing to vote Thursday on whether to confirm Bernhardt as the next interior secretary, after which his nomination is expected to advance to the Senate floor.
At least two outside groups and two Democratic senators asked the agency watchdog to look into Bernhardt’s effort to weaken protections for imperiled fish species and to expand California farmers’ access to water, even though he once lobbied on behalf of a massive agricultural water district that stood to benefit from the changes. The New York Times, The Washington Post and other outlets reported on aspects of Bernhardt’s work.
Bernhardt, who represented the Westlands Water District at the firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck before joining the administration in August 2017, has consistently said that he has complied with all federal ethics rules and has not weighed in on particular matters affecting former clients. Under the administration’s ethics pledge, he should be recused from specific issues involving a former client for up to two years, though he can weigh in on policies affecting a broader group of parties.
In an interview, Office of Inspector General spokeswoman Nancy DiPaolo said the office has not launched a formal probe. “We’re reviewing the facts and requests to determine appropriate next steps,” she said.
An Interior Department spokeswoman said Tuesday that the agency cannot comment on matters pending before the inspector general’s office.
Several groups, including the Campaign Legal Center and the Campaign for Accountability, as well as Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), have questioned Bernhardt’s role in the Interior Department’s push to conduct an environmental analysis of proposed changes to federal and state water projects in California. That effort could free up more water for the Westlands Water District, which serves farmers in California’s Central Valley.
“It’s important that the inspector general look into this matter and see what happened here,” said Daniel Stevens, executive director of the Campaign for Accountability, who received a letter from the office Monday.
In response to an earlier inquiry by The Post, the Interior Department released a Feb. 19 memo signed by two ethics officials at the agency. It concluded that Bernhardt’s work on a draft environmental analysis of these water projects did not constitute a “particular matter” that would be covered by his ethics pledge.
And in a March 25 letter to Warren and Blumenthal, the Interior Department’s designated ethics official, Scott A. de la Vega, outlined several reasons he and his colleagues concluded that Bernhardt did not violate the recusal policy. He noted that because Westlands is a governmental entity, the recusal requirement lasted only for one year, as well as the fact that the bill Bernhardt lobbied on in connection with Westlands “addressed a broad range of issues and topics.”
“Please know that my office takes all credible allegations of potential ethics violations by any DOI employee very seriously and allegations against senior officials are an extremely high priority,” de la Vega wrote.
Some ethics experts questioned the validity of the February memo, which came after the New York Times had reported on details of Bernhardt’s involvement in California water policy. In a letter Thursday to the Interior Department’s acting inspector general, Mary Kendall, officials from the Campaign Legal Center said the memo inaccurately concluded that this work did not constitute a “particular matter” as defined under the federal ethics pledge and that the timing of its release “also raises concerns.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/04/02/interiors-watchdog-is-reviewing-allegations-that-david-bernhardt-violated-trump-ethics-pledge/?utm_term=.ace01a39dda5
-
EPA to Finalise 13 Snurs in the Face of NGO Protest
Apr 3, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA is set to finalise 13 TSCA significant new use rules (Snurs) issued in the absence of consent orders, despite NGO concern that such an approach is "unlawful".
Proposed in October last year, the rules represent the first time since TSCA was amended in 2016 that the agency has addressed potential concerns with reasonably foreseeable uses of a new chemical through a 'Snur-only' approach.
Instead, when the agency has identified concern in reviewing a pre-manufacture notice (PMN), it has typically negotiated a section 5(e) consent order binding the submitter to certain conditions, and then also issued a Snur applicable to the whole market.
Snurs imposed without a consent order, also known as non-5(e) Snurs, were common practice before TSCA was amended. But environmental advocates have argued that they are no longer permissible under the reformed law.
Indeed, when the EPA floated plans in late 2017 to resume their use, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a lawsuit. The NGO only dropped the case when the agency demonstrated it had not been taking this approach.
Nonetheless, the EPA has apparently changed course in issuing these 13 Snurs. And a pre-publication copy of a Federal Register notice confirms that the agency will be finalising them in the face of NGO concerns. Response to comments
In its notice, the EPA largely sidesteps the comments it received about the permissibility of issuing a Snur to support a finding that a new chemical ‘does not present an unreasonable risk’.
"These comments constitute challenges to certain TSCA 5(a)(3) [new substance safety] determinations rather than to the basis for, or the content of, the Snurs … [and they] are not germane to this rulemaking," the notice says. The agency adds that it has previously defended its approach in the NRDC’s legal challenge.
And it dismisses concerns that certain worker protection provisions should be included in the Snurs.
"EPA expects compliance with federal and state laws, such as worker protection standards or disposal restrictions, unless case-specific facts indicate otherwise," it says. "Further, any workplace risks will be mitigated if exposures are appropriately controlled, and EPA expects that employers will require and workers will use the appropriate controls … consistent with the safety data sheet (SDS) prepared by the PMN submitter, in a manner adequate to protect them."
The agency also says its protection of confidential business information (CBI) – including for some health and safety data – appropriately balanced the public’s need for sufficient information to understand its decisions versus the safeguarding of proprietary materials.
And it rejects a suggestion to name as a ‘significant new use’ any use not described in a PMN. TSCA does not require the agency, it says, "to take a catch-all approach advocated by commenters, and EPA believes a more tailored approach is warranted to avoid unduly burdensome regulations".
The final rules are set to take effect 60 days from their formal publication in the Federal Register.
But the controversy surrounding the EPA’s new chemicals decision making is likely to continue.
When dropping its legal challenge last year, the NRDC told Chemical Watch that if the agency later adopts policies it feels are not in accordance with the law, that could "be the point of another decision on a legal challenge".
https://chemicalwatch.com/75850/epa-to-finalise-13-snurs-in-the-face-of-ngo-protest
-
Part 3: Busting More Industry-Perpetrated Myths About New Chemicals and Worker Protection Under TSCA
Apr 3, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
I have been blogging in the last few weeks about myths the chemical industry is perpetrating about the adequacy and legality of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent reviews of the risks that chemicals just entering the market may present to workers. In this post, I address another such myth that, unfortunately, EPA has swallowed hook, line, and sinker. This myth was laid out by one of the industry witnesses at the March 13 House Energy & Commerce Committee hearing on EPA’s failures to protect workers from chemical risks.
I’ll get to this third myth in a moment. But let me first try to crystallize what is at stake in this debate. While the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has always given EPA authority to regulate workplace risks, the 2016 amendments to TSCA strengthened EPA’s authority and mandate to protect workers. TSCA now expressly identifies workers as a “potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation.” See the definition of that term in paragraph 12 here. TSCA then requires EPA to identify and assess potential risks to such subpopulations when reviewing both new and existing chemicals. Finally, it requires EPA to use its TSCA authorities to impose restrictions on any chemical found to present an “unreasonable risk” – which is TSCA’s health standard – to any such subpopulation.
In a word, TSCA requires EPA to protect workers under TSCA – using TSCA’s authorities to meet TSCA’s health standard, not OSHA’s.
Both before and after the 2016 TSCA amendments, the chemical industry has sought to compel or convince EPA not to regulate workplaces under TSCA, and instead to defer to OSHA. Industry wants this because OSHA’s authority and capacity are severely limited and its legal requirements for regulating toxic substances (“health standards” in OSHA parlance) allow vastly greater risks to workers than do TSCA’s (see my previous post).
Sadly, under the Trump EPA, industry is getting its wish. At industry’s urging, EPA is acting in a manner that is wholly contrary to TSCA – and is less health-protective than even under TSCA before the 2016 reforms.
Now let’s get back to more myth-busting.
Myth #3: Safety Data Sheets and personal protective equipment have been shown to ensure workers are protected from any exposures to the new chemicals EPA is approving under TSCA.
Both industry witnesses espoused this myth at the recent hearing. The second of those witnesses, Tom Grumbles, identified himself only as a past president of the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) and related groups, failing to disclose his long career working for chemical companies. I’ll examine the claims made in his testimony in this post.
Grumbles asserted – without providing any evidence or citations – that “in his experience” Safety Data Sheets (SDS) and their personal protective equipment (PPE) recommendations are essentially universally employed and universally effective. In a previous post in this series, I already demonstrated why OSHA regulations requiring SDSs and those purported to require the use of PPE fall far short of actually requiring that workers be protected. To summarize:OSHA regulations requiring companies to provide an SDS do not impose ANY requirements on employers to implement an SDS’s recommended precautions. To quote the OSHA regulation itself: “[A] recommendation on a safety data sheet by itself would not trigger the need to implement new controls.”Other regulations that may require use of PPE give employers inordinate discretion to decide whether or not a workplace hazard exists, and if so, whether use of “appropriate” PPE is “necessary.”Any decision by an employer to impose PPE requirements would hinge on the employer evaluating whether or not workers face a significant risk under OSHA’s health standard – which means PPE would only be called for if risks to workers far greater than would be allowed under TSCA were deemed to exist. Absent evidence of such a risk, OSHA regulations permit an employer to conclude that PPE is not necessary.
Importantly, the SDS that EPA reviews when approving a new chemical may not be the same as the SDS a manufacturer relies upon to comply with OSHA standards. And the hazards warned about, and the PPE recommended, by the manufacturer once a chemical enters the marketplace may change. OSHA rules permit a manufacturer to use different definitions of a “hazard” than TSCA requires, and nothing precludes a company from altering its SDS over time.
In another recent post, I presented actual published evidence as well as statements from OSHA itself showing that:in the real world SDSs suffer from serious problems even as hazard communication tools, with respect to access, accuracy and completeness, and comprehensibility;reliance on workers wearing PPE has major practical limitations, at best exhibits mixed effectiveness in the real world, and unfairly shifts the burden of protection from employers onto workers; andPPE is the least desirable option under longstanding industrial hygiene principles recognized by both OSHA and the industrial hygiene (IH) community.
Do OSHA inspection data support the industry’s assertions about SDSs and PPE?
The only part of Grumbles’ testimony even approaching any actual evidence is contained in this statement (emphasis added):
This U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirement creates an effective PPE selection process that is documented and verifiable. In fact, OSHA statistics support this. The OSHA database of 12 million violations dating back to the 1970s shows less than one percent of violations related to lack of eye protection, lack of general dermal protection, and lack of glove use (or inappropriate glove use), despite the fact that these violations are relatively easy to observe. This confirms that workers are wearing PPE and compliance is likely.
This same claim about OSHA inspections has become a popular refrain of other industry voices as well (see the last sentence here). On scrutiny, this “statistic” simply doesn’t hold water.
First, OSHA and its inspections cover all kinds of industries besides the chemical industry. For example, about half of all OSHA inspections are in the construction industry. Second, the great majority – more than 80% (see p. 92) – of OSHA inspections focus on safety, not health, concerns. And many of the health-focused inspections are directed at problems such as excessive noise leading to hearing loss or, occasionally, acute hazards facing workers, such as dermatitis from corrosive chemicals, not latent effects of chemicals. Grumbles’ citing of a statistic derived from OSHA-wide data for all kinds of industries and concerns is essentially meaningless. Only industrial hygiene inspections focused on workplaces where chemicals are handled would be at all relevant.
Even assuming an OSHA inspector is looking at or might encounter a chemical-focused PPE-related situation – a big assumption – Grumbles’ statistic also ignores both the rarity of actual PPE requirements under OSHA that could result in a violation, and the high bar OSHA faces in establishing that a violation has occurred.
OSHA has issued comprehensive standards which regulate exposures for fewer than 40 chemicals (listed on p.103). Each of these standards requires the use of specific PPE tailored to the hazards of the regulated chemical. But none of these requirements apply to the tens of thousands of existing chemicals OSHA does not regulate or to new chemicals. Where no specific PPE regulation applies, OSHA requires employers to self-evaluate whether their employees face a hazard and, if so, to provide “appropriate” PPE. I have already discussed why these general regulations will only be invoked where employers use their discretion to decide there is a significant workplace hazard and PPE is necessary.
Further, in most cases when a worker is exposed to one of the 470 or so chemicals for which OSHA has a PEL but no specific requirements, if no or inadequate PPE is provided, the agency would more likely cite the employer for failure to use engineering controls to protect the worker (see §1910.1000(e)), rather than failure to provide PPE (and by policy (see pp. 5-7), the agency does not cite both for the same situation).
Finally, for an OSHA inspector to be able to cite an employer for, say, violating an SDS recommendation to provide and make its workers wear gloves when handling a chemical for which OSHA does not have a standard requiring gloves, the inspector would have to show that employees face a significant risk from the chemical exposure and that the employer (or at least its industry) knows that the hazard exists. Obviously, for the new chemicals EPA is reviewing, such evidence would be almost impossible to come by.
Grumbles’ statistic conspicuously omits any mention of violations involving respirators – which begs the question of whether he has omitted data showing a higher rate of OSHA violations involving respirator use. OSHA’s regulations requiring respirator use are more extensive: they apply to the several hundred chemicals for which OSHA has set a Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL), and for which feasible engineering controls are inadequate. OSHA has acknowledged, however, that the great majority of these PELs which were grandfathered in 1970 and based on even older science – are not protective of worker health. And in any case, none of this is relevant here because none of the PELs apply to new chemicals being reviewed and approved under TSCA.
Conclusion
This series of blog posts has exposed several damaging myths long pushed by the chemical industry that appear to be driving the Trump EPA’s negligent and illegal approach to addressing worker risks from new chemicals under TSCA. EPA is shirking its responsibilities under TSCA and instead seeking to shift the burden onto a beleaguered OSHA and onto the backs of American workers.
One wonders when EPA will start doing what Congress told it to do, first in 1976 and then again, with renewed vigor in 2016: Protect workers under TSCA – using TSCA’s authorities to meet TSCA’s health standard, not OSHA’s.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/04/03/part-3-busting-more-industry-perpetrated-myths-about-new-chemicals-and-worker-protection-under-tsca/
-
Wheeler Sees Problems in Kigali Amendment on HFCs
Apr 3, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Alex Guillén
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler today said he believes there are legal and regulatory problems related to the proposed Kigali amendment to the Montreal Protocol that aims to phase down use of the hydrofluorocarbons.
Wheeler told House appropriators that he has not yet been asked by the White House to weigh in on the amendment negotiated in the Rwandan capital in 2016 to address the refrigerants that replaced the previous generation of ozone-depleting coolants but which are potent greenhouse gases.
The Kigali amendment has drawn support from environmental groups as well as U.S. manufacturers that have developed alternative coolants. Last year, 13 Republican senators also urged Trump to send the amendment to the the Senate for ratification.
But Wheeler indicated he does not see the Montreal Protocol as the proper vehicle to go after HFCs globally.
“I think the issue here, and it’s a legal issue, is the HFCs are not ozone-depleting chemicals, and the Montreal Protocol is just supposed to address ozone-depleting chemicals,” he said at a House appropriations subcommittee hearing.
Congress might also have to pass additional legislation further empowering EPA to act on HFCs. Wheeler pointed to an Obama-era rule targeting HFCs that was struck down in 2017 by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
“If the treaty were to be submitted to the Senate for ratification, it would require implementing legislation in order to allow EPA to issue the regulations to implement it, because we currently lack the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Montreal Protocol,” Wheeler said.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2019/04/wheeler-sees-problems-in-kigali-amendment-on-hfcs-2991426
-
US Stakeholders Launch Ingredient Transparency Initiative
Apr 3, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
US organisations Clean Production Action and the Interstate Chemicals Clearinghouse are partnering to develop "a set of common principles and data practices" around chemical ingredient transparency.
Finding "common ground among key stakeholders", say the two organisations, can accelerate the adoption of chemical disclosure policies.
From spring this year, into 2020, CPA and IC2 will work with businesses, governments and NGOs to develop principles and criteria for the policies.
They say present transparency programmes are inefficient, because businesses, governments and consumers have different needs. For example: businesses operating in multiple jurisdictions find it difficult to participate in, or comply with, the growing array of requests and requirements on chemical ingredient disclosure; businesses and government agencies developing purchasing specifications must navigate and interpret the complex landscape of chemical ingredient information that is available; while advocates and the public find it difficult to locate chemical ingredient information in products.
They note that chemical ingredient transparency is frequently used as an aide to government in identifying priority chemicals for regulatory action. It also helps companies to avoid toxic chemicals and develop safer alternatives.
CPA is an NGO that manages the Chemical Footprint Project, which helps companies measure their chemical management work.
The IC2 – under the auspices of the Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association (Newmoa) – represents a group of individual states promoting the use of safer chemicals and products.
Transparency initiatives on the rise
The partnership follows increasing action on transparency at the state level.
Last year, for example, New York state launched a cleaning product ingredient disclosure programme for manufacturers. California, meanwhile, passed a law in 2017 that will require similar requirements for that sector.
Elsewhere, toys and other children’s products are under scrutiny – Maine, Oregon, Vermont and Washington have in place requirements for manufacturers to report on certain chemicals of high concern to children. And both California and Rhode Island are considering expanding cosmetics ingredient disclosure requirements.
Some personal care product giants – including SC Johnson, Procter & Gamble and Unilever – have also taken steps to increase transparency, especially around fragrance ingredients. And retailers such as Walmart have established requirements for their suppliers on ingredient disclosure.
Ecolabels, such as the US EPA’s Safer Choice, require chemical ingredient transparency to meet their criteria.
https://chemicalwatch.com/75853/us-stakeholders-launch-ingredient-transparency-initiative
-
EU Considers Implementing Regulation on REACH Authorisation Changes
Apr 3, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The EU is considering drafting an implementing Regulation to clarify that companies may need to apply for a review of their authorisation decisions if they increase their use of authorised substances.
In a paper submitted to a meeting of the Competent Authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal) on 19-20 March, the Commission said it was considering the move because it had been made aware of two cases where the authorisation holder increased the amount of the substance used above that indicated in the application.
In one case, it said, the changes included an additional task that was not covered in the exposure scenarios in the chemical safety report (CSR).
The cases raise the question of whether changes in the volumes and tasks reported in the CSR – on which the authorisation decision is based – should prompt a review of the authorisation decision.
Even if the decision does not limit the quantity of the substance that may be used, an EU executive said, an increase beyond the level assumed in the CSR "may render the use incompatible with the conditions of the authorisation decision".
These typically include the condition that the risk management measures and operational conditions described in the CSR are fully applied.
Authorisation holders should first assess whether an increase in the volume would lead to greater exposure and risk levels than reported in the application, and then check their conclusions with the national enforcement authorities.
If the levels exceed those reported in the CSR, then a "review of the authorisation is required before such a change may be implemented", the Commission said.
The addition of new tasks in the exposure scenarios of the CSR would also necessitate this, it added.
Procedure
Article 125 of REACH delegates responsibility for checking that authorisation holders comply with the conditions of authorisation to the national enforcement authorities.
According to Article 61(1) of REACH, a review report is due to be submitted 18 months before the end of the review period, at the latest. However, this provision does not prevent the authorisation holder from submitting this earlier if necessary, the Commission said.
Article 61(2) says that authorisations may be reviewed at any time if:the circumstances of the original authorisation have changed so as to affect the risk to human health or the environment, or the socio-economic impact; or new information on possible substitutes becomes available.
In the above cases, the Commission sets a 'reasonable deadline' by which the authorisation holder may submit further information necessary for the review.
The review would enable Echa's scientific committees to assess the changes and subsequently the Commission to determine whether the conditions for granting an authorisation are still met.
The Commission said it would prepare new Q&As on the issues. However, the considerations are "a limited scope of possible changes that may take place, which could require a review of an authorisation."
https://chemicalwatch.com/75918/eu-considers-implementing-regulation-on-reach-authorisation-changes
-
New York Cautions FERC on Waiving State's Constitution Pipe Review
Apr 3, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
New York regulators warned FERC this week that if it waives the state’s water quality certification (WQC) review for the Constitution Pipeline project it should expect a swift appeal to the courts, where the state argues a waiver would stand little chance of holding up.
Subscription required for full story.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/117917-new-york-cautions-ferc-on-waiving-states-constitution-pipe-review
-
Some Frack-Sand Miners, Facing Excess Supply, Seek New Markets
Apr 3, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Wethe
For the last six years, Kevin Bowen has made good money selling sand to shale frackers who use it for drilling. It was hard not to. The industry has been booming in the oil fields of West Texas.
But today the U.S. frack-sand industry is swimming in an excess of supply that has battered prices and cut the stocks of frack sand miners by more than 70 percent in the last two years. So Bowen’s Shale Support LLC, based in Mississippi, is doing something he thought would never happen: selling sand outside of the U.S. -- and reaping a 20 percent bump in profit. The first shipment, 25,000 tons worth, pulled into a port in Bahia Blanca, Argentina last month after a 22-day sea odyssey from New Orleans, and he’s still amazed that Argentina would look past its own sand.
“I thought, certainly there’s got to be sand closer that’s good enough quality,” he said. “I think the answer is: ‘Right now, no.”’
The source of the oversupply is easy to trace. In the last couple of years, entrepreneurs opened dozens of sand mines throughout the U.S., particularly in the red-hot Permian Basin oil patch of West Texas and New Mexico, rivaling the original capital of U.S. frack-sand mining in northwestern Wisconsin. Production surged 50 percent. Now, for every grain of sand that explorers need to prop open a tiny crack in their oil-soaked rock, miners have roughly two grains to offer them.
That’s depressed the industry even as shale production continues to shatter records. Some sand companies in Texas and around the U.S. have shut down quarries. Both U.S. Silica Holdings Inc. and Covia Holdings Corp. have started to tout their market diversity, selling sand to industries such as construction and automotive. Some Wisconsin mines are struggling to stay open. Hi-Crush Partners, which has mines in Wisconsin and was the first to open one in West Texas, has seen its stock fall by 77 percent since the end of 2016.
“If we didn’t have the West Texas mines, the U.S. would be under-supplied with sand,” said Scott Forbes, who watches the sand market for industry consultant Wood Mackenzie.
The search for new markets like Argentina marks another strange twist for the sand industry. When fracking took off a decade ago in Texas, drillers naturally turned to Wisconsin, its epicenter. Along with water and chemicals, sand is pumped underground to release trapped hydrocarbons.
Oil Plunge
But in 2014, the price of oil plunged. Drillers rushed to the West Texas area to pump shale oil, the cheapest method to extract the fuel. Looking to cut costs further, drillers came to the conclusion there was no need to ship sand 1,300 miles by rail from Wisconsin. Plenty of it existed in West Texas, even if its size or shape wasn’t as efficient as Wisconsin’s in getting oil out of shale. The cost saving was dramatic: Shipping from Wisconsin came to about $90 per ton, triple the $25 or so to truck sand in Texas.
But the frenzied sand expansion has brought the inevitable bust. The price of West Texas sand is expected to drop almost 20 percent to about $30 a ton compared with last year, according to Rystad Energy AS. Covia, the second-biggest frack-sand miner, has idled 7 million tons, the most by any one company tracked by Evercore ISI.
U.S. Silica, the current king of frack sand in terms of market size, estimated in February that as much as 20 percent of the 50 million tons of northern sand needs to get shut down. Its stock is down about 70 percent since the end of 2016.
“Some of that capacity is just kind of companies and mines that are sort of hanging on by their fingernails at this point,” U.S. Silica Chief Executive Bryan Shinn told analysts on a conference call at the time.
Vaca Muerta
Meanwhile, as sand prices and competition grew, Kevin Bowen looked for a new market. He found it in Argentina, where the country is trying to boost production at the Vaca Muerta field in Patagonia, one of the world’s largest shale plays that remains largely untapped.
He expects to get paid about $240 a ton for his sand, far more than the $50 a ton that U.S. oil companies are paying in the Permian Basin. It even exceeds the $170 per ton drillers are paying to get sand from mines in Argentina. That’s because U.S. sand is of better quality and, besides, Argentina’s mines can’t satisfy the demand.
Bowen said he has no intention of abandoning the U.S. shale business, which remains the biggest user of any kind of sand. But he needed a way to broaden his base of customers.
“The American market is going to be cyclical up and down,” Bowen said. “Argentina definitely offers the opportunity to flatten some of those up and down cycles.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/some-frack-sand-miners-facing-excess-supply-seek-new-markets
-
California's Oil Industry Collapses Despite Shale Boom
Apr 3, 2019 | Rigzone
By Jude Clemente
Not that long ago, California was the second most vital U.S. oil producing state. Since peaking in 1985, however, output has plunged almost 60 percent to 460,000 barrels per day (bpd). This collapse is made even more discouraging by the fact that total U.S. crude oil production has been soaring to record heights, up 140 percent to 12.1 million bpd over the past decade. Indeed, the shale revolution that has transformed the U.S. oil and gas industry has completely passed California by. Since 2008, while U.S. crude oil reserves have more than doubled to 45 billion barrels, California’s reserves have declined 25 percent to 2.2 billion barrels in the shale-era.
The most troubling part for California is that the state still uses a lot of oil. California each day devours around 40 million gallons of gasoline, uses 8 million gallons of diesel fuel, and accounts for 20 percent of all U.S. jet fuel consumption. Although the state is surely a global leader on renewables, wind and solar are strictly sources of electricity and do not really displace the need for petroleum, a designed transportation fuel. For every passenger vehicle in California today that runs on electricity there are about 70 that run on oil. Even reaching the ambitious goal of 5 million plug-ins by 2030 would mean less than 15 percent of the state’s cars running on electricity.
The inevitable result of plummeting production amid high consumption is that California is forced to import 70 percent of the oil that it needs. With the collapse of Alaska’s production, foreign sources now supply almost 60 percent of California’s crude oil, compared to just 15 percent 20 years ago. Additionally, a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) has not just hampered the prospects of using locally sourced oil but also the heavier crude that comes from ally Canada. In contrast, California’s LCFS has supported the lighter, “cleaner” oil that comes from OPEC. Saudi Arabia, for instance, now supplies 37 percent of California’s oil imports, with Ecuador at 14 percent.
Such a turn to distant international suppliers is actually a quiet environmental problem going ignored. These shipments arrive on crude supertankers, giant ships that not just burn loads of oil themselves but are also at greater risk for spills. Unfortunately, California’s leaders have generally stood against building the pipelines necessary to receive high-quality, lower cost shale oil from other U.S. states.
For its own part, California does have the Monterey shale formation in the central and southern part of the state. The play could hold at least 20 billion barrels of recoverable oil and untold amounts of natural gas. Current Governor Gavin Newsom, however, is not supportive of development like his predecessor Jerry Brown was.
Although there are geological issues in the Monterey that make it a difficult play to exploit, many of those differences could be overcome with capital and by deploying the constantly evolving technology that the U.S. shale industry enjoys. The real problem is that California’s regulatory and tax policies discourage new oil production in the state. Namely, hydraulic fracturing for shale in California is burdened with the same restrictive rules that its offshore industry has. In fact, some municipalities and counties have passed outright bans on fracking, and many oil companies have left the state because drilling permits are too difficult to obtain.
California would be well advised to realize how North Dakota has leveraged shale from its Bakken play into an economic boon (see Figure). One study from the Price School of Public Policy at the University of Southern California, for instance, found that the Monterey could add millions of jobs and tens of billions dollars in tax revenues alone.
But overall, missing out on the shale revolution for California might be worse on the natural gas side. Gas is still the main source of power in the state, even accounting for over half of generation in recent years. California’s need to import 95 percent of its gas supply is a growing problem because other U.S. states, particularly Western neighbors, are increasingly moving toward more gas to meet rising demand while also lowering greenhouse gas emissions.
https://www.rigzone.com/news/californias_oil_industry_collapses_despite_shale_boom-03-apr-2019-158514-article/
-
Film Focuses on Human Impact of ANWR Drilling
Apr 3, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Kellie Lunney
A new short film focuses on an Alaska Native community's anxiety over its long-term food security and survival after Congress voted in 2017 to open part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration.
The 13-minute film, "Welcome to Gwichyaa Zhee," explores familiar territory in the decadeslong debate between supporters of drilling in ANWR's coastal plain and opponents, including many members of the Gwich'in community.
The Gwich'in live just north of the Arctic Circle and depend on the Porcupine caribou herd for subsistence. Among other things, drilling opponents fear oil and gas exploration will disrupt the animals' migration and calving patterns.
The film's co-director Len Necefer said much of the conservation movement has focused on the "landscape and animals" in opposing drilling in the refuge.
"This is a human story at the end of the day," Necefer said in a recent interview with E&E News about why he made the film after Congress' decision to open up the coastal plain.
Necefer's film, which he directed with Greg Balkin, follows members of the Gwich'in community in Fort Yukon, Alaska, and explores the risks to the environment and culture they believe drilling in the area poses to the ecosystem.
But it also makes an economic argument for not drilling.
"When gas is already more than $6 a gallon, hunting isn't cheap," Necefer says in a voice-over with footage of tribal members filling up at a Fort Yukon gas station. "But going out and getting food from the land is a hell of a lot cheaper than paying $15 a gallon for milk at the local store. It's a delicate balance, but it works."
Later in the film, Second Chief of Gwichyaa Zhee Michael Peter tells Necefer that it doesn't seem like drilling supporters are doing "much about food security, but they sure seem like they want to do the fuel security."
Peter adds, "You've been to the store; we can't afford to live out of there." Members of his community aren't out hunting "for sport," he says. "We're out here to feed our families."
"Welcome to Gwichyaa Zhee" also seeks to link potential drilling in ANWR and the Trump administration's reductions to Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante, two national monuments in Utah, as part of a larger threat to indigenous communities.
"In a time when Native communities still feel invisible to the rest of the country, people need to continue uniting around these issues," said Necefer, a Navajo from Arizona, who quit his job as an energy analyst and grant manager at the Energy Department in 2017 because of the administration's "energy dominance" agenda.
In addition to his filmmaking, Necefer is an assistant professor at the University of Arizona and founder of NativesOutdoors, which he says is "like Patagonia." In fact, Patagonia and the Wilderness Society supported and presented "Welcome to Gwichyaa Zhee."
Necefer just wrapped up a 14-city film tour across the country from California to Maine.
Necefer said "a lot of people were pissed off" about the coastal plain being opened up to oil and gas exploration when he visited Alaska to make "Welcome to Gwichyaa Zhee."
"I think for a lot of older folks, they've been through many of these cycles before, and with the younger folks, a lot is being done to empower [them] to take the lead," Necefer said of the Gwich'in.
"They are fighting for their identity. It's not a choice," he added, but something "they just have to do."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/04/03/stories/1060141793
-
What We Know About the Company Behind the KMCO Crosby Plant Fire
Apr 3, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
The Crosby chemical plant where a fire Tuesday killed one and injured two is owned by the specialty chemical company KMCO LLC, a subsidiary of an Austin private investment firm.
KMCO's CEO John C. Foley early Tuesday afternoon released a statement that the company is "deeply saddened to confirm at this time that there have been injuries and one fatality. Those injured have been transported for medical treatment. Our hearts and prayers go out to the individuals involved, as well as our first responders, employees, and our community."
Foley said the company had activated its emergency response team and incident command center and twice throughout the day apologized for the incident and "any inconvenience to residents in the vicinity. The wellbeing of our people, neighbors and the environment remain our top priorities."
KMCO (pronounced "Chem-Co") was founded in 1975 and produces coolant and brake fluid products for the automotive industry, as well as chemicals for the oilfield industry, according to a company press release.
The KMCO facility has more than 180 employees and sits on about 200 acres in Crosby, northeast of Houston, with eight distillation columns, 23 reactor systems, 600 tanks and capacity for 250 rail storage cars, according to the company. The plant apparently was undergoing some recent expansions; In July 2018 KMCO broke ground on an expansion project to install a new boiler, cooling tower and associated distribution and condensate return systems meant to "unlock significant production capacity to support our aggressive growth objectives," according to a company Facebook post.
KMCO also owns the KMTEX facility in Port Arthur, which sits on 32 acres with 20 million gallons of storage capacity for onsite terminaling as well as a 300 foot barge dock and 100 rail car spaces, according to the company.
Both facilities have had multiple penalties for workplace safety, railroad safety and environmental violations cited by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Railroad Administration and Occupational Safety and Health Administration, according to a violation tracker on the advocacy group Good Jobs First.
KMCO is led by John C. Foley who took over as CEO from founder and former owner Artie McFerrin in 2015 after about 13 years at the chemical company Solvay, according Foley's LinkedIn profile. Before that Foley was at Solvay predecessor companies. Jeff McFerrin was described as president of the KMCO in a 2012 company press release.
KMCO appears to be active in the local community. In 2011 it became a founding partner of Crosby Education Foundation with a $25,000 donation that helped the local high school buy new microscopes.
Owner Resource Group acquired KMCO in 2012 from the McFerrin family. ORG is based in downtown Austin. Jonathan D. Gormin was list as the registered agent in Secretary of State documents and described as ORG's managing director in a 2012 press release. Gormin, William Burnett and Lee Walker were all listed as executive officers for an associated company, ORG KMCO Investment GP in SEC documents.
The new owners had apparently been working to improve the facility's safety record. Last year it boasted that it had re-certified in a chemical environmental safety performance program ran by the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates. That same industry group also gave KMCO performance improvement awards in 2017 and 2018 recognizing enhancements in health, environmental and workplace safety.
But the violations continued under the new owners. Harris County and the state of Texas are suing KMCO over air, water and storm water pollution stemming three incidents in 2013, 2016 and 2017. In all three incidents the company allegedly released strong natural gas odor and air pollutants that could adversely affect human health, welfare and property, according to the state's original petition filed in Harris County District Court.
A 2013 natural gas leaked created such a strong odor that a nearby Wal-mart store and the Sacred Heart Catholic School temporarily closed. In a September 2016 incident that the county said violated storm water and water code, KMCO allegedly failed to properly discharge industrial waste water causing complaints that there was" black water and egg-like or natural gas odor" coming a nearby creek, according to court documents.
This is in addition to a 2008 lawsuit when Harris County sued KMCO for spills and fumes that gave neighbors headaches. The lawsuit ended in 2009, with a permanent injunction requiring KMCO to pay $100,000 in civil penalties and to give investigators easy access to the facility and prompt notification of releases.
The Crosby plant has dozens of OSHA violations since 2010, and an explosion in 2011 sent two workers to a hospital.
It has been about a year since the facility's last inspection, according to EPA records, and the company is not compliant with the Clean Air Act.
https://www.chron.com/business/article/What-we-know-about-KMCO-owners-of-the-Crosby-13735478.php?t=aebd91138f&cmpid=ffcp
-
Worker Killed in Texas Chemicals Plant Fire
Apr 3, 2019 | The Chemical Engineer
By Adam Duckett
ONE worker has been killed and two seriously injured in a chemicals plant fire in Texas, US.
The incident at the plant in Crosby run by KMCO occurred at around 10am local time on 2 April. Crosby is around 40 km northeast of Houston and the incident comes hot on the heels of two others at processing facilities in Texas last month.
Ed Gonzalez, Harris County Sheriff, tweeted that a transfer line ignited in the area of a tank of isobutylene which then caught fire. An adjacent storage building containing solid goods also caught fire, he said.
A statement from company CEO John Foley said they were deeply saddened by the incident and that additional statements will be issued once more information becomes available. Investigators have begun looking over the scene and interviewing witnesses to confirm the cause of the fire.
The KMCO site employs more than 180 full time staff, manufacturing chemicals including glycols and oilfield products, as well as providing contract manufacturing services. It houses 28 reactors and more than 600 tanks.
The fire led local authorities to order everyone within one mile of the plant to stay in their homes. This was lifted around four hours after the fire was reported, and the fire extinguished one hour later.
Last month in Texas, there was a short-lived fire at ExxonMobil’s Baytown refinery, and firefighters also spent three days battling a blaze that spread through a chemicals storage depot run by Intercontinental Terminals (ITC) in Deer Park. The incidents prompted a scathing assessment from Elena Craft of the Environmental Defense Fund, who said the agency in Texas responsible for ensuring chemical plant safety is “unable or unwilling” to protect the public’s health and wellbeing.
https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/news/worker-killed-in-texas-chemicals-plant-fire/
-
State Sues over Deadly Texas Plant Fire
Apr 3, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
The state of Texas has filed a court petition seeking action against a company whose plant caught fire near Houston yesterday.
One worker was killed and two were injured critically in the fire at the KMCO chemical plant in Crosby (E&E News PM, April 2).
The Texas attorney general's office filed the petition in state district court in Austin on behalf of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. The petition seeks a permanent injunction, civil penalties and reasonable attorney fees, and court costs, along with recovery of investigative costs.
Harris County had obtained an injunction against KMCO in 2009 that required the firm to pay $100,000 in civil penalties and give investigators easy access to the plant and prompt notification of releases.
John Foley, president and CEO of KMCO, said at a news conference yesterday afternoon his company will find the cause of the fire and "take steps to ensure this doesn't happen again."
Pilar Davis, a product manager with KMCO, said the fire initially ignited with isobutylene and was fueled by ethanol and ethyl acrylate. All three are chemicals and solvents used to make fuel additives at the plant.
Foley said safety and compliance remain his company's "No. 1 priority."
Records show KMCO has a history of environmental violations.
In 2016, KMCO's corporate agents pleaded guilty to a federal criminal charge of violating the Clean Air Act. A plea agreement document stated that a plant employee made false entries in logs of air testing of tanks that were known to be leaking chemicals. Another employee then used those falsified logs to submit reports to the federal and state environmental authorities. The document says the violation went on between 2008 and 2012.
A year earlier, EPA cited KMCO for failing to comply with regulations on its risk-management plan for the plant, but settled with the plant for a $2,700 penalty.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/04/03/stories/1060141689
-
Ewire: Trump Seeking Climate 'Victories' Ahead of 2020 Campaign
Apr 3, 2019 | Inside EPA
President Donald Trump's re-election effort is reportedly seeking a list of climate change “victories” he can tout on the 2020 campaign trail, even as the president repeatedly questions mainstream climate science and mocks low-carbon options such as wind power.
McClatchy brings us the news, writing that Trump's “two-pronged campaign strategy -- both to defend the administration’s approach to climate change while simultaneously casting doubt on the extent of the threat -- is intended to address a substantial political divide within the Republican Party over the seriousness of the problem, the role of human activities and what can be done about it.”
The story quotes one source familiar with the campaign as saying, “In Trump world, the hope is to find enough basic environmental and climate wins in places where he needs to perform well.”
For example, Trump did an about-face on his fiscal year 2020 budget request calling for a 90 percent cut to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. He told a March 28 rally in Michigan the program would get full funding. His FY20 proposal was the third time he sought drastic cuts to the popular program, though Congress has rebuffed those calls. It was expected to do so again, even before Trump's speech.
Also, the president on March 29 visited a project to rebuild a dike on Lake Okeechobee in Florida -- which aims to control politically salient algae blooms in a swing state that is perennially important in presidential races.
Topping the list of climate wins in the Trump era is the fact that carbon emissions declined during the first year of Trump's presidency, despite his aggressive effort to rollback Obama-era climate policies. Experts have noted that U.S. emissions rose in 2018, underscoring the limits of relying solely on private sector action to cut greenhouse gases.
This focus on emissions cuts implicitly acknowledges that reducing GHGs is laudable because it helps mitigate climate change.
Even so, McClatchy notes that the White House is still mulling a new committee that would scrutinize climate science, a panel that critics fear would put the weight of the presidency behind a small fraction of scientists who question whether man-made climate change is a threat.
The administration's less-than-coherent approach has been on display on the international stage as well. Trump made a high-profile pledge to leave the Paris Agreement in June 2017, signaling to the rest of the world that he puts a low priority on climate issues, if at all.
Yet, the United States remains a part of the deal until November 2020, and even helped craft a rulebook to implement the Paris pact, leading some observers to call the administration's approach “schizophrenic.”
Now, Republican lawmakers are highlighting the need for greater global action to cut GHGs, arguing higher emissions in the developing world would swamp any domestic cuts. But Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D), running a climate-focused presidential bid, blasted that argument because GOP lawmakers are simultaneously supporting Trump's Paris decision.
“It's hardly helpful when the vast, vast majority of humanity has recognized this existential threat to their life on this planet, then you have the leader of free world tear it up and walk away in a petulant fit,” he said in an April 2 Hill appearance. “That is not helpful in developing international cooperation.”
The dynamic was also on display during January Hill testimony by EPA chief Andrew Wheeler, who called climate change a “huge issue” that must be addressed internationally, even as Democrats cited EPA projections that a suite of Trump administration climate rule rollbacks would significantly boost GHG emissions.
It's not just in the climate arena where Trump is grappling with domestic policy. The Washington Post reports that Trump “left his advisers and GOP lawmakers reeling from policy whiplash in recent days, cycling through new ideas on health care and immigration that underscore his continuing struggle to pursue a coherent domestic agenda in a divided Washington.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-trump-seeking-climate-victories-ahead-2020-campaign
-
Democratic Seat-Flippers Taking a Pass on Green New Deal
Apr 3, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
Rep. Mike Levin (Calif.) is one of only two co-sponsors of the Green New Deal resolution representing a district that flipped from Republican to Democrat in the 2018 midterm elections.
It’s not an unusual position for him. Levin campaigned on his career as an environmental attorney before winning the congressional seat that former GOP Rep. Darrell Issa held for 18 years.
But Republicans say his decision carries a risk, and it’s one that many first-term Democrats are avoiding.
Levin said he speaks for his constituents when he backs the resolution (H.Res.109).
“I know that my values and my goals are consistent with people who live near our coast in California who don’t want to see the worst impacts of climate change,” Levin told Bloomberg Environment. “They want to see us do everything we can to try to mitigate the issue before it becomes irreversible.”
Republicans say that position will hurt him politically.
“I think Levin has stepped a little too far out of the mainstream to position himself where he needs to be in a historically red district,” Jason Roe, a San Diego-based Republican political strategist, told Bloomberg Environment. “Of the seats that Republicans will be targeting in California, this is the most winnable seat.”
The Green New Deal calls for the U.S. to phase out greenhouse gas emissions through renewable energy expansion while providing millions of jobs and health care for all. Republicans are seeking to tie these ambitions to heavy-handed government control and rising energy costs.
The larger GOP strategy is to link the new majority with the unabashedly liberal Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), the resolution’s House sponsor.
“Ultimately, it’s part of a larger leftward movement that every Democrat will have to answer to,” said Cam Savage, founder and principal of Limestone Strategies in Alexandria, Va.
Walking a Fine Line
The other Green New Deal co-sponsor from a flipped district, Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-Fla.), is in a different political situation than Levin. She succeeded Republican Carlos Curbelo, who broke party ranks when he proposed carbon tax legislation to curb global warming.
“I think that constituency is probably center-left,” said Mac Stipanovich, a Tallahassee, Fla., GOP consultant. “She may not be running a great risk.”
Mucarsel-Powell told Bloomberg Environment she decided early on to take “bold, aggressive” action on climate change.
“If it meant having something like the Green New Deal to start working from, then that’s something I intend to do,” she said.
House Democrats made climate change a top priority this Congress, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) creating a select committee on climate change and introducing legislation to stop the Trump administration from leaving the Paris Agreement, the international accord that commits the U.S. to greenhouse gas reductions.
But only one-third of the caucus backs the Green New Deal, as swing-district Democrats walk a fine line between voicing support for climate change action and distancing themselves from the resolution.
“The Green New Deal lays out a set of goals, but not specific policies, and I think the Republicans are using that as a leverage point or as a tool to run against us,” said Rep. Katie Hill (D-Calif.), who defeated Republican Steve Knight in November. “I just don’t think we want to give them anything; we don’t want to cede them any ground.”
The Senate version of the resolution failed by a 0-57 vote on March 26, with all Republicans and four senators who caucus with Democrats voting against it.
House Republicans also want to force a Green New Deal vote in a procedure known as a discharge petition. More than 20 Democrats would need to sign onto the petition for the GOP to bring the resolution to the floor—an unlikely feat.
Initial Target
The Cook Political Report rates California’s 49th District that Levin represents as a “likely Democratic” win in 2020. But the National Republican Congressional Committee in February named Levin as one of 55 “initial offensive targets” the GOP will seek to defeat next year. Mucarsel-Powell’s district is a “lean Democratic” seat, according to Cook.
San Juan Capistrano, Calif., Mayor Brian Maryott is the only Republican so far to announce his bid to unseat Levin. A former Democrat himself, he called the Green New Deal a “national economic suicide pact” and “an absurdly naive document and game plan.”
Maryott supports spurring technology innovation in renewable energy and less-polluting fossil fuels to address climate change. He also opposes offshore drilling in this coastal district where support for clean beaches and environmental protection ranks high.
Levin won by 55 percent in 2018 against Republican Diane Harkey. His comfortable margin of victory in a district that voted for Democrats in the last presidential, senatorial, and gubernatorial elections means he could easily win again in 2020, said Stephen Nichols, a political science professor at California State University, San Marcos.
Republicans argue that Levin’s win was a fluke, the result of running against a flawed candidate. Harkey’s husband Dan Harkey, a financial broker, was ordered to pay millions of dollars in 2013 for defrauding clients and preying on the elderly.
Levin “got elected in a unique environment in 2018,” said Axiom Strategies’ Stephen Puetz, who is advising Maryott’s campaign. “He’s absolutely vulnerable.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/democratic-seat-flippers-taking-a-pass-on-green-new-deal
-
2020 Democrats Go Silent After Senate’s Green New Deal Debacle
Apr 3, 2019 | Roll Call
By David Winston
In the awkward aftermath of the Green New Deal’s rollout, perhaps the most appropriate question for its supporters, especially the Democratic presidential field, is one often posed by tennis bad boy John McEnroe: “You cannot be serious!”
But, apparently, when New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Edward Markey introduced their proposal in February, they were deadly serious, and breathless progressives couldn’t wait to hop aboard the climate change express. First in line, the Democratic presidential candidates in the Senate who were eager to offer up their enthusiastic support.
There was just one snag. The Green New Deal, in reality, wasn’t serious. These weren’t well-thought-out ideas or vetted policies. They were far left talking points that couldn’t possibly survive any real scrutiny. And they didn’t.
The blowback was epic. Critics pounced on the resolution’s absurd provisions. America would have to retool every structure in the country to maximize energy efficiency. No cars. No planes. Trains to everywhere. Well, except from L.A. to San Francisco, where fiscal reality has already ended that green dream.
But there’s more. The Green New Deal goes far beyond a “chicken in every pot.” It would turn meat-eating America into a vegan “utopia” with “universal access to healthy food and high-quality health care” for every American, what most of us call socialized medicine.
And last but certainly not least, the Green New Deal would guarantee a job “with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations and retirement security” for all.
This is clearly a ridiculous proposal and perhaps Ms. Ocasio-Cortez can learn a lesson from her Green New Deal launch. There is more to legislating than naïve ideas and a lot of wishful thinking, even with a big megaphone.
Giving them rope
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell sat back and let the Democrats and their presidential candidates climb one by one out on a politically perilous limb called the Green New Deal. He’s been around long enough to know the difference between serious policymakers on both sides who want to get something done and politicians who are more comfortable on the campaign trail than in a committee markup.
He also knows the difference between a catchy sound bite and solid policy.
So he decided to call the Democrats’ bluff and scheduled a vote on the Green New Deal they had all been touting. For weeks, Democratic presidential candidates had been talking up the climate change issue from Iowa to New Hampshire, as support for the deal was becoming a kind of “litmus test” for many progressive Democratic primary voters. And now there was to be a vote, an actual vote.
Thanks to McConnell, Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren would have the opportunity to actually deliver on what had been only pie-in-the-sky promises on climate change. Bernie Sanders and Cory Booker would have a chance to stand tall for bold action and save the planet from climate change. And Amy Klobuchar and Kirsten Gillibrand could now earn their bona fides as relentless climate change warriors.
On March 26, Mitch McConnell gave Democrats the opportunity to stand on principle and vote for the Green New Deal policies they claimed to support. To do their job and legislate.
They whiffed.
All but three Democratic senators voted present, and the Green New Deal went down by a 57-0 vote. It didn’t take long for Democrats to realize they’d been had.
They rushed to the microphones to label the lopsided vote a “sham” and with great indignation, defended their non-votes by claiming McConnell had rushed the bill to the floor, outside proper procedure. No hearings, no expert testimony, they complained. No consensus and not enough time. In other words, not enough process, never a very effective argument.
Moving on
The candidates, still out on that limb, quickly opted for radio silence on the Green New Deal, and turned their focus to crucial issues like packing the Supreme Court, abolishing the Electoral College and giving 16-year-olds the vote. Given the contenders’ near unanimity of thought on these and most issues, it’s not surprising the primary campaign has since begun to devolve into more of a personality contest than a policy debate.
Their response wasn’t to look inward and ponder over the fact that the stumble was theirs. That, perhaps, particularly as presidential candidates, more serious thought should have gone into considering the substance of the Green New Deal rather than rushing to officially embrace a completely unrealistic proposal.
No, their reaction was to blame McConnell for forcing them into an embarrassing position. What they couldn’t admit is that the Republican majority leader understood the Green New Deal better than they did.
He understood that, at its essence, the debate about the Green New Deal isn’t really between Republicans and Democrats. It’s represents a bigger question, whether socialism or capitalism will create a better future for America. Whether this nation wants more government control or values individual freedom. It’s a crucial debate that the 2020 election will help settle.
Time to get serious.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/opinion/the-green-new-deal-you-cannot-be-serious
-
Paris Climate Bill to Get Vote in Early May, House Chairman Says
Apr 3, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
ouse leaders are pushing to bring the first Democratic climate legislation of this Congress to the floor in the first week of May, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said April 3.
The bill, H.R. 9, would put the U.S. back on track to cut greenhouse gas emissions in line with commitments made at the 2015 international climate change conference in Paris.
The Obama administration set a voluntary target to reduce economywide emissions by 26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.
The largely symbolic measure is expected to pass the House but highly unlikely to move in the GOP-controlled Senate. The bill was unveiled at a March 27 press conference with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
GOP ComplaintsRepublicans complained at the beginning of the Energy and Commerce Committee’s meeting to vote on H.R. 9 and 13 other bills on health care, telecommunications, and other issues under the committee’s jurisdiction.
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), the ranking member of the Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee, disagreed with the decision to hold a committee vote on H.R. 9 without a hearing in his subcommittee.
“I would urge you to be cautious in taking further actions that will push Republicans further away from acting in conjunction with you,” Shimkus told Democrats.
Pallone explained that an April 2 hearing on climate change in the House Foreign Affairs Committee counted as a hearing on the legislation, since that committee has primary jurisdiction over the bill.
Pallone added that leadership’s urgency to bring the bill to the floor left little time for a hearing in the Energy and Commerce Committee.
“I would have very much liked to have a hearing and a markup in the subcommittee and do the whole thing,” he told Shimkus.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/paris-climate-bill-to-get-vote-in-early-may-house-chairman-says
-
EPA-Funded Group: Life Expectancy Shrinking Because of Bad Air
Apr 3, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Dirty air will shave almost two years off the average life expectancy of a child born today, according to a worldwide overview that finds that nations are making uneven progress toward confronting the problem.
Overall, indoor and outdoor air pollution contributed to almost 5 million early deaths in 2017, the Health Effects Institute said in its third annual "State of Global Air" report released today. Among the risk factors for early death, it ranks fifth, behind such forces as high blood pressure and tobacco exposure, but ahead of alcoholism and malnutrition.
The highest toll came from exposure to fine particles, technically known as PM2.5 because they are no more than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, or one-thirtieth the width of a human hair.
In 2017, PM2.5 exposure contributed to 2.9 million premature deaths, the report estimates. Already linked to an array of heart and lung problems, inhalation of such particles is now the third highest risk factor for development of type 2 diabetes. More than 90% of the world's population lived in areas that exceeded the World Health Organization's PM2.5 exposure guideline.
Exposure to ozone, a lung irritant closely associated with production and use of fossil fuels, helped lead to an additional 472,000 premature deaths in 2017, according to the report. For newborns today, the cumulative effect is that they will die 20 months earlier on average. The impact is even more pronounced in India and other South Asian nations because of exposure to unhealthy household air stemming from the use of wood, coal and other solid fuels for cooking. The total "life expectancy loss" for a child born there today is 30 months.
"A child's health is critical to the future of every society, and this newest evidence suggests a much shorter life for anyone born into highly polluted air," Dan Greenbaum, president of the Health Effects Institute, a Boston-based nonprofit, said in a news release.
While China has taken aggressive steps to curb PM2.5 pollution, concentrations still exceeded the WHO's guidelines, the report said. More broadly, the number of households cooking with solid fuels is dropping in many parts of the world. Still, the proportion of the global population residing in areas that failed to meet even the WHO's "least-stringent" target for fine particle exposure remained steady at 54% from 1990 to 2017, the report said.
The 10 countries with the lowest exposure levels are mostly in the West and include the United States, Estonia and the Maldives. In passing, the report notes a particularly striking decrease in the U.S., where the ratio of the population living in areas that exceeded the WHO guidelines plummeted from 50% in 1990 to 3% in 2017.
The Health Effects Institute is funded by EPA and the global auto industry; this year's edition of the global air report includes the life expectancy projections for the first time.
Also contributing to the report were researchers at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation; the University of British Columbia; and the University of Texas, Austin.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/04/03/stories/1060141919
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested