Preview Newsletter

AM ACC 5/23/2019

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Specialty Chemical Markets Start Q2 on Soft Note, ACC Says
May 23, 2019 | ChemEngOnline
By Scott Jenkins

The American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com) reported that U.S. specialty chemicals market volumes fell 0.3 percent in April, reflecting soft manufacturing activity, following a 0.3 percent decline in March and 0.2 percent decline in February.
(ACC Mentioned) Farm Hands on the Potomac: Farm Credit Appoints Acting CEO
May 23, 2019 | AgriPulse
By Hannah Pagel

...The Corn Refiners Association (CRA) tapped Steve Gardner to serve as chief operating officer and Robin Bowen to serve as vice president of external affairs.
Passage of United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement Critical to Area Businesses That Rely on Free Trade
May 23, 2019 | MassLive.com
By Mark Costa and Shawn Pace

Every year, Eastman’s 350 team members at the Indian Orchard Site work hard to produce and ship advanced interlayer materials across the country and throughout North America.
House Appropriators Advance 2020 Interior-EPA Bill
May 22, 2019 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillén

The House Appropriations Committee today sent its $37.3 billion Interior-EPA spending package for fiscal 2020 to the floor. The bill advanced on a party-line 30-22 vote.
Revised EPA Agenda Sees Deadlines Slip For Major Obama Rule Rollbacks
May 22, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan

EPA in its just-updated Unified Agenda of pending regulations is acknowledging that its deadlines have slipped considerably for many high-profile rollbacks of Obama-era rules, including climate standards for power plants and vehicles...
Rare Earths Facility Planned for the US
May 22, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Melody M. Bomgardner

The Australian mining firm Lynas says it will join with Blue Line, a US-based rare earths processor, to develop a rare earths separation facility in Hondo, Texas.

TSCA News

(ACC Mentioned) Senators Tout Bipartisanship on PFAS But Barrasso Seeks to Narrow Bills
May 23, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan

Environment committee senators are pledging to take a bipartisan approach that includes environmentalists and industry as they seek to address polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), though committee Chairman John Barrasso (R-WY) is indicating that while the bills...
(ACC Mentioned) Toxic Avenger: Did EPA Appointee Do Industry Employer’s Bidding?
May 23, 2019 | Project on Government Oversight (POGO)
By Scott Amey & Laura Peterson

Imagine the following scenario...The guy in charge of directing regulatory policy on chemicals for a huge conglomerate is given a top position at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Further Delays Expected for US Hazcom Standard Update
May 23, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin

The timeline for the US to update its Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) has again been pushed back, according to the semi-annual release of the Department of Labor’s regulatory agenda.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Blog) INSIGHT: With PFAS One-Size-Fits-All Isn’t the Answer
May 22, 2019 | American Chemistry Matters
By American Chemistry

In Bloomberg Environment this week, Jessica Bowman, who is the Executive Director of ACC’s FluoroCouncil, makes the case for why a one-size-fits-all approach to PFAS does not make sense.
(ACC Mentioned) House-Senate Divide Clear on PFAS
May 22, 2019 | Politico - Morning Energy
By Kelsey Tamborrino

...Senators will hear from witnesses today spanning Kim White of the American Chemistry Council to Scott Faber of the Environmental Working Group, an organization in favor of aggressive PFAS regulation by handling the thousands of chemicals as a class.
(ACC Mentioned) Republicans, Industry Push Back on PFAS Bills
May 23, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Ariana Figueroa

Republicans and chemicals industry advocates are pushing back on a frenzy of bills to address drinking water contamination.
(ACC Mentioned) Vermont Headed Toward Plastic Bag, Foam Bans (1)
May 22, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adrianne Appel

Vermont would join a small but growing number of states to ban plastic bags and foam food containers under a bill headed to Gov. Phil Scott (R), who has said he would sign the bill.
(ACC Mentioned) Debating The Single-Use Plastic Bills Moving Through State Legislature
May 23, 2019 | AirTalk
By Jill Replogle

A pair of bills designed to drastically reduce plastic waste in California passed the Senate and Assembly appropriations committees on Thursday.
US Senate Considers Six Bipartisan Bills Addressing PFASs
May 23, 2019 | Chemical Watch

The US Senate is considering at least six bills that would address per- or polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) contamination nationwide.
US Virgin Islands Advances Bill Restricting Sunscreen Ingredients
May 23, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins

The US territory of the Virgin Islands has become the latest beach community to consider a ban on certain sunscreen ingredients over concerns that they pose a risk to coral reefs and other marine life.
NGOs Criticise EU for Requiring Exemption from Global PFOA Ban
May 23, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Caterina Tani

A group of international NGOs has criticised the EU for requiring an exemption for medical textiles from a global ban on the use of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) agreed at the UN Conference of the Parties (COPs) earlier this month.
EU Adopts Plastics Ban
May 22, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Laura Howes

Europe’s single-use plastics ban was formally adopted on May 21 in Brussels by the Council of the European Union, a meeting of ministers from the different countries in the union.
Echa Round-Up
May 23, 2019 | Chemical Watch

Echa is looking for comments on 11 applications for authorisation covering 18 uses of...
NGO Platform: Hazardous Chemicals Should Be a Priority for the EU Elections
May 23, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Natacha Cingotti

Chemicals are everywhere, and our exposure to a daily cocktail of chemicals impacts our bodies and health together – yet, according to official data, 75% of the chemicals on the European market are not safe and, so far, European institutions have failed to take the necessary measures...
Pretty Hurts: Are Chemicals in Beauty Products Making Us Ill?
May 23, 2019 | The Guardian
By Lauren Zannolli

Anyone who has ever glanced at a lotion or shampoo bottle has probably noticed a mystifying array of multi-syllabic chemicals.

Energy News

Colorado to Continue Permitting Oil, Gas Projects as Rules Implemented
May 22, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec

The new nine-member Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) on Tuesday listened to mixed public testimony on its future oversight and voted unanimously to continue issuing drilling permits while it implements state Senate Bill (SB) 181.
This Interior Official Sees 'National Bias' Against Oil, Gas
May 23, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Edward Klump

Scott Angelle, President Trump's top offshore drilling regulator, hasn't let a public rebuke from HBO's John Oliver stop him from giving out his mobile work number to industry connections.
Saudi Aramco Gaining Hold in U.S. LNG with Deal to Buy Stake, Supplies from Sempra Port Arthur Project
May 22, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis

State-owned Saudi Arabia Oil Co., aka Aramco, on Wednesday said it has signed a heads of agreement (HOA) to negotiate buying a 25% stake in Phase 1 of Sempra Energy’s natural gas export project in Port Arthur, near Houston.
Half of Maryland’s Electricity to Come from Renewable Sources by 2030
May 22, 2019 | Washington Post
By Ovetta Wiggins

Maryland must get 50 percent of its electricity from renewable energy sources such as wind and solar by 2030 under a bill that will become law without Gov. Larry Hogan’s signature.
U.S. Drilling Rights Go for Less Than a Cup of Coffee Per Acre
May 23, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy

The Trump administration’s auction of drilling rights on roughly 300,000 acres in Nevada last September appeared to be a bust when it failed to attract any bids.

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Transportation and Infrastructure News

(ACC Mentioned) Rail Customers Lambast 'Monopolistic' Fee Increases at Hearings
May 22, 2019 | Jacksonville Business Journal
By Will Robinson

Federal railroad industry regulators had to open an overflow room to accommodate the crowd that turned up Wednesday morning to lambast recent fee increases and operational changes made by most Class I railroads, which the shippers called commercially unfair...
Democrats Tout Infrastructure Bills as Trump Abruptly Drops Issue
May 22, 2019 | Inside EPA

House and Senate Democrats are continuing to emphasize the need for comprehensive infrastructure legislation including water and climate change provisions, although President Donald Trump says he will not work with Democrats on the issue while they are investigating him and his administration.

Environment News

Two Proposals to Ease Air Rules on EPA’s Agenda for Summer
May 22, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyi

An EPA proposal to ease Clean Air Act requirements for the construction of new industrial facilities or the modification of existing ones could come out as soon as July, according to the agency’s spring regulatory agenda released May 22.
SAB Investigates Rule ‘Co-Benefits’ As EPA Eyes Cost Analysis Overhaul
May 23, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker

EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) is seeking to investigate the agency’s valuation of “co-benefits” in its Clean Air Act rules and is planning a new report on the topic...
Markey Releases Infrastructure Suggestions That Align with Green New Deal Goals
May 23, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Rebecca Beitsch

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said Wednesday that any new infrastructure package should be designed to fight climate change.
Energy Storage Bill Seen as GOP’s First Salvo to Fight Warming
May 22, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins introduced legislation Wednesday aimed at bringing down the cost of energy storage technologies—the first in what is expected to be a suite of GOP measures designed to address climate change through research and innovation funding.
IRS Tees up Alternative to EPA's CCS Standards for Certifying CO2 Storage
May 22, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey

The IRS is soliciting feedback on how it should implement an expanded tax credit for carbon capture and storage (CCS) and formally floating the possibility of allowing companies to use an alternative to EPA rules to certify long-term storage...
Oil Companies Join Blitz for Carbon Tax
May 22, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green and Alex Gangitano

A number of oil-and-gas giants are taking part in an effort to encourage lawmakers to pass a national carbon tax, splitting with industry trade groups.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Specialty Chemical Markets Start Q2 on Soft Note, ACC Says

May 23, 2019 | ChemEngOnline

By Scott Jenkins

The American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com) reported that U.S. specialty chemicals market volumes fell 0.3 percent in April, reflecting soft manufacturing activity, following a 0.3 percent decline in March and 0.2 percent decline in February. All changes in the data are reported on a three-month moving average (3MMA) basis. Of the 28 specialty chemical segments ACC monitors, only seven expanded in April, off from eight in March and 12 in February. Nineteen markets experienced decline in April and two were flat. During April, large market volume gains (1.0 percent and over) occurred only in construction chemicals and textile specialties, ACC says.

During April, the overall specialty chemicals volume index was up 2.2 percent on a year-over-year (Y/Y) 3MMA basis. Year-earlier comparisons have been easing since 3rd quarter 2018. The index stood at 114.8 percent of its average 2012 levels in January. This is equivalent to 7.82 billion pounds (3.55 million metric tons). On a Y/Y basis, there were gains in 16 market and functional specialty chemical segments. Compared with last year, volumes were down in 12 segments.

Performance chemistry reflects trends in manufacturing. For the first quarter as a whole, specialty chemical market volumes were essentially flat, and the second quarter began on a soft note.

Specialty chemicals are materials manufactured on the basis of the unique performance or function and provide a wide variety of effects on which many other sectors and end-use products rely. They can be individual molecules or mixtures of molecules, known as formulations. The physical and chemical characteristics of the single molecule or mixtures along with the composition of the mixtures influence the performance end product. Individual market sectors that rely on such products include automobile, aerospace, agriculture, cosmetics and food, among others.

Specialty chemicals differ from commodity chemicals. They may only have one or two uses, while commodities may have multiple or different applications for each chemical. Commodity chemicals make up most of the production volume in the global marketplace, while specialty chemicals make up most of the diversity in commerce at any given time, and are relatively high value with greater market growth rates.

This data is the only timely source of market trends for twenty-eight market and functional specialty chemical segments. Chemistry directly touches over ninety-six percent of all manufactured goods, and trends in these specialty chemical segments provide a detailed view of trends in manufacturing. The data also sheds light on how various consumer end-use markets are performing compared to others in the marketplace.
https://www.chemengonline.com/u-s-specialty-chemical-markets-start-q2-on-soft-note-acc-says/?printmode=1

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Farm Hands on the Potomac: Farm Credit Appoints Acting CEO

May 23, 2019 | AgriPulse

By Hannah Pagel

Dallas Tonsager, the chairman of the Farm Credit Administration since 2016 who earlier served as an undersecretary for rural development at USDA. Tonsager, died Tuesday after a battle with lymphoma. He was 64. Tonsager, who grew up on a dairy farm near Oldham, S.D., was long active in rural development and with the Farm Credit System, which the FCA oversees. Former Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said that the Tonsager family "lost a loving husband and a caring father and grandfather, and rural America lost its champion. Dallas devoted his life to help those living and working in rural places have better opportunities." Jeff Hall has been designated as the acting CEO of the Farm Credit Administration.
The Corn Refiners Association (CRA) tapped Steve Gardner to serve as chief operating officer and Robin Bowen to serve as vice president of external affairs. Gardner previously served as COO for Crosby-Volmer International Communications, and has held senior communications positions at the American Chemistry Council, the Aluminum Association, and the U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention. Bowen most recently served as director of federal outreach at George Mason University's Mercatus Center and has held senior positions with McDermott Will & Emery.
Alltech has added four new executives to its leadership team. Brian McCawley will serve as the senior vice president of sales with a focus on the company’s North America additive business. He comes to Alltech after spending 15 years growing Big Dutchman’s business in the Asia-Pacific region, with posts in Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur and Beijing. Alltech will also bring on Mike Osborne, founder and former president of Nutra Blend, to serve as the key account adviser for North America. Osborne was a member of the American Feed Industry Association’s board of directors for nine years and currently serves on the board for Stratum Nutrition. Christopher Speight joins Alltech to serve as the chief financial officer of the Americas. He will head the company’s global corporate finance, treasury management and M&A functions. Lastly, Jonathan Forrest Wilson will serve as Alltech’s president of Greater China. This role was most recently held by Mark Lyons, who now serves as president and CEO of Alltech.
Ryan Taylor joined the policy team for Ducks Unlimited as the new public policy director for North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana. Taylor previously served as a North Dakota state senator for three terms, with one of those terms serving as the senate minority leader. He made a run for governor of North Dakota in 2012 and previously served as a Bush Foundation Fellow.
The Association of Equipment Manufacturers elected Brett Davis to serve on the AEM Ag Sector Board. Davis was recently named the new brand leader for New Holland North America of CNH Industrial LLC, where he is responsible for overseeing the sales and marketing and support functions of New Holland products in North America. He has been at CNH Industrial for 23 years, serving in a variety of management roles. Before his new role, he was president of CNH Industrial Capital.
Sarah Little has left the Hill after working 20 years for Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., as his communications director for his personal office and for the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. She leaves to join the North American Meat Institute as vice president of communications. Stacey Daniels, who was Roberts' press secretary, is now communications director for Roberts' personal office. Meghan Cline, who was the committee's press secretary, is now its communications director.
Brad McKinney has been promoted to chief of staff for the International Trade Administration at the Department of Commerce. He was serving as senior adviser of global markets and before that was the director of government affairs at Michael Torrey Associates, LLC.
President Donald Trump announced his intent to nominate LaJuana Wilcher of Kentucky to be a member of the board of directors of the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, or Farmer Mac. Wilcher, an attorney, is a former high-ranking EPA water official and was secretary of the Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet.
Savannah Block has left the Russell Group Inc. and is headed to Capitol Hill to join Sen. John Hoeven’s, R-N.D., staff as his new ag legislative correspondent. At the Russell Group, Block served as senior legislative assistant.
President and CEO of the National Restaurant Association (NRA) Dawn Sweeney announced she will step down from the organization at the end of the year. Sweeney has served in the position since 2007. The trade group is currently in the process of searching for her successor. NRA has also named Sean Kennedy as its new executive vice president for public affairs. Kennedy previously served as executive vice president of global government affairs for the Airlines for America trade group.
House Budget Committee Ranking Member Steve Womack, R-Ark., applauded the appointment of Phillip Swagel to serve as the director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). He replaces Keith Hall, whose term ended in January. President pro tempore of the Senate Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., are responsible for appointing the CBO director to serve a four-year term upon a recommendation from the Senate and House Budget Committee Chairmen.
Ben Conner is leaving the U.S. Wheat Associates, where he served as vice president of policy, to begin a new role with DTB Associates, a trade and agriculture policy consulting firm. His last day with USW will be June 6. USW is currently in the search process for naming his replacement. U.S. Wheat Associates promoted Amanda Spoo to director of communications. She previously served as assistant director of communications, and in her new role she will continue to direct USW’s online communications efforts while taking on the responsibilities of supporting public relations and marketing communications outreach to overseas wheat buyers and U.S. farmer stakeholders. Before USW, Spoo served as the director of communications for the Kansas Pork Association.
The American Feed Industry Association’s board of directors elected a new chair and several board members at its annual spring meeting. Tim Belstra, chairman of Belstra Milling Co. has been tapped to serve as the board chairman. He succeeds outgoing chairman Bruce Crutcher of Micronutrients USA LLC, who will now transition into his one-year chairmanship of the Institute for Feed Education and Research’s (IFEEDER) Board of Trustees. Scott Druker of Church & Dwight Company Inc. was voted in as chair-elect of the AFIA board. The board also elected the following individuals to serve three-year terms, which began during the meeting: Jeff Ast, Lallemand Animal Nutrition; Mike Gauss, Kent Nutrition Group Inc.; Carlos Gonzalez, Ph.D., Hill’s Pet Nutrition; Alan Gunderson, Vita Plus Corporation; Kevin Halpin, Ph.D., International Ingredient Corporation; Camissa Hummel, ADM Animal Nutrition, Inc; Steve Lerner, Chr. Hansen Animal Health and Nutrition; Andrew Loder, Wilbur-Ellis Nutrition LLC; Joe Lucas, CJ America Inc.; Eric McMillan, Cactus Feeders; Landis Shoemaker, Sunnyside Feeds LLC; Michael Skuodas, POET Nutrition; Dean Warras, Phibro Animal Health Corporation; Glen Wilkinson, Huvepharma Inc.; Jonathan Wheat, 4B Components Ltd.; and Mindy Whittle, Bayer U.S. - Crop Science.
The Kansas State University’s IGP Institute has promoted Shawn Thiele to associate director. Thiele had been serving in the interim associate director role, and now plans to continue leading the grain processing and flour milling curriculum. Thiele first joined the team in 2012 as the operations manager for the Hal Ross Flour Mill and then shifted his responsibilities to serve as the grain processing and flour milling curriculum manager in 2016.
Will Neitzel was promoted to legislative assistant from legislative correspondent for Rep. Bryan Steil, R-Wis., and covers the portfolios for animals, energy, labor and employment, environmental protection, and natural resources.
Catherine Edmonson has started as Rep. Henry Cuellar’s, D-Texas, new chief of staff. She was serving as his deputy chief of staff.
Matt Hutson is now Rep. Dan Meuser’s, R-Pa., new chief of staff. He takes over the job vacated by Dante Cutrona, who left to begin a new role as government relations director for the American Flood Coalition.
Kelly Simpson no longer serves as chief of staff for Rep. John Rutherford, R-Fla. She previously served in the office of Rep. Robert Hurt, R-Va., as his chief of staff. Jen Bradley is now the chief of staff for Rutherford. She handles the portfolio for energy, immigration, transportation, natural resources, and environmental protection.
David Heitlinger gains the title of senior legislative assistant covering the appropriations, immigration, transportation and public works, small business, and science and technology portfolio for Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Md.
Katie Devlin was promoted to legislative assistant from legislative correspondent for Rep. Doug LaMalfa, R-Calif. She covers the animal portfolio.
Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., added Lucy Xiao as his new tax and trade policy adviser. She previously served as a legislative assistant in the office of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
Maggie Herman now covers the agriculture and food, science and technology, and telecommunications portfolio for Rep. Mikie Sherrill, D-N.J., as his new legislative assistant. She previously worked in the office of Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., as a legislative aide.
Zarinah Mustafa has left the office of Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., where she served as legislative aide. She left to become a SEO law fellow at Buckley LLP. Wyden has not yet named a replacement.
Dave Roth now works for U.S. Customs and Border Protection as a congressional liaison specialist. He previously worked on the staff of Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, D-Calif., for the House Appropriations Committee.
Meghan McConnell has left the office of Rep. Linda Teresa Sánchez, D-Calif., where she served as a legislative assistant. Sánchez’s office has not yet filled this position.
Luke Jackson has started as the new communications director for Rep. Anthony Brindisi, D-N.Y. Before that, he served as press secretary for Sen. Jon Tester’s, D-Mont. reelection campaign.
The National Environmental Education Foundation has announced new four-year appointments to its board of directors. Joining the board is Todd Greenwood of the National FFA Organization, Katherine Emerson with the Congressional Hunger Center within the National Corn Growers Association, Don Mattingly, manager of the Miami Marlins, and Katie Hogge with Ocean Conservancy and American Conservation Coalition.
Former Secretary of Agriculture and Governor of Iowa Tom Vilsack has been awarded the George Washington Carver Award for Innovation in Industrial Biotechnology. The award is given out by the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) to those who advocate on behalf of biotechnology and embody characteristics of George Washington Carver and his commitment to science. The award will be presented on Wednesday, July 10, during a plenary session at the 2019 BIO World Congress on Industrial Biotechnology and AgTech.
The American Meat Science Association (AMSA) will recognize Carrie Garner, Jerrad Legako, and Ranjith Ramanathan, as recipients of the Distinguished Achievement Award. The award was designed to recognize and foster the development of young AMSA members who have demonstrated significant scientific skills in muscle foods research and technology contributing to the animal products industry. They will be honored on Tuesday, June 25 at a special awards banquet during the AMSA 72nd Reciprocal Meat Conference in Loveland, Colo.
For more news, go to www.Agri-Pulse.com.
https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/12219-farm-hands-on-the-potomac-may-22

Return to headline | Return to top
Passage of United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement Critical to Area Businesses That Rely on Free Trade

May 23, 2019 | MassLive.com

By Mark Costa and Shawn Pace

Every year, Eastman’s 350 team members at the Indian Orchard Site work hard to produce and ship advanced interlayer materials across the country and throughout North America. The origins of our facility date back to the early 1900s and the advanced material produced, called Saflex, is over 90 years old. The site also produces Butvar, the major raw material found in Saflex.
Saflex can be found in the windows of buildings and automobiles across the country and around the world, making them safer and more energy efficient. Tourists can find Saflex protecting many national treasures including the original copy of the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Locally, visitors to downtown Springfield encounter Saflex often, including in the windows of the Federal Courthouse.
Last year, our workers exported more than $66 million in goods to Canada and Mexico, representing 47 percent of the facility’s worldwide exports. We are able to access the Canadian and Mexican regions thanks to free trade agreements. These agreements not only support sales, but exporting to both countries duty-free helps anchor an advanced manufacturing facility in the United States.
North America’s current trade framework dates back to 1992, when the United States, Canada and Mexico entered the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Since then, our economy has transformed several times over. Advanced manufacturing operations such as the Eastman Indian Orchard plant now support a major part of America’s economy. A quarter century ago, no one had yet conceived of our products and advanced manufacturing capabilities. The rapid technological developments that are now central to commerce and production were mostly science fiction then.
American companies need a trade framework that reflects our current economy and paves the way for future growth. Congress needs to approve the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), a new trade pact that will update and modernize the rules for trade in North America, so our business can continue to grow and be competitive on the international playing field. For manufacturers like Eastman and communities like Springfield, USMCA will support our jobs and increase sales, growth and investment.
The benefits USMCA will bring to American workers at manufacturers like Eastman cannot be overstated. Eastman provides a competitive compensation and benefits package and job-training to its employees worldwide. So, we need a free trade environment to protect and grow these jobs, which require access to exports markets.
USMCA will ensure that American companies can continue to access Canada and Mexico without facing harmful tariffs. The agreement also sets new intellectual property rules, protecting innovative, transformative products, technologies and ideas developed by American companies from being copied or misappropriated by foreign competitors. It will simplify the customs process, raise standards for fair competition and set new standards for digital trade – a concept that hardly existed in 1992.
Free trade with Canada and Mexico has facilitated significant economic growth in the last 25 years. Trade with our two neighbors has quadrupled in that period and now supports more than 12 million American jobs, according to a Business Roundtable study. According to the National Association of Manufacturers, Canada and Mexico rank as the first and second largest foreign purchasers for nearly every U.S. state and manufacturing sector. Massachusetts alone exported $8.7 billion in goods and services to Canada and Mexico in 2017, supporting more than 302,000 jobs.
North American trade has been booming for the last decade. Since the last major economic recession, exports to Canada and Mexico have increased more than exports to any other country, accounting for 40 percent of all growth in American goods exports. This is true for Eastman as well, as we were ranked the 16th largest U.S. exporter by volume in 2017. Thanks to significant investments, new technologies and access to new markets, our Indian Orchard plant has increased North American exports by 85 percent in the past three years alone.
North American trade benefits the country as a whole, in addition to local communities like ours. Eastman is one of several local businesses that provide jobs in this region by exporting goods and services across our country’s borders. USMCA will preserve markets already in place while promoting new markets, products and technology. It will drive innovation, helping turn small businesses into large employers and ensuring that cutting-edge advanced manufacturing operations like Eastman continue to thrive in Springfield so we can support hundreds of workers and retirees in Western Massachusetts.
We strongly urge lawmakers to approve USMCA in the coming months. Congress must preserve North American trade and expand the tools that promote innovation and economic growth.
Mark Costa is the Board Chair and CEO of Eastman. Shawn Pace is the Site Manager of Eastman’s Springfield advanced manufacturing plant.
https://www.masslive.com/opinion/2019/05/passage-of-united-states-mexico-canada-agreement-critical-to-area-businesses-that-rely-on-free-trade-guest-viewpoint.html

Return to headline | Return to top
House Appropriators Advance 2020 Interior-EPA Bill

May 22, 2019 | PoliticoPro

By Alex Guillén

The House Appropriations Committee today sent its $37.3 billion Interior-EPA spending package for fiscal 2020 to the floor. The bill advanced on a party-line 30-22 vote.
The bill calls for a 4 percent boost overall from this year's level. EPA would get 7.5 percent more, while Interior would get a 6.4 percent boost.
The committee passed a manager’s amendment that, among other things, added $5 million to a popular diesel emissions reduction program to bring it to a total of $55 million. And it boosted funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative by $15 million to a total of $320 million. It reduced the amount going to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund by $26 million, down to $1.784 billion.
The amendment also added language to the committee report urging EPA to continue issuing grant funding to the Children's Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research Centers. Nature reported last week that EPA plans to discontinue issuing grants to the network of 13 centers that track the long-term health effects of pollution and chemicals, which could cause them to close.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said she would wait for the floor debate to push her amendment that would effectively block any Interior plan to open Florida's coastal waters up to drilling. Florida Republicans Mario Diaz-Balart and John Rutherford also spoke in support of Wasserman Schultz's amendment.
Committee Democrats defeated Republican amendments that would have reduced EPA’s enforcement budget, required EPA to certify its rules would not cause a net loss of jobs, blocked EPA from regulating lead in ammunition and tackle, and made it easier to lease ANWR land for oil exploration.
Allie Bice contributed to this alert.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2019/05/house-appropriators-advance-2020-interior-epa-bill-3310985

Return to headline | Return to top
Revised EPA Agenda Sees Deadlines Slip For Major Obama Rule Rollbacks

May 22, 2019 | Inside EPA

By Lee Logan

EPA in its just-updated Unified Agenda of pending regulations is acknowledging that its deadlines have slipped considerably for many high-profile rollbacks of Obama-era rules, including climate standards for power plants and vehicles, as well as the 2015 Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction standard.
While the agency earlier hoped to complete many major rules this spring, it is now officially projecting that several of these rulemakings will not be finished until sometime in the summer or even the fall -- an important point given that all will face major legal challenges and the administration hopes to finish at least initial court review during President Donald Trump's current four-year term.
Meanwhile, the revised Unified Agenda, released May 22, includes a host of other updates regarding EPA's regulatory work, including new efforts to limit heavy-duty vehicle air pollution, possible drinking water limits on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and limits to states' CWA authority to review major energy projects.
In addition, some long-stalled regulations that were launched in the Obama administration have re-surfaced, including greenhouse gas limits for new aircraft and a “renewables enhancements and growth support” (REGS) rule for the agency's renewable fuel standard (RFS).
Regarding EPA's proposed Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule to replace the Obama-era Clean Power Plan GHG standards for existing power plants, the new agenda is confirming public statements that the agency plans to finalize the measure in June, which is pushed back from a prior goal of March.
In a related action, EPA hopes to finalize its proposed changes to climate new source performance standards (NSPS) for power plants by September, after having not previously floated a deadline for that measure.
EPA's other high-profile climate rollback -- its Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles rule to scale back Obama-era GHG requirements -- appears to be on a slower track than ACE. The Unified Agenda projects a final rule to be issued in June, with the prior agenda including a March goal, though sources have said they don't expect a completed rule to come until at least after the July 4 holiday.
California-led states and environmentalists appear poised to launch a protracted court battle over the new vehicle standards themselves, as well as EPA's plan to scrap the Golden State's current waiver of federal preemption to enforce stricter emissions limits than the federal government.
In other climate rules, the agency says it hopes to complete its proposal to weaken Obama-era methane standards for new oil and gas sources in September, after earlier saying it hoped to finalize the plan in April. Timelines have also slipped for a follow-on proposal to drop methane limits entirely, with the agency officially saying that plan could be issued in May and finished by December, deadlines that appear questionable given that a draft plan has not yet been submitted to the White House for inter-agency review.
EPA earlier hoped to issue the second methane proposal in December 2018 and finalize it in June.
Water Rules
Regarding the CWA jurisdiction standard -- which the Obama EPA jointly issued with the Army Corps of Engineers in 2015 -- the agency hopes to complete a rule rescinding that measure in August, a slip from prior goals of March 2019 and December 2018.
The agency's proposed new definition, floated Feb. 14, could be finalized in December, the Unified Agenda says. This deadline has slipped from a prior plan of September.
Another high-profile water-related rollback would target 2015 effluent standards for power plants. EPA hopes to issue a proposal in June and complete it in August 2020, after earlier saying it would release a plan in March and complete it by this December.
New on the agenda are separate plans targeting PFAS. One rulemaking would list two common PFAS as “hazardous substances” under Superfund law, with the agency projecting that a proposal would be issued in October.
Another measure is “regulatory determinations” for certain types of PFAS under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The agency hopes to issue “preliminary” findings by December and then to issue a final action by the end of 2020 that could result in a maximum contaminant level for the substances.
One rule that has been sped up is the agency's controversial science transparency rule. The Unified Agenda reflects Administrator Andrew Wheeler's goal of finalizing the rule by December, a month earlier than the previous agenda, which included the rule on its long-term actions list and set a goal of January 2020.
But deadlines have slipped for various other air rules. For instance, EPA's plan to “reset” statutory RFS blending requirements for various types of biofuels is projected to be issued in June, back from an earlier target of January. EPA had previously hoped to complete that rulemaking in December but now plans to finish it in February 2020.
The agency also scaled back the “reset” rule to cover only 2021-22, instead of an earlier plan to also include 2020 requirements.
New Air Rules
A new air rule on the agenda is an effort to control nitrogen oxides (NOx) and other emissions from heavy-duty trucks, an effort the agency is hoping to eventually coordinate with a separate rulemaking by California. However, EPA says a proposal would not be issued until February 2020, and it does not project a date to complete the measure. Sources say the Golden State's heavy-duty NOx rulemaking is on a much faster timeline.
The agency is also for the first time detailing a plan to “revisit” the trailer portions of the Obama EPA's 2016 heavy-duty vehicle GHG rule, which industry charged were unlawful. It plans to issue a proposal in October, though a date for final action is still “to be determined.”
Meanwhile, a long-stalled plan to scrap Obama-era limits on “glider” trucks remains classified as a “long-term action,” for which the agency does not expect movement within the next year.
Another new item is “benefit-cost reforms” for the Clean Air Act, a measure that grew out of an advance notice of proposed rulemaking that sought to increase “consistency” and “transparency” across all of the agency's cost-benefit reviews. EPA now hopes to float a proposal limited to air rules by December, though it gives no date for when the rule could be finalized.
EPA is also reviving two Obama-era air rules. One -- setting GHG limits for new aircraft to align with a 2017 international agreement -- is backed by the airline industry. After earlier dropping all planned timelines for the measure, the latest Unified Agenda now says a proposal could be issued in September, though it gives no date for a final rule.
In addition, the agenda says EPA will finalize the long-pending REGS measure for the RFS in November, after the proposal was issued in the waning months of the Obama administration. The proposed measure was “intended to provide further opportunity for expanding the production and use of renewable fuels” under the program, including the addition of several new feedstock and fuel pathways.
In a related item, the Unified Agenda says EPA hopes to finish a plan to allow summertime sales of 15 percent ethanol -- which is being paired with changes to the RFS compliance credit market -- by June, which would align with public goals to complete the rule by the June 1 summer driving season.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/revised-epa-agenda-sees-deadlines-slip-major-obama-rule-rollbacks

Return to headline | Return to top
Rare Earths Facility Planned for the US

May 22, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News

By Melody M. Bomgardner

The Australian mining firm Lynas says it will join with Blue Line, a US-based rare earths processor, to develop a rare earths separation facility in Hondo, Texas. The new capacity will help build a supply chain outside of China for the elements, which are used in a number of high-tech manufacturing sectors.
The announcement comes in the midst of a US-China trade war that has, so far, omitted rare earths in tit-for-tat tariffs. But a visit this week by Chinese president Xi Jinping to one of the world’s largest suppliers was a reminder to US industry and policy makers that China dominates the rare earths market.
The Texas venture will focus on separating heavy rare earths such as dysprosium and terbium from ore. It may grow to include lighter neodymium, praseodymium, and lanthanum. The minerals are used to make permanent magnets, catalytic converters, batteries, electronics, wind turbines, and water treatment chemicals.
Lynas is also investing to boost production and initial processing at its mine and facilities in Western Australia and to expand its separation facility in Malaysia.
The Australian mine is the largest outside of China. California desert holds a smaller mine and an idled processing plant. But for years, the US has lacked the skills and capacity to separate chemically similar elements from mined ore, purify the elements, and convert them from oxides into metal, points out Jon Hykawy, president of Stormcrow Capital, a minerals market research firm.
“This is a positive step toward re-establishing a US supply chain for rare earth elements,” Hykawy says.
Some US lawmakers are concerned that China’s dominance in the supply of rare earths has the makings of a security threat. Earlier this month, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R–AK) introduced legislation to reduce US reliance on foreign minerals.
“Our nation’s mineral security is a significant, urgent, and often ignored challenge. Our reliance on China and other nations for critical minerals costs us jobs, weakens our economic competitiveness, and leaves us at a geopolitical disadvantage,” Murkowski said.
https://cen.acs.org/business/specialty-chemicals/Rare-earths-facility-planned-US/97/i21

Return to headline | Return to top

TSCA News

(ACC Mentioned) Senators Tout Bipartisanship on PFAS But Barrasso Seeks to Narrow Bills

May 23, 2019 | Inside EPA

By Suzanne Yohannan

Environment committee senators are pledging to take a bipartisan approach that includes environmentalists and industry as they seek to address polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), though committee Chairman John Barrasso (R-WY) is indicating that while the bills under review enjoy bipartisan support, they will have to be narrowed to win his approval.
The discussion at a May 22 legislative hearing on bills addressing PFAS risks signaled the difficulty that lawmakers face, even as they seek to advance less controversial measures, such as a bill that would require industry to report releases of hundreds of PFAS to EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).
Much of the opposition was led by Barrasso, who committed to reporting a bipartisan legislative package on PFAS this Congress, but, while pointing out all six bills being reviewed by the committee enjoy support from senators of both parties, he said he could not support some of the bills as written.
For example, he pushed back on previous calls from environmentalists and others for addressing the chemicals as a class, questioning whether the lawmakers should take such an approach given their different levels of risk to human health and the environment. “These chemical substances vary widely,” Barrasso said in his opening statement. “While much more research is needed -- the risk these chemicals pose seem to vary as well.”
He also expressed reservations about “side-stepping the rulemaking process used to assess risks” associated with chemicals under existing environmental laws. “Congress established these rulemaking processes decades ago. It believed federal agencies are better positioned to evaluate the science behind the regulation of chemicals,” he said.
And the Wyoming senator also expressed concern about imposing Superfund liability on parties that used the chemicals in good faith, following regulations or industry best practices. “For example, our nation’s airports, refineries, and others used fire-fighting foam containing PFAS in order to protect their workers and the public at large,” the chairman said. He added that metal finishers used the substances to lower air emissions and workers’ exposure to heavy metals, while wastewater treatment plants and landfills were unknowing recipients of the chemicals.
His remarks on Superfund liability appeared to be aimed at S. 638, a bill sponsored by Sens. Tom Carper (D-DE), the panel’s ranking Democrat, and Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), among others. The bill would require EPA to designate all PFAS as hazardous substances under the Superfund law within one year.
Other bills the committee is considering include: S. 1507, also sponsored by Capito, which would add nearly 200 PFAS to the TRI to inform the public on environmental releases; S. 1473, which would require EPA to set a national, enforceable drinking water standard for PFAS two years after enacted; and S. 1372, which would hold federal agencies, such as the Defense Department, responsible for cleaning up PFAS contamination they caused.
In addition, the committee is considering S. 1251, which would bolster interagency federal actions and assist states in responding to public health issues posed by emerging contaminants; and S. 950, which would require the U.S. Geological Survey to conduct a national survey of PFAS.
Barrasso’s comments generally echoed those of House Republicans, who at a similar hearing last week raised concerns about bills that sought to regulate PFAS as a class, impose cleanup liability and take other steps.
The bills generally seek to address widespread concerns about contamination from the ubiquitous class of chemicals, which have been widely used in commerce but which EPA and other agencies have been slow to assess and regulate. While there are thousands of PFAS, EPA estimates that 602 substances in the class are currently used in commerce.
TRI Reporting
Responding to Barrasso’s concerns, Carper, in his opening statement, conceded that while some of the bills under review propose regulating “every single PFAS chemical, others have concluded that all of these chemicals do not pose the same safety risk, and they have raised implementation concerns about immediately regulating every single PFAS chemical at once.”
He said one way to allay this concern is in the approach offered by Capito’s bill, S. 1507, the PFAS Release Disclosure Act. This would add 200 chemicals to the TRI -- chemicals Carper said EPA has already found under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to pose a risk -- and would allow additions if EPA finds additional PFAS pose a risk.
Later in the hearing, Capito defended S. 1507, noting it does not include the entire class of chemicals and argued that determinations are to be based on science.
In response to questioning from Capito, industry witness Kimberly Wise White, a toxicologist with the American Chemistry Council (ACC), gave a tepid view on the bill, saying ACC “would be supportive of reviewing the TRI requirements,” noting that the chemicals would have to meet existing TRI criteria for listing -- namely that they pose adverse health effects.
Capito responded that by sponsoring this bill and others, she believes that these chemicals need to be on the TRI. She added she wanted to clear up misinformation about the TRI bill -- asking Scott Faber, senior vice president for government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, to back her up against charges that the legislation is onerous, would short circuit the regulatory process, apply to mom and pop gas stations and fuel lawsuits.
Faber responded saying the bill would only apply to certain categories of industrial dischargers.
In response to questions from Carper on their top priorities, drinking water officials indicated that they wanted EPA to use TSCA to get PFAS out of commerce.
Lisa Daniels, a witness on the panel representing the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, said her organization wants to see additional legislation where needed to enhance what can be done under TSCA. Earlier, she noted the focus needs to be getting PFAS out of commerce.
“EPA talks about TSCA being the gate keeper,” she said. “Right now, I think the gate’s wide open and I’m not even sure where the key is.”
And Tracy Mehan III, with the American Water Works Association, did not name any specific bill as a priority, but said “we need to get TSCA in the game more vigorously and also respect the processes in the Safe Drinking Water Act.”
Wise White earlier reemphasized ACC opposed taking a single class approach to evaluating PFAS, but conceded determinations could be made by subclasses. She did not name any specific legislation as a top priority other than to say it should be “science based” and grounded in the “most relevant, best available science.”
And Faber said his top legislative priority is to have legislation that kick starts the cleanup process, especially where communities are dealing with drinking water contamination, and where the Defense Department is responsible for contamination.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/senators-tout-bipartisanship-pfas-barrasso-seeks-narrow-bills

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Toxic Avenger: Did EPA Appointee Do Industry Employer’s Bidding?

May 23, 2019 | Project on Government Oversight (POGO)

By Scott Amey & Laura Peterson

Imagine the following scenario:
The guy in charge of directing regulatory policy on chemicals for a huge conglomerate is given a top position at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Once there, he participates in sidelining a long-awaited study on a suspected carcinogenic chemical produced by his former employer—and only recuses himself from the matter after the fact.
All this is allowable under current federal ethics guidelines because several companies—not just the former employer—produce the chemical in question.
Really??
Really. This is why EPA ethics officials allowed David Dunlap, former head of regulatory policy for Koch Industries, to participate in selecting which chemicals to evaluate for health dangers after Dunlap started work as the number-two administrator of the EPA’s main science office last October. That selection process resulted in the EPA halting a study on formaldehyde nearly two decades in the making.
The study was initiated as part of an EPA program that evaluates the potential harm of chemicals. As a chemical engineer who served for more than eight years as Koch’s “lead and subject matter expert with a primary focus on ... chemicals and chemical management,” according to his LinkedIn profile, Dunlap was likely well-versed in the issue, working with industry groups to prevent the government from definitively linking formaldehyde to cancer. The EPA classifies formaldehyde as a “probable” rather than a “known” carcinogen, though organizations within the Department of Health and Human Services and the World Health Organization consider it a “known” carcinogen.
The EPA study reportedly contained information showing a link between formaldehyde and leukemia, information that would have likely led to increased regulation—and decreased sales—of the chemical. One of the largest producers of formaldehyde in the United States is Georgia-Pacific—a subsidiary of Koch Industries, which is owned by brothers Charles and David Koch, who are known for their substantial political donations and opposition to government regulation. (Disclosure: The Project On Government Oversight receives funding from the Charles Koch Institute.) Global construction booms will drive the market for the type of formaldehyde Georgia-Pacific produces to $11.7 billion by 2023, according to a recent analysis.
The federal ethics system is supposed to prevent political appointees like Dunlap from serving the interests of former employers. All political appointees are required to sign the White House ethics pledge promising not to “participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to my former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts” for the first two years of their appointment. Dunlap submitted his signed pledge on his third day at EPA, and has “consistently sought” EPA counsel on ethics matters, according to an EPA spokesperson.
The phrase “particular matter involving specific parties” is defined in the ethics laws and regulations. In Dunlap’s case, EPA ethics officers determined that because formaldehyde is used by many companies in many industries, it was not a “specific party matter,” and so was not subject to the ethics pledge, the spokesperson said.
However, on the same day EPA took formaldehyde off the list of chemicals assessed by the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)—the agency’s independent process for evaluating the harms toxic chemicals pose to people and the environment—Dunlap voluntarily recused himself from decision-making on the chemical “to avoid the appearance of any ethical concerns,” according to a recusal statement he filed with the EPA.
Dunlap’s recusal stated that he would not participate “in any matters related to the formaldehyde IRIS assessment for the duration of [his] EPA tenure.” The EPA’s spokesperson explained to POGO that:Although not required by federal ethics law or regulation, Mr. Dunlap voluntarily recused himself from participating in matters related to the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment on formaldehyde, which is not a specific party matter and therefore subject to the terms of the Trump Ethics Pledge. Nevertheless, to avoid even the appearance of any loss of impartiality, Mr. Dunlap chose to recuse himself given his previous involvement in this issue while with his former employer.
In addition to the ethics pledge, current impartiality ethics standards prohibit, for one year, a government employee from participating in a “particular matter involving specific parties” where the employee knows that a party has a “covered relationship” and “where the employee determines that the circumstances would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts to question his impartiality in the matter.”
It’s hard for us to believe that Dunlap’s previous work on formaldehyde issues wouldn’t have triggered the one-year cooling off period. That ethics standard would deem Koch a covered relationship, and Dunlap should have easily determined that his work for the company and specifically on opposing regulations involving formaldehyde would cause reasonable people to question his impartiality. Apparently, he did eventually come to that conclusion when he recused himself from the EPA’s assessment on formaldehyde to “avoid even the appearance” of impartiality.
The “particular matter involving specific parties” language isn’t preventing many conflicts of interest for people coming into government service. In response to this problem, POGO asked Congress to prohibit government employees from participating in matters in which they know there is a “financial interest” favoring their former employer or client. Additionally, we proposed to the Trump and Clinton campaigns and transition teams a stronger two-year ban on appointees participating in particular matters involving specific parties that involved substantial communication with the federal government. And we proposed extending the two-year restriction to cover a “specific issue area”—an area that “has a special or distinct effect on that party other than as part of a class.”
Unfortunately, the Dunlap case shows that the current ethics protections and even our recommendations don’t go far enough. POGO’s review of the laws and regulations found that they were mostly designed to prevent officials from providing “privileged access” to their former employers or clients, and to prevent former government officials from switching sides to represent an individual or entity on matters with which the former employee was involved while working for the government. As it stands, limiting the restrictions to “specific parties” allowed Dunlap to run EPA operations that he worked on in the past and that significantly impact Koch Industries, because the matter impacted other entities too.
While it’s a nice change to see a voluntary recusal, questions remain about why Dunlap only took action after the EPA cut formaldehyde from its list of chemicals to assess under the IRIS program, and why he is self-imposing a recusal for the duration of his EPA tenure, which exceeds the required one- or two-year bans.
Dunlap’s position at EPA’s Office of Research and Development did not require Senate confirmation, but the office plays a pivotal role in the agency’s scientific work. The office oversees research at three national laboratories and six other research facilities located across the country, and houses IRIS as well.
In the first two months of his EPA tenure, Dunlap participated in at least nine meetings about the independent process, according to calendars obtained by Politico through the Freedom of Information Act. Dunlap asked senior EPA officials in late October 2018 to have their offices list just three to four priority chemicals IRIS should assess, according to a letter from Congressional Democrats to the EPA. EPA offices submitted priority lists over the next month that did not include formaldehyde.
On December 19, EPA publicly announced its IRIS listing that included 13 chemicals—9 fewer than the 22 originally planned, according to a March 2019 Government Accountability Office report on EPA’s track record of assessing toxic chemicals. Formaldehyde was one of the chemicals cut from the listing.
Koch Industries engaged in a long-running campaign to delay government action on formaldehyde, funding an organization called the Formaldehyde Council to lobby against restrictions on the chemical. The Formaldehyde Council was replaced in 2010 by the American Chemistry Council’s Formaldehyde Panel, a group of formaldehyde producers, suppliers, and users that disputes the chemical’s connection to leukemia and lobbies on the IRIS formaldehyde assessment.
Dunlap participated in the Formaldehyde Panel, according to E&E News. He also emailed Nancy Beck, the principal deputy assistant director of the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (and a former senior director at the American Chemistry Council), about the Toxic Substances Control Act, another chemical safety law that could restrict the use of certain chemicals, according to documents obtained by the Sierra Club through the Freedom of Information Act.
The Dunlap case highlights a major flaw in ethics laws that allowed him to take part in government decisions that benefited his former employer because the issues he worked on were not specific to Koch Industries—seemingly a distinction without a difference. Congress is interested in getting answers related to Dunlap and the decision to halt the formaldehyde health assessment, but it should also turn its attention to creating stronger ethics laws requiring a recusal for any appointee or government official when their former employer or client holds any interest in the outcome.
https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2019/05/toxic-avenger-did-epa-appointee-do-industry-employers-bidding/

Return to headline | Return to top
Further Delays Expected for US Hazcom Standard Update

May 23, 2019 | Chemical Watch

By Kelly Franklin

The timeline for the US to update its Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) has again been pushed back, according to the semi-annual release of the Department of Labor’s regulatory agenda.
The HCS was significantly amended in 2012 to bring the US’s hazard communication programme in line with the third version (Rev 3) of the UN’s Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of classification and labelling of chemicals. But the scheme - which is intended to lay out a common system for classifying chemicals and communicating hazard information through labels and safety data sheets - has not been updated since, even while the GHS ‘purple book’ was updated in 2017 to its seventh version.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) indicated in its autumn 2014 regulatory agenda plans to update the HCS. Two years later, it set an October 2017 target for a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), but that goal was not met. Subsequent agendas saw the timeline shift to February of this year (according to the spring 2018 agenda), and then to March (under last autumn’s update).
However, the spring 2019 regulatory agenda, released this week, shows further delays to the update. The NPRM is now slated for December 2019.
Osha did not respond to a request for comment by press time as to what had caused the delays.
Other agency activity
Activities related to chemicals in the regulatory agendas of other US agencies generally reflect expected timelines for ongoing activities and statutorily imposed deadlines.
The EPA’s agenda, for example, includes:
·       a proposed TSCA risk management rule for certain persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicalsto be issued by the 21 June deadline imposed by the Lautenberg Act;
·       finalising the Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science rule by December, in line with reports heard in recent weeks;
·       finalising changes to the TSCA Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule by the year’s end;
·       issuing a final procedural rule for the substantiation and review of TSCA confidential business information (CBI) claims by February 2020 – one year after the release of an updated inventory;
·       releasing an updated proposal for significant new use rules (Snurs) on certain long-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylate (LCPFAC) substances by September.
The agency also added to its agenda plans to add certain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) to the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) programme. An advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) is expected this autumn.
Meanwhile, new to the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) regulatory agenda is a proposal to reduce the burden of third-party testing requirements for children’s products with respect to certain manufactured fibres.
A timeline on the agency’s consideration of a petition to ban organohalogen flame retardants from certain products, however, has no further details beyond the May release of a National Academies feasibility study.
The ‘unified agenda of regulatory and deregulatory actions’ is released each spring and autumn by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (Oira).

https://chemicalwatch.com/77858/further-delays-expected-for-us-hazcom-standard-update

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Blog) INSIGHT: With PFAS One-Size-Fits-All Isn’t the Answer

May 22, 2019 | American Chemistry Matters

By American Chemistry

In Bloomberg Environment this week, Jessica Bowman, who is the Executive Director of ACC’s FluoroCouncil, makes the case for why a one-size-fits-all approach to PFAS does not make sense. She explores the value and benefits of today’s PFAS, describes the extensive science available on the health and safety of these compounds, and describes the extensive regulation of the chemistry.
Below you will find excerpts from the piece. You can read the entire feature here.
Unfortunately, innovation in chemistry and the critical role it plays in our way of life are too often overshadowed by hyperbole in today’s public discourse, most notably when it comes to the safety and use of chemicals. While scary sound bites might make for good headlines, they don’t always make for good policy. And the impression these quips can leave with the public and policymakers is often misleading.
Take for instance the latest push to ban or regulate an entire family of chemicals, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)…
Today’s fluorinated chemistries have significantly enhanced environmental and human health profiles. They underwent strict regulatory review before they went to market, which included a requirement to provide significant data and testing related to various health and environmental factors. In addition, these substances are continuously reviewed and allowed for use by regulators around the globe.
No Reason to Group
he differences in PFAS offer a clear example of why it doesn’t make sense to paint chemicals with a broad regulatory stroke. Today’s PFAS products are the product of innovation and have differing characteristics, formulations, intended uses, and environmental and health profiles. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has the responsibility for regulating the safety of chemicals, as well as regulators around the globe, recognize these considerable differences in the family of chemistries.
The science on the health and safety of newer PFAS is extensive. A large body of data has been developed by universities, government agencies, independent laboratories, and industry scientists and provided to regulators globally as part of their ongoing chemical review processes. The science supports the conclusion that today’s PFAS products do not present a significant risk to human health or the environment….
…The same is true of today’s PFAS, which were subject to rigorous scientific research requirements that included testing related to cancer, reproductive/developmental factors, systematic toxicity, bioretention, ecological endpoints, environmental fate and transport, and other factors before being they could be brought to market.
Adequately Regulated
In addition to chemical product regulation, there also are numerous laws that govern how chemicals are manufactured, used, transported, and managed. These include specific regulations for limiting emissions and helping ensure minimal exposures. In the U.S., more than a dozen federal laws and multiple federal agencies govern the safe manufacture and use of chemicals.
Grouping of PFAS and other chemicals by class would disregard this layered regulatory structure. By design, grouping these different substances together for the purposes of blanket, one-size-fits-all regulatory policies would not take into account how the chemical is used, in what amount, or whether and how long exposure occurs (if at all). This approach defies what scientists and other experts continue to determine: while chemicals can be somewhat similar, their properties can differ greatly in ways that could affect (or not) human health or the environment.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2019/05/insight-with-pfas-one-size-fits-all-isnt-the-answer/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) House-Senate Divide Clear on PFAS

May 22, 2019 | Politico - Morning Energy

By Kelsey Tamborrino

With help from Anthony Adragna, Alex Guillén, Gavin Bade and Eric Wolff
Editor's Note: This edition of Morning Energy is published weekdays at 10 a.m. POLITICO Pro Energy subscribers hold exclusive early access to the newsletter each morning at 6 a.m. To learn more about POLITICO Pro's comprehensive policy intelligence coverage, policy tools and services, click here.
QUICK FIX
— The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will examine six bills this morning targeting PFAS contamination, and marking a clear departure from the House's approach to the chemicals.
— House Republicans are expected to try to restore some legacy provisions removed by Democrats in this year's Interior-EPA spending bill.
— EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler launched an effort made known Tuesday to re-do cost-benefit analyses at EPA, which critics fear will make it harder to regulate pollution in the future.
GOOD MORNING! IT'S WEDNESDAY. I'm your host, Kelsey Tamborrino. NYISO's Benjamin Cohen knew that former President John Tyler had the most failed Supreme Court nominations: eight. For today: Which first lady never held a press conference or gave an interview to a newspaper or magazine? Send your tips, energy gossip and comments to ktamborrino@politico.com.
DRIVING THE DAY
PFAS TALKING: Six bills focused on contamination from toxic PFAS chemicals are up today before the Senate EPW Committee.
The panel is taking a different tack than lawmakers in the House. Senators are focusing on the chemical compounds that research has shown to be harmful to humans rather than tackling all of the roughly 5,000 members of the chemical class, Pro's Annie Snider and Anthony Adragna report. That includes, S. 1507 (116), on tap today from ranking member Tom Carper (Del.), Shelley Moore Capito(R-W.Va.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) that would require public reporting of emissions of a subset of PFAS under the Toxic Release Inventory.
The House-Senate divide on the issue echoes the overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act three years ago, when the Senate's compromise bill prevailed over the House's. That defeat still hangs over House Energy and Commerce Committee leaders as they take on PFAS. "I think they are coming into this like Rocky II: Somehow they’re going to come back and recapture their glory," said a chemicals industry lobbyist who speaks regularly with Democrats. Read more.
— Senators will hear from witnesses today spanning Kim White of the American Chemistry Council to Scott Faber of the Environmental Working Group, an organization in favor of aggressive PFAS regulation by handling the thousands of chemicals as a class. But ACC, which represents companies that manufacture, formulate or process PFAS, has supported EPA's PFAS Action Plan and efforts to regulate the two most well known PFAS — PFOA and PFOS — but has fiercely opposed efforts to regulate the whole class.
G. Tracy Mehan III of American Water Works Association will also testify. During last week's House hearing, AWWA was skeptical of overly broad regulation, particularly over concerns that utilities will be hit with the costs of treating water to remove PFAS.
IN CONGRESS
ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER MARKUP: House appropriators Tuesday advanced the Energy-Water spending bill for fiscal 2020 by a 31-21 vote. This morning, appropriators will gather to mark up the Interior-Environment spending bill, a $37.3 billion package.
Republicans will attempt to revive a host of provisions that Democrats stripped from the bill as part of their push to leave out controversial riders. Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), chairwoman of the Interior-EPA subcommittee, took out provisions backed by Republicans that had been considered legacy issues, including language preventing the sage grouse from being listed as endangered and a provision that stopped the Army Corps of Engineers from changing the definition of "fill material."
FOR YOUR RADAR: ME is told Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine will introduce the Better Energy Storage Technology Act today, part of the GOP effort to advance measures that drive technology to help solve climate change. The bill, as Pro's Eric Wolff reported, aims to improve short-term electricity storage technology.
BIG CARBON ADVOCACY DAY: Senior officials from 75 companies representing $2.5 trillion in 2018 revenues and 750,000 U.S. employees are descending on the Hill today for more than 70 bipartisan meetings in hopes of educating lawmakers on carbon pricing. "Congressmen and women who are ready to lead on carbon pricing will have the support of the business community," said Anne Kelly, vice president of government relations for Ceres at a forum Monday. Participants include big names like Johnson & Johnson, BP, eBay, CapitalOne, PepsiCo, Tesla, PG&E and Microsoft, among many others. More here.
ME FIRST — MARKEY'S GREEN VISION: Sen. Ed Markey, co-sponsor of the Green New Deal resolution, will today unveil a white paper on a green infrastructure package. It addresses factoring climate change into transportation spending while strengthening fuel economy and vehicle greenhouse gas emissions standards, in part by providing funding for more research and development into batteries. Read it.
SLEEPLESS IN SUBCOMMITTEE: Interior Secretary David Bernhardt will testify today before the Senate Appropriations Interior-Environment Subcommittee on his department's FY 2020 budget. Ranking member Tom Udallwill press Bernhardt on his comment last week that he's "not losing sleep" over a recent finding that carbon dioxide measurements in the atmosphere have reached 415 ppm. "Let me tell you: along with many Americans, I am losing sleep over climate change and over this administration's stubborn refusal to address its threat," Udall will say.
MANCHIN: RENEWABLE TAX EXTENDERS SHOULD HELP COAL COMMUNITIES: If Congress wants to extend solar and wind tax credits, as some Democrats want it to, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) wants to make sure coal communities get a piece of the action. Manchin hopes that areas that depended on now-shuttered coal mines and power plants for jobs get support to promote renewable energy manufacturing. "We're having a shift in our energy portfolio if you will, in our energy program," Manchin told POLITICO. "The money should be basically so you don’t leave nobody behind."
MURKOWSKI STILL WORRIED OVER FERC NOMS: Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Lisa Murkowski said Tuesday she remains "very concerned" about FERC vacancies. Murkowski told reporters she hasn't heard from the White House about a nominee to fill the seat of the late Kevin McIntyre or how it will handle the nomination of former environmental activist Allison Clements — Senate Democrats' pick to replace Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur, who will step down this year.
If her committee receives nominees soon, Murkowski said they could likely still be confirmed by the end of the year. "The challenge is the length of the vetting time and we have no control over that. The White House doesn't really even have any control over that, so as soon as you can get started, the better off we're going to be because we'll have no time to do that," Murkowski said. "So yes, I'm worried, but we should have time to do that."AROUND THE AGENCIES
AT WHAT COST-BENEFIT? Wheeler directed four key offices, in a May 13 memo released Tuesday, to change how they calculate costs and benefits in rulemakings, Pro's Alex Guillén reports. The memo formalizes an effort that has been more subtly included as part of many of the Trump administration's rulemakings.
Wheeler's memo comes not long after the Science Advisory Board revealed it is planning a project examining scientific issues around how EPA calculates co-benefits in air regulations. In a recently posted document, the panel called co-benefits "non-controversial" from a "decision-science perspective." But it said precision in quantifying co-benefits in regulations, including foregone co-benefits in deregulatory actions, has become a concern and requires some "careful scientific guidance."
The document also notes that there are legal and policy issues regarding co-benefits that are beyond the scope of the project. SAB's proposal would have a working group start up later this year, with a draft report coming in fall 2020 and a final report in spring 2021. The board is expected to discuss it further at next month's SAB meeting.
ANOTHER INHOFE ALUM LANDS AT EPA: A former aide to Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) who later became a Dow Chemical lobbyist has joined EPA to help handle responses to congressional requests. Katherine English is serving as an oversight and legislative counsel in the agency's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations. English previously held counsel positions on the Senate Homeland Security Committee and then Inhofe's EPW Committee, and later spent several years as a lobbyist for the Fertilizer Institute and Dow Chemical. English joins the club of former Inhofe aides now at EPA, including chief of staff Ryan Jackson and enforcement chief Susan Bodine.
Emails obtained by the Sierra Club last year and reported at the time showed that English had sought a position at EPA in 2017. She told ME that she instead returned home to Oklahoma to care for a sick relative. She also ran a family trust that leased land to oil and gas drillers, though English told ME she did not personally benefit from that leasing as the revenue went toward the relative's care.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-energy/2019/05/22/house-senate-divide-clear-on-pfas-628708

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Republicans, Industry Push Back on PFAS Bills

May 23, 2019 | E&E Daily

By Ariana Figueroa

Republicans and chemicals industry advocates are pushing back on a frenzy of bills to address drinking water contamination.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reviewed six bills dedicated to addressing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.
The chemicals were used to make nonstick cookware, food packaging and firefighting foam, among other products. PFAS is now linked to cancer, thyroid issues and other health problems, according to research from the Centers of Diseases Control and Prevention.
Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said several proposals — including one to compel the administration to establish strong rules against PFAS — concerned him.
"I am concerned about side-stepping the rulemaking process used to assess the risks associated with chemical compounds under our nation's bedrock environmental laws," he said in his opening statement.
Democrats have been at the forefront of many of the bills, but the drive to deal with PFAS is generally bipartisan. The EPW Committee hearing focused on the following six:
·       S. 638, the "PFAS Action Act," from ranking member Tom Carper (D-Del.). It would require EPA to designate PFAS as hazardous substances under the Superfund law.
·       S. 950, the "PFAS Detection Act," from Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.). It would require the U.S. Geological Survey to carry out nationwide sampling of PFAS in the environment.
·       S. 1251, the "Safe Drinking Water Assistance Act," from Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.). It aims to improve collaboration between states and the federal government.
·       S. 1372, the "PFAS Accountability Act," also from Stabenow. It would set requirements for PFAS cleanup at federal facilities.
·       S. 1473, the "Protect Drinking Water from PFAS Act," from Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.). It would push EPA to set limits for PFAS.
·       S. 1507, the "PFAS Release Disclosure Act," from Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), would include PFAS in the inventory of toxic releases.
Barrasso said more research needs to be done to determine which chemicals pose a risk to health and ones that are deemed safe.
"I question whether we should treat all PFAS as if they posed the same level of risk to human health and the environment," he said.
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on the Environment and Climate Change, made similar arguments during a hearing last week (E&E Daily, May 16).
He urged House Democrats not to rush and force EPA to set an enforceable drinking standard for an entire class of chemicals, arguing Congress could unintentionally ban some compounds that potentially pose no threat to human health.
During yesterday's EPW Committee hearing, a witness from the American Chemical Council agreed with Barrasso. Kimberly Wise White, ACC senior director for chemical products and technology, argued PFAS chemicals require different levels of regulation because of the different structures and properties.
"A one-size-fits-all approach to chemical management and assessment of PFAS is not scientifically based," she said.
Lisa Daniels, director of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's Bureau of Safe Drinking Water, disagreed with studying PFAS on a compound-by-compound basis and instead advocated for additional funding for states to deal with testing and cleanup.
Daniels said states are diverting funding meant for inspections, training and enforcement for drinking water programs to address PFAS such as setting maximum contamination levels.
Carper said he was not surprised states are moving forward with setting their own PFAS standards and accused EPA of lowering its draft guidance for PFAS cleanup.
"EPA weakened its draft guidance for cleaning up contaminated PFAS sites following pressure from the Department of Defense," Carper said in his opening statement.
At the end of the hearing, Barrasso said he hopes to put together a bipartisan PFAS package by the end of this Congress but did not give a definitive date.
In the House, Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee Chairman Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) said he is also working on a bipartisan PFAS package that he is aiming to pass before the August recess (E&E Daily, May 7).

https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/05/23/stories/1060381793

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Vermont Headed Toward Plastic Bag, Foam Bans (1)

May 22, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Adrianne Appel

Vermont would join a small but growing number of states to ban plastic bags and foam food containers under a bill headed to Gov. Phil Scott (R), who has said he would sign the bill.
The bill (S. 113), passed by the state House and Senate May 22, would prohibit retailers, dry cleaners, and other businesses from supplying single-use plastic bags to customers, with any exceptions for retailers set to expire by mid-2021.
The ban would make Vermont the second state in the nation, after Maine, to ban foam food containers.
Lawmakers and environmental groups concerned about the accumulation of plastic pollution in the environment pushed the Vermont bill.
Many plastics, which contain harmful chemicals, persist in landfills, oceans and waterways, and tiny plastic bits have been detected in drinking water supplies. Larger pieces of discarded plastic and plastic bags are consumed by birds and marine mammals, which can be sickened or killed as a result.
Catching On
Many municipalities in Vermont and throughout the U.S. have already banned plastic bags. Single-use bags are also banned in every county in Hawaii, and that state will officially ban bags in 2023. California bans large retailers from issuing single-use plastic bags, and New York will enforce a partial ban on plastic bags in March 2020.
“We’ve seen it coming,” Erin Sigrist, president of the Vermont Retail & Grocers Association, said of a statewide plastic bag ban. The association did not oppose the legislation but worked with lawmakers to make the bill better for retailers, Sigrist said.
While the bill officially bans bags starting in July 2020, a compromise would allow stores an extra year, until July 1, 2021, to use up any inventory of plastic bags on hand. Also, stores would charge customers 10 cents if they request a large paper bag.
One goal of the legislation is to “get people in the practice of using reusable bags,” not to switch to paper bags, which are more expensive for retailers to stock, Sigrist said.
Foam Ban
The bill also would ban polystyrene food containers and cups, and plastic stirrers. It would make plastic straws allowable only if requested by a customer.
Hospitals, nursing homes, and hospices would be exempted from the polystyrene ban and plastic straw restriction.
Maine’s foam containers bill, signed into law by Gov. Janet Mills (D) on April 30, takes effect Jan. 1, 2021. The Maryland Legislature recently approved a ban on polystyrene, but Gov. Larry Hogan (R) hasn’t taken action on it yet. And the European Union will prohibit polystyrene starting in 2021.
More than 200 cities and counties, including New York City, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C., have banned or restricted foam containers, according to the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, which pushed for the foam and plastic bag bans in the state.
Vermont legislators “raised the bar” when it comes to regulating plastics, said Paul Burns, VPIRG’s executive director.
Industry Trade Group Opposition
The American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group, opposes bans on foam containers.
“We will continue to strongly advocate to restore access to polystyrene foodservice packaging for families and businesses across Maine,” said Omar Terrie, director of the Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group within the Plastics Division at ACC.
“We are willing to work with Governor Mills and the Maine Legislature on commonsense legislation that would build out foodservice-ware recycling infrastructure while educating the public.”
(Updated with comment from the chemicals industry trade association.)
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/vermont-headed-toward-plastic-bag-foam-bans

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Debating The Single-Use Plastic Bills Moving Through State Legislature

May 23, 2019 | AirTalk

By Jill Replogle

A pair of bills designed to drastically reduce plastic waste in California passed the Senate and Assembly appropriations committees on Thursday.
The bills, SB 54 and AB 1080, would require manufacturers and retailers to reduce plastic packaging by 75 percent by 2030. That would mean switching to recyclable or compostable materials or getting rid of packaging altogether. After that date, single-use plastic packaging would be banned.
The legislation is authored by Senator Ben Allen of Santa Monica and Lorena Gonzalez-Fletcher of San Diego. It will face a vote in the full legislature in the coming months.
Guests:
Jill Replogle, KPCC’s Orange County reporter; she’s been following the story; she tweets @jillrep
Jeffrey Hollender, CEO of the American Sustainable Business Council, a network of businesses and business associations committed to sustainability; co-founder and former CEO of Seventh Generation, which sells sustainable household and personal care products; adjunct professor of sustainability and social entrepreneurship at New York University’s Stern Business School; he tweets @JeffHollender
Tim Shestek, senior director of state affairs for the American Chemistry Council, an association of chemical and plastic manufacturers; he tweets@Shestek
https://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2019/05/22/64517/debating-the-single-use-plastic-bills-moving-throu/

Return to headline | Return to top
US Senate Considers Six Bipartisan Bills Addressing PFASs

May 23, 2019 | Chemical Watch

The US Senate is considering at least six bills that would address per- or polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) contamination nationwide.
These bills are:
·       the PFAS Action Act of 2019 (S 638) – requiring the EPA to list PFASs as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (Cercla), or Superfund;
·       the PFAS Detection Act of 2019 (S 950) – directing the US Geological Survey (USGS) to perform a nationwide survey of PFASs;
·       the Safe Drinking Water Assistance Act of 2019 (S 1251) – improving and coordinating interagency federal action and assisting states in responding to health challenges posed by "emerging contaminants";
·       the PFAS Accountability Act of 2019 (S 1372) – encouraging federal agencies to cooperate with states to remove and remediate PFAS contamination in water sources and on land;
·       the Protect Drinking Water from PFAS Act of 2019 (S 1473) – requiring the EPA to set maximum contaminant levels for certain chemicals; and
·       the PFAS Release Disclosure Act (S 1507) – including certain PFASs in the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).
All have bipartisan sponsorship, a fact that was highlighted at a 22 March hearing held by the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island) urged the EPA to avoid "injecting partisanship" into the regulatory process, noting that "bipartisanship is a terrible thing to waste".

The House of Representatives is also considering 13 bills on the substances. It held a hearing on 15 May to discuss them.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77859/us-senate-considers-six-bipartisan-bills-addressing-pfass

Return to headline | Return to top
US Virgin Islands Advances Bill Restricting Sunscreen Ingredients

May 23, 2019 | Chemical Watch

By Lisa Martine Jenkins

The US territory of the Virgin Islands has become the latest beach community to consider a ban on certain sunscreen ingredients over concerns that they pose a risk to coral reefs and other marine life.
On 20 May, the Virgin Islands’ Committee on Government Operations, Consumers and Veterans Affairs unanimously advanced a bill to ban the sale, distribution and import of sunscreen products containing oxybenzone and octinoxate. Originally introduced in March, it is now being considered by the legislature’s Committee on Rules and Judiciary.
The bill cites concerns that the two substances – which are contained in many sunscreen and personal care products – have "significant harmful impacts on the Virgin Islands’ marine environment and ecosystem". These include coral bleaching and other problems for numerous species, including those protected by the federal Endangered Species Act.
And it says that the chemicals continually enter local waters both because of swimmers and beachgoers, as well as through products washing down the drain, because the territory’s wastewater treatment process does not remove them.
The legislation would ban sunscreen products that contain oxybenzone or octinoxate on a staggered timeline, meaning:
·       after 31 December 2019, importing them for sale would be illegal;
·       after 30 September 2020, selling, offering for sale and distributing them would be illegal; and
·       after 1 January 2021, using, possessing or bringing them into the territory would be illegal.
The bill stipulates that violation of the above would result in a fine of $1,000 for the first offence and $2,000 for each subsequent offence.
Virgin Islands action in context
If the bill passes into law, the Virgin Islands will follow Hawaii, Palau, and Key West, Florida in banning products containing these substances.
But focus on sunscreen ingredients has also increased at the federal level this year.
In February, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a proposal to finalise a monograph for over-the-counter sunscreen products, as part of its effort to update its sunscreen product regulations.
The proposal requested more information on 12 ingredients for which the FDA has "insufficient safety data" to confirm that they are ‘generally recognised as safe and effective’ (Grase). Both oxybenzone and octinoxate were included in this group. If the agency does not receive data sufficient to determine the substances are Grase, they will be required to go through the new drug approval process before they can return to the market.
Meanwhile, the Environmental Working Group has issued its 13th annual guide to sunscreen products and ingredients. It found that 60% of non-mineral sunscreens in the US contain oxybenzone.
The NGO recommends that consumers pick mineral-based sunscreens made with zinc oxide or titanium dioxide.

https://chemicalwatch.com/77857/us-virgin-islands-advances-bill-restricting-sunscreen-ingredients

Return to headline | Return to top
NGOs Criticise EU for Requiring Exemption from Global PFOA Ban

May 23, 2019 | Chemical Watch

By Caterina Tani

A group of international NGOs has criticised the EU for requiring an exemption for medical textiles from a global ban on the use of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) agreed at the UN Conference of the Parties (COPs) earlier this month.

In a 10 May statement, NGOs, including the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL), Health Care Without Harm (HCWH) and Arnika, expressed "deep regret and disapproval" for the request, which could "undermine an otherwise effective worldwide ban".

Delegates from more than 180 countries agreed the prohibition of the use of the chemical, adding it to Annex III of the Stockholm Convention at the conference in Geneva.

However, several exemptions for the substance, including one for medical textiles, were requested by the EU delegation – along with China and Iran – and approved.

PFOA is widely used for its resistance to water and oil. PFOA-related compounds are used as surfactants and surface treatment agents in textiles, papers and paints and firefighting foams. The substance has been identified as persistent, bioaccumulative and reprotoxic by the EU.
The NGOs said the exemption goes "against the recommendations from the POPs Review Committee for the Stockholm Convention", which identified several potential alternatives to PFASs for use in medical textiles, but no specific applications "absolutely" requiring a PFOA use.

During the COPs talks, the NGOs said even representatives of the fluorochemicals industry "repeatedly opposed this exemption request", because of the "wide availability of existing alternatives to the substance".

The NGOs also blamed the EU for requesting the exemption during the meeting, after having previously nominated PFOA for listing under the Stockholm Convention, and participating in the evaluation process – during which exemptions should normally be listed.

This behaviour, they said, shows "a very disturbing disrespect of the UN’s careful review process and illustrates the EU’s flagrant disregard of the accepted protocol for listing exemptions under the Stockholm Convention".

In requesting the exemption, the chemicals policy and projects officer at HCWH Europe, Dorota Napierska, added, "the EU has effectively lowered the bar in global chemicals management and brought other countries in line with its own weak regulation".

This, she added, will have a "significant direct impact" on the amount of PFOA released into the environment as the substance is used in significant amounts in the treatment of medical textiles.

NGOs called on the EU to "change its behaviour" and "truly embrace its powerful mandate" demonstrating a strong leadership in protecting the environment.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77863/ngos-criticise-eu-for-requiring-exemption-from-global-pfoa-ban

Return to headline | Return to top
EU Adopts Plastics Ban

May 22, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News

By Laura Howes

Europe’s single-use plastics ban was formally adopted on May 21 in Brussels by the Council of the European Union, a meeting of ministers from the different countries in the union. The European Parliament had passed the legislation in March, with the goal to reduce marine litter.
Plastic cotton swab sticks, cutlery, plates, straws, drink stirrers, and sticks for balloons will need to be made with more sustainable materials by 2021. Single-use plastic drink containers will be allowed only if their caps remain attached. Plastic bottles will also need to be made of at least 30% recycled plastic by 2030.
For products without cheap and easy nonplastic alternatives, such as wet wipes and fishing gear, the focus is on limiting use. Producers of these products will be obliged to help cover cleanup costs and to promote awareness of litter and waste management options.
Now the ban has passed the union level, the individual countries within the EU have two years to transpose the legislation into their national law.
https://cen.acs.org/policy/legislation/EU-adopts-plastics-ban/97/i21

Return to headline | Return to top
Echa Round-Up

May 23, 2019 | Chemical Watch

Consultations on applications for authorisation
Echa is looking for comments on 11 applications for authorisation covering 18 uses of:
·       chromium trioxide used in surface treatment for the manufacture of grain-oriented electrical steel used in magnetic circuits of electric devices;
·       4-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)phenol, ethoxylated and 4-nonylphenol, branched and linear, ethoxylated used in the production of various medical devices and medicinal products; and
·       pitch, coal tar, high-temperature, used in the manufacturing of thermally and thermo-mechanically highly loaded carbon/carbon parts for aerospace launchers.
The deadline for comments is 17 July.
CLH public consultations
The agency has invited comments on CLH proposals for:
·       2-(2-methoxyethoxy)ethanol. Proposed by the Netherlands it is primarily used as an intermediate or industrial processing aid and an additive in aviation fuels;
·       pyridine-2-thiol 1-oxide, sodium salt. Proposed by Sweden it is an active substance mainly used in biocidal products as a preservative and disinfectant; and
·       methyl methacrylate methyl 2-methylprop-2-enoate. Proposed by the Netherlands, it has several uses including adhesive and sealants, and as a monomer for polymerisation or intermediate in synthesis of other chemicals.
The deadline for comments is 5 July.
Registration improvement tips
In an article in this month’s Echa newsletter the agency gives five top tips for improving REACH registration dossiers. These are:
·       identify the substance correctly;
·       include physico-chemical, toxicological and environmental information;
·       when applying a read-across approach, justify the hypothesis well;
·       update dossiers regularly; and
·       classify substances correctly.
The agency points out that it is the registrant’s responsibility to classify and label its substance properly.
"There is plenty of information available to improve compliance. Check this information and build a process in your company to make sure your registration dossiers are up to date and compliant," the article adds.
Webpages: database of articles containing SVHCs
The agency has created webpages on the database it is developing for information on articles containing substances of very high concern from the candidate list, under the waste framework Directive.
The webpages provide background information and details about the project's next steps.
Companies producing, importing or supplying such articles will need to submit information to Echa from January 2021.
Echa closed dates
The agency will be closed on 30 and 31 May.
This article contains some information published in the Echa round-up of 17 May.

https://chemicalwatch.com/77787/echa-round-up

Return to headline | Return to top
NGO Platform: Hazardous Chemicals Should Be a Priority for the EU Elections

May 23, 2019 | Chemical Watch

By Natacha Cingotti

Natacha Cingotti, the senior policy officer leading the chemicals and health programme for the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL), explains why a non-toxic environment should finally become central to Europe’s future.
Chemicals are everywhere, and our exposure to a daily cocktail of chemicals impacts our bodies and health together – yet, according to official data, 75% of the chemicals on the European market are not safe and, so far, European institutions have failed to take the necessary measures to reduce both environmental pollution and prevent related health conditions.
Although the 7th Environmental Action Programme made it obligatory for the European Commission to develop a strategy for a non-toxic environment by 2018, it has failed to deliver it in this term. As the evidence on chemical pollution and its health impacts continues to increase, commitments to take action to reduce our chemical exposure should be central to the European agenda for the coming term.
With the European elections this week and growing demand from citizens for the reduction of toxic chemical pollution, it is simply absurd to delay the transition to a non-toxic environment, pretending that there is a lack of evidence.
The reality is quite the opposite: we are so swamped with scientific evidence that it is hard to choose which pieces to mention. So here are just a few selected examples:
·       Just last week, a European Environment Agency report on the chemical contamination of European seas found that there are some 150,000 chemical substances in commercial use, and a new one is created every 2.5 minutes, without their effects being fully known;
·       Eurostats' data, released a few months ago, estimated that 75% of the chemicals produced in the EU are hazardous to health; and
·       World Health Organization’s data estimates that the burden of disease from just a selected number of chemicals is cutting 1.6 million lives short worldwide.
In addition, when it comes to specific groups of chemicals such as endocrine disruptors, ever-growing evidence points to the need for precaution before putting new chemicals on the market.
Recent conclusions from the Horizon 2020 project EDC-MixRisk found that health effects associated with combined EDC exposures are systematically underestimated. Finally, the latest Global Chemicals Outlookpredicts that the goal to minimise the adverse impacts of chemicals and waste for our health and environment will not be achieved by 2020.
Failing to deliver
Despite this evidence, along with the 7th Environmental Action Programme requesting the European Commission to develop a strategy for a non-toxic environment by 2018, and with environment ministers reminding the European Commission of its obligations on several occasions, it has failed to deliver such a strategy to protect citizens’ health in this term.
How much more evidence of chemicals harm to our health do we still need before serious steps are taken to address what, at this point, can only be called an emergency?
Undoubtedly, there are powerful commercial interests at play that slow the pace of discussions on identification, classification and regulation of many chemicals of concern.
That’s nothing new. What is puzzling and short-sighted is the reluctance to accept the overwhelming evidence and to apply precautionary measures to prevent human exposure to chemicals.
It is especially worrying when, in real-life, we are exposed to several chemicals from different sources at the same time, meaning we need to take into account this so-called chemical cocktail. Considering the high burden of disease from exposure to toxic chemicals, reducing our overall daily chemical cocktail is an obvious opportunity where the EU could make a difference for all Europeans.
Relying on prevention through a precautionary approach that firmly restricts chemicals being allowed onto the market would not only mean fewer diseases and lower healthcare costs, but also more public funds to research safe alternatives and boost investment to support them.
It is high time for European institutions to realise that more protective chemical policies offer a great chance to increase Europeans’ confidence in their decision-makers and that they actually take their concerns seriously and illustrate how Europe can positively contribute to their daily life, their health and that of future generations.
But failing to adequately respond to these well-founded concerns will keep fuelling citizens’ distrust. A lot can and should still be done before the autumn.
The European Commission must deliver on its promises when it comes to action on toxics.
Pressing concerns
Most pressing is the revision of the strategy on endocrine disruptors, a fitness check which remains to be launched.
The Commission should also, as soon as possible and in full transparency, release all of the results of the evaluations done on legislations in relation to chemicals under this term, including evaluations of all the chemicals laws, except REACH and the pesticides legislation.
The EU’s overall action on chemicals will continue to lack coherence as long as the overdue non-toxic environment strategy is not developed and released, a fact that environment ministers have pointed out time and time again.

At their meeting in June, ministers should demand accountability from the European Commission on its commitments for a non-toxic environment.
Commitments to reform the evaluation of chemicals through taking into account the cocktail effect of combined exposures, and looking into families of similar substances rather than one substance at a time are obvious priorities; these should allow for swifter flagging and restricting of chemicals of concern.
Several groups of chemicals of concern have also been singled out on numerous occasions for prioritisation, including endocrine disruptors, flame retardants, highly fluorinated compounds, synthetic pesticides and nanomaterials.
Finally, they should demand commitments to overhaul relevant regulations for chemical exposure in a truly health-protective way, such as that for food contact materials, which are long overdue and should be part of that effort.
Commitments
and detoxing our economic cycles as a centrepiece of their political programmes.
Those elected as Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) should use their power to question potential European Commissioners in their approval hearings and to ensure that the reduction of chemical pollution is a high priority in the coming five years.
And the next European Commission should place the legal obligation to deliver a meaningful non-toxic strategy at the top of its agenda for health and environment. It remains an important deliverable of the next European Commission and it should guide all other efforts to minimise exposure to harmful chemicals across Europe.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and are not necessarily shared by Chemical Watch.

https://chemicalwatch.com/77696/ngo-platform-hazardous-chemicals-should-be-a-priority-for-the-eu-elections

Return to headline | Return to top
Pretty Hurts: Are Chemicals in Beauty Products Making Us Ill?

May 23, 2019 | The Guardian

By Lauren Zannolli

Anyone who has ever glanced at a lotion or shampoo bottle has probably noticed a mystifying array of multi-syllabic chemicals. We assume they’re safe enough to put on our bodies – but how much do we really know about the products we slather on each day?
he US cosmetics and personal care industry – everything from makeup to shampoo, lotion and sunscreen – is largely self-regulated. Since it first came under FDA purview in the 1930s, the industry has had only nine chemicals banned from use. More than 12,000 chemicals are approved for use today.
Consumer health advocates and some researchers have for years warned that at least some of those are unsafe. And they are trying to connect the dots between these intimately used products and some worrying and unexplained disease trends – particularly in women.
American women use an average of 12 products a day – nearly 200 chemicals – according to a 2004 study by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a non-profit environment and health advocacy group. Another survey, conducted by a beauty retailer in 2016, found women averaged 16 products a day on their face alone.
“Cancer is on the rise, infertility is on the rise, allergies in children are on the rise, and people can’t figure out why,” said Nneka Leiba, the director of healthy living science at EWG, which has been monitoring chemicals in cosmetics for over a decade. “The increases are not just due to genetics and new diagnostic techniques.”
In the US, overall cancer rates have declined in recent years, but certain types of cancer – including those of the thyroid, liver and skin – are on the rise, according to the latest government data. And while the rate of cancer diagnoses among men is decreasing, rates for women have remained stable since 2008.
Leiba said known or suspected carcinogens like formaldehyde – found in some keratin hair treatments, body soap and nail polish – and coal tar – found in some hair dyes and shampoo – are of top concern in beauty products. So are heavy metals, like lead found in lipsticks and clay-based products, and endocrine-disrupting chemicals like parabens and phthalates, among others. EWG has also found toxic PFAS chemicals – used in flame retardants and Teflon – in some cosmetics.
EWG, along with other advocacy groups, is pushing for more transparency and regulation of the industry to ban certain ingredients, many of which are already blocked in other countries. A recent report by the organization found that more than 40 countries have banned 1,400 chemicals in cosmetic products, compared with nine in the US.
The Personal Care Products Council (PCPC), the trade group representing 90% of the US beauty industry, says their products are “among the safest” regulated by the FDA, and maintains that fears of certain chemicals are overblown.
“The number of substances on a country’s restricted list is a misleading measure of the effectiveness of regulation in protecting human health and safety,” Lezlee Westine, the president and CEO of the Personal Care Products Council, said in an emailed statement on EWG’s analysis. “The materials cited as examples by EWG are not, and would never be, used as cosmetic ingredients because they are pesticides, narcotics, and radioactive substances.” (EWG’s list includes current cosmetic ingredients like formaldehyde, parabens and toluene.)
While PCPC supports regulatory reforms, Westine stopped short of endorsing the Personal Care Products Safety Act, a current legislative push to increase FDA authority. “We believe well-crafted reforms – grounded in science – will support the industry’s ability to innovate and further strengthen consumer confidence in the products they trust and enjoy every day,” Westine said.
Data on real-world chemical exposure is limited, and most safety assessments look at one chemical and one source at a time. “But we are not using just one product,” Leiba said. “Your exposure in just one day can greatly outweigh what this one company said was the low dose you had in your product, which is why we are concerned.”
Women, especially black women, have been found to have a higher body burden of certain chemicals found in cosmetics, including parabens and phthalates. Both are endocrine-disrupting chemicals, which mimic human hormones. Of particular concern to researchers, they can have effects at very small doses and have been linked to numerous health issues.
“If you think about the chronic conditions that the world is experiencing now – like fertility problems, thyroid conditions, diabetes, ADHD – these are all heavily impacted by hormones,” said Carol Kwiatkowski, the executive director of The Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX), a not-for-profit research foundation focused on reducing harmful chemicals in the environment. “Prevalence rates are skyrocketing. We just don’t know what is causing it. It’s undeniable that environmental chemicals are part of the picture. And we just continue to ignore them.”
More than 200 possible endocrine-disrupting chemicals currently in use in cosmetics and personal care products have been identified by TEDX.
The FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have said the health effects of phthalates, parabens and many other environmental chemicals are not conclusive. Industry groups maintain that endocrine-disrupting chemicals in cosmetics and personal care products are present at very small doses and are safe.
A big unknown is how chemicals interact with each other in the body after they are absorbed through the skin, according to Leiba. “We are talking about how phthalates may combine with parabens, for example, because they’re both endocrine-disrupting chemicals,” she said. “So, are the endocrine-disrupting effects additive? Or do they multiply the effects because they’re both acting on the same hormone systems?”
For now, data from so-called mixture studies, which look at the effects of chemical cocktails likely to be found in the real world, is limited but growing. But it remains difficult to draw a direct line between these chemical exposures and health problems that may occur years or even decades later.
“The problems you see that happen from early life exposure, which may be where most of that is coming from … when you try to connect that to things like fertility problems, or Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s, it’s nearly impossible,” Kwaitkowski said.
Untangling the causes of disease is a complex task, and not everything in your medicine cabinet is a potential diagnosis waiting to happen. “Most ingredients used in our day-to-day life are probably pretty safe,” cautioned Melanie Benesh, a legislative attorney for EWG. But with all the question marks around chemicals found in beauty products, health advocates say, a more precautionary approach is warranted – not unlike warnings from past public health crises.
“It’s unfortunate that we have to be seeing these health impacts in our society before we make changes,” Leiba said. “How many people had to die before we realized that smoking actually causes cancer?”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/23/are-chemicals-in-beauty-products-making-us-ill

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

Colorado to Continue Permitting Oil, Gas Projects as Rules Implemented

May 22, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence

By Richard Nemec

The new nine-member Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) on Tuesday listened to mixed public testimony on its future oversight and voted unanimously to continue issuing drilling permits while it implements state Senate Bill (SB) 181.
The commission issued initial guidance on implementing the new rules earlier this month. COGCC Executive Director Jeff Robbins said at the time the final criteria provide discretion that will remain in effect until all the rulemakings are completed. Included is a mandate to change COGCC’s mission from “fostering” to “regulating" oil and gas activity.
Department of Natural Resources Executive Director Dan Gibbs told the COGCC that the legislature did not intend for a drilling permits moratorium while regulatory rules are carved out to support SB 181.
"Commissioners certainly have their work cut out for them over the next 13 months as they undergo several rulemakings to comply with SB 181," said Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA) CEO Dan Haley. Members intend to be active participants in the rulemaking process, he said.
Calls for a permitting moratorium during the implementation process of SB 181 are "absurd and completely unnecessary,” Haley said. He reiterated COGA's ongoing contention that Colorado's oil and gas sector is a safe and economically vital industry.
Late last Friday, Gov. Jared Polis announced seven selections for the COGCC to join two ex-officio voting members, Gibbs, and Jill Hunsaker Ryan, executive director of the state Department of Public Health and Environment.
Besides dealing with pending legal matters in executive session, the regulatory panel agreed permitting may continue in the area of SRC Energy Inc.'s comprehensive drilling plan (CDP) for Weld County, a pending item that the COGCC members reiterated was a procedural step and not an indication of the fate of the CDP.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/118450-colorado-to-continue-permitting-oil-gas-projects-as-rules-implemented

Return to headline | Return to top
This Interior Official Sees 'National Bias' Against Oil, Gas

May 23, 2019 | E&E Energywire

By Edward Klump

In fact, the 57-year-old head of the Interior Department's Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement takes pride in being available to the oil and gas sector, as well as state and local leaders, tribal leaders, and nongovernmental organizations.
"My business cellphone number is on my business card," Angelle told E&E News during a recent phone interview. "And so it should be."
Angelle during the interview also defended his work and Interior's move to roll back Obama-era offshore drilling regulations, discussed Trump's push for "energy dominance," and declined to outline his views on climate change.
Last year, "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver" took aim at Angelle in a piece that blasted Trump for putting former lobbyists in administration posts instead of working to "drain the swamp." Oliver also homed in on BSEE, noting two previous leaders who had Coast Guard backgrounds, given the bureau's focus on safety. Oliver said Trump departed from that to choose Angelle, whom the TV host called "aggressively pro-drilling."
Oliver then showed a clip of Angelle providing his cellphone number to attendees of an oil and gas conference in 2017 in Lafayette, La., where he said, "I'd rather you call me. Everything you text to me is a public record, so be careful." And he said, "This is a business opportunity for you to engage with me on what you believe we ought to be about."
Calling Angelle's comments "outrageous," Oliver accused the BSEE head of attempting to avoid the public record.
Today, Angelle still has the same number, even after Oliver gave it out to millions of viewers. Angelle called it transparent to put it on his business card. He said he also gets texts. Being available is part of public service, Angelle said.
The kerfuffle has also reached Capitol Hill, where Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) requested Angelle's phone records last year as ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee and again this year as chairman. The committee has obtained phone records and is now reviewing them.
Angelle's career has bled into both the public and private sectors. Before joining Interior in May 2017, the Louisiana native served as a member of the Louisiana Public Service Commission. He was appointed interim lieutenant governor in 2010 during the height of the BP PLC oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. He also served as secretary of Louisiana's Department of Natural Resources and at one time was a member of the board at Sunoco Logistics Partners LP.
Angelle grabbed national attention when he switched political parties — from Democratic to Republican — in 2010 after the explosion at the Deepwater Horizon rig and oil spill at BP's Macondo well. He criticized the Obama administration over the effects of a drilling moratorium in the Gulf that followed the well blowout and rig disaster, which killed 11 workers and led to the massive oil spill.
He lost bids to be Louisiana's governor in 2015 and congressman for the 3rd District. But he did win a Louisiana crawfish-eating contest in 2000, pounding down about 18 pounds of boiled crawfish in 45 minutes.
"If we're really talking about qualifications, there you go, right?" the BSEE director quipped.
Angelle talked to E&E News about his mission at Interior, why he thinks oil and gas are getting a bad rap and why he misses Louisiana:
What would you say to critics who say that you're too pro-industry?
First of all, I would say that there are critics. And critics are going to be critics, and I get that.
The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act ... says that the assets that are off of our coast are to be produced and developed for the benefit of the nation.
It makes only logical sense in the ZIP code that — where I'm from — that those who help you accomplish ... your policy, that those people are partners.
You could call it something else. You could call it a lessor. You could call it a lot of different things.
When you call it a partner, I don't understand why people get offended by that. That doesn't mean that we let them do what it is that they want.
How do you view the mission of BSEE? Is it different from the past?
I think our mission is clearly the same, and it is to make sure that we are driving safety performance and environmental sustainability.
I do believe that the way we achieve that mission is perhaps a little different from [the] previous administration. I believe that through innovation and collaboration ... rather than only regulation, we can help drive that safety performance. And I think we are accomplishing that.
At this year's Offshore Technology Conference [OTC], you also stressed the role of production.
One could have a really, really great safety performance by not having any activity. One could also have a really great safety performance by having a lot of activity, as well. I believe that we can do both.
Are you judged if something goes wrong offshore?
This is a tough business, right? We don't have the luxury of taking our eye off the ball.
I don't think this is any different from the performance of a college football coach, right? You're only as good as the last season. Maybe the last game. Maybe the last quarter. Maybe the last play, right?
We've had a good performance last year. The trend data suggests that 2010 ... was a massive wake-up call, and processes have been improved and the results are showing that they're working.
But as we all know the greatest airline is only, you know, as good as the last flight, as well.
What are your thoughts on human-driven climate change and effects on oil and gas?
I don't have any opinions that are worthy of sharing in my professional capacity with you on climate [change].
There was a lot of discussion of emissions at OTC and companies saying they need to produce oil and gas and reduce emissions.
That particular area is not within my ... mission.
Certainly I have my own personal feelings. But I'll keep my personal feelings to myself.
What do you think about potential land loss in Louisiana and what adaptation may be needed and how that could affect oil and gas?
I think that Louisiana has certainly a land loss issue with regards to coastal land loss that its primary issue has been driven by the unintended consequences of leveeing the rivers — the Mississippi River and some of the other rivers — that has basically put those rivers in a straitjacket and not [allowed] them ... to nourish the marshes with the sediment.
I'm sure there are a lot of different comments and a lot of different opinions by a lot of different folks, but that's not what this call's about today.
Does your change in political parties affect anything? You were a Democrat until changing in 2010.
In the aftermath of Macondo, it was clearer to me that it was a national bias. It was a national bias against ... [the] oil and gas industry.
In the Democratic Party?
Absolutely.
I was the lieutenant governor coming up here to represent Louisiana in the aftermath of Deepwater Horizon. And it was my first real exposure to Washington, D.C., and it was amazing to me how there was such a national bias. ... It continues.
Could you explain the well control and blowout preventer rule changes that are slated to go into effect this year?
We got here initially because the previous administration chose to, we believe, do some things that were unnecessary and costly and did not produce a benefit to the American people — a safety benefit.
We got here because the president [of] the United States in [an] executive order specifically instructed us to revisit the well control rule of 2016 and to determine whether or not there were any provisions within that rule that were overly burdensome, that were not producing this corresponding safety benefit. And if we in fact found some of those provisions that met that description, we were to suggest revisions to that.
We put together a team of experts — career experts for the bureau. We hosted a public hearing in Houston, Texas, and a variety of comments and began to draft a rule that fit those instructions.
We went through that process, put it out as a draft rule. During that 60 days of public comment, we extended it by an additional 27 days.
We were listening to those public comments and we produced a rule that we believe is better, is stronger.
Can you explain an aspect of change?
Alternate compliance has been around since 1988.
You have to have a different method to comply that BSEE believes is as safe or safer.
If you allow those things to happen ... and you allow them to happen because they are as safe or safer, doesn't it make sense to then go ahead and write those into the rule as opposed to having one-off, continued one-off reviews of things that you have already reviewed several hundred times and you believe are worthy of an alternative compliance? That's smart.
There's a report from the Project on Government Oversight saying the new rule may be a legal target because of a late addition [Energywire, May 15]. Do you have any thoughts on that?
We are confident we followed the process, and we are confident that we will be victorious in any challenges associated with that.
How does your Louisiana background affect what you do at BSEE?
Makes me the most qualified BSEE director in the history of the country.
You feel like you understand both safety and the need for production?
I think you could do no better than to have someone from a state that understands the value of the worker, the family, the economy, the production.
I feel very prepared to do this job from my previous stint as secretary of [the] Department of Natural Resources in Louisiana.
I believe that energy gives America ... a great opportunity.
How do you interpret energy dominance?
Getting to a point where we can become free and independent of world events influencing ... our energy prices.
I think there's been six recessions since 1973 in America, and each one of 'em have been preceded by a spike in energy prices. So as goes America's access to affordable energy, so goes in a lot of ways its economic performance. That's not deniable. That's not debatable.
I also think that energy dominance lends itself to a comparison — to the farmers of America.
We feed America and we feed the world. Can we take a page out of that playbook and [in] addition to fueling America can we fuel the world?
What should we expect on BSEE and offshore renewables?
There's some conversation going on right now ... regarding BSEE perhaps being the workplace safety agency for offshore wind.
Do you miss Louisiana?
I'm prepared to do this job. And I enjoy it.
Obviously, my family's still in Louisiana. As one of nine kids and the father of five, family's everything to me.
In 2018, I think I slept at my house in Louisiana maybe 22 or 25 nights.
I miss the culture. I miss the people. I miss God's country.
I thought you were going to say food, for sure.
At 57 years old, you know, I gotta start laying off some of that food.
This interview has been edited and condensed.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/05/23/stories/1060375029

Return to headline | Return to top
Saudi Aramco Gaining Hold in U.S. LNG with Deal to Buy Stake, Supplies from Sempra Port Arthur Project

May 22, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence

By Carolyn Davis

State-owned Saudi Arabia Oil Co., aka Aramco, on Wednesday said it has signed a heads of agreement (HOA) to negotiate buying a 25% stake in Phase 1 of Sempra Energy’s natural gas export project in Port Arthur, near Houston.
The parties also are finalizing a 20-year sale and purchase agreement (SPA) for 5 million metric tons/year (mmty) of offtake from the initial phase of the liquefied natural gas (LNG) export project under development.
The HOA was secured between subsidiaries Sempra LNG and Aramco Services Co. No financial details were disclosed.
“The agreement with Sempra LNG is a major step forward in Saudi Aramco’s long-term strategy to become a leading global LNG player,” Aramco CEO Amin Nasser said. “With global demand for LNG expected to grow by around 4% per year, and likely to exceed 500 mmty by 2035, we see significant opportunities in this market and we will continue to pursue strategic partnerships which enable us to meet rising global demand for LNG.“
For months, rumors have swirled that Aramco was prowling to take stakes in various Lower 48 oil and gas projects after the national oil company bought a 70% stake in Saudi Basic Industries Corp., aka Sabic, the kingdom’s petrochemicals firm, in a $69.1 billion deal. The investment paved the way to make investments into global deals beyond the Middle East.
The majority stake in Sabic by Aramco merges the kingdom’s two largest companies and provides Aramco with about the same amount of money it had been expected to recoup in an initial public offering.
Sabic already has a foothold in the United States. It has a Houston office and employs around 34,000 in 50 countries, with around 5,000 in the Americas. Last year, Sabic and ExxonMobil Corp. created a joint venture to advance the Gulf Coast Growth Venturesproject, a 1.8 mmty ethane cracker planned for San Patricio County near Corpus Christi.
Sabic is also involved in preliminary plans to build a 2 mmty methanol production plant on the Mississippi River in St. James Parish, LA, which would be the largest of its kind in North America. South Louisiana Methanol and Sabic clinched a six-month agreement early this year to review the project; the agreement may be extended.
In the United States, Aramco affiliates own, among other things, Motiva Enterprises in Port Arthur near Houston, considered North America’s largest refinery with crude capacity of 630,000 b/d. Motiva also operates the largest U.S. lubricant plant, which is on the Gulf Coast.
Sempra CEO Jeffrey W. Martin said the California-based operator was “developing one of the largest LNG export infrastructure portfolios in North America, with an eye toward connecting millions of consumers to cleaner, more reliable energy sources.”
Sempra’s partnership with affiliates of Aramco, “the largest oil and gas company in the world,” would help “to advance the development of Sempra LNG’s natural gas liquefaction facility in Texas and enable the export of American natural gas to global markets,” Martin said.
Phase 1 of Port Arthur is expected to include two liquefaction trains, up to three LNG storage tanks and associated facilities that would enable exporting 11 mmty of LNG on a long-term basis.
Port Arthur LNG, one of five gas export development projects being considered by Sempra LNG, could be one of the largest export projects in North America, with potential expansion capabilities of up to eight liquefaction trains.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Energy authorized Port Arthur to export gas worldwide. In April, Port Arthur LNG and its affiliates were authorized by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to site, construct and operate the facility and related natural gas pipelines.
Developing Sempra Energy’s LNG export projects, management said, still is contingent upon obtaining additional customer commitments, completing required commercial agreements, securing all necessary permits, obtaining financing, incentives and other factors, and reaching a final investment decision (FID).
“The ultimate participation by Aramco Services Co. and its affiliates in the Port Arthur LNG project remains subject to finalization of definitive agreements, among other factors.”
The Port Arthur project, sited east of Houston, would complement Sempra’s Cameron LNG export facility in Louisiana, a 15 mmty facility scheduled for start up this year. In addition, Energia Costa Azul is on the drawing board for Baja California, with an FID expected next year.
If the Port Arthur HOA is converted to a SPA, “this will be one of the largest LNG deals ever signed and the largest deal signed since 2013,” said Wood Mackenzie research director Giles Farrer. "This is a signal of Aramco's intent to become a global gas player and develop a broad LNG portfolio.”
As the “energy transition” intensifies globally, Wood Mackenzie expects national oil companies to follow the lead of “major international oil companies by diversifying their exposure away from oil and into gas and LNG."
Additional moves into other “major” LNG provinces b Aramco “are likely,” Farrer said. Aramco is rumored to be interested in acquiring LNG-focused projects in, among other places, Arctic Russia and Australia.
“It's unclear what the final destination of Saudi Aramco's LNG will be,” Farrer said. “There continues to be a long-term expectation that, in time, Saudi Arabia will import LNG to be used for power generation. However, we expect that Saudi Aramco will use this volume to establish a global portfolio as it seeks to become a global gas player.”
Wood Mackenzie expects Aramco to establish an LNG marketing operation by building on its expertise in crude and products marketing, “while also leveraging Saudi Arabia's diplomatic ties.”
Aramco recently began trading LNG and sold its first cargo to India in April, he noted.
If the Port Arthur deal is finalized, the project likely will achieve a positive FID by early 2020, according to Farrer.
Port Arthur has a 2 mmty deal in place to supply Poland’s state-owned Polskie Gornictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo SA, aka PGNIG. “This deal will take total contract volumes from the 11 mmty facility to 7 mmt, a level that should be sufficient to secure debt finance. As such, we expect debt raising to now be accelerated to facilitate FID. With the facility now looking more likely to go ahead, other buyers may now choose to sign up to buy LNG from the project too.”
Bechtel already is lined up to provide engineering, procurement and contracting (EPC) for Port Arthur.
“We expect Saudi Aramco will have been attracted to sign up with Port Arthur ahead of rival U.S. LNG export projects due to the fact that Sempra is an established energy player with a long history of infrastructure ownership and development,” Farrer said. “The EPC wrap provided by Bechtel, and its strong project delivery reputation, provides further credibility too."
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/118445-saudi-aramco-gaining-hold-in-us-lng-with-deal-to-buy-stake-supplies-from-sempra-port-arthur-project

Return to headline | Return to top
Half of Maryland’s Electricity to Come from Renewable Sources by 2030

May 22, 2019 | Washington Post

By Ovetta Wiggins

Maryland must get 50 percent of its electricity from renewable energy sources such as wind and solar by 2030 under a bill that will become law without Gov. Larry Hogan’s signature.
Only the District and nine states, including California, New Jersey and Hawaii, have renewable standards at 50 percent or higher, according to the Chesapeake Climate Action Network. The Maryland bill allows subsidies for producers of green energy, including some that generate pollutants, like trash incinerators and paper mills.
“This is the strongest bill ever passed in Maryland to fight global warming and now stands as a national example,” said Mike Tidwell, director of the network.
Hogan (R) announced Wednesday that he would allow the legislation to move forward “despite serious concerns” over the cost of the bill and whether it will preserve jobs in the state and have the impact legislators are expecting.
While rejecting the General Assembly’s effort, Hogan said he remains committed to addressing climate change. He pledged to push legislation next year for 100 percent clean energy by 2040.
“This bill is not clean enough, not smart enough, nor does it create the intended jobs within Maryland,” Hogan wrote in a letter to Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller (D-Calvert).
The decision to allow the bill to become law without his signature is somewhat of a reversal for the popular Republican, who is at the beginning of his second term and weighing a presidential bid.
In 2016, the governor vetoed a bill that required Maryland to get 25 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020, citing concern over increased electricity rates for taxpayers. The Democratic-controlled legislature, which has a veto-proof majority in both chambers, overrode the veto.
In his letter to Miller, Hogan said his plan would include increasing the use of zero- and low-carbon clean and renewable energy, “recognizing the clean and safe aspects of nuclear energy,” and supporting hydropower.
The governor said he will propose a bill next session that aims to “get us to zero carbon emissions, rather than just increasing the quotas for dirty energy and outdated technologies.”
Sen. Brian J. Feldman (D-Montgomery), the sponsor of this year’s bill, said he “appreciates that he has ideas about a bill for next year, but it would have been nice to share them with the General Assembly this year during the legislative session.”
Feldman said it is projected that the new law will create 20,000 solar jobs and 5,000 wind jobs by 2028.
Hogan’s decision prompted a strong rebuke from Senate Minority Whip Steve Hershey (R-Queen Anne’s), who said he was “extremely disappointed” that the governor criticized the bill but allowed it to become law. “I would much rather have seen a veto and then to use that as the incentive to work with the renewable advocates over the interim to produce a more reasonable and well thought-out policy,” he said in a statement.
Hogan has signed hundreds of bills into law since the General Assembly’s legislative session ended April 8. He has until Saturday to take action on any of the more than 300 bills that remain.
On Wednesday, Hogan spokeswoman Shareese Churchill said the governor would not sign any of those bills, but would either veto them or allow them to become law without his signature.
Among the bills awaiting action are legislation to create the nation’s first prescription drug affordability board; a bill to ban foam cups and food containers across the state; and a measure that allows for gender-neutral driver’s licenses.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/half-of-marylands-electricity-to-come-from-renewable-sources-by-2030/2019/05/22/2072ef10-7cba-11e9-8ede-f4abf521ef17_story.html?utm_term=.ad2ebff11c73

Return to headline | Return to top
U.S. Drilling Rights Go for Less Than a Cup of Coffee Per Acre

May 23, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Jennifer A. Dlouhy

The Trump administration’s auction of drilling rights on roughly 300,000 acres in Nevada last September appeared to be a bust when it failed to attract any bids.
But within weeks, five oil developers quietly snapped up roughly 15% of the parcels, paying just $1.50 an acre in annual rent, compared to the average bid of $524 per acre paid during competitive auctions in the past three years.
Developers can do this because federal law allows them to anonymously nominate tracts for development, prompting the auctions, and then buy the unsold acreage at bargain-basement prices.
“This is government-sponsored gambling with public lands,” said Kate Kelly, director for public lands at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. “Taxpayers are underwriting a program where the only clear beneficiary is oil and gas companies and speculators.”
The center analyzed government data and calculated that leases spanning more than 2.9 million acres of U.S. lands have been purchased through this non-competitive process since 2009. The practice has surged as President Donald Trump has touted American “energy dominance” and made more territory available for drilling.
Buyers include well-known energy companies such as Freeport McMoran Oil & Gas LLC and Noble Energy Inc., as well as individual developers betting that they can resell the drilling rights at a profit. Representatives of Noble and Freeport McMoran did not respond to emails seeking comment.
From 2017 to 2018, the number of acres sold non-competitively more than doubled, from roughly 141,000 to nearly 379,000. And under Trump, the Interior Department last year issued more leases non-competitively than any other year during the previous decade.Non-Competitive Leases
Oil companies, speculators and other buyers saved at least $1 million since January 2017 by waiting until after auctions to snap up the non-competitive leases, avoiding minimum bids but still paying a flat administrative fee. Had the leases been sold competitively for the average auction price under Trump, the government might have taken in $272.5 million more in bids for the tracts.
The recent uptick partly reflects the Trump administration’s move to offer more land for oil leasing, since unsold parcels become available for speculators the day after they are offered at auction. Under Trump, the Interior Department brought in a record $1.1 billion in bids from 28 oil and gas leases sales during fiscal 2018.
Representatives of the Interior Department and Bureau of Land Management had no immediate comment on the research.
When developers lease federal land for potential oil and gas development, that discourages using the same territory for “higher or better purposes,” such as outdoor recreation, conservation, hunting and grazing, Kelly said.
The government typically sells leases that give the owners 10 years of access to underground minerals, though developers can seek extensions.
But many of the leases sold through the Interior Department’s non-competitive process never get that far. The Congressional Budget Office said in 2016 that just 3% of non-competitive leases issued from 1996 to 2003 were developed by the end of their 10-year term.
According to the Center for American Progress’ analysis, the government terminated some 1.6 million acres worth of non-competitive leases since January 2009—more than half of what had been issued. And in Nevada, every lease terminated during the past decade ended early for the same reason: the owners stopped paying rent.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/u-s-drilling-rights-go-for-less-than-a-cup-of-coffee-per-acre

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Transportation and Infrastructure News

(ACC Mentioned) Rail Customers Lambast 'Monopolistic' Fee Increases at Hearings

May 22, 2019 | Jacksonville Business Journal

By Will Robinson

Federal railroad industry regulators had to open an overflow room to accommodate the crowd that turned up Wednesday morning to lambast recent fee increases and operational changes made by most Class I railroads, which the shippers called commercially unfair, not reciprocal and designed as naked revenue generation.
In the first day of the two-day Surface Transportation Board hearing, corporate giants from a range of industries accused the railroads of making rule-based fees unavoidable and unbearable. Because customers in almost every instance have only one rail option, railroads are able to levy fees and ignore service complaints without consequence, shippers told the board.
“Fundamentally, this is a situation of one dominant party that enjoys a clear monopoly over its customers, using that power position to take advantage of the customer,” said Ben Abrams, CEO of Scrap Resources Inc.
Abrams’ company saw a 560 percent increase in Norfolk Southern demurrage fees last year, and fees through April this year have already tripled. The changes at NS are a part of implementing precision scheduled railroading, Abrams alleged, referring to an operating model championed by CSX, the first U.S.-based Class I carrier to implement it.
The model, which purports to increase network efficiency, has been adopted by NS, Kansas City Southern and Union Pacific after it led to major investor gains at CSX. Shippers at the hearing, however, claim the model has not increased efficiency and has pushed costs to customers.
“While the strategy of PSR to reduce costs, cut services, boost profit and hike railroad stock prices to meet the demands of Wall Street may be working well for the railroads, it is degrading service quality and placing significant additional demands on receivers,” said Josh Etzel, vice president of operations of Kinder Morgan Terminals.
The first panel of customers Wednesday morning highlighted the market power of the railroads. Panelists represented Bunge North America, a food processing giant responsible for $425 million in railroads’ revenues; Consolidated Scrap Resources, a major supplier of material for U.S. steel mills; Kinder Morgan, a terminal operator responsible for storing and transferring loads for 4,700 customers, including some of North America’s largest; and Olin Corp., the world’s largest chlorine manufacturer.
All claimed to be subject to the whim of the railroads, since they have no alternative rail carrier.
When being presented contractual terms that he described as exorbitant, Bunge North America Director of Supply Chain Terry McDermott said railroads told him the terms were “the price of admission for you to be on our railroad” and that those terms were demanded “to limit risk, and because we can.”
Customers told the STB they were charged fees even when railcars weren’t ready, were sent in higher numbers than requested, were improperly switched, were the wrong railcars, were late, were not delivered, were not picked up on time and were delayed because of service failures. Furthermore, the customers claimed, the fees failed to deliver their stated goal: increased network performance.
“While this model [PSR] has led to historically low operating ratios and record profits for the railroads, Olin has seen no benefit and only added costs,” said Frank Chirumbole, Olin vice president.
Several accused the railroads of using the fees simply as a revenue source.
“Do they want the money, or do they want the improved efficiency and performance?” asked Abrams. “Because it seems like they want the money.”
CSX led the nations’ railroads last year in revenue generated from fees with more than $370 million billed, a 94 percent increase from the previous year. It generated another $102 million in the first quarter of 2019, which once again was the most of any railroad. The figure puts CSX on pace for another 10 percent increase this year in annual fee revenue.
CSX, NS and UP, the first three railroads to undergo STB questioning, defended the charges as a means of incentivizing customers to move their railcars more efficiently.
Arthur Adams, CSX vice president of sales and customer engagement, claimed the changes were overdue and promoted a “fluent pipeline” of railcars. Prior to CSX adopting PSR in 2017, Adams said, service was poor and the railroad’s “lack of consistent enforcement only compounded the problem.” Adams also touted service improvements at CSX.
“Customers are benefiting from the strongest operating performance in the company’s history,” he said.
NS and UP defended their changes on similar grounds before the three-member board grilled them on specifics. Under questioning, the railroads were unable or declined to provide the proportion of fees that covered costs and the proportion that were penalties, any specific examples of granting customer exceptions or the rationale behind particular rule changes.
“We feel comfortable being transparent with the board, but we don’t feel comfortable sharing it at a table with our competitors,” said Kenny Rocker, UP executive vice president, who asked to share railroad data in a confidential setting.
Board member Martin Oberman hammered the railroad representatives on what specifically the railroads were trying to incentivize customers to do.
“I’m trying to understand if this makes sense for each shipper,” said Oberman, noting that to avoid demurrage, customers would have to buy real estate, build track, change staff, add or remove days of service and more.
Oberman also wondered how realistic railroads’ incentives were, given that half of customers cannot meet them and given that Olin’s estimate that it would have to spend $10 million in capital investments to avoid fees.

Twenty-four entities are still scheduled to address the board, including large corporations like Cargill Inc. and MillerCoors, as well as industry associations like the American Chemistry Council, National Grain and Feed Association and others.
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2019/05/22/rail-customers-lambast-monopolistic-fee-increases.html

Return to headline | Return to top
Democrats Tout Infrastructure Bills as Trump Abruptly Drops Issue

May 22, 2019 | Inside EPA

House and Senate Democrats are continuing to emphasize the need for comprehensive infrastructure legislation including water and climate change provisions, although President Donald Trump says he will not work with Democrats on the issue while they are investigating him and his administration.
“It’s disappointing that today the president and his team walked back from both the $2 trillion [infrastructure package] proposal and from showing leadership on how to pay for the package,” Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), chairman of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, said in a May 22 statement following a brief meeting top Democrats held with Trump at the White House.
Trump abruptly ended the meeting after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) accused him of a “cover up,” referencing the Mueller investigation of the Trump campaign's contacts with Russia and possible obstruction of justice by the president. Trump said he could not work on infrastructure “under these circumstances.”
Previously, Trump had also said infrastructure should take a backseat to congressional approval of his overhaul of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which has been encountering criticism from Democrats.
Despite the disappointing outcome of the White House meeting, DeFazio said he remains committed to working in a bipartisan manner to move an infrastructure package because the cost of inaction is too great. Even if a transformative deal with the White House remains elusive in the near term, he said he will continue to work with Republicans to move individual bills that will make a difference and will continue to work on a surface transportation reauthorization bill.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee, led by Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), also continued to press for infrastructure improvements during a May 22 hearing on H.R. 2741. The sweeping infrastructure bill targets climate change and drinking water quality with billions of dollars in grants for energy efficiency, electric vehicles, renewable power, and drinking water systems, including efforts to address per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
Pallone acknowledged that the Democrats' bill is a “very ambitious plan” but added that lawmakers cannot wait any longer to address the pressing infrastructure and climate issues.
Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR), the committee's ranking member, said infrastructure investment should be “a shared priority for all of us.” But he warned that “just authorizing more money to spend” may not accomplish the goal of improved infrastructure, citing the need for appropriators to provide the money and the results of the 2009 stimulus law that “put the cart before the horse” by approving projects with little long-term effects.
The Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, which represents large municipal drinking water utilities, praises H.R. 2741 in a May 22 letter for recognizing the importance of continuing many of drinking water infrastructure programs, such as EPA's state revolving fund that was reauthorized in the America's Water Infrastructure Act last year. But the group also calls on the committee to ensure that other drinking water programs are also extended. These include grants to help communities replace lead service lines, the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act loan program and drinking water infrastructure resilience and sustainability grants.
In the Senate, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) announced May 22 that he is introducing legislation to authorize more than $1 billion in federal funding to help small and disadvantaged communities replace contaminated water infrastructure to comply with Safe Drinking Water Act requirements.
Markey also outlined a vision for clean and climate-resilient infrastructure that echoes many of the items in the House Democrats' bill. Among Markey's principles are helping communities adapt to climate change; increasing federal funding and expertise “to better identify community needs for water-related funding allocations and eradicating the environmental contaminants of the 20th century”; and strengthening fuel economy and vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards while accelerating the deployment of affordable electric vehicles.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/democrats-tout-infrastructure-bills-trump-abruptly-drops-issue

Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

Two Proposals to Ease Air Rules on EPA’s Agenda for Summer

May 22, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Amena H. Saiyi

An EPA proposal to ease Clean Air Act requirements for the construction of new industrial facilities or the modification of existing ones could come out as soon as July, according to the agency’s spring regulatory agenda released May 22.
The proposal (RIN: 2060-AT89) would revise what is known as the New Source Review program, which requires the addition of potentially costly pollution controls if a new facility is built or an existing one amended in a way that increases emissions.
Facilities would only have to obtain new source review permits for “net” increases of pollution under the proposal from the Environmental Protection Agency. The changes would let some businesses proceed with plans to build new facilities or expand existing operations that otherwise were getting tied up in costly and time-consuming permitting requirements.
The agency’s proposal would build on a March 2018 memo by then EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt explaining how to calculate any new emissions while also measuring pollution decreases that may occur within the same project. That memo said current new source review regulations “provide that emissions decreases as well as increases are to be considered” in determining whether there is a significant uptick in emissions from a single project requiring a permit.
The proposal was initially due out last September, but the agency delayed its release to February, and now until the summer.
Air Toxics Proposal
In another change to the agency’s air pollution program, the EPA is proposing to discard its decades-old “once in, always in” toxic air policy next month. That policy had said power plants, refineries, and other industrial sources of toxic air pollution subject to strict “major” source air toxics controls must always meet those limits, even if they cut emissions below the threshold.
Clean Air Act emissions-control requirements for toxic air pollution kick in for large industrial facilities that emit at least 10 tons per year of a single hazardous pollutant, or 25 tons of two or more air toxics. Facilities emitting below that limit don’t have to meet the most stringent pollution control requirements.
The air toxics proposal would build on a January 2018 memo from Bill Wehrum, EPA assistant administrator for air.
Both proposals, which right now are going through interagency review, are backed by manufacturers, petroleum companies, and electric utilities. Environmental groups, such as the Environmental Defense Fund, and states like California oppose the revisions and have challenged the agency’s attempt to weaken pollution rules through guidance.
In April, representatives from the Environmental Defense Fund and California officials met separately with the EPA to discuss the proposal, according to the Office of Management and Budget website.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/two-proposals-to-ease-air-rules-on-epas-agenda-for-summer

Return to headline | Return to top
SAB Investigates Rule ‘Co-Benefits’ As EPA Eyes Cost Analysis Overhaul

May 23, 2019 | Inside EPA

By Stuart Parker

EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) is seeking to investigate the agency’s valuation of “co-benefits” in its Clean Air Act rules and is planning a new report on the topic, just as EPA overhauls its approach to cost-benefit analysis for rules to downplay its prior emphasis on co-benefit pollution reductions to help justify the cost of regulations.
In a document recently posted to SAB’s website, board members propose to approve a two-year project to evaluate the “scientific” aspects of EPA’s co-benefits calculations. “Questions have been raised as to whether EPA is overestimating or underestimating co-benefits in various rulemakings. The issue is important because, in some rulemakings, the vast majority of the quantified benefits of clean-air regulations are co-benefits,” it says.
The SAB will discuss the proposed project to review the issues at its upcoming June 6 meeting in Washington, D.C., according to the current SAB agenda. “We propose that the SAB should consider the scientific issues regarding co-benefits,” says the document, which is dated April 25. “This exercise will not be trivial because the practice of counting ‘co-benefits’ of federal clean-air regulations has not been without controversy.”
And the SAB project also appears to overlap significantly with a forthcoming -- and also likely controversial -- rulemaking on cost-benefit analysis in air rules now under development by EPA. The agency’s updated regulatory agenda released May 22 projects issuing a proposal on that issue in December.
The project’s stated objectives appear broad, including: “How should the Agency go about identifying potential co-benefits of a rulemaking? Are there are any notable shortcomings and exemplary practices in previous Agency treatments of co-benefits? What steps should be taken to ensure that co-benefits are not underestimated? What steps should be taken to ensure that co-benefits are not overestimated? What gaps in scientific knowledge, if filled, would significantly improve the scientific foundation of co-benefit claims?”
One high profile example of a rule driven by co-benefits is the Obama-era mercury and air toxics standards (MATS) for power plants, which relies overwhelmingly on the co-benefits of reducing fine particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions to justify its costs -- a reliance the Trump administration now says was mistaken. The rule does not directly target PM2.5 but the controls installed to meet MATS’ air toxics limits had an additional co-benefit of reducing PM2.5.
EPA is now proposing to scrap the finding that it is “appropriate and necessary” to regulate power plant air toxics under the Clean Air Act, because the Trump administration says the excessive reliance on co-benefits runs counter to Supreme Court directives. Republicans and some coal sector companies are backing the move, while Democrats, environmentalists and public health groups are strongly opposed.
Regardless of whether EPA ultimately finalizes the decision to undo the finding, it has revived debate over the merits and drawbacks of counting co-benefits in regulatory justifications.
Signaling that SAB might not simply approve EPA’s preferred approach to MATS or other air rules, the board’s proposal says, “In recent deregulatory rulemakings, foregone co-benefits have also emerged as a salient concern.”
The proposed project would commence by September, then an SAB panel would aim to produce a draft report by the fall the 2020, with a final report due by March 2021.
The document also disclaims any linkage to particular EPA rulemakings. The “proposed project is not intended to inform any particular ongoing or future rulemaking, and thus SAB can prepare a report without the hard deadline associated with a specific public comment period or internal agency deadline.”
‘Media-Specific’ Rules
The project, if approved, comes as EPA is developing a series of “media-specific” rules to overhaul its approach to cost-benefit analysis, starting with a rule for application in air regulation, to be proposed in December according to the agency’s just-updated Unified Agenda of pending rules.
“EPA is developing changes to improve consistency, reliability, and transparency of its treatment of Clean Air Act provisions related to costs and benefits. This action will provide the public with a better understanding on how EPA is evaluating benefits and costs when developing Clean Air Act regulatory actions and allow the public to provide better feedback to EPA on potential future proposed rules,” says the agenda.
The Trump administration has prioritized an overhaul of cost-benefit considerations at the urging of industry groups that claim the Obama-era practices underestimated costs and counted some benefits -- such as PM2.5 co-benefits -- when they should not. As part of that effort, EPA issued a June 2018 advance notice of proposed rulemaking that sought input on “inconsistency” and lack of “transparency” in how the agency conducts cost-benefit reviews, an effort the agency had initially described as a way to reconsider the cost of its rules.
Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler in a May 13 memo to assistant administrators wrote that he is instructing the heads of the air, chemical safety, emergency management and water offices to develop reforms that “outline how benefit cost considerations will be applied in areas that are in need of greater clarity, transparency and consistency.” Co-benefits analysis is a key component of such cost-benefit considerations.
Wheeler further indicated that such reforms will include “notice and comment rulemakings,” and states that such rulemaking “should not forestall near-term benefit cost-methodological changes for individual regulatory actions.”
Wheeler listed several issues the rulemakings should address: ensuring the agency balances benefits and costs in regulatory decisionmaking; “increasing consistency” in interpretation of key statutory terms such as “practical,” “appropriate,” “reasonable” and “feasible”; providing transparency under which media offices should “transparently identify which factors were and were not considered in regulatory analysis”; and promoting adherence to “best practices” in technical analyses that follow “sound economic and scientific principles.”
SAB’s Project
SAB’s proposed project, meanwhile, would “offer insight on scientific issues related to co-benefits that the Agency may wish to address in future technical guidance and/or in future regulatory impact analyses.”
The document adds, “SAB is aware that unintended harms or costs of rulemaking may also occur, but they are not the focus of this project. SAB is also aware that there may also be legal and policy issues associated with the use of co-benefits in regulatory decision making but the legal and policy issues are outside the scope of this project.”
The document says, “Despite the apparent importance of co-benefits in clean-air regulation, the Science Advisory Board is not aware of any careful scientific guidance on how co-benefits should be identified, estimated, and validated in regulatory analyses.” It adds that while a subgroup of SAB members could probably write the proposed report, additional “consultants could be added to provide expertise on specialized aspects.”
In a sign that SAB may already be moving to recruit such consultants, or new members to work on the project, EPA in a notice slated for publication in the May 23 Federal Register invites nominations of experts to serve on SAB in various disciplines, including “air quality” and “benefit-cost analysis.” Nominations must be submitted to EPA by June 23, and EPA aims to hire new SAB members by October.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/sab-investigates-rule-%E2%80%98co-benefits%E2%80%99-epa-eyes-cost-analysis-overhaul

Return to headline | Return to top
Markey Releases Infrastructure Suggestions That Align with Green New Deal Goals

May 23, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Rebecca Beitsch

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said Wednesday that any new infrastructure package should be designed to fight climate change.
Amid hopes of progress on an infrastructure deal, Markey released a white paper that calls for investments in infrastructure that “protect the environment ... reduce heat-trapping emissions, protect public health, and help communities adapt to unavoidable climate impacts.”
Climate change is already having an impact on transportation infrastructure — portions of the Northeast Amrtrak line are battling rising waters and roads and bridges must withstand increasingly strong storms. Markey estimates climate change poses a risk to approximately $1 trillion of U.S. real estate.
Markey said the government needs to create resiliency standards for infrastructure that “promote responsible spending by investing in projects and natural infrastructure that take into account and are able to withstand climate impacts.”
His proposal would help meet the goals set forth in the Green New Deal resolution he sponsored alongside Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).
The white paper calls for expanding and electrifying mass transit, providing greater funding for research into batteries for electric cars while expanding tax credits for the vehicles, and upgrading buildings to be more energy efficient, along with other proposals.
The paper also nods to other Green New Deal goals, calling for a reduction of emissions and pollution, building schools and paying construction workers involved in building projects a living wage.
Despite the renewed interest in an infrastructure bill, progress has already hit another snag. President Trump walked away from a Wednesday meeting with Democrats on the topic, saying he wouldn't work with them until congressional investigations into his administration cease.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/445067-markey-infrastructure-suggestions-align-with-green-new-deal-goals

Return to headline | Return to top
Energy Storage Bill Seen as GOP’s First Salvo to Fight Warming

May 22, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Ari Natter

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins introduced legislation Wednesday aimed at bringing down the cost of energy storage technologies—the first in what is expected to be a suite of GOP measures designed to address climate change through research and innovation funding.
The bill authorizes $300 million and directs the Energy Department to develop a strategic plan to cut costs of grid scale storage technologies. Advances in energy storage could be a major step forward for wind and solar by allowing them to produce power around the clock.
“Our bipartisan legislation would help catalyze the development of this technology that holds great promise in the fight against climate change by supporting clean energy generation, including wind and solar,” Collins said in a statement.
Legislation being co-sponsored by Sens. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Martha McSally (R-Ariz.), and Angus King (I-Maine).
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/energy-storage-bill-seen-as-gops-first-salvo-to-fight-warming

Return to headline | Return to top
IRS Tees up Alternative to EPA's CCS Standards for Certifying CO2 Storage

May 22, 2019 | Inside EPA

By Doug Obey

The IRS is soliciting feedback on how it should implement an expanded tax credit for carbon capture and storage (CCS) and formally floating the possibility of allowing companies to use an alternative to EPA rules to certify long-term storage, a move that highlights the crucial issue of how to define permanent sequestration.
The outcome of the issue most affects how energy companies can access lucrative federal subsidies for voluntary CCS activities, but it may set a broader precedent for considering possible alternatives in future regulations or policies requiring carbon dioxide reductions where CCS could be a compliance strategy for power plants or industrial facilities.
How IRS handles the questions surrounding CO2 storage could help bolster -- or potentially hamper -- political support for CCS, a technology that many experts say is needed to reduce emissions on the scale needed to limit dangerous climate change.
“Are there technical criteria different from or in addition to those provided in EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program that should be used to demonstrate secure geological storage?” IRS asks in a request for comment document, formally published May 20, seeking input on several issues related to implementing the so-called “section 45Q” tax credit, which Congress expanded in February 2018.
CCS backers have been urging IRS to issue its implementation guidance almost since the enactment of the 45Q expansion, arguing the lack of such a guide is blocking the deployment of important projects and narrowing the window that projects can take advantage of the credit.
Last year's revisions raised the amount of the credit for new projects over time -- to $35 per metric ton for CO2 linked to enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and $50 per ton for permanent storage in subsurface geological formations. Other changes allowed credit for CO2 stored in products, such as cement; eliminated a cap on awarding credits for new projects; and reduced the size threshold for projects.
But the legislation requires that facilities seeking the expanded credit begin construction before 2024, and CCS backers are thus pressing IRS to complete its 45Q implementation guidance, most recently in a bipartisan Senate letter.
The IRS request for comment is a step toward further policy, seeking comments by July 4 that would inform the forthcoming guidance and rules to implement 45Q.
The agency seeks comment on numerous issues, including the high-profile question of whether there are suitable technical criteria or regulations -- separate from or in addition to EPA rules -- for certifying CO2 is securely stored underground for 45Q purposes.
“Are there existing guidelines, standards, or regulations that could be used to demonstrate secure geological storage, such as those developed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)?,” IRS asks.
Other issues addressed in the notice include the definition of when a CCS project has commenced construction; how the agency should implement rules to require “recapture” of the economic benefit from CO2 that ceases to be sequestered; and treatment of lifecycle emissions.
EPA requires CCS facilities using geologic sequestration to obtain a Class VI permit under the Safe Drinking Water Act's underground injection control (UIC) program. EOR projects are able to use less-strict permits under Class II of the UIC program.
In addition, EPA requires geologic storage projects to hold an EPA-approved, site-specific monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) plan under subpart RR of the agency's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP), but EPA does not require that MRV plan for EOR projects, which are subject to subpart UU of the reporting program.
However, existing IRS 45Q guidance, known as Form 8933, requires both Class II and VI permit holders to also have an approved MRV plan. It also requires companies to reconcile the amount of CO2 claimed for the tax credits with the amounts reported to EPA's GHGRP.
Alternative Standards
The IRS reference to ISO refers to that group's recently released voluntary standard for sequestration from EOR operations, which some view as a viable alternative to EPA processes for claiming permanent CO2 storage.
A source tracking the issue says the question of alternatives for certifying CO2 storage is most immediately relevant to which projects qualify for the 45Q credits, which can boost the economics of CCS projects. Some EOR projects, for example, have EPA-approved monitoring plans and others do not.
However the issue could also have longer-term implications for EPA regulations or future federal policies that require GHG reductions.
“If this [recognition of alternatives] is done for tax purposes, there will be pressure to do the same thing for EPA purposes,” the source says, positing a scenario in which EPA is called on to recognize an alternative compliance method in, for example, future power plant GHG rules that allow CCS for compliance.
Multiple sources are identifying indications of a split among oil companies on the issue, with some comfortable with the EPA subpart RR rules as a route to qualifying for the 45Q credit and others resisting that requirement. An example of the former is Occidental Petroleum, while an example of the latter is Denbury Resources, the source says.
Even so, there are pending discussions on whether it is possible to forge a common position between industry and environmentalists amenable to CCS on whether ISO's method is an acceptable alternative. This question, according to the source, depends both on the substance of the ISO standard and the expertise available at IRS to ensure compliance.
Hill Interest
Delays in implementing the expanded 45Q program -- as well as questions about existing claims of CO2 storage under it -- are already receiving significant attention on Capitol Hill. For example, Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) during a May 16 Senate energy committee hearing flagged the need to “reconcile EPA regs and IRS regs” for crediting CO2 stored in EOR operations.
Hoeven referenced legislation he has long favored that would deem CO2 securely stored for IRS purposes if it is injected according to EPA's Class II requirements. That program's requirements are less stringent than Class VI permits, and EPA also does not require an MRV plan for Class II EOR operations, though such operations can opt into the subpart RR program.
But Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) in an April 18 letter to IRS raises concerns that “a significant amount of tax credits” under 45Q have already been “improperly claimed” by companies that did not follow the “clear standards of the law.” He seeks an IRS investigation of the issue and answers from the agency, including an explanation of discrepancies between IRS and EPA data on stored CO2.
“Without evidence of permanent secure storage of captured carbon, the 45Q tax credit will be reduced to nothing but another wasteful tax giveaway to the fossil fuel industry,” he writes, citing claimed tax credits for 59.7 million metric tons of stored CO2, according to a 2018 IRS Bulletin, compared to only 5.96 million tons of sequestered carbon, according to EPA's Facility Level Information of Greenhouse Gases tool.
Meanwhile, a bipartisan group of senators in a May 20 letter to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin note it has been over a year since Congress enacted the expanded 45Q program, urging Mnuchin to commit “additional staff” to review comments on the IRS request for information, as well as an eventual final rule on 45Q. They also seek “interim guidance” so project developers can utilize the tax credit “without additional delay.”
Senators signing the letter are Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), John Barrasso (R-WY), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Chris Coons (D-DE), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Angus King (I-ME), and Hoeven.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/irs-tees-alternative-epas-ccs-standards-certifying-co2-storage

Return to headline | Return to top
Oil Companies Join Blitz for Carbon Tax

May 22, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Miranda Green and Alex Gangitano

A number of oil-and-gas giants are taking part in an effort to encourage lawmakers to pass a national carbon tax, splitting with industry trade groups.
The campaign brought representatives of Exxon, BP, Royal Dutch Shell and Mobil Corp. to Capitol Hill on Wednesday, part of a broader coalition involving 75 Fortune 500 companies.
The effort was the largest gathering of businesses on Capitol Hill to advocate for climate legislation in over a decade, according to Ceres, a sustainable investment group behind the effort. The companies involved jointly represent more than $2.5 trillion in market valuations and over 750,000 U.S. employees.
The CEOs representing companies ranging from ski outfitters to dairy farmers argued that the effects of climate change were already being seen on their bottom lines. They argued a carbon price was the only market-driven route to solve U.S. emissions.
But the involvement of fossil fuel companies in pushing for a carbon tax garnered the most attention.
For those businesses, a carbon tax allowing the continued use of fossil fuels is preferable to progressive plans that seek to put tougher regulations in place or move away from using oil and gas altogether.
The involvement of fossil fuel companies in the new push is primary due to foreign based oil and gas companies who agree with the international consensus for climate action, one lobbying source told The Hill.
“Historically the refiners have been against things like a per barrel fee, a carbon tax, and a border adjustment tax on imported crude. Now you have a large push led by the foreign headquartered companies to be more forward thinking on climate matters,” the source explained.
That could also pose a challenge for larger industry trade groups, many of which have long resisted calls for a tax on carbon emissions.
One major fossil fuel group though absent from Wednesday's lobbying blitz is the American Petroleum Institute, with over 600 members. The group has struggled with how to address the issue of climate change for its members.
“Surely an association like API knows exactly how they would craft a carbon tax if they wanted to,” the source said. "But I’m not sure how they meaningfully engage in that process with a divided membership."
Ben Marter, API director of communications, told The Hill that the group is meeting climate change “head on” in other ways.
“Our industry is meeting the climate challenge head on, driving carbon emissions to their lowest levels in a generation. API evaluates specific legislative proposals with an eye to reducing emissions while delivering reliable and affordable energy for all American families,” he said.
Many of the fossil fuel groups that do support a carbon fee sit on the Climate Leadership Council, a group that is advocating for a $40-per-ton fee on carbon emissions that would rise over time. Under the plan, revenue would be collected by the government and redistributed back to citizens in the form of a dividend.
A new poll paid for by the Council released this week, found that 66 percent of those polled supported the Carbon Dividends plan. That includes 80 percent of Democrats and 53 percent of Republicans.
This week, BP and Shell pledged $1 million over two years each in financial support for the plan. EDF Renewables pledged $200,000.
Those moves have received praise from supportive lawmakers.
Rep. Francis Rooney (R-Fla.), a co-sponsor of carbon tax legislation in the House, applauded BP and Shell for donating to the council. Rooney teamed up with Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) to re-introduce a bill in January.
“Any and all industry support for pricing carbon is a welcome development,” Rooney told the Washington Examiner on Tuesday. “These major oil companies have important voices in the future of energy. I would also like to see these companies engage in direct advocacy for pricing carbon.”
Wednesday's blitz on Capitol Hill highlighted the growing support among different industries for a carbon tax. Representatives of Microsoft, Pepsi, BP and others held day-long meetings with House and Senate lawmakers on both sides of the aisles to share their support.
“We’re very grateful for a lot of the work going on on a state and local level. But we need federal action to create a ton of new economic growth,” said Hugh Welsh, President of DSM North American.
“I think we can speak for all of us here that we need action on climate change from Congress and a meaningful price on carbon.”
“I’m here as a business leader. I’m here as a father of daughters who are determined to create an incredible place for future generations, and I’m here as a citizen-- to put a tax on pollution and those polluting,” said Joey Bergstein, CEO of Seventh Generation. “This issue is a really urgent one. The facts are really clear and frankly indisputable.”
Among those at the Capitol was the CEO of a ski company.
"We are in the front line, in the trenches,” said Francois Goulet, CEO of Rossignol Skis. “I live in the mountains, so I witness every day the impact of climate change, and the casualties we see from loss of revenue from manufacturers and retailers.”
In Congress, Democrats have said that a carbon price is needed to fully curb the current rate of emissions in the U.S. Lawmakers have put forward a handful of bills, though none have gained serious traction.
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), who hosted the event with the CEOs, said climate change “is not just a threat to the future of business, but also is a real opportunity.”
Coons last year co-sponsored a bill supporting a carbon tax with former Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who retired after the last Congress.
“I think, and a number of my colleagues do, that supporting a carbon price is an intriguing and compelling solution to climate change,” he said. “I frankly think that a lot of this conversation has to be pushing back on the false choice of combating climate change and growing our economy.”
Many Republicans though remain skeptical.
“A carbon tax is not the solution to address our environmental challenges,” Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas, ranking member on the House Ways and Means Committee, said at a hearing on carbon pricing last week.
With Republicans in control of the Senate and President Trump in the White House, the visiting CEOs acknowledged that passing a carbon tax before 2020 appears unlikely, but insisted they aren’t deterred.
“This is the answer that will be implemented once the country takes it seriously, said Jeff Eckel, CEO of Hannon Armstrong. “I’m not an optimist that government is the solution here, but that doesn’t mean we try to do things that don’t work.”
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/445100-oil-companies-join-blitz-for-carbon-tax

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested