Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - May 14, 2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) Methanol, Polymers Hit by Latest Round of Chinese Tariffs
May 14, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
Several key U.S.-made chemicals will be hit by China in the latest round of tariffs in an escalating trade war, including polymers, methanol and aromatics. Starting June 1, China will hike tariffs on 5,000 U.S. goods. According to the... -
(ACC Mentioned) Specialty Crops Mostly Spared from Latest Round of Chinese Tariffs
May 14, 2019 | Growing Produce
By Christina Herrick
Following President Donald Trump’s announcement to raise duties on Chinese goods imported to the U.S., the Chinese Ministry of Finance said it will raise tariffs on more than 5,000 U.S. products on June 1 in retaliation. -
Why the U.S.-China Trade War Could Be Long and Painful: No Off-Ramps
May 14, 2019 | New York Times
By Neil Irwin
Just two weeks ago, the United States and China seemed to be gliding toward a trade deal meant to resolve tensions between the world’s two largest economies. But the breakdown in talks since then — including the United States... -
Florida Ban on Local Straw Laws Vetoed by Governor
May 13, 2019 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
Newly elected Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, in his first veto, struck down a bill May 10 that would have prevented local governments from banning plastic straws for five years. In siding with cities that want to restrict plastic straws... -
Resource: Plastic Puts Focus on Action, Not Just Aspiration
May 14, 2019 | Plastics News
By Jim Johnson
Backers of a new effort to combat the plastics pollution problem are about taking action, not just pledging to take action. The World Wildlife Fund is teaming with six well-known companies to launch ReSource: Plastic, a program... -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA’s New Rule Shows Resistance to the Need for an Asbestos Ban
May 14, 2019 | Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance
By Emily Clemens
Asbestos is still not banned in the United States, despite the warnings and concerns of scientists and advisors. Asbestos is known to cause a series of diseases, including malignant mesothelioma, an aggressive cancer. The... -
13 Federal PFAs Bills Will Get Committee Hearing on Wednesday
May 14, 2019 | MLive
By Paul Gardner
Federal attention to PFAS will get a boost on Wednesday when a subcommittee in the House of Representatives convenes a hearing on 13 pending bills from legislators around the U.S. The hearing is entitled... -
The Energy 202: EPA Adds West Virginia Site Plagued by Chemical Dumping to Priority Cleanup List
May 14, 2019 | Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
A local company that once helped the West Virginia town of Minden thrive had for for decades dumped untold amounts of industrial chemicals nearby. Years after that coal-equipment manufacturer shuttered and the rest of the local coal... -
Democrats Propose Funding to Study PFAs at Military Bases
May 14, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Courtney Columbus
The fiscal 2020 Defense spending bill released by the House Appropriations Committee today includes funding to study drinking water contaminants, according to a news release. The legislation would set aside $13 million for... -
Houston Chemical Industry on Edge as Prosecutor Pursues Charges
May 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
The Houston area has seen four of the nation’s most serious chemical accidents in the past two years. As companies in the region search for what went wrong, they face a new risk: prosecutions from the county’s district attorney. -
California Jury Links Roundup to Cancer, Awards Couple $2 Billion
May 14, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Rebecca Beitsch
A jury ruled against chemical giant Monsanto on Monday, awarding a California couple $2 billion in damages after determining their cancer was caused by the weedkiller RoundUp. The decision in Alameda County Superior Court... -
Monsanto Lost Again on Roundup. What's Next for Glyphosate?
May 14, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer and Ariana Figueroa
A California jury awarded more than $2 billion yesterday to a couple who blamed their cancer diagnoses on a chemical found in Monsanto's popular herbicide Roundup — the latest in a string of legal defeats for the Bayer AG subsidiary. -
Chemours Sues DowDupont Over Spinoff to Assume Liabilities
May 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jef Feeley and Tiffany Kary
Chemours Co., a spinoff of DuPont created with some of its business lines and liabilities, has sued its former parent in a confidential filing in Delaware Chancery court. The complaint is listed as “confidential,” but supplemental... -
PacifiCorp Asbestos Exposure Claim Revived on Appeal
May 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
The widow of a power plant plant worker may pursue asbestos claims against PacifiCorp in its capacity as a premises owner, a Washington state appeals court ruled. But her other related tort claims are barred by state law, it said. -
DuPont’s Remaining Teflon Injury Suits Combined for Trial
May 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Perry Cooper
DuPont Co. failed to convince the court overseeing thousands of suits alleging a toxic Teflon component contaminated drinking water in Ohio and West Virginia that it should continue trying the cases individually. -
UN Rotterdam Convention Adopts Compliance Mechanism
May 14, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Ginger Hervey
International parties to the UN Rotterdam Convention last week adopted a "compliance mechanism" to help countries implement rules on importing and exporting hazardous chemicals. It was agreed as part of a 10-day meeting of the... -
President Trump Can Take Additional Steps to Maximize Natural Gas Benefits
May 14, 2019 | Real Clear Energy
By Timothy M. Doyle
President Trump recently signed executive orders that marked an important step forward in letting market forces transform energy production while also reducing carbon emissions. To fully succeed in this effort, the President should... -
Trump Looks to Highlight Energy Exports in Louisiana
May 14, 2019 | AP
By Kevin Freking
President Donald Trump will highlight his administration’s efforts to ramp up liquefied natural gas exports as he visits a new plant Tuesday in southwest Louisiana. Trump will tour a $10 billion export terminal that will liquefy natural gas... -
Oil Is Already Trade War's Collateral Damage Even Without Duties
May 14, 2019 | Bloomberg (In the Houston Chronicle)
By Pratish Narayanan and Sharon Cho
U.S. oil shipments are likely to be a casualty of the trade war with China, even though crude was spared from the latest list of American goods targeted with retaliatory tariffs. While oil has never been subject to levies during the dispute... -
Environmentalists to Appeal Adverse Pipeline NEPA Ruling
May 14, 2019 | Inside EPA
The New York environmental group that tried to challenge a Federal Regulatory Energy Commission (FERC) policy limiting consideration of greenhouse gas emissions in pipeline approvals, will seek appeal of an appellate ruling that... -
U.S. Spending in Upstream Onshore, Power Grid Tops Global Energy Investments
May 14, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
Global energy investments stabilized last year ending a three-year drought, with capital spending on natural gas, oil and coal surging, while expenditures stalled for energy efficiencies and renewables, according to the International... -
Warren Buffett, Fear, and Greed in Fracked Oil Fields
May 14, 2019 | DeSmog Blog
By Justin Mikulka
Warren Buffett, CEO of investment holding company Berkshire Hathaway, is considered one of the top investors in historyand can back up that track record with a personal wealth of around $90 billion. Buffett is known for advising... -
Ewire: Industry, Labor Seek to Boost Infrastructure Push
May 14, 2019 | Inside EPA
Top industry leaders are seeking to boost pressure on policymakers to enact major legislation upgrading transportation and other types of infrastructure, and one top House Democrat is putting the pressure on the White House to endorse a... -
Funding Remains Sticking Point as Talks for Deal Near
May 14, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Maxine Joselow
It's Infrastructure Week. No, really. Though Infrastructure Week has become a perennial joke in Washington, mocked as the Trump administration's means of distraction from controversial news, momentum appears to be building for a... -
White House Memo May Threaten EPA Climate Finding, Analysts Say
May 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
A recent update from the White House budget office is breathing new life into outside challenges to the EPA’s pivotal climate science finding. This isn’t the first time the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market group that has long... -
Four Reasons Why Wheeler’s Clean Power Plan “Replacement” Will Lead to More Pollution
May 14, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Rama Zakaria
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler has sent a draft rule that would roll back the Clean Power Plan to the White House for review – a step that suggests the rule is close to being finalized and released. If this final rule looks anything like...
Industry and Association News
TSCA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Methanol, Polymers Hit by Latest Round of Chinese Tariffs
May 14, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
Several key U.S.-made chemicals will be hit by China in the latest round of tariffs in an escalating trade war, including polymers, methanol and aromatics.
Starting June 1, China will hike tariffs on 5,000 U.S. goods. According to the research and pricing consultancy ISIS, that list includes raising tariffs to 25 percent from 10 percent on a number of important products for the U.S. petrochemical industry including: toluene, xylene, paraxylene, methanol, purified terephthalic acid (PTA), polystyrene, acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS), polyvinyl chloride (PVC) , toluene di-isocyanate (TDI) and methylene diphenyl di-isocyanate (MDI), among others.
Houston-based Westlake Chemical, the second-biggest producer of PVC in North America, saw its stocks dinged Monday after news broke about the Chinese tariffs, though it rebounded somewhat in early Tuesday trading.
The tariffs could also be a blow to the growing methanol industry in the U.S., which has been powered by the shale boom. China is one of the world's biggest consumers of methanol, which can be used as an alternative transportation fuel or blended into motor gasoline to boost efficiency and lower emissions.
Most methanol plants are on the Gulf Coast, which have easier access to the Permian Basin and natural gas shale plays. Two new methanol plants on the Gulf Coast are expected to begin operating in 2019 and 2020, according to the Energy Department.
The new list of Chinese tariffs also impacts five different sub-types of polyethylene, but does not include expansion of
A spokesman for the American Chemistry Council confirmed Tuesday the new list doesn't include low-density polyethylene.
ISIS has a complete translated list of the new Chinese-imposed tariffs affecting the US chemical industry here.
Following China's announcement, the U.S. responded Tuesday by announcing a list of previously unaffected Chinese exports, worth $300 billion, that could be hit by new 25 percent tariffs.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Methanol-polymers-hit-by-latest-round-of-Chinese-13843680.php
-
(ACC Mentioned) Specialty Crops Mostly Spared from Latest Round of Chinese Tariffs
May 14, 2019 | Growing Produce
By Christina Herrick
Following President Donald Trump’s announcement to raise duties on Chinese goods imported to the U.S., the Chinese Ministry of Finance said it will raise tariffs on more than 5,000 U.S. products on June 1 in retaliation.
Increases on the $60 billion goods could be as high as 25%.
Specialty crops were mostly spared in this go-round, with wine, canned and frozen vegetables and fruit being the only exported goods to have increased duties proposed, according to reports from CNBC.
However, the supply side of the agriculture industry will be impacted as U.S. fertilizer exports will be among the products subject to additional duties by China.
China is the third-largest export market for U.S. chemical producers, according to the American Chemistry Council. The ACC says chemical exports to China declined 24% from 2017 to 2018 in part due to tariffs imposed by China. Among goods impacted by U.S. duties include herbicides and plant growth regulators.
https://www.growingproduce.com/fruits/specialty-crops-mostly-spared-from-latest-round-of-chinese-tariffs/
-
Why the U.S.-China Trade War Could Be Long and Painful: No Off-Ramps
May 14, 2019 | New York Times
By Neil Irwin
Just two weeks ago, the United States and China seemed to be gliding toward a trade deal meant to resolve tensions between the world’s two largest economies.
But the breakdown in talks since then — including the United States raising tariffs to 25 percent on $200 billion of Chinese imports and threatening to tax an additional $300 billion — worries people who study international economic diplomacy.
That’s because both the United States and China seem to be digging into their positions in ways that will be hard to resolve with the kinds of mutual face-saving that typically turns high-stakes negotiations into deals.
To use a common negotiating metaphor, it is not clear what the off-ramps are that might allow a de-escalation and prevent a major trade war that would prove costly to both nations.
In effect, President Trump appears to view continuing tension with China as good for him politically and has said, contrary to the view of mainstream economists, that tariffs are a reason for the United States’ recent economic good fortune.
China’s leaders may not reveal their thinking in real time on Twitter, but they have signaled that many of the concessions the United States wants would require China to sacrifice core parts of its economic strategy and national sovereignty — in particular its ambitions to lead in the high-tech industries of the future.
“Each side has dug itself into some fairly deep holes such that it will be difficult to emerge from,” said Douglas Rediker, chairman of International Capital Strategies and a former U.S. representative to the International Monetary Fund. As is often the case in negotiations, the pathway to a deal may rest in “constructive ambiguity” that both sides can present to their domestic audiences as a win.
“Do I believe there’s enough room to find common ground?” Mr. Rediker said. “Yes, but only based on this ambiguity that doesn’t necessarily resolve the issues in one party’s favor or another.”
Both sides have taken subtle steps to allow time for last-ditch efforts at some agreement. China sent a senior negotiator to Washington last week despite the breakdown in talks, and it delayed the start of its retaliatory tariffs on American imports until June 1; the United States applied the newest wave of higher tariffs based on when ships containing the affected goods arrive, adding a few weeks in which a reversal could be hammered out.
And President Trump and President Xi Jinping of China could meet at the G20 summit in late June in Osaka, Japan, which would be an opportunity for de-escalation at the highest levels.
But open lines of communication and time to work won’t by themselves solve the problem of how to finesse some mutually agreeable deal — particularly given that both countries view this negotiation as resetting their economic relationship in ways that would have long-lasting consequences.
Add in Mr. Trump’s tendency to view every negotiation through a zero-sum prism, and it may be hard to find a pathway for both parties to go home able to proclaim victory.
When the negotiations seemed to be going well a few weeks ago, “I thought we were going toward constructive ambiguity,” said Mary E. Lovely, an economist and trade expert at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School.
The United States is demanding that China codify rules to protect American companies and their technology doing business in China into law. Chinese negotiators now reject that possibility (American officials have said they earlier agreed to those provisions).
“It looks like there was a level of specificity that China wasn’t willing to accept and a level of ambiguity that the Trump administration wasn’t willing to accept,” Ms. Lovely said. “It looks like the Chinese are firm that there are some areas where they are not willing to go, that they see as disrespectful.”
If the escalation now being signaled by both sides goes into force, it will mean Americans face higher prices for a wide range of the goods they buy, and certain American manufacturers will face less demand for their products. Already, American farmers are suffering amid reduced Chinese demand for American soybeans and other products. The Chinese manufacturing sector is hurting as well — and is likely to suffer further if tariffs reduce American demand for their products or drive relocation of production to other countries.
Ultimately the question becomes how much of that pain each side will be willing to endure, and whether the two nations’ leaders feel a sense of urgency to each help the other save face domestically.
Things can change quickly. In a different sphere, for example, Mr. Trump went from threatening North Korea with nuclear annihilation to acting like old friends practically overnight.
But given where things stand, it may take that kind of surprising reset between two top leaders, built on personal relationships, rather than the slow grind of hammering out an agreement that is more typical of economic diplomacy.
“The off-ramps are tricky here because the president believes this is good policy and the Chinese are loath to cave on it,” said Jay Shambaugh, a professor of international economics at George Washington University and director of the Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution. “It’s not abundantly clear how you climb down without any damage.”
The question for the weeks and months ahead is how much damage each side will tolerate before rethinking some of those basic assumptions and deciding that they don’t want to dig in quite so hard, after all.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/14/upshot/us-china-trade-war.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
-
Florida Ban on Local Straw Laws Vetoed by Governor
May 13, 2019 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
Newly elected Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, in his first veto, struck down a bill May 10 that would have prevented local governments from banning plastic straws for five years.
In siding with cities that want to restrict plastic straws, DeSantis, a Republican, noted that Florida communities including Sanibel, Fort Myers Beach and Miami Beach had already taken action to prohibit plastic straws.
"These measures have not, as far as I can tell, frustrated any state policy or harmed the state's interests," DeSantis wrote in a letter accompanying his veto. "In fact, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection has encouraged Florida residents, schools and businesses to reduce plastic straw use.
"Under these circumstances, the state should simply allow local communities to address this issue through the political process," he wrote. "Citizens who oppose plastic straw ordinances can seek recourse by electing people who share their views."
The governor's veto letter said the legislation originally addressed issues with contamination of recyclable materials, but the provision dealing with plastic straws was added later. It prevented local governments from banning plastic straws until 2024.
City officials in Sanibel applauded the veto and noted its local ordinance included a provision allowing for straws for the disabled, a concern mentioned by opponents of straw bans. In a May 7 letter, Sanibel Mayor Kevin Ruane had urged DeSantis to veto reject the bill and noted it would overturn Sanibel's plastic straw ban, which had passed in September.
Florida state Rep. Ben Diamond, D-St. Petersburg, tweeted that the governor's veto was "a victory for home rule and for cities like @StPeteFL that have taken action to protect our environment."
The bill banning local bans had passed Florida's Republican controlled state legislature by comfortable margins in late April. The state's House adopted it 87-23 on April 25, and the state Senate passed it 24-15 five days later.
DeSantis's veto is the latest action in a topic that's been hotly debated in state legislatures around the country this year. Three states — North Dakota, Oklahoma and Tennessee — passed laws preventing cities from regulating plastic and other packaging, arguing that local bans raise costs and that one states law is better than a patchwork of local ordinances.
But measures to do so in South Carolina and Alabama met strong resistance from city councils, and have stalled in those states for now.
The Florida Legislature's analysis attached to the bill said 10 Florida towns and cities, including St. Petersburg and Fort Lauderdale, had taken action against plastic straws and noted businesses such as Sea World and Alaska Airlines had taken similar actions.
But it also said that paper straws, while biodegradable, also have environmental impacts and cost 2.5 cents compared with 0.5 cents for plastic straws.
It also noted U.S. Environmental Protection Agency statistics that said two-thirds of the marine debris found in beach cleanups and surveys were single-use disposable plastic packaging from food and beverage service.
Florida already has separate state laws banning local governments from regulating plastic bags, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, and preventing local governments from banning expanded polystyrene foam packaging, according to Florida news reports.
https://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20190513/NEWS/190519985/florida-ban-on-local-straw-laws-vetoed-by-governor
-
Resource: Plastic Puts Focus on Action, Not Just Aspiration
May 14, 2019 | Plastics News
By Jim Johnson
Backers of a new effort to combat the plastics pollution problem are about taking action, not just pledging to take action.
The World Wildlife Fund is teaming with six well-known companies to launch ReSource: Plastic, a program designed to help companies learn strategies to prevent plastic pollution, the environmental group said.
ReSource: Plastic wants to help "companies align their large-scale plastic commitments from aspirational to meaningful, measurable action," organizers said.
Initial members of the effort include McDonald's, Keurig Dr. Pepper, Procter & Gamble, Starbucks, Tetra Pak and Coca-Cola Co.
"ReSource is designed to identify the concrete changes that will make the biggest impacts in reducing a company's plastic pollution footprint," Nik Sekhran, chief conservation officer at WWF, said in a statement.
"To get closer to our goal of no plastic in nature will take nothing short of transforming the entire value chain. With ReSource, companies now have access to more advanced tools to maximize, measure and multiply their commitments to make this a reality," Sekhran said.
There's no shortage of environmental groups making efforts to help end plastic pollution, and WWF is working with Ocean Conservancy and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation as "thought partners" aiding the new program.
Procter & Gamble, based in Cincinnati, sells consumer products around the world and has been vocal in its efforts address issues facing plastic packaging.
"Addressing the plastic problem in our oceans, rivers and land is everyone's responsibility, including the companies that use much of the plastic in the world today. It's a complex issue with no one-size-fits-all solution, and that's why we're so energized by the approach WWF is taking with the ReSource program," said Virginie Helias, vice president and chief sustainability officer at P&G.
"ReSource will bring a systems approach in partnership with many stakeholders — common metrics, best practices, accountability — that is much needed to accelerate progress on long-term solutions," Helias continued.
Both WWF and the Ocean Conservancy have been loud voices regarding plastic pollution in recent years.
Michael Goltzman is vice president of global policy, environmental sustainability and social impact at Coca-Cola.
"Solving the world's plastic waste problem requires collective action across all sectors of society," he said in a statement. "Through platforms like the WWF's ReSource activation hub, we can share knowledge, measurement goals and collaborative frameworks to advance a circular economy."
Companies joining the effort can impact change by prioritizing activities that will yield the greatest impact, implement activities and methodology to measure progress, and collaborate with others to "incite new solutions and investments," the new group states.
ReSource: Plastics estimates participation by 100 companies could prevent 10 million metric tons of plastic waste. More information is available at www.resource-plastic.com.
https://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20190514/NEWS/190519978/resource-plastic-puts-focus-on-action-not-just-aspiration?CSAuthResp=1%3A373719342283636%3A284601%3A38%3A24%3Aapproved%3AA9244372B5E2CAE8A56BA8F4F3A8053D
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA’s New Rule Shows Resistance to the Need for an Asbestos Ban
May 14, 2019 | Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance
By Emily Clemens
Asbestos is still not banned in the United States, despite the warnings and concerns of scientists and advisors. Asbestos is known to cause a series of diseases, including malignant mesothelioma, an aggressive cancer. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has put various rules and regulations into place to help protect the public and the environment from the dangers of asbestos, however, their recent rule calls their protections into question.
The EPA’s New Rule
Last month, April 2019, a new rule was put into place by the EPA to further regulate asbestos manufacturing and use in the United States. This expands upon the 1989 Partial Ban, adding an array of products to the list of asbestos materials not allowed in the United States. As part of this new rule, products banned that won’t be able to enter without EPA approval include adhesives, sealants, roof coatings, arch chutes, certain gaskets, asbestos cement products, certain tapes, acetylene cylinder filler, certain friction materials, high-grade electrical paper, millboard, missile liner, packings, pipeline wraps, reinforced plastics, roofing felts, and much more, including many asbestos building materials.
Under the New Rule, all asbestos products must be approved and reviewed by the EPA, and the EPA must be notified 90 days before the products are manufactured, imported, or processed. After review, the EPA will be able to put restrictions or prohibitions in place where they feel necessary, determining whether or not an asbestos product can enter the American market.
Disregarding the Need for an Asbestos Ban
Responses to the New Rule have been divided with both positive and negative reactions. Those pleased with the New Rule feel that it covers products previously left out, offering more protection and addressing products that were previously allowed into the United States with complete freedom. Now, they are subject to EPA review and approval, and more products are banned.
However, with varied levels of support, there is a large amount of concern and discontent amongst those advocating for a full ban on the toxin. Those in opposition feel that the EPA is not only leaving the door open to the manufacture and use of other asbestos materials, but potentially allowing for even more harmful uses. Asbestos products previously not allowed into the United States now can return. The products must get approval, but whereas they were completely banned before, there is now a possibility for them to return. This could in turn open up more ways for companies to manufacture asbestos, encouraging its use despite the numerous risks.
How Agency Experts' Warnings Were Ignored
Two internal memos were obtained by the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) and later shared with The New York Times. Within the memos, the EPA’s scientists and lawyers strongly advised that asbestos be completely banned instead of solely being restricted. The memos were issued back in August, noting that asbestos should be banned because of how the “extreme harm” outweighs any potential benefit. Experts also asserted that alternatives to asbestos are available.
EPA officials and other experts are surprised that the warnings were ignored, despite the fact that the EPA has cut back on other environmental protections. A standard proposed for cleaning up toxic chemical groundwater pollution was weakened by the EPA shortly after. A ban had been proposed on deadly chemicals found in paint strippers, but was also scaled back by the EPA. Agencies proposed a ban on the use of the pesticide chlorpyrifos, linked to illnesses and children’s disabilities. The ban was later rejected by the EPA.
While all of these actions are concerning, the risks and damages of asbestos are extremely well-known, leaving little excuse to not have the material completely blocked from the United States, as it is in 66 other nations. Several advocates of a ban have spoken out since April’s rule. ADAO’s president, Linda Reinstein has vocalized her concerns that the rule is “toothless” and opens the door for some asbestos products to return to the market. The chloralkali industry also continues to import tons of raw asbestos, which is not addressed by the rule. Reinstein also notes that the EPA isn’t addressing “legacy asbestos” prevalent throughout our homes, at the workplace, and in schools.
Prompts for Further Action Against Asbestos
Mike Walls, Vice President of the American Chemistry Council’s Regulatory and Technical Affairs, stated that his organization wouldn’t support a ban until a congressionally mandated evaluation of asbestos was completed. Many feel that the results of this review will confirm whether a regulation is sufficient or if a ban is needed. Walls feels that asbestos shouldn’t be banned solely because it’s hazardous, especially if the risks of asbestos exposure can be managed.
The memos previously mentioned prove that the EPA is concerned about the review process. They are only evaluating six fibers of asbestos when there are many other fiber types proven to be harmful. Critics are also concerned that lung cancer and mesothelioma are the only risks being addressed. Furthermore, as Reinstein stated, legacy issues from previous mishandling of asbestos are being ignored.
With so many disappointed with the New Rule, more and more are speaking out about the need for a ban. Key advocates are spreading the word of the dangers of asbestos, hopefully helping push the United States closer to being asbestos-free.
https://www.mesothelioma.com/blog/epas-new-rule-shows-resistance-to-the-need-for-an-asbestos-ban.htm
-
13 Federal PFAs Bills Will Get Committee Hearing on Wednesday
May 14, 2019 | MLive
By Paul Gardner
Federal attention to PFAS will get a boost on Wednesday when a subcommittee in the House of Representatives convenes a hearing on 13 pending bills from legislators around the U.S.
The hearing is entitled, “Protecting Americans at Risk of PFAS Contamination & Exposure.” It was called by Chairman Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and it goes before the subcommittee on Environment & Climate Change.
Michigan’s role in the hearing will come in part by two of the witnesses: Brian Steglitz, who runs the Ann Arbor water treatment system, and Dr. Jamie DeWitt, an associate professor and toxicologist who is serving on the state’s new Science Advisory Workgroup that is exploring health-based drinking water standards.
"This week’s hearing will be an important step by Congress to respond to the dangers and help begin the cleaning up process at contaminated sites,”said U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell, a Democrat from Dearborn.
The per- and poly-fluorinated chemicals known as PFAS are tied to adverse health effects, including cancer, developmental delays and endocrine issues. They’ve been used in consumer products and industrial applications, and now can be found in the drinking water for millions of Americans - many of who are drinking levels that exceed unenforceable federal guidelines set in 2016.
Recent data from Environmental Working Group shows that PFAS has been found in 43 states. That includes about 200 contamination sites in Michigan, which launched statewide testing for the compounds in 2018 as concerns about the chemicals mounted.
PFAS, said Dingell, are “a growing nationwide threat.”
However, the hearing notice says that multiple federal steps that would increase scrutiny on the compounds - and better protect Americans - have not been taken.
Among them are responses by the Environmental Protection Agency, which did not provide requested documents to the committee in 2018 and which continues to research drinking water standards and PFAS disposal measures. Meanwhile, the Department of Defense continues to receive criticism from communities that host closed or active military installations where PFAS has contaminated drinking water and the environment. They include Oscoda and Grayling in Michigan.
“The EPA and the federal government has not done their part to keep our communities safe – the time is now for Congress to act,” Dingell said.
Witnesses in addition to Steglitz and DeWitt who will be appearing before the panel include:
-Erik D. Olson, Health Program Director of the Natural Resources Defense Council,
-Emily Marpe, Community Member of Petersburgh, New YorkTracy Mehan, Executive Director, Government Affairs American Water Works Association
-Jane C. Luxton, Partner, Co-Chair of the Environmental and Administrative Law Practice, Lewis Brisbois
Here is a list of the pending PFAS-related legislation in the House:
H.R. 535, the "PFAS Action Act of 2019," Reps. Dingell (D-MI) and Upton (R-MI) introduced H.R. 535, the “PFAS Action Act of 2019.” The bill requires the EPA Administrator to designate, within one year, all per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances as hazardous substances under Superfund (CERCLA). This designation would ensure that PFAS contamination is cleaned up under Superfund authorities.
H.R. 2377, the "Protect Drinking Water from PFAS Act of 2019," Reps. Boyle (D-PA) and Fitzpatrick (R-PA) introduced H.R. 2377, the “Protect Drinking Water from PFAS Act of 2019.” The bill requires EPA to set a drinking water maximum contaminant level (MCL) for total per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances to protect public health.
H.R. 2533, the "Providing Financial Assistance for Safe Drinking Water Act," Chairman Pallone (D-NJ) introduced H.R. 2533, the “Providing Financial Assistance for Safe (PFAS) Drinking Water Act.” The bill requires the EPA Administrator to establish, within 180 days of enactment, a program to award grants to PFAS-affected water systems to pay the capital costs associated with installing treatment technologies that can remove all detectable amounts of PFAS from drinking water.
H.R. 2566, Rep. Soto (D-FL) introduced H.R. 2566. The bill requires EPA to establish a label under the Safer Choice program for cookware that is PFAS-free. The label would be available to cookware manufacturers on a voluntary basis to inform consumer choice.
H.R. 2570, the "PFAS User Fee Act of 2019," Rep. Rouda (D-FL) introduced H.R. 2570, the “PFAS User Fee Act of 2019.” The bill establishes a trust fund, financed through user fees from PFAS manufacturers, to pay the ongoing operations and maintenance costs of water treatment works and drinking water treatment plants that remove contamination from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
H.R. 2577, Rep. Delgado (D-NY) introduced H.R. 2577. The bill amends the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986 to require reporting on releases of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances through the Toxics Release Inventory.
H.R. 2591, the "PFAS Waste Incineration Ban Act of 2019," Rep. Khanna (D-CA) introduced H.R. 2591, the “PFAS Waste Incineration Ban Act of 2019.” The bill amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act to prohibit the incineration disposal of fire-fighting foam containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. The bill also requires the EPA Administrator to, within 12 months, identify additional wastes containing PFAS for which a prohibition on incineration may be necessary to protect human health.
H.R. 2596, Rep. Kuster (D-NH) introduced H.R. 2596. The bill amends the Toxic Substances Control Act to prevent the introduction of any new PFAS into commerce.
H.R. 2600, the "Toxic PFAS Control Act," Rep. Dean (D-PA) introduced H.R. 2600, the “Toxic PFAS Control Act.” The bill amends Section 6 of TSCA to comprehensively regulate per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. The bill would prohibit the manufacture of any new PFAS chemical substance within one year and existing PFAS within two years. It would also prohibit the processing of existing PFAS within three years; establish standards for the safe disposal of PFAS; require labeling of all articles containing PFAS; and limit exemptions available for PFAS.
H.R. 2605, Rep. Stevens (D-MI) introduced H.R. 2605. The bill requires the EPA Administrator to issue a final rule within 180 days listing PFAS as a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act and requires the Administrator to identify source categories for PFAS within one year.
H.R. 2608, Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY) introduced H.R. 2608. The bill requires comprehensive health testing of all PFAS under the Toxic Substances Control Act and reporting from all manufacturers and processors of PFAS on health, safety, and environmental impacts.
H.R. 2626, Rep. Upton (R-MI) introduced H.R. 2626. The bill amends the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 to require cleanups at federal facilities to meet state limits for PFAS.
H.R. 2638, Rep. Fletcher (D-TX) introduced H.R. 2638. The bill requires to issue guidance for firefighters and other first responders to minimize the use of foam and other firefighting materials containing PFAS and to minimize their health risk from PFAS exposure.
https://www.mlive.com/news/2019/05/13-federal-pfas-bills-will-get-committee-hearing-on-wednesday.html
-
The Energy 202: EPA Adds West Virginia Site Plagued by Chemical Dumping to Priority Cleanup List
May 14, 2019 | Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
A local company that once helped the West Virginia town of Minden thrive had for for decades dumped untold amounts of industrial chemicals nearby. Years after that coal-equipment manufacturer shuttered and the rest of the local coal economy fell into decline, those toxic chemicals remained.
Now the federal government is saying it will make cleaning up Minden a priority. On Monday, the Environmental Protection Agency finally added a site in the tiny town of 250 people to its national priority list for contaminated Superfund sites. The government says it prioritize cleaning up a former manufacturing site for Shaffer Equipment Co. and nearby areas around Arbuckle Creek, where the company used polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, which had been added to oil used by electrical equipment until 1984.
For years, Minden residents said they were being overlooked by federal authorities, even as many of them were diagnosed with an alarming number of cancers and other health issues. Local activists told The Post's Brady Dennis for a profile he wrote of the community they found about a third of Minden residents have died of or been diagnosed with cancer in recent years.
They suspected the cause was PCBs. Yet testing by state and federal officials was not able to definitively establish that link. Still, residents pressed their case with the Trump administration, which proposed last September to add the Minden site to the Superfund list.
West Virginia politicians praised the move on Monday, which open remediation of the site up to an injection of new federal funding through the Superfund program. “This is such an important day because the great people of Minden have been hurting for too long and they’ve been waiting on this level of help for decades,” Gov. Jim Justice (R) said.
So too did local leaders, such as Ayne Amjad, a doctor who helped research the health problems and spent years trying to raise the profile of the town. “So to get so much national support and to see it come to this is such a great feeling,” she said Monday, adding that activists will turn now to relocation efforts for Minden residents living near the toxic site.
In a sign of how intractable some pollutants are, though, the EPA has already undertaken several rounds of cleanups in Minden since 1984, removing dozens of PCB-laced drums buried underground and hauling away nearly 5,000 tons of soil.
The listing is a small part of a larger effort by the Trump administration to revitalize the nearly 40-year-old Superfund program, designed to clean up more than 1,300 hazardous sites across the country. Compelling companies to pay up for cleanup efforts has proved to be one of the few issues on which the EPA has been willing to side with environmental groups during the Trump administration.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2019/05/14/the-energy-202-epa-finally-added-west-virginia-site-plagued-by-chemical-dumping-to-priority-cleanup-list/5cd9c09c1ad2e544f001dcfa/?utm_term=.33a550d58df4
-
Democrats Propose Funding to Study PFAs at Military Bases
May 14, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Courtney Columbus
The fiscal 2020 Defense spending bill released by the House Appropriations Committee today includes funding to study drinking water contaminants, according to a news release.
The legislation would set aside $13 million for studying and assessing two types of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, at current and former military installations in the U.S. that are contaminated by the chemicals.
Companies have phased out the two chemicals — perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS). But they persist in the environment and can make their way into groundwater.
The Department of Defense has identified 401 current and former installations where known or suspected releases of PFOS or PFOA have occurred.
Lawmakers in both chambers have introduced a flurry of bills this year that aim to address PFAS. A House Energy and Commerce panel tomorrow is set to review more than a dozen of them (E&E Daily, May 13).
PFAS measures are likely to emerge in various spending bills. The House Military Construction-Veterans Affairs measure approved in committee last week includes $60 million for PFAS cleanup (E&E News PM, May 9).
The Defense spending bill would also boost the total amount of environmental restoration funding to $1.26 billion — an increase of $14.8 million over the current funding level and an increase of $188 million from the budget request. A closed subcommittee markup is set for tomorrow.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/05/14/stories/1060332595
-
Houston Chemical Industry on Edge as Prosecutor Pursues Charges
May 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
The Houston area has seen four of the nation’s most serious chemical accidents in the past two years. As companies in the region search for what went wrong, they face a new risk: prosecutions from the county’s district attorney.
Harris County’s top law enforcement officer, Kim Ogg (D), says she sees the criminal code as a useful tool to hold companies accountable with the potential for significantly higher fines and even jail time for top executives. Houston is the seat of Harris County, the third-largest county in the U.S. by population.
If it works, the strategy could embolden prosecutors in other regions to take a tough approach when chemical plant failures threaten residents. Already, prosecutors in cities such as New York and Philadelphia have won convictions against employers by charging defendants with manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and reckless endangerment in cases in which workers were injured or killed in construction accidents.
But the approach by Ogg is ruffling feathers in the business community as companies worry that routine operating errors could be construed as willful crimes, some attorneys said.
“The concern that I have is criminalizing incidents and criminalizing what might be ordinary negligence is going to make people very reluctant to meaningfully engage in incident investigations without first worrying about their own individual exposure,” said Mark Farley, a partner at Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP in Houston. Farley represents Kuraray America, a subsidiary of Japan-based Kuraray Co., Ltd., in civil litigation and has represented Exxon Mobil Corp. and Enterprise Products Partners LP and other companies in matters before Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.
Since 2018, Ogg has brought criminal charges against chemical producer Arkema Inc., its CEO and two other executives, and Intercontinental Terminal Co. which operated a storage terminal that caught fire in March.
The trend could accelerate with the Harris County Commissioners Court plan to hire four new environmental prosecutors, tripling the unit’s size to six. The commissioners’ court—the county’s governing body—also signed off on two new investigators and two additional support staff for the unit. The new prosecutors will have a mandate to work aggressively, Ogg said.
“I think it’s time that the average person, not just the corporate giant, had a say about what our quality of life is going to be around their plants,” said Ogg, who was elected district attorney in November 2016. Companies that operate responsibly have nothing to fear, she said. “We’re looking for outliers, repeat offenders, groups that we know had a responsibility and not just failed, but deliberately pursued profit in the face of great danger to people.”
Prosecution Strategy
To win a criminal conviction, prosecutors must show beyond a reasonable doubt not only that an employer or plant managers were negligent or should have known about the risk, but that their conduct was reckless—that they did know, but didn’t care.
Ogg’s office secured a grand jury indictment in August 2018 alleging Arkema, its CEO Richard Rowe, and Leslie Comardelle—the plant manager at the Crosby, Texas, site—recklessly endangered the public by letting organic peroxides into the air during Hurricane Harvey.
Another indictment in April charged Arkema—a subsidiary of France-based Arkema SA. —and its vice president of logistics, Mike Keough, with felony assault for allegedly causing the injury of two sheriff’s deputies by withholding information about its chemicals. Prosecutors allege Arkema said it was monitoring its chemical tanks in real-time and would warn first responders of any risk, but in fact the company was only monitoring some of the containers. Trial on the first indictment could begin this month.
Chemical Hub
Ogg’s approach is unusual because federal prosecutors, rather than state authorities, more often bring cases alleging violations of environmental, health, or safety laws. Even then, criminal prosecutions are fairly rare.
The Environmental Protection Agency in the last decade has brought criminal cases against 19 companies and individuals in the Southern District of Texas, which includes Houston, according to agency data. About 99 defendants have been prosecuted nationwide under the federal workers safety law, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970—or around two per year. Employers convicted of criminal violations under the law face a maximum sentence of six months in jail. The Chemical Safety Board issues recommendations, not charges.
Long the nation’s energy capital, Harris County in recent years struggled with the impacts of Hurricane Harvey in 2017. It also has been the site of four of the last seven investigations by the CSB.
The board is probing a June 2018 chemical release at Kuraray America Inc.'s EVAL facility in Pasadena, Texas; the March Intercontinental Terminals Co. fire in Deer Park; and the April KMCO LLC explosion in Crosby. It finished the Arkema investigation in May 2018.
More charges are possible in the ITC case as Harris County’s investigation continues, Ogg said. County investigators also were at the site of the KMCO explosion to check for violations.
ITC and Kuraray didn’t respond to a request for comment, and a spokesman for KMCO declined to comment. The Texas Chemical Council, which represents chemical producers in the state, didn’t respond to a request for comment.
A spokeswoman for the CSB didn’t respond to a request for comment.
“So far, the only real flak I’ve gotten is from the lawyers who are being paid by the corporations,” Ogg said.
Hindering Investigations?
Rusty Hardin, founding partner at Rusty Hardin & Associates LLP in Houston who is representing Arkema, said the company will prevail. “We’re going to find out there was no there there,” Hardin said.
Arkema and Hardin in the past have said the executives and plant managers were heroes doing their best under great hardship.
“The real challenge in the case will be the causation element,” said Geoffrey Corn, a law professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston. “The prosecutor has to prove that the injuries that were inflicted on the officers were a foreseeable consequence of the misinformation by the management officials.”
But deciding whether Arkema could have known Harvey’s flood would cause the officers’ injuries is “inherently within the prerogative of a jury,” Corn said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/houston-chemical-industry-on-edge-as-prosecutor-pursues-charges
-
California Jury Links Roundup to Cancer, Awards Couple $2 Billion
May 14, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Rebecca Beitsch
A jury ruled against chemical giant Monsanto on Monday, awarding a California couple $2 billion in damages after determining their cancer was caused by the weedkiller RoundUp.
The decision in Alameda County Superior Court comes on the heels of a recent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) statement that said there were no serious public health risks associated with glyphosate, the active ingredient in RoundUp.
But a growing number of juries disagree with the EPA's position. Monday's ruling marks the third case since August in which a jury found that glyphosate caused cancer. More than 13,000 similar lawsuits have been filed against Monsanto or its parent company Bayer.
Many of those suits were spurred by a 2015 World Health Organization analysis that said glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic in humans.”
Alva and Alberta Pilliod, the plaintiffs in the California case, argued they developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma following decades of using the weedkiller.
Bayer relied heavily on EPA's assessment of glyphosate's safety in responding to the verdict, arguing the Pilliods had existing risk factors for that type of cancer.
"Bayer is disappointed with the jury’s decision and will appeal the verdict in this case, which conflicts directly with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s interim registration review decision released just last month," the company said in a statement. "The consensus among leading health regulators worldwide that glyphosate-based products can be used safely and that glyphosate is not carcinogenic."
Bayer said Monday's verdict would be unlikely to impact future cases and trials, as each one has its own factual and legal circumstances.
Glyphosate is the most heavily used weedkiller in the country, and its use has been spreading year after year, according to analysis by the Environmental Working Group.
The EPA earlier this month proposed new rules that would “help farmers target pesticide sprays on the intended pest, protect pollinators, and reduce the problem of weeds becoming resistant to glyphosate.”
“EPA has found no risks to public health from the current registered uses of glyphosate,” Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a statement.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has argued that the herbicide is necessary.
“If we are going to feed 10 billion people by 2050, we are going to need all the tools at our disposal, which includes the use the glyphosate,” Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue said in a statement when EPA announced its proposed rules.
But a number of communities have banned the use of glyphosate due to health concerns. More than 50 other cities and counties, including Los Angeles County, have prohibited its use.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/443488-jury-links-roundup-to-cancer-awarding-couple-2-billion-in-damages
-
Monsanto Lost Again on Roundup. What's Next for Glyphosate?
May 14, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer and Ariana Figueroa
A California jury awarded more than $2 billion yesterday to a couple who blamed their cancer diagnoses on a chemical found in Monsanto's popular herbicide Roundup — the latest in a string of legal defeats for the Bayer AG subsidiary.
The verdict from the Alameda County Superior Court comes just months after two other juries awarded millions of dollars to plaintiffs in similar lawsuits that claimed Monsanto knew Roundup's active chemical glyphosate was dangerous but failed to warn customers.
Bayer denies glyphosate causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma or any other cancer and is appealing all three verdicts. But legal experts note that pressure is increasing for the company to settle the more than 13,000 additional cases awaiting trial.
"The significance here is that it's three for three," said Micah Dortch, a Dallas-based attorney for the Potts Law Firm, which represents plaintiffs in hundreds of those lawsuits. "Their stock has already taken a tumbling as a result of this, and the lawsuits are mounting."
Bayer's stock price hit $15.52 this morning, cut nearly in half from $29.85 when it acquired Monsanto last June.
Glyphosate is used by businesses, land managers and everyday consumers to combat weeds. The pesticide is also used on food crops, including genetically modified corn, soybeans, cotton and canola.
National and international agencies have disagreed about its health impacts. EPA for years has maintained the chemical does not pose a risk to human health, though it has proposed some restrictions on how it is sprayed in order to protect non-targeted wildlife (E&E News PM, April 30).
In 2015, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer published a bombshell report linking glyphosate to cancer. EPA responded by reviewing hundreds of studies and concluding again that it is "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans."
In a statement yesterday, Bayer blamed the latest verdict on "cherry-picked findings" from the plaintiffs' lawyers.
"Frankly, I'm a little surprised that [Bayer's] had such trouble getting a jury to believe all the work that's been done," said James Aidala, a chemical industry consultant at Bergeson & Campbell PC.Pressure to settle
The million- or billion-dollar question is when or whether Bayer will settle the thousands of pending cases.
Paul Rheingold, an expert on mass torts, has studied the number of unfavorable verdicts required to push big companies toward settlements.
"When I analyzed all the outcomes, it's as diverse as it can be," said Rheingold, a plaintiff's attorney at the New York firm Rheingold Giuffra Ruffo & Plotkin LLP. "Sometimes the defendants think very early that they should pay up, that it'll be cheaper and less litigation. They set up a settlement program."
But a company still selling a product alleged to be dangerous could be less inclined to settle, he said: "Sometimes it's years and years of litigation."
So far, Bayer is sticking with the fight. The company noted yesterday that key legal rulings in all three cases that have gone to trial have not yet worked their way through appellate review.
"The company will continue to evaluate and refine its legal strategies as it moves through the next phase of this litigation, which will be marked by a greater focus on post-trial motions and appellate review and trials scheduled in different venues," Bayer said.
In an initial challenge to the first verdict, Bayer's lawyers successfully persuaded a judge to slash the $289 million award to $78.5 million.
"But if juries keep thinking that causation is there and that liability is pretty clear ... they've somehow got to start setting up a settlement program," said Rheingold, whose firm also has Roundup cases pending.Regulation
Environmental groups and public health advocates say yesterday's verdict underscores the need for state and federal agencies to crack down on the chemical.
"Juries informed by independent science have repeatedly rejected the Monsanto-promoted myth that glyphosate poses no cancer risks," Center for Biological Diversity senior scientist Nathan Donley said in a statement.
Alexis Temkin, a toxicologist with the Environmental Working Group, pointed to studies that have linked cancer in agriculture workers to glyphosate exposure. Despite those studies and the recent verdicts, however, Temkin said she's not optimistic EPA will intervene.
"Unfortunately, EPA is probably going to stand by its analysis that glyphosate does not cause cancer," she said.
Claudia Polsky, who leads the Environmental Law Clinic at the University of California, Berkeley, said the increasing number of verdicts against Monsanto could put added pressure on EPA to restrict the chemical or require disclosure of other pesticide ingredients that mix with glyphosate.
The agency's latest review of the chemical is open for public comment now, "and one would expect advocates of restricting the herbicide to be filling the administrative record with evidence from discovery and testimony in recent tort litigation demonstrating that the chemical is far more harmful than EPA and Bayer/Monsanto have to date maintained," Polsky said in an email.
Aidala, the consultant, said the legal action will, at the very least, push regulators to review their own work.
"As a regulator, what it means is, 'Let's go back and double-check our homework. Let's go triple-check our homework. Are we really, really sure?'" he said, adding later: "EPA will be continually questioned as to why they think it's OK."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/05/14/stories/1060332679
-
Chemours Sues DowDupont Over Spinoff to Assume Liabilities
May 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jef Feeley and Tiffany Kary
Chemours Co., a spinoff of DuPont created with some of its business lines and liabilities, has sued its former parent in a confidential filing in Delaware Chancery court.
The complaint is listed as “confidential,” but supplemental documents filed publicly show the 2015 separation agreement creating Chemours is at issue, and that the case is “seeking substantial relief relating to a spinoff transaction.” It also names Corteva, DowDupont Inc.’s agricultural unit.
David Rosen, a Chemours spokesman, confirmed in an email that the suit is over the company’s 2015 spinoff.
Chemours and DowDuPont, both based in Wilmington, Del., have been sued over a chemical linked to cancer and used for years in manufacturing DuPont’s Teflon. Under the separation agreement, Chemours is supposed to indemnify DuPont for any liability, though it has at times said DuPont is liable for some judgments
Dan Turner of DuPont declined to comment.
Liability and regulation for the chemicals, known as PFAS, have been expanding after the discovery of the chemicals in U.S. drinking water. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce will hold a hearing May 15 on possible measures to protect public health.
The case, Chemours Co. v. DowDupont Inc., 2019-0531, will be handled in the Delaware Chancery Court.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/chemours-sues-dowdupont-over-spinoff-to-assume-liabilities
-
PacifiCorp Asbestos Exposure Claim Revived on Appeal
May 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
The widow of a power plant plant worker may pursue asbestos claims against PacifiCorp in its capacity as a premises owner, a Washington state appeals court ruled.
But her other related tort claims are barred by state law, it said.
The May 13 decision reversed summary judgment for PacifiCorp holding that Washington’s statutes of repose completely barred the lawsuit filed by Linda Cameron on behalf of her husband Gary, who died of mesothelioma in 2012.
Statutes of repose extinguish personal injury actions, including those over property improvements that cause injury long after construction is completed, after a specified amount of time.
Here, the 2012 lawsuit contends Gary was exposed to asbestos fibers in his work as a boilermaker at the Centralia Steam Plant in Centralia, Wash., in 1971.
The suit alleges that Pacific Power & Electric, PacifiCorp’s predecessor, is liable because of its construction of the plant and ownership interest that continued until 2000.
To the extent Cameron’s claims are founded on PacifiCorp’s involvement construction of the plant, which ended in 1972, her claims are barred by a Washington statute of repose that extinguishes lawsuits filed more than six years after substantial completion of a facility, the Washington Court of Appeals, Division One, said.
The three-judge panel rejected Cameron’s argument that her husband’s claims accrued in 2012, when he was diagnosed with mesothelioma.
That interpretation would defeat the very purpose of the 1967 law, “which was to bar claims that arise after completion of construction, even if no injury had yet occurred.”
But the trial court incorrectly dismissed Cameron’s claims against Portland, Ore.-based PacifiCorp as a premises owner. The construction statute of repose doesn’t extend to such claims, the court said.
Judge J. Robert Leach wrote the opinion, joined by Judges Stephen J. Dwyer and John H. Chun.
Schroeter Goldmark Bender represented Cameron. Preg, O’Donnell & Gillett PLLC and Stoel Rives LLP represented PacifiCorp.
The case is Cameron v. Atl. Richfield Co., Wash. Ct. App., Div. 1, No. 76663-5-I, 5/13/19.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/pacificorp-asbestos-exposure-claim-revived-on-appeal
-
DuPont’s Remaining Teflon Injury Suits Combined for Trial
May 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Perry Cooper
DuPont Co. failed to convince the court overseeing thousands of suits alleging a toxic Teflon component contaminated drinking water in Ohio and West Virginia that it should continue trying the cases individually.
“The court is of the firm opinion that through the careful and prudent design and implementation of consolidated trials, the legitimate rights of all parties can be safeguarded,” Judge Edmund A. Sargus Jr. wrote May 13 for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
About 40 or 50 cases have been filed since the parties reached a $671 million global settlement covering 3,500 class members in 2017. They will be tried in batches of five.
DuPont argued it has a fundamental due process right to evaluate each individual case on its merits.
But the court said it has “expended enormous resources on this MDL issuing literally thousands of pages of opinion over the last six years,” held four trials with three jury verdicts, and approved a settlement.
This mass tort “has reached maturity and is headed into its dotage,” the court said.
The suits allege DuPont caused neighbors to develop cancer and other diseases by knowingly dumping perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), also known as C-8, into local waterways.
Combining the cases for trial will allow the parties to share trial experiences, minimize inconvenience for witnesses, and resolve several cases during one trial setting, the court said.
The majority of time in the trials so far was “spent exploring what DuPont knew about the dangers of C-8, when it knew it, and what it did with the knowledge it had,” the court said. These questions are common to all plaintiffs.
The case is In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. C-8 Pers. Injury Litig., S.D. Ohio, No. 2:13-MD-2433, 5/13/19.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/duponts-remaining-teflon-injury-suits-combined-for-trial
-
UN Rotterdam Convention Adopts Compliance Mechanism
May 14, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Ginger Hervey
International parties to the UN Rotterdam Convention last week adopted a "compliance mechanism" to help countries implement rules on importing and exporting hazardous chemicals. It was agreed as part of a 10-day meeting of the Rotterdam, Stockholm and Basel Conventions.
The Convention, which came into effect 15 years ago, requires countries to receive prior informed consent (Pic) before exporting hazardous chemicals to other countries.
The compliance mechanism has been written into the text of an annex to the Convention, laying out how countries can identify gaps in compliance and how to address them.
The parties also agreed to establish a compliance committee, which countries can approach for assistance on implementation or report non-compliance in another country.
The lack of a mechanism to enforce compliance has been on the agenda of the Rotterdam Convention for 15 years but, according to a record of the meetings, had never been able to "overcome the concerns of a small minority," which opposed the wording of the final text of the mechanism, including punitive measures.
In order to pass the measure, the parties in Geneva last Wednesday resorted to a vote for the first time in the Convention’s history. Decisions are usually made by consensus.
Representatives from 120 parties voted in favour, with six against. The measure only applies to the countries that agree to the provisions, so the six countries opposed to its adoption – Cuba, Iran, Kyrgyzstan, North Korea, India and Qatar, according to the participant – can choose not to be bound by it.
Some experts expressed concern that the mechanism is not binding to all members, saying it could create uncertainty and divide the parties.
Nevertheless, environmental NGOs cheered the decision by delegates to put the measure to a vote, as well as the actual mechanism put in place.
"There's been massive non-compliance, and I do believe the mechanisms that were adopted will provide the kind of support that's greatly needed to increase the efficiency of the Convention," said David Azoulay, a member of the steering committee of the NGO the International POPs Elimination Network (Ipen).
He added, however, that the proposed text has been redefined over 15 years to focus more on providing support to governments struggling to implement the Convention than on identifying and punishing countries that are not complying.
"It should not be seen as something that will drastically identify and remedy everything that's wrong with the Convention," Mr Azoulay said.
Other Rotterdam results
Delegates at the Rotterdam meeting also decided to subject the flame retardant hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) and the pesticide phorate to the Convention's Pic procedure. This means countries that wish to export the listed chemicals need to receive permission in advance from the receiving countries' government.
Negotiators did not agree on whether to subject five other chemicals to the Pic procedure. These are: carbosulfan – an insecticide; fenthion – an insecticide; acetochlor – a herbicide; paraquat – a herbicide; and chrysotile asbestos – used in cement pipes and insulation.
Many delegates, whose countries use these chemicals widely, blocked their addition to the Convention, according to the report.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77499/compliance-mechanism-agreed-under-un-rotterdam-convention
-
President Trump Can Take Additional Steps to Maximize Natural Gas Benefits
May 14, 2019 | Real Clear Energy
By Timothy M. Doyle
President Trump recently signed executive orders that marked an important step forward in letting market forces transform energy production while also reducing carbon emissions. To fully succeed in this effort, the President should reject policies that are inconsistent with the goals of the executive orders.
The President journeyed to Texas to announce the signing of the two orders which are intended to cut through the thicket of regulatory and political devices used to obstruct the nation’s energy infrastructure projects. The executive orders highlight the need for oil and gas pipeline projects both within the United States as well as cross border projects, such as TransCanada’s Keystone XL project.
It was a bold move to check the misuse of environmental laws by activists and their patrons in state elective office and regulatory agencies. Gov. Andrew Cuomo, for example, is proud of his actions to halt natural gas production and transport in New York, asserting his determination to protect the environment and climate. Cuomo and likeminded politicians, however, are naïve and appear ignorant to the fact that their aversion to pipelines actually harms the climate more when the region must continue to rely on more carbon-intensive fuel sources, or have to import natural gas from countries like Russia that have far more intensive greenhouse gas (GHG) production processes than their U.S. competitors.
Where certain politicians want to disregard market forces, President Trump wants to take advantage of them. New technologies over the last 15 years have made domestic natural gas widely available and cheap, further enhancing the competitive advantage of U.S. manufacturing and achieving environmental goals, including a sharp reduction in U.S. GHG emissions.
Overall, U.S. GHG emissions are now at the lowest level since 1992, according to the EPA. In the power sector alone, emissions dropped by 28 percent between 2005 and 2017, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. With methane, which is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, there was a 15 percent drop in emissions from natural gas systems during a period when the industry experienced exponential production growth. These innovations to reduce the rate of emissions, coupled with affordability and fuel switching away from coal-fired electricity generation, has made the United States a leader in global climate mitigation.
Since the president is clearly committed to unclogging the path to safe production and distribution of natural gas, it seems contradictory for the administration to pursue policies, at the same time, that would undermine this objective. A recent White House report indicates a proposal to prop up uneconomical coal-fired power generation is still on the table, despite broad criticism it drew when related plans were leaked last year.
Furthermore, the president correctly recognizes that national security depends in part on a secure and resilient power grid. However, the assertion that natural gas pipelines are vulnerable to cyber terrorism and therefore are less reliable than coal fails to hold up as a rationale for government intervention. Officials with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) have consistently praised pipeline operators and utilities for staying on top of the latest ways to avert a cyberattack.
In fact, at a recent event on the FERC 2019 Agenda hosted by the American Council for Capital Formation, Chairman Neil Chatterjee reiterated his position that we must remain vigilant as we see increasing interdependence between gas pipelines and the power sector, but rejected calls for mandatory cybersecurity standards for pipelines, noting he “has been impressed by the response [he’s] seen from both industry and TSA” and the good faith efforts and investments as it relates to cyber protections. For years, the nation’s largest natural gas pipeline operators, along with some 50 oil and gas companies, have shared cyber threat intelligence with each other and the federal government through the Oil and Natural Gas Information Sharing and Analysis Center.
President Trump recently called out anti-pipeline activists and “climate-friendly” politicians for their folly in rejecting a plentiful, low-cost fuel that is crucial to furthering economic growth and reducing carbon emissions. Going forward, he should avoid duplicating their self-defeating contradictions. Federal government intervention in the market will not make the national power grid more secure, and it certainly will not reduce carbon emissions. Market forces, however, can achieve both goals; it makes no sense for the government to unnecessarily get in the way.
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2019/05/14/president_trump_can_take_additional_steps_to_maximize_natural_gas_benefits_110440.html
-
Trump Looks to Highlight Energy Exports in Louisiana
May 14, 2019 | AP
By Kevin Freking
President Donald Trump will highlight his administration’s efforts to ramp up liquefied natural gas exports as he visits a new plant Tuesday in southwest Louisiana.
Trump will tour a $10 billion export terminal that will liquefy natural gas for storage and shipping. The process involves cooling gas vapor to a liquid state.
Trump cites an increase in liquefied natural gas exports as boosting jobs and cementing the U.S.’s role as an energy provider for international markets.
The administration has also promoted liquefied natural gas from the United States as a way for Europe to reduce its reliance on Russia for energy.
The visit is Trump’s third to Louisiana since he took office. He will also use the trip to address supporters at a fundraiser in Metairie.
https://www.apnews.com/b75911009f0e4982b6557ccbb588f357
-
Oil Is Already Trade War's Collateral Damage Even Without Duties
May 14, 2019 | Bloomberg (In the Houston Chronicle)
By Pratish Narayanan and Sharon Cho
U.S. oil shipments are likely to be a casualty of the trade war with China, even though crude was spared from the latest list of American goods targeted with retaliatory tariffs.
While oil has never been subject to levies during the dispute between the world’s two biggest economies, the flow of American cargoes to China has nevertheless been throttled by rising tensions over the past year. Refiners in the Asian nation -- previously the top Asian buyer of U.S. crude -- have largely shunned imports in a bid to avoid getting caught up in the trade war.
Even without tariffs, the latest escalation in the dispute threatens to snuff out a recovery in flows seen over the past couple of months that were driven by hopes that tensions were easing. That will close the door to a critical source of crude for buyers in the world’s largest oil importer, at a time when refiners across the globe are scrambling for cargoes due to a supply crunch.
Middle East exporters are already cashing in on the squeeze that was driven by U.S. sanctions on Iran and Venezuela, as well as unexpected disruptions from Russia to Nigeria. Iraq raised the official selling price of its flagship Basrah Light crude for Asian customers to the highest level since 2012, after fellow OPEC member Saudi Arabia set the price of its Arab Medium variety at the highest since December 2013.
The deteriorating demand outlook is pushing down prices, although rising tension in the Middle East is preventing steeper declines. West Texas Intermediate futures fell 0.2% to $60.94 a barrel as of 8:45 a.m. in Singapore after dropping 1% on Monday. Brent crude, the global benchmark, was down 0.4 percent after closing 0.6 percent lower in the previous session.
Last year, Chinese refiners gorged on U.S. oil pumped everywhere from inland shale fields to wells in the Gulf of Mexico, lifting imports to a record-high of more than 2 million metric tons in January 2018. The Asian nation removed crude from a list of goods that would incur a levy last August, following an earlier threat that duties would be imposed on imports of the commodity.
Nevertheless, China has imported just 1.64 million barrels of American oil in the six months through March, with four of those months seeing no shipments at all. That compared with 60.5 million barrels in the preceding six months.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Oil-Is-Already-Trade-War-s-Collateral-Damage-Even-13843399.php?cmpid=ffoil
-
Environmentalists to Appeal Adverse Pipeline NEPA Ruling
May 14, 2019 | Inside EPA
The New York environmental group that tried to challenge a Federal Regulatory Energy Commission (FERC) policy limiting consideration of greenhouse gas emissions in pipeline approvals, will seek appeal of an appellate ruling that tossed its case on procedural grounds for lack of standing.
Michael Sussman, the attorney for the group, Otsego 2000, tells Inside EPA, “We will seek rehearing and rehearing en banc from the [U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit] as we believe [the] decision is erroneous, and the issue of standing should have been fully briefed.”
He is referring to the May 9 order dismissing the case, Otsego 2000, et al. v. FERC, after a three-judge panel found the group lacked standing to bring the claim. Otsego is not a membership group and therefore none of its members could claim association standing. The court found the group could not demonstrate it had “organizational standing” due to a lack of injury.
The appeal will raise the concern that the standing issue was brought up at the last minute and never briefed. It was raised by the judges themselves rather than by FERC or its allies in the run-up to oral argument.
Filed last year, the suit challenges FERC’s approval of the New Market pipeline upgrade by Dominion Transmission, alleging the commission violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by failing to review the project’s upstream and downstream GHGs. FERC in a denial of the group’s request for rehearing established a broad policy limiting its climate analysis to when the producer or end user of the natural gas to be transported by the pipeline is known.
The D.C. Circuit panel -- comprised of Chief Judge Merrick Garland and Judges David Tatel and Roger Wilkins -- issued an April 3 per curiam order directing the parties to “be prepared” to discuss standing at April 11 oral argument.
The judges at argument expressed skepticism of Otsego’s standing claims, including that the group was injured by FERC’s lack of GHG information in the NEPA review of the project.
The judges dismissed the case via an unpublished per curiam opinion, effectively upholding the FERC policy limiting GHG considerations. However, as-applied challenges can still be pursued, and the same panel of the court is poised to rule in a similar case, Birckhead v. FERC, over a Tennessee pipeline where standing is not an issue and where the judges appeared skeptical of FERC’s claims.
One environmentalist attorney said May 9 that the order in Otsego is “disappointing” and it is “unfortunate that the court did not give the parties the opportunity to brief the standing issue because had it done so, it would have seen that many of the resources that Otsego 2000 must now spend are to monitor air quality and gather information on emissions that FERC has refused to disclose.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/environmentalists-appeal-adverse-pipeline-nepa-ruling
-
U.S. Spending in Upstream Onshore, Power Grid Tops Global Energy Investments
May 14, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
Global energy investments stabilized last year ending a three-year drought, with capital spending on natural gas, oil and coal surging, while expenditures stalled for energy efficiencies and renewables, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).
Subscription required for full article.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/118366-us-spending-in-upstream-onshore-power-grid-tops-global-energy-investments
-
Warren Buffett, Fear, and Greed in Fracked Oil Fields
May 14, 2019 | DeSmog Blog
By Justin Mikulka
Warren Buffett, CEO of investment holding company Berkshire Hathaway, is considered one of the top investors in historyand can back up that track record with a personal wealth of around $90 billion. Buffett is known for advising investors to be“fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful.”
In the U.S. fracked oil industry, this month can be read like a textbook version of Buffett’s fear and greed adage. The shale industry showed plenty of signs of fear while Buffett made a massive “greedy” bet on the future of the Permian Shale in Texas and New Mexico, assuming it will produce oil profitably and investing $10 billion in Occidental’s purchase of shale producer Anadarko.
Buffett is betting on a fracked oil future as climate scientists warn of the waning window for preventing catastrophic climate change and fund managers and energy researchers warn of stranded oil and gas assets.
Déjà Vu?
Meanwhile, on May 1 Houston-based energy investment group Tudor, Pickering, and Holt released an investment noteabout the U.S. shale industry titled, “Don't Raise Your Budget,” and imploring shale oil producers to stop spending more money than they make selling oil.
If that feels like déjà vu, it should. In 2018, The Wall Street Journal reported the same message from investors asking for fiscal restraint alongside predictions of 2018 finally being a profitable year for the shale oil industry. As one analyst said, “Is this time going to be different? I think yes, a little bit.”
But was it different? In a word, no.
Now Tudor Pickering is begging the industry to listen and stop overspending. It's literally saying, “Please, for the love of God, don’t do it.”
This trend has led to a well-known short seller recently describing overspending shale oil companies as “capital destruction machines.”
Capital Destruction Machines
Last year DeSmog featured the company Halcón Resources as an example of how shale oil company executives get rich while losing investor money. Halcón Resources had emerged from bankruptcy and promised success with the currently popular strategy of focusing solely on oil production in the Permian region.
After last year’s first quarter financial results, investment site The Motley Fool wrote the following about Halcón’s plans:
“Halcón Resources has an aggressive plan to increase output at a lightning-fast rate, to offset asset sales in recent years. It's a big bet on higher oil prices, since the company is significantly outspending cash flow to get up to where it wants to be as fast as possible.”
To which we asked, “Anyone want to bet how this ends up?”
After another year of producing in the Permian, Halcón has not delivered and Kallendish Energy reports the shale company is now developing “new strategic and financial plans.” Why?
Well, Halcón lost another $336.6 million in the first quarter of 2019. Its stock lost over 50 percent of its value last week and is now in penny stock range. But its executives still get paid.
While the Permian wasn’t the solution for Halcón, the region is where the U.S. fracked oil industry is still pinning its hopes for finally unlocking profits. As we recently noted, Exxon and Chevron have both made fracked oil production in the Permian a central part of their business strategies.
Exxon appears to have adopted the shale oil mentality already. According to Bloomberg, “Exxon will likely continue to outspend its organic cash from operations, as it seeks to rebuild its growth portfolio.”
Permian oil producer Pioneer Resources has also been in the news recently. In February, after its financial results showed it “could not generate enough cash flows to fully fund its capital expenditure,” Pioneer’s CEO suddenly retired and the former CEO Scott Sheffield returned to run the company.
One of Sheffield’s claims to fame is that in 2016 he said Permian oil could be produced profitably when oil prices were below $30 a barrel. Apparently he was very wrong.
Sheffield has just overseen a round of layoffs and a recent stunning asset sale. In February 2018, Pioneer announced its intention to focus just on the Permian (like Halcón) and thus would be selling its assets in the Eagle Ford shale play in Texas. Initial estimates were that the assets were worth $2 billion. This past April, however, Reuters reported the price would now likely be less than $1 billion.
The deal was finalized at $25 million, with future payments based on the price of oil and gas and potentially adding up to $475 million. But those Eagle Ford shale assets sold for only $25 million up front. Capital destruction in action.
Bakken oil producer Whiting Petroleum also reported losses when profits were expected.
And it isn’t just the oil producers who are suffering. The oil service companies who do much of the actual work producing the oil have not been faring well either.
In February the CEO of cash-shedding oil services company Weatherford International Plc was asked if he was considering bankruptcy. He responded, “I don’t waste a lot of time thinking or planning how to fail.” Weatherford’s stock hit 14 cents last week as the company plans to file for bankruptcy.
Things haven’t been going well for shale producers despite higher oil prices, which averaged $65 a barrel in 2018 (for U.S.pricing standard West Textas Intermediate) and was the highest average price since 2014.
Jeff Miller, the CEO of oil services company Halliburton, recently made some dire predictions about shale’s ability to continue record oil production.
“Higher activity and more advanced technology will be needed to maintain flat production levels,” said Miller. Higher activity and more advanced technology mean higher expenses. And that would apparently be required just to keep production at current levels.
Buffett’s Big Bet in Permian Bidding War
It is easy to see why Warren Buffett sees this as a time to be “greedy.” Many others are failing with their investments in U.S.shale oil and seem fearful of getting a return on capital in shale oil and gas production.
Despite others' fears (or perhaps because of them), Buffett decided to back Occidental with $10 billion for its purchase of oil company Anadarko and its prized Permian holdings. This was no bargain.
Initially it looked like oil major Chevron would be successful with its $33 billion bid to buy Anadarko. But then Occidental started (and ended) a bidding war with an offer reportedly totalling $57 billion, made possible in part by Buffett's $10 billion.
Occidental’s share prices have hit a 10-year low since the deal was finalized and one criticism has been the very favorable terms surrounding Buffett's investment. This isn’t the first time Buffett has struck a deal like this. During the financial crisis, his company bailed out Goldman Sachs with a $5 billion loan, again with favorable terms for him. Buffett did well on that investment and could stand to profit on this deal as well, thanks to the generous terms.
However, Buffett is not a seasoned oil industry expert and apparently agreed to the $10 billion loan after just a 90 minute conversation. That is a lot of money to bet on a simple premise: that the Permian can produce oil profitably. Apparently that 90 minute conversation convinced Buffett it's possible. He explained his rationale: “It's also a bet on the fact that the Permian Basin is what it is cracked up to be.”
Perhaps the terms of the deal shield Buffett’s investment from any real risk, but whether Buffett understands the Permian and the finances of fracking better than someone like Scott Sheffield of Pioneer is up for debate.
Despite the U.S. fracking industry's history of “capital destruction,” one of the top investors in the world has bet big that Occidental holds the secret to Permian profits. But perhaps this time really will be different, or perhaps Occidental will follow in the footsteps of Halcón and others who bet it all on the Permian and lost.
https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/05/14/fear-greed-shale-fracking-oil-warren-buffett
-
Ewire: Industry, Labor Seek to Boost Infrastructure Push
May 14, 2019 | Inside EPA
Top industry leaders are seeking to boost pressure on policymakers to enact major legislation upgrading transportation and other types of infrastructure, and one top House Democrat is putting the pressure on the White House to endorse a funding mechanism to pay for new projects.
The comments, from House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), came during a May 13 kickoff event for the seventh-annual Infrastructure Week hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, AFL-CIO, National Association of Manufacturers and other groups.
(This week's festivities are not to be confused with prior, less-formal Infrastructure Weeks proclaimed by the Trump administration, which have been repeatedly overtaken by other political crises and have turned the concept of Infrastructure Week into a running joke in some corners of Washington.)
While Democrats and President Donald Trump have reportedly agreed to advance a $2 trillion package to pay for transportation, water, energy and other types of infrastructure projects, Hoyer told the kickoff event that the president must take the lead in pushing the package, and particularly a funding source.
He said he told Trump “there's not a member in the House nor a member in the Senate that's going to put their neck out on funding a $2 trillion project unless you are leading,” according to Politico.
“If the president does not lead on how we're going to fund this infrastructure investment, it will not happen,” he added, according to a separate report from Transport Topics.
In addition to the thorny issue of funding, Democrats have also pressed the GOP to include an array of climate-related provisions in any bill, while Republicans are pushing to include steps to streamline project permitting. Any of those issues could scuttle bipartisan talks.
While much of the attention in Congress is on transportation infrastructure, industry, states and environmentalists have urged lawmakers to include funding for sectors such as water in any bill.
EPA chief Andrew Wheeler is set to address the topic during a keynote address at a May 15 Bipartisan Policy Center event. He will discuss the agency's role in building “critical infrastructure,” including its funding programs for water infrastructure as well as its functions reviewing and permitting other agencies' infrastructure work.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-industry-labor-seek-boost-infrastructure-push
-
Funding Remains Sticking Point as Talks for Deal Near
May 14, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Maxine Joselow
It's Infrastructure Week.
No, really.
Though Infrastructure Week has become a perennial joke in Washington, mocked as the Trump administration's means of distraction from controversial news, momentum appears to be building for a broad $2 trillion infrastructure package to materialize before August, despite disagreement over how to pay for it.
With a pivotal meeting between lawmakers and the administration planned for next week, the key sticking points were on full display at a news conference outside the Capitol this morning featuring Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) and Rodney Davis (R-Ill.).
Blumenauer, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, called for funding an infrastructure deal by raising the federal gasoline tax. The tax of 18.4 cents per gallon hasn't been increased since 1993, threatening the long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund.
"In fact, Ronald Reagan, when he called Congress back from their Thanksgiving recess in 1982, called for actually more than doubling the gas tax," Blumenauer said. "And Congress stepped up in a bipartisan way and did that."
He added, "Thirty-five states have stepped up on a bipartisan basis, including a number of red states, and raised their [gas taxes]. It's time for Congress to do the same."
Blumenauer's remarks appeared aimed at his colleagues as much as President Trump, who has never publicly endorsed a gas tax hike.
Trump is set to discuss infrastructure funding with Democrats at the White House next week. If he comes out in favor of a gas tax hike, it will provide political cover for Republicans who remain hesitant to back the idea.
But Davis, the ranking member on the House Transportation & Infrastructure Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, told reporters after the news conference that he favors other funding options, not a gas tax increase.
Davis noted that the gas tax doesn't account for the rising number of electric vehicles on the nation's roads. For the most part, those vehicles run on electricity rather than gasoline.
"Right now, we have to assume that there are going to be thousands upon thousands more electric vehicles on the roadways in the next five to six years," Davis said. "So how do we begin the debate of bringing them into the mix? That's the debate we ought to have now, rather than later."
Davis declined to speculate about the White House's plans for the meeting next week.
"I don't have any idea what the White House's plans are," he said. "But obviously, from the outcome of the last meeting, they're going to be starting with the possibility of a $2 trillion investment in infrastructure."
Asked about the timeline for moving an infrastructure bill, Davis pointed to August.
"I certainly hope that the Democrat leadership in the House will be able to put something on the floor, let's say, by the month of August," he said. "Otherwise, it's likely that that would have to be combined with the highways and transit bill, which would take other opportunities for water and other infrastructure needs off the table."
The White House meeting next week has yet to be officially scheduled. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said yesterday that the meeting's success will hinge on whether Trump shows leadership on the funding question (E&E News PM, May 13).
"If the president does not lead on how we're going to fund this infrastructure investment, it will not happen," Hoyer said during an Infrastructure Week event at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center. "Simple as that."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/05/14/stories/1060332451
-
White House Memo May Threaten EPA Climate Finding, Analysts Say
May 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
A recent update from the White House budget office is breathing new life into outside challenges to the EPA’s pivotal climate science finding.
This isn’t the first time the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market group that has long been critical of climate regulation, has asked the Environmental Protection Agency to take another look at its 2009 greenhouse gas endangerment finding—the agency’s conclusion that greenhouse gas emissions endanger the public health and welfare, serving as the legal underpinning for regulations designed to combat climate change.
But the group’s May 13 petition comes on the heels of updated guidance from the Office of Management and Budget that outlines a new process for outside groups to request corrections of information that the EPA and other federal agencies produce.
That April 24 guidance sets a 120-day deadline for an agency to answer, directs a “point-by-point” response, and gives the OMB a role in the process.
Climate regulation supporters warn the move could open the door for the Trump administration, which has routinely expressed doubts in mainstream climate science, to undercut the EPA’s finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare.
But regulatory analysts and scientists say that, even more consequentially, the free market group’s petition signals a potential coming wave in industry and ideological challenges to any federal science they don’t like.
Petitions like this could become “part of the playbook” for opponents of environmental regulation, Amit Narang, regulatory policy advocate for consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, told Bloomberg Environment.
“When you’re going after science this strong and solid, then the OMB memo basically puts everything on the table,” Narang added, noting the science supporting the EPA’s climate finding has only gotten stronger since 2009.
Procedural PetitionThe Competitive Enterprise Institute, however, says its latest petition focuses on procedural flaws in the EPA’s 2009 finding. The group says the EPA didn’t follow the proper peer-review procedures under the 2001 Data Quality Act, and say the EPA’s inspector general found similar issues with the finding in a 2011 report.
This new request for correction is wholly separate from the group’s 2017 petitionasking the EPA to reconsider the substance of the endangerment finding, said Devin Watkins, an attorney with the institute.
The EPA hasn’t responded to that petition yet. But the agency will have just 120 days, according to the OMB guidance, to answer to the group’s procedural critiques.
The free-market group wants the EPA, should it also find issues with the 2009 finding, to immediately stop disseminating the finding and restart a peer review of the document. That means the EPA would remove the finding from its website and stop using it in regulations until it has gone through another peer review, Watkins said.
OMB GuidanceShould the EPA disagree with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the group can appeal. That action would have to be reviewed by officials independent of the initial response, according to the OMB guidelines.
But the guidelines don’t specify how many times a group can appeal and when the process would come to an end, said Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
“It’s yet another opportunity to challenge any information you don’t like and require the agency to go round and round and round on challenge, response, appeal, new challenge, on lots of different things,” Rosenberg said.
Public Citizen’s Narang said the addition of OMB’s role in responding to requests for correction expands the reach of the White House into the agencies’ science and decisionmaking.
Watkins, though, backed the April guidelines for giving the OMB a role in the process. He criticized the previous process, which was housed entirely within an agency.
“Frankly, I wish there was an appeal to OMB,” he added, suggesting there should be an avenue to seek a decision directly from OMB that is independent of the EPA or other federal agencies.
‘Totally Unstable Government’Rosenberg, who previously worked at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, also raised alarm that the OMB guidance would be applied retroactively to science and decisions federal agencies made previously—a step that he said is unusual for White House guidance.
The endangerment finding “has been adjudicated,” Rosenberg said, referring to court cases that have upheld the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases and thrown out challenges to the climate finding itself.
If the administration allows requests for correction to look backward to decisions that have been legally settled, “it means we have a totally unstable government,” he added. “Nobody ever knows whether decisions have any staying power.”
But on the climate science—and likely criticism from environmental groups of the petition—Watkins says he isn’t worried.
“If they’re so confident” the science is settled, “then that’s what the outcome will be,” he said.
The EPA didn’t immediately respond to Bloomberg Environment’s request for comment.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/white-house-memo-may-threaten-epa-climate-finding-analysts-say
-
Four Reasons Why Wheeler’s Clean Power Plan “Replacement” Will Lead to More Pollution
May 14, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Rama Zakaria
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler has sent a draft rule that would roll back the Clean Power Plan to the White House for review – a step that suggests the rule is close to being finalized and released.
If this final rule looks anything like the hopelessly flawed and inadequate proposal that was released last August, it will scrap the Clean Power Plan – our nation’s only national limit on carbon pollution from the power sector – in favor of a “do-nothing” program that could actually increase pollution from inefficient, highly-polluting coal-fired power plants.
Even as the nation reels from wildfires, flooding, and hurricanes exacerbated by climate change, Wheeler’s proposal would place no meaningful limits on one of our nation’s largest contributors to climate-destabilizing pollution.
If our experience with the proposal is any guide, we can also expect the release of the final rule to be accompanied by a bevy of misleading assertions that Wheeler’s “replacement” for the Clean Power Plan is just as effective in protecting climate and public health.
Wheeler has already been making such claims. For instance, in testimony before the House of Representatives last month, Wheeler said that EPA’s proposed replacement for the Clean Power Plan would reduce carbon pollution from the power sector by 34 percent once fully implemented, and would go a long way towards meeting our carbon reduction goals for the country. These comments build on Wheeler’s claims during his Senate confirmation process that equated his replacement to the Clean Power Plan.
Here are four reasons why his claims are false:
First – EPA’s proposed replacement for the Clean Power Plan contains no binding limits on carbon pollution.
In stark contrast to the Clean Power Plan itself, the proposed replacement is not designed to achieve any particular level of carbon pollution reduction by any specific time. Instead, the proposed replacement simply provides a menu of “heat rate improvement” measures that would incrementally improve the operating efficiency of coal plants. The proposed replacement then leaves it up to the states to decide which – if any – of these measures to apply.
As a result, EPA’s projections about the extent to which the proposed replacement would reduce carbon pollution are based on pure speculation about how the states might implement the rule.
Second – Wheeler’s statements are contradicted by EPA’s own analysis. Despite not requiring any binding limits, EPA assumes (in its Regulatory Impact Analysis for the proposed replacement) that heat rate improvements would be applied uniformly across all existing coal plants. But even according to this analysis, the proposed replacement would result in massive increases in climate pollution and health-harming soot and smog pollution when compared to the Clean Power Plan.
Those massive increases would result in more air pollution-related death and disease for Americans across the country. EPA’s own analysis shows that the proposed replacement would cause up to 1,630 additional premature deaths from air pollution and tens of thousands of additional childhood asthma attacks each year by 2030.
EPA’s analysis also indicates that the proposed replacement would lead to cumulative increases in carbon pollution of as much as 863 million short tons through 2030 when compared to the Clean Power Plan.
Most perverse of all, EPA’s own analysis shows that the proposed replacement would incentivize some coal-fired power plants to operate and pollute more – leading to more carbon pollution than no policy at all in as many as eighteen states in 2030.
Third – Wheeler is taking credit for business as usual. That is, almost all of the emission reductions that EPA projects under the proposed replacement are due to power sector trends and cleaner baseline emission projections.
When the Clean Power Plan was finalized in 2015, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) projected that power sector carbon pollution in 2030 without the Clean Power Plan in place would be 10 percent below 2005 levels. Since then, the ongoing market shift towards a cleaner electricity resource mix has led to baseline emission projections declining over time. In its most recent 2019 Annual Energy Outlook, EIA projected that baseline carbon pollution without the Clean Power Plan would be 34 percent below 2005 levels in 2030. EPA’s proposed replacement would achieve trivial reductions below these baseline projections.
Worse still, the proposed replacement would do nothing to ensure that even this minimal level of emission reduction is actually achieved. Because the proposed replacement contains no binding limits on carbon pollution, and because the “heat rate improvements” upon which it is based are so ineffective, the proposed replacement would do nothing to ensure continued reductions in climate pollution if power sector trends begin to reverse themselves.
Wheeler’s House testimony thus claims credit for carbon pollution reductions that are expected to happen even without his proposed replacement – and his replacement would do nothing to reinforce or secure them.
Fourth – Wheeler’s comparison of the Clean Power Plan and his proposed replacement misses a larger point – the missed opportunity at hand. His proposed replacement completely fails to consider the rapid reductions in climate pollution that scientists say are necessary to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – as well as recent trends in the power sector that make it possible to cost-effectively achieve far greater and faster reductions in that pollution than the Clean Power Plan originally contemplated.
As EDF demonstrated in our comments on the proposed replacement, the plummeting costs of clean energy have unlocked vast potential for low-cost reductions in carbon pollution. Updated analysis using the same power sector modeling platform that EPA relies upon shows that carbon pollution reductions of more than 50 percent below 2005 levelsin 2030 can be achieved at similar costs to what the original Clean Power Plan envisioned. EIA has also found that even greater reductions of 68 percent below 2005 levels can be achieved by 2030 (along with steep reductions in health-harming soot and smog pollution) at modest cost.
Even as the Trump EPA has worked to roll back the Clean Power Plan, leading power companies across America have committed to steep reductions in carbon pollution and ambitious investments in clean energy. Just in the last few months, Xcel Energy, the Platte River Power Authority, and Idaho Power have all committed to completely decarbonize their generating portfolios.
In the face of these historic commitments and overwhelming data, the years-long rulemaking that Wheeler has undertaken to roll back the Clean Power Plan represents an outrageous lost opportunity to secure deep reductions in carbon pollution.
At a time when the consequences of climate change are urgent, and when some states and power companies are pressing forward with bold commitments to reduce pollution and deploy clean energy, Wheeler’s harmful proposal to replace the Clean Power Plan with do-nothing standards is especially damaging. It runs contrary to evidence and fails to meet EPA’s fundamental obligations under our nation’s clean air laws to protect human health and the environment.
http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2019/05/14/four-reasons-why-wheelers-clean-power-plan-replacement-will-lead-to-more-pollution/
Industry and Association News
TSCA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested