Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 9/12
-
Environment Subcommittee Hearing - A Solution In Search of a Problem: EPA’s Methane Regulations
Sep 15, 2016 | House Science, Space and Technology Committee
Location: 2318 Rayburn / 9:30 AM -
The Department of Energy’s Role in Advancing the National, Economic, and Energy Security of the United States
Sep 15, 2016 | House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power
Location: 2322 Rayburn / 10:00 AM -
New TSCA Fund to be Built Alongside 2017 Fee Rule
Sep 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Fees chemical manufacturers pay the Environmental Protection Agency to review new chemicals will continue to be deposited in the U.S. Treasury's general fund until the agency issues a final rule establishing new fees, the EPA told Bloomberg BNA. -
(ACC Blog) On Laminated Wood Flooring Products, Science Shows Low Risk From Formaldehyde Exposure
Sep 9, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Kimberly White
Recent media stories questioning the safety of laminated wood products shipped into the United States from China have caused concerns among homeowners with laminate wood flooring in their homes. But the results of a recent review by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) should put those concerns to rest. -
California Supreme Court Mulls Asbestos Liability in Appeals
Sep 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
Can California employers be held liable because they have a duty to protect family members from asbestos brought home on an employee's clothing? -
U.S. Agencies Order Dakota Access Pipeline Work Halted After Judge Rules It Can Proceed
Sep 9, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Kris Maher and Alison Sider
The federal government ordered a halt to work on a $3.8 billion four-state oil pipeline in the Upper Midwest on Friday, handing a temporary victory to the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and other opponents of the project. -
Obama Admin Halts Part Of Project After Judge Rebuffs Tribe
Sep 9, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey and Ellen M. Gilmer
The Obama administration froze construction of a portion of the Dakota Access oil pipeline today just moments after a federal judge rejected a Native American tribe's bid to halt the $3.7 billion project. -
Government Halts North Dakota Pipeline Construction
Sep 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Wolski
Three federal agencies Sept. 9 called for a halt on the construction of the Dakota Access pipeline in North Dakota, an action the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe described as “stunning.” -
Why We Must Build The Dakota Access Pipeline Now
Sep 9, 2016 | The Hill - Pundits
By Bradley A. Blakeman, contributor
The key to America's national and energy security rests with our ability to provide for our own energy needs with our own natural resources, personnel and infrastructure. -
New Dragon Ships Carry Texas Ethane To Europe And Beyond
Sep 12, 2016 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
A new fleet of so-called dragon-class ships are creating a virtual pipeline across the Atlantic, carrying ethane, a derivative of natural gas and the basic building block of common plastics, from Houston to European petrochemical companies. -
Good News For U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Exports
Sep 11, 2016 | Forbes
By Jude Clemente
In the first six months of this year, nearly 50 Bcf of U.S. LNG was exported. We will be surging to a dominant role in less than five years, with five terminals operating on the Gulf Coast and in Maryland by 2020. -
With 2 Weeks To Oral Arguments, EPA Rule Events Begin Anew
Sep 12, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
Clean Power Plan events are picking up this week as energy insiders look ahead to oral arguments in two weeks on the legal challenges to the rule. -
Republicans To Scrutinize EPA Methane Rulemaking
Sep 12, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Hess
House Science, Space and Technology Committee lawmakers are planning to scrutinize U.S. EPA's plans to expand methane regulations to existing oil and gas operations, as the agency works to finalize a request for up-to-date information from the industry. -
DOE Awards $13 Million for Research to Reduce Methane
Sep 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Pittsburgh-based PPG Industries and the University of Colorado Boulder are among 12 recipients of $13 million for research aimed at developing ways of mitigating methane emissions from natural gas pipeline and storage infrastructure, the Energy Department announced. -
(ACC Mentioned) 15 Years Later: Coast Guard, Local Entities Have Changed Since 9/11
Sep 11, 2016 | The Facts
By Jessica Kuhn
As the twin towers came crashing to the ground 15 years ago today, it remained unclear who carried out one of the most devastating attacks on U.S. soil in the nation’s history. -
If We Can Fix TSCA, We Can Fix The OSH Act
Sep 12, 2016 | Reg Blog
By Jamie Conrad
Earlier this summer, President Obama signed a sweeping overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the law governing how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) evaluates and regulates chemicals. -
Federal Court Venue for Prisoner Exposed to Toxic Chemicals
Sep 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
A prisoner exposed to toxic chemicals in a privately operated Department of Homeland Security detention center must pursue his injury claims in federal court, a federal court said Sept. 7 (Shaker v. Akima Glob. Servs., LLC, S.D. Fla., No. 16-cv-20146, 9/7/16). -
NAFTA Official Says TPP Could Benefit From Environment Office
Sep 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Emily Pickerell
Environmental issues in the Trans-Pacific Partnership would benefit greatly by having a standing organization to turn ideas into actions, according to a top official from a similar environmental organization established by the 1993 North American Free Trade Act. -
Obama Eyes Big Finish On Climate
Sep 10, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Obama is hoping to complete two more international agreements to fight global warming in the coming months, shoring up his climate change legacy.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Environment Subcommittee Hearing - A Solution In Search of a Problem: EPA’s Methane Regulations
Sep 15, 2016 | House Science, Space and Technology Committee
-
Sep 15, 2016 | House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power
-
New TSCA Fund to be Built Alongside 2017 Fee Rule
Sep 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Fees chemical manufacturers pay the Environmental Protection Agency to review new chemicals will continue to be deposited in the U.S. Treasury's general fund until the agency issues a final rule establishing new fees, the EPA told Bloomberg BNA.
The EPA replied by e-mail to questions Bloomberg BNA posed about fees it already collects from industry and a special fund mandated by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. No. 114-182), which amended the Toxic Substances Control Act effective June 22.
Prior to the TSCA amendments, the EPA could collect up to $2,500 to review premanufacture notices, or PMNs. Chemical manufacturers must submit these notices before they make a new chemical or import one into the U.S. The EPA screens the new chemical to determine whether it may pose an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment.
“PMN fees received since June 22 have continued to go directly to the general fund of the Treasury and will continue to do so until the existing PMN Fee Rule is superseded by the new TSCA Fee Rule,” the EPA said in a Sept. 7 e-mail.
The new TSCA Fee Rule is expected to revise the $2,500 PMN fee and establish new fees for the agency's reviews of chemicals in commerce.
“The agency is currently working to propose a fee rulemaking and establish the structure of the fee fund,” the EPA told Bloomberg BNA. The agency anticipates proposing the fee rule by the end of December and issuing a final rule in June 2017.
The TSCA Service Fee Fund required by the Lautenberg Act will be set up before the agency collects fees under the rule, the EPA said. Asked whether the fund would contain only manufacturers’ fees or include appropriations Congress provides the agency to implement the amended law, the EPA said “it is too early to determine the exact account structure at this time.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=96905695&vname=dennotallissues&fn=96905695&jd=96905695
-
(ACC Blog) On Laminated Wood Flooring Products, Science Shows Low Risk From Formaldehyde Exposure
Sep 9, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Kimberly White
Recent media stories questioning the safety of laminated wood products shipped into the United States from China have caused concerns among homeowners with laminate wood flooring in their homes. But the results of a recent review by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) should put those concerns to rest. The CPSC reports that out of 17,000 air samples recently taken in households with foreign-made laminated flooring, none of the samples “tested above the remediation guideline.” And a separate evaluation of formaldehyde levels in laminate flooring made in China found that there was negligible risk to human health when compared to a conservative safe exposure level developed by the state of California.[1] Additionally, U.S.-based companies have demonstrated a commitment to producing laminate flooring that meets the highest standards in existence.
Here are some important facts to keep in mind about formaldehyde emissions and laminate wood flooring:Regulations are in place in the U.S. to help ensure the safety of all composite wood products, including laminate flooring. The California Air Resources Board developed the world’s most stringent product emissions testing and certification standard for formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products seven years ago. In July 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a regulation that applies these same emission standards nationally.Industry has a long history of voluntarily reducing formaldehyde emissions. Emissions from formaldehyde-based resins have been declining for more than 25 years. Industry efforts have led to the development of a wide variety of resin technologies to meet customer performance requirements, including ultra-low emitting formaldehyde resins that are capable of reducing potential emissions to remarkably low levels. Existing and emerging formaldehyde-based resin technologies, coupled with responsible panel manufacturing processes, will continue to deliver composite panel products that can be used safely and meet the toughest emissions standards in the world.Typical indoor air levels are well below established health-protective thresholds. Average indoor exposures to formaldehyde range between 16 parts per billion and 32 parts per billion.[2] In 2010, the World Health Organization (WHO) set a safe exposure level at 80 parts per billion, which is a conservative value and health-protective. Notably, the WHO value was re-evaluated in 2016 and still found to be health protective.[3]Stringent formaldehyde regulations and emissions standards currently exist in North America.With the industry’s support, the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act, signed into law in 2010, established a framework for the regulation of formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products at the national level. Additionally, current mandatory government regulations set standards to protect human health and the environment. These requirements allow for the safe production, storage, handling and use of formaldehyde. So there should be adequate assurance about the safety of formaldehyde products when used in accordance with existing government regulations and industry stewardship.
The science on formaldehyde is robust and well characterized. These facts should provide some helpful context for the current misleading stories about formaldehyde emissions from laminate wood flooring.
[1] Poster #2661, title: Evaluating the Proposition 65 Health Significance of Formaldehyde Exposures from Chinese Manufactured Laminate Flooring. Presented at the 2016 Society of Toxicology Annual Meeting. Abstract Weblink: http://www.toxicology.org/pubs/docs/Tox/2016Tox.pdf
[2] Salthammer, T., Mentese, S. and Marutzky, R., 2010. “Formaldehyde in the indoor environment.” Chemical Reviews, 110(4), pp.2536-2572.
[3] Nielsen, Gunnar Damgård, Søren Thor Larsen, and Peder Wolkoff. “Re-evaluation of the WHO (2010) formaldehyde indoor air quality guideline for cancer risk assessment.” Archives of toxicology (2016): 1-27.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2016/09/on-laminated-wood-flooring-products-science-shows-low-risk-from-formaldehyde-exposure/
-
California Supreme Court Mulls Asbestos Liability in Appeals
Sep 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
Can California employers be held liable because they have a duty to protect family members from asbestos brought home on an employee's clothing?
Do they or should they even have such a duty? If so, would it extend to other workplace toxins too? And even to those outside the employee's family?
Permutations of those questions, and their policy implications, dominated oral arguments in two closely watched appeals argued in the California Supreme Court Sept. 7 (Haver v. BNSF Ry. Co., Cal., No. S219919 argued 9/7/16; Kesner v. S.C. Pneumo Abex LLC, Cal., No. S219534, argued 9/7/16).
The seven-judge panel didn't appear convinced one way or the other, based on their questions during 80 minutes of argument.
Attorney Ted Pelletier, who argued the case for plaintiff Johnny Kesner, said questions of foreseeability of harm and exposure in take-home asbestos cases should be decided on the facts of each case, not by judicial fiat.
Pelletier is with Kazan McClain Satterley & Greenwood in Oakland, Calif.
But several members of the court expressed concern about the scope of any rule that could be announced in the cases.
“Do we limit this to ‘take home’ [cases] and not the whole world?” Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar asked. “Would it make sense to limit this to mesothelioma?”
Exposure Limit
Justice Goodwin Liu asked whether any duty announced by the court would need “some practical limit” on take-home asbestos exposure claims because “there are other values in the balance.”
Those policy implications were driven home by attorneys for defendants Pneumo Abex LLC and BNSF Railway Co., who argued there is no scientific consensus on secondary asbestos exposures.
Lisa Perrochet, of Horvitz & Levy in Burbank. Calif., who argued for Pneumo Abex, warned that the rule advocated by the plaintiffs could extend to third parties beyond family members.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations issued in the 1970s factored prominently in arguments of both appeals.
Those regulations, several members of the court said, counseled employers to take precautions to minimize the transfer of asbestos fibers in workplace showers, locker rooms and laundry facilities.
“It's a minimal effort for employers to be sure these fibers don't go home,” Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye said in reference to the regulations.
A decision in the appeals isn't expected for several months.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=96905683&vname=dennotallissues&fn=96905683&jd=96905683
-
U.S. Agencies Order Dakota Access Pipeline Work Halted After Judge Rules It Can Proceed
Sep 9, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Kris Maher and Alison Sider
The federal government ordered a halt to work on a $3.8 billion four-state oil pipeline in the Upper Midwest on Friday, handing a temporary victory to the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and other opponents of the project.
The unusual move by three federal agencies immediately followed a federal judge’s ruling denying an injunction sought by the tribe. The judge said the Dakota Access Pipeline would be able to proceed.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said it wouldn’t authorize construction near Lake Oahe, a culturally important location to the tribe, until the agency determines if it needs to reconsider its previous approvals under the National Environmental Policy Act.
“This case has highlighted the need for a serious discussion on whether there should be nationwide reform with respect to considering tribes’ views on these types of infrastructure projects,” the Corps and the departments of Justice and Interior said in a joint statement.
The agencies also asked the pipeline’s builder to voluntarily halt work on either side of the lake.
A spokeswoman for Energy Transfer Partners LP, which is building the pipeline with an affiliate company, declined to comment. Phillips 66, the refiner, owns 25%.
David Archambault II, chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, praised the agencies’ intervention and said it was a historic moment for Native Americans.
“Native peoples have suffered generations of broken promises and today the federal government said that national reform is needed to better ensure that tribes have a voice on infrastructure projects like this pipeline,” he said.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg said in a 58-page opinion issued Friday that he wouldn't grant an injunction sought by the tribe because he didn’t agree that the federal government failed to consult with the tribe as required by law and that the pipeline would cause irreparable harm to the tribe’s heritage.
He said the Army Corps documented dozens of attempts to consult with the tribe from the fall of 2014 through the spring of 2016. These included at least three site visits to Lake Oahe to assess any potential effects on historical properties, according to the judge.
“Aware of the indignities visited upon the Tribe over the last centuries, the Court scrutinizes the permitting process here with particular care,” Judge Boasberg wrote. “Having done so, the Court must nonetheless conclude that the Tribe has not demonstrated that an injunction is warranted here.”
The tribe, which has led months of increasingly tense protests against the pipeline, sued the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in July in federal court in Washington, D.C., to block the pipeline. The tribe argued that the agency improperly authorized the project, which it said threatened the tribe’s drinking water and culturally important sites.
The pipeline has drawn national attention and become another flashpoint in the broader fight over drilling for and transporting crude oil. Clashes between protesters and police at a site in North Dakota have escalated in recent weeks, with protesters chaining themselves to equipment and both sides alleging that the other was provoking violence.
Brigham McCown, who once led the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, said the federal agencies’ move looked like political capitulation to pressure from activists, who have homed in on energy infrastructure as a way to challenge fossil fuel development.
“To me this clearly looks to be political involvement in a process that has already played out through the courts,” he said. “These projects are certainly much more at the forefront of activists than they have been in the past.”
As with the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would have carried crude oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast but was blocked by President Barack Obama last fall, opponents have linked the Dakota Access Pipeline to climate change and risks to drinking water.
Last month, 31 environmental groups asked the president in a letter to intervene again and repeal the permits for the pipeline. The pipeline’s backers, meanwhile, say it will reduce the potential for accidents by cutting the amount of crude oil that travels by train.
Analysts had expected the federal government’s role in the Dakota Access Pipeline dispute to be more limited than it was with Keystone, because the Dakota Access line doesn’t cross an international border, and therefore doesn’t require permission from the U.S. State Department.
But the sudden shift by the federal agencies could disrupt those expectations. Christine Tezak, managing director of research at ClearView Energy Partners, said the case raises broader questions about how pipelines will be permitted going forward.
“It looks like the Administration is trying to diffuse the very high tensions surrounding the pipeline, notwithstanding that the judge found that the Corps and the pipeline made the necessary efforts to engage the Standing Rock Sioux.”
The fight has also put a spotlight on Native American rights, as Sioux leaders have argued that the project violates longstanding treaties with the federal government.
The government’s intervention presents a fresh predicament for the pipeline companies trying to complete the more than 1,100-mile pipeline to a refinery in Illinois by year-end. Last month, the pipeline’s builders said the pipeline was 45% complete.
The pipeline would be the major conduit for oil from North Dakota’s Bakken Shale formation, which was largely isolated from the nation’s network of pipelines. Much of the oil from the region has been transported by train.
The federal agencies said they are inviting tribes to formal consultations this fall to address how the U.S. government “can better ensure meaningful tribal input into infrastructure-related reviews and decisions and the protection of tribal lands, resources, and treaty rights.”
The agencies said they support the thousands of demonstrators who voiced concerns about the environment and historic sites that could be affected by the pipeline.
The pipeline has attracted a range of opponents, from environmental groups and landowners to celebrities like Susan Sarandon and Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, who faces misdemeanor charges in North Dakota for spray-painting a bulldozer at a protest this week.
Morton County Sheriff Kyle Kirchmeier, who has been critical of protesters, said 37 people had been arrested to date at a construction site south of Mandan, N.D. He has also alleged that local residents were being harassed by protesters. North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple declared an emergency on Thursday to mobilize the National Guard and said local police would increase their presence at the protest.
-
Obama Admin Halts Part Of Project After Judge Rebuffs Tribe
Sep 9, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey and Ellen M. Gilmer
The Obama administration froze construction of a portion of the Dakota Access oil pipeline today just moments after a federal judge rejected a Native American tribe's bid to halt the $3.7 billion project.
Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled the Army Corps of Engineers had not flouted its duty when consulting the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, as the tribe had asserted.
The tribe has already appealed the order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Boasberg dismissed the tribe's request to halt the Army Corps' permitting of the pipeline while acknowledging the Standing Rock Sioux's fear that the pipeline, which will run within a half-mile of the reservation along the North and South Dakota line, could destroy sites of cultural and historical significance.
The court "concludes that the Corps has likely complied with the [National Historic Preservation Act] and that the Tribe has not shown it will suffer injury that would be prevented by any injunction the Court could issue," Boasberg wrote.
In the wake of the release of Boasberg's ruling, the Justice and Interior departments and the Army Corps issued a joint statement halting construction of the pipeline on corps land bordering or under Lake Oahe.
The pause, the agencies, said, would allow time for the corps to determine whether it should reconsider its previous decisions regarding Lake Oahe under the National Environmental Policy Act or other federal laws.
The pipeline dispute raises a larger question about the consideration of tribes' views on infrastructure projects. Discussions will be held this fall to explore how Native Americans can be better consulted and whether legislation is needed to alter the existing statutory framework.
As protests of Dakota Access mount across the country, the agencies urged calm.
"In recent days, we have seen thousands of demonstrators come together peacefully, with support from scores of sovereign tribal governments, to exercise their First Amendment rights and to voice heartfelt concerns about the environment and historic, sacred sites," they wrote. "It is now incumbent on all of us to develop a path forward that serves the broadest public interest."Broader issues
Boasberg noted in his decision that while he was denying the injunction, the tribe didn't press environmental claims under NEPA.
Nor did the tribe seek an injunction based on "environmental harms," such as an oil spill "from having the pipeline on its doorstep," he wrote.
Instead, the case centered on how pipeline construction, namely land grading and clearing, would cause irreparable injury to historical or cultural properties of great significance, he said.
Boasberg in his decision laid out how the pipeline developer, Energy Transfer Partners, chose the route, at one point saying such information "may try the reader's patience" but explaining that it was critical to answer whether the corps had fully consulted the tribe.
The judge listed the corps' unsuccessful attempts to consult with tribal leaders and a deteriorating relationship between the two.
"Aware of the indignities visited upon the Tribe over the last centuries, the Court scrutinizes the permitting process here with particular care," he wrote. "Having done so, the Court must nonetheless conclude that the Tribe has not demonstrated that an injunction is warranted here."
The decision caps weeks of legal wrangling over the pipeline project.
The tribe requested the injunction in early August, seeking to halt construction on the line and force the Army Corps to withdraw approval for more than 200 water crossings. The nearly 1,200-mile route that would carry Bakken crude from North Dakota to Illinois crosses mostly private lands that were once home to the tribe's ancestors.
"The pipeline crosses the Tribe's ancestral lands, and traverses landscapes that are sacred to the Tribe and carry great historical significance," Earthjustice lawyers representing the tribe said in legal filings last month. "There are sacred stones and historically important sites in the path of the pipeline, few of which have been fully evaluated by Tribal archaeologists. Loss of such sites constitutes irreparable injury to the Tribe and its members."
The effort is part of a broader legal challenge to the corps' permitting for projects that cross or discharge fill into federally regulated rivers, streams and wetlands.
The program relies on Nationwide Permit 12, which is updated and subject to public comment every five years. A pipeline developer can gain approval for crossings by meeting standard criteria and asking the agency to verify that the crossings are covered under Nationwide Permit 12 (EnergyWire, Sept. 6).
The Sioux say that system cuts tribes out of the process and fails to meet cultural review requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act. They want the corps to initiate an individual permitting process that would include fresh cultural and environmental review of the entire pipeline.
The Army Corps has maintained that the Sioux had ample time to weigh in on the route and that the agency set conditions to protect tribal interests — requiring Dakota Access to allow a tribal monitor to be present at some sites, for example. In legal filings, Dakota Access notes that the route was meticulously planned to avoid cultural sites along the way, often tracking with the path of an existing natural gas pipeline.
Tensions over the project have swelled in recent weeks, as thousands of protesters camp out in North Dakota to attempt to derail construction efforts near Lake Oahe, a dammed section of the Missouri River adjacent to the Standing Rock reservation. Over Labor Day weekend, Dakota Access contractors graded an area of private land where a tribal specialist says he found evidence of a burial ground.
The move sparked outrage from tribal and environmental advocates and prompted the tribe to seek a restraining order.
The district court on Tuesday issued a limited order allowing continued construction on the site at issue but freezing activity closer to the Missouri (EnergyWire, Sept. 7).
DOJ's announcement continues the freeze immediately around Lake Oahe and urges Dakota Access to hold off on construction within 20 miles.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/09/09/stories/1060042614
-
Government Halts North Dakota Pipeline Construction
Sep 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Wolski
Three federal agencies Sept. 9 called for a halt on the construction of the Dakota Access pipeline in North Dakota, an action the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe described as “stunning.”
The Department of Justice, Department of the Army and Department of the Interior together issued a statement that said issues that the tribe raised regarding the nearly 1,200-mile pipeline have highlighted the need for further discussion on infrastructure projects that could affect tribal lands, resources and treaty rights.
The statement added that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would not authorize additional pipeline work on its land bordering or under Lake Oahe until it determined whether it should reconsider any of its previous decisions regarding the pipeline and the lake under the National Environmental Policy Act and other federal laws. The statement also asked Dakota Access to voluntarily pause its construction activity within 20 miles east and west of the lake.
In its own statement, the tribe said the agencies’ statement was a “game changer.”
The tribe said it would immediately examine its own options, including an appeal of a federal court's decision not to enjoin the pipeline from being built. The tribe's statement added that it could seek a temporary injunction to prevent more pipeline construction near its lands.
While Dakota Access has been working for years on the pipeline, which eventually would wind through four states, the Corps of Engineers granted it a National Permit 12 only in late July. Shortly thereafter, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe sued the corps, maintaining that it was issued without ensuring compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act.
The tribe contended that even though the pipeline will not cross its lands, it could damage or destroy historic and culturally significant tribal sites.
U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg Sept. 9 rejected the tribe's preliminary injunction request, holding that it had failed to prove that it would be irreparably harmed by the project (Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Corps of Engineers, D. D.C., No. 16-CV-1534, 9/9/16).
The court noted that the pipeline could pass near the Standing Rock Reservation, but it is primarily being built on private land. The sites that the tribe surveyed are outside the corps’ jurisdiction, it wrote, and neither it nor any other federal agency has control over them. The court added that activities on private lands are not subject to the restrictions used to protect historic sites on public lands.
The federal agencies’ call for a pause in pipeline work came just after Boasberg's ruling. It said the corps would decide soon on whether reconsideration of its previous pipeline decisions was warranted. The agencies’ statement also said the construction and the tribe's reaction to it indicated a need for discussion about whether reform is called for when considering tribal views of infrastructure projects. It said the federal government would this fall invite tribes to government-to-government discussions on what the federal government can do to ensure that more meaningful tribal input on infrastructure decisions.
The discussions also will examine whether legislation is needed to alter the statutory framework for such decisions. The pipeline, which is being built by Energy Transfer of Dallas, is intended to carry oil from North Dakota's Bakken Region to refineries in Illinois. It could carry 570,000 barrels of oil a day.
Energy Transfer officials were not immediately available for comment.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=96905713&vname=dennotallissues&fn=96905713&jd=96905713
-
Why We Must Build The Dakota Access Pipeline Now
Sep 9, 2016 | The Hill - Pundits
By Bradley A. Blakeman, contributor
The key to America's national and energy security rests with our ability to provide for our own energy needs with our own natural resources, personnel and infrastructure.
A proposed $3.7-billion pipeline is planned for a 1,200-mile span from the Bakken oil fields of western North Dakota to Illinois. This will allow North Dakota to export half of its daily crude output to the rest of America.
The Dakota pipeline will create over 8,000 immediate jobs in the construction sector. It will be a huge boost to regional employment, especially for welders, mechanics, electricians, pipefitters, heavy equipment operators, truckers and other complimentary trades in the manufacture of the materials needed to build the pipeline.
The economic benefit to the construction of the pipeline with the state and local economies is an estimated $129 million annually to property and income taxes. The service industries will also see a benefit through additional income to hotels, restaurants, etc. Once the pipeline is operational, it is estimated that state and local governments can see an estimated $50 million annually in property taxes and $74 million in sales taxes for the states of North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and Illinois.
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, pipelines are the safest mode of transporting crude oil. The Dakota crude oil pipeline is designed to exceed stringent federal standards and will be built and operated using the most advanced technology and monitoring systems.
An exhaustive review process begun in 2014 for the building of the pipeline and to date there have been close to 400 meetings, surveys, hearings and lawsuits. This pipeline has been fully reviewed and approved by all four states affected as well the Army Corp of engineers. The North Dakota Public Service Commission is also in support of the pipeline and has been involved in the review process from its start. This project has been green-lighted and the necessary permits have been issued for construction to begin.
So why then is the pipeline not being constructed?
It is being reported that the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, represented by the radical group EarthJustice, filed a lawsuit to halt construction. It is documented that the Sioux, despite their claims they were not given the opportunity to make their own review of the effects on "cultural sites" as well as environmental impact on their lands, did not participate in the approval process in spite of outreach to them.
A handful environmental rabble-rousers with a radical agenda seek to stop a multibillion dollar project based solely upon unsupported facts, threats and innuendo.
Presently before the federal court is the application by the opponents for an injunction enjoining the construction of the pipeline and thereby denying that which the nation and states affected wants and needs. I say the court should either deny the motion for an injunction outright or require the parties seeking an injunction to post with the court a $1 billion dollar bond in good faith of their allegation and claims.
We as a nation cannot cower or bow to environmental extortion. The administrative process played out as intended and just because a minority of activists does not like the decision cannot deny parties what they are entitled as a matter of law.
The court must put an end to frivolous lawsuits whose sole purpose is to bully, threaten, provoke and obstruct. The court should also consider sanctions and the awarding of attorneys' fees as a further message of deterrence. In addition, local authorities need to exercise police powers in making sure criminal laws are not being violated by protesters and those in opposition who are engaged in trespassing, threats, destruction of property or worse.
In America, we must work within a system that respects the rule of law and the outcome of lawful processes that have run its course.
The Dakota pipeline is needed. It will create a new and safer mode of transporting needed domestic crude to our nation. It will provide much-needed jobs and is in our national security and energy needs.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/295216-why-we-must-build-the-dakota-access-pipeline-now
-
New Dragon Ships Carry Texas Ethane To Europe And Beyond
Sep 12, 2016 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
Chinese-built vessels that transport ethane from Texas are thin enough for tight docks
A new fleet of so-called dragon-class ships are creating a virtual pipeline across the Atlantic, carrying ethane, a derivative of natural gas and the basic building block of common plastics, from Houston to European petrochemical companies.
The shipments, which began Sept. 1, open a new market for Texas ethane, which, like the natural gas from the state's shale fields, is cheap and abundant - in fact, too abundant. Despite booming plastics and petrochemical plants along the Gulf Coast, supplies of ethane are exceeding local demand.
So, Enterprise Products Partners, the Houston pipeline and logistics company, teamed with Ineos, a Swiss chemical company, to ship that excess for the first time to Europe, where ethane for chemical and plastics makers is in short supply. They also are shipping to Asia.
"Once we recognized that this country was going to produce more than it could consume," Enterprise chief executive Jim Teague said in a recent interview, "it became obvious to us that you needed to be positioned to export."
Enterprise built the world's largest ethane export terminal in Morgan's Point, and Ineos commissioned the construction of eight long-but-lean ethane cargo ships. Built in China, the ships have narrow and flowing frames that evoke the serpentine dragons common in Chinese imagery.
The ships are long - about 600 feet - but thin, allowing them to carry big loads of cargo, but still squeeze into tighter docks. They hold roughly 1 million cubic feet of ethane, about one-fifth of the capacity of liquefied natural gas tankers.
The first of the ships, the Ineos Intrepid, left the Houston Ship Channel on Sept. 1 after Enterprise's terminal at Morgan's Point loaded the maiden shipment bound for Norway. In large lettering, the Intrepid touts "Shale gas for progress" along its hull. The Intrepid and other ships also are carrying ethane to Ineos' chemicals complex in Grangemouth, Scotland.
Ethane is derived from natural gas and is used primarily to make the chemical ethylene, the primary building block of most plastics. The ethane gas is liquefied and chilled to negative 130 degrees for transport.
The ethane supply for the new terminal comes mostly from Enterprise's natural gas liquids processing and storage complex in Mont Belvieu, from where it is transported through an 18-mile pipeline completed in February. The Mont Belvieu complex also is connected to ethane production from the Marcellus and Utica shale regions in the Northeast through the ATEX ethane pipeline.
Enterprise is one of North America's largest energy transportation companies, dominating the shipping of gas and U.S. crude. Ineos operates 65 manufacturing sites in 16 countries and has more than $40 billion in annual revenues, but it isn't well known in Texas. Ineos hopes to change that by expanding in the Houston area.
The company, which has its regional headquarters in League City, has plants in La Porte, Freeport, along Chocolate Bayou and by Green Lake near Port Lavaca. It has nearly completed its plastics plant expansion in La Porte and recently confirmed that it will build a plant at Chocolate Bayou to produce chemicals used in the manufacturing of plastics, lubricants and drilling fluids.
"It's the largest chemical company nobody's ever heard of," said Dave King, Ineos strategic workforce development manager for the Houston region.
Ineos was founded 18 years ago when a British chemical engineer turned billionaire industrialist, Jim Ratcliffe, acquired a BP chemical plant in Belgium. The company is privately owned - with Ratcliffe the majority shareholder - but ranks among the world's 10 largest chemical producers, employing 17,000 people globally.
"Ineos has experienced tremendous growth in a very short period of time," said Dave Witte, senior vice president at the research firm IHS Markit, "going from a virtual unknown to a leading chemical producer."
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/New-dragon-ships-carry-Texas-ethane-to-Europe-and-9213660.php
-
Good News For U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Exports
Sep 11, 2016 | Forbes
By Jude Clemente
In the first six months of this year, nearly 50 Bcf of U.S. LNG was exported. We will be surging to a dominant role in less than five years, with five terminals operating on the Gulf Coast and in Maryland by 2020.
U.S. LNG has already been shipped to the Middle East, Europe, South America, Asia, and perhaps could soon reach the most energy-deprived region on Earth, where a tragic 650 million humans have no electricity whatsoever: “Sub-Saharan Africa May Help Soak Up Global LNG Glut.”
Started in February, Cheniere Energy’s Sabine Pass in Louisiana is the first LNG export plant in the Lower 48 states and has shipped to 11 different countries in the first six months in operation. Overall, we have seen over 25 tankers of LNG shipped from the Sabine Pass terminal. And on 22 August, U.S. LNG reached the most vital incremental market of them all, arriving at the Chinese port of Yantian in Shenzhen near Hong Kong. This was the first LNG tanker to transit the newly expanded Panama Canal connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.
Yet, our LNG exporters, and those policymakers that critically want to support them, can never relax. The global LNG race is intensifying every day, with market growth booming post-2017, right when our projects are primed to take off. As we have entire groups of Americans ill-advisedly celebrating blocked U.S. LNG export projects (here), more shady suppliers are also celebrating the decreased competition from such an attractive supplier like the U.S.
Iran, for instance, with Western-imposed sanctions lifted in January and a BP-reported leading 1,201 Tcf of proven gas, is upping marketing efforts to Europe, India, Pakistan, China, and Japan (here). Russia is also centered on Asian customers via pipelines and LNG. The Yamal LNG Megaproject has gotten loan deals with Chinese banks worth over $12 billion, and is now “on track and on budget.”
Even ally Australia is competition for us, as the Aussies could become the largest LNG exporter by 2018 thanks to limited incremental domestic needs and a $200 billion build-out. For example, McKinsey has Australia’s gas power declining 25% by 2030 (here), while production could more than double to 6 Tcf by 2025. Over the past 10 years, Australia’s proven gas reserves have soared 60% to 125 Tcf.
Globally, the annual capacity of liquefaction plants will increase by about 40% to around 60 Bcf/d by 2021 (note: today, global liquefaction capacity is about 25% higher than the LNG market itself). The global economy is growing though, by some $3 trillion in real GDP per year (here), and this will continually drive up gas demand. Natural gas, after all, is the second largest energy source in the developed world at 28%, and gas is a rapidly rising 21% of all energy in the developing world, compared to just 13% a decade ago.
This is driving up capital expenditure on LNG facilities and “total spend could increase to a whopping $241 billion in 2016-2020 – more than a third higher than total spend during the last five years” (here). But, the $5.5 Panama Canal expansion completed in June will give U.S. LNG shippers a faster and cheaper route to key importers in Asia and Latin America, the latter having taken nearly 60% of U.S. LNG exported thus far.
“The Panama Canal Authority has introduced new toll structures for LNG vessels designed to encourage additional LNG traffic through the Canal, especially for round trips.” And football-field-size tankers can now pass through the shortcut, which allows for over 90% of the global LNG fleet to now pass through, compared to 6% before. EIA says 550 tankers of U.S. LNG a year could be passing through the Panama Canal by the early-2020s.
Panama Canal Expansion Will Offer Material Support to the U.S. LNG Export
U.S. LNG is still sold in small amounts, but more is wanted because the contracts are flexible, lacking “destination clauses” that limit re-sales (note: “FTC reviewing whether no-resale LNG contracts are illegal”). Other suppliers use long-term, oil-based agreements to send gas only to specific nations. Buyers of U.S. LNG have the freedom to ship the fuel to anywhere in the world, encouraging the spot trading that improves liquidity and is a rising 30% of the global market.
And oil-based LNG will be less appealing as oil prices rise: one expert sees $100 oil “within the next four years” (here). So, although enticing today, LNG importers should know that signing oil-based contracts could ultimately prove a big mistake: IEA sees global oil oversupply evaporating as early as the end of this year (here).
In emerging markets, smaller and cheaper floating import vessels are becoming popular. They cost a more realistic $200-300 million, compared with $1 billion or more for larger onshore plants. The world could soon have 35 such operating units, up from about 20 today, helping the number of LNG import markets to potentially double to around 70 by 2030.
In the short-term, EIA has our gross LNG exports averaging 1.3 Bcf/d in 2017 and sees the U.S. becoming a net natural gas exporter in the second half of next year. We could become the third largest exporter by 2020, and reach 12-14 Bcf/d in 2025, which is about a third of the current market. “Increased LNG exports from North America would outcompete high-cost supplies.”
And just as a historical side note, you should know that the original building of the Panama Canal has been ranked 3rd in all time engineering achievements (here), and it can take 6-8 hours to pass through. And you should also know that it took 32 years to construct and it’s estimated that 28,000 workers lost their lives building it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/housemoneystudios/2016/09/12/wwe-backlash-buy-or-sell-aj-styles-crowned-wwe-champion-the-miz-randy-orton-and-more/#418deb8a112b
-
With 2 Weeks To Oral Arguments, EPA Rule Events Begin Anew
Sep 12, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
Clean Power Plan events are picking up this week as energy insiders look ahead to oral arguments in two weeks on the legal challenges to the rule.
Before lawyers face off before an en banc hearing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Sept. 27, a number of groups are reviewing power-sector data and holding backgrounders on the court battles.
In Atlanta tomorrow, three of the main organizations that have been spearheading multistate talks on the regulation will hold aworkshop to review electric-sector trends in the Eastern Interconnection. The Great Plains Institute, the Bipartisan Policy Center and Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions are hosting the event.
More than 200 people are expected to attend, including officials and regulators from a range of states, as well as industry representatives and nongovernmental organizations, said Michael Dowd, the air chief for Virginia's Department of Environmental Quality who will speak on an afternoon panel.
Dowd said the talks are useful even if the Clean Power Plan doesn't move forward in the face of legal challenges.
"There will eventually be carbon regulation, and the modeling that's being done now is addressing big picture items," Dowd said. "It's important as we address any broad options for carbon going forward in the coming years."
Dowd's boss, Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D), wanted to move forward on CPP planning, but the Virginia General Assembly passed a measure preventing spending on rule preparations. Still, Dowd said that prohibition "does not extend to keeping smart."
"We're following the modeling. We want to stay on top of what other people are thinking and what smart people are doing," Dowd said.
Panels will look at power-system modeling that shows the United States as a whole is largely on track to comply with the Clean Power Plan's aggregate goals.
Atlanta-based EnergyWire reporter Kristi E. Swartz will cover the workshop. A webcast is also available.
Today in Washington, D.C., the Brookings Institution will hold an event titled "Clean power: Public opinion, the courts and where we go from here."
Steven Kull, director of the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy, will present results of a new survey of public support for policies ranging from the CPP and carbon pricing to U.S. commitments under the Paris Agreement. Following his remarks, former EPA Administrator William Reilly will be among those discussing U.S. clean energy initiatives.
Tomorrow in D.C., the Federalist Society will host a "Clean Power Plan Goes to Court" discussion at the National Press Club. The event will have experts debate the arguments made in the various briefs and those expected at oral argument.
Participating will be David Bookbinder of Element VI Consulting; David Doniger, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate and clean air program; Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R), who is suing EPA; and David Rivkin, a partner with Baker Hostetler LLP's D.C. office.
In case you missed it:Two former Obama administration officials went toe to toe last week, debating whether U.S. EPA has "gone overboard" with the president's signature climate rule. After the vigorous debate, an audience of students, academics and policy wonks gathered in an auditorium on George Washington University's campus and voted 25 percent that EPA had gone overboard, while 71 percent disagreed (Greenwire, Sept. 8).
Yette Pena-O'Sullivan, assistant director for legislation and politics at the Laborers' International Union of North America, explains how the union's Clean Power Progress campaign is focused on state-by-state advocacy of natural gas infrastructure development to help meet the goals of the Clean Power Plan (OnPoint, Sept. 8).
Expected coal plant retirements in Michigan could make it relatively straightforward for the state to meet federal climate regulations, according to a study by the Electric Power Research Institute. The state is in "very good shape to comply" if the expected coal plant retirements go forward, said David Young, a principal author of the EPRI analysis (ClimateWire, Sept. 8).
Attorneys general from Republican-led states met with energy executives at West Virginia's Greenbrier resort less than two weeks before they filed a lawsuit last year aimed at halting EPA's rule for curbing greenhouse gases from power plants. The closed-door meetings took place last August at a four-day summit hosted by the Republican Attorneys General Association, according to an agenda obtained by a watchdog group using public records requests (Greenwire, Sept. 7).
The CEO of Missouri River Energy Services, which manages the electric generation and transmission for 61 rural communities spread across hundreds of square miles in Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota, says his agency "can't just sit by and twiddle our thumbs and hope that the thing blows up," referring to the Clean Power Plan (EnergyWire, Sept. 6).
http://www.eenews.net/interactive/clean_power_plan/column_posts/1060042637
-
Republicans To Scrutinize EPA Methane Rulemaking
Sep 12, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Hess
House Science, Space and Technology Committee lawmakers are planning to scrutinize U.S. EPA's plans to expand methane regulations to existing oil and gas operations, as the agency works to finalize a request for up-to-date information from the industry.
At issue is the Obama administration's latest effort to crack down on methane, a greenhouse gas that is about 28 times more potent than carbon dioxide, according to the latest U.N. climate report.
Companies have called the effort a "rushed job" and stressed the need for regulators to get a better understanding of the industry, including existing efforts to cut emissions (Greenwire, Aug. 3).
Earlier this year, EPA finalized a suite of rules that targets methane emissions from new and heavily modified oil and gas operations. Published in June, the New Source Performance Standards for EPA's Clean Air Act require oil and gas companies to check for and repair leaks of methane.
The hot-button action has drawn legal challenges from several states, with North Dakota and Texas leading the charge (Greenwire, Aug. 30).
Subcommittee on Environment Chairman Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.) invited a Southern Methodist University professor who authored the paper "Tougher Methane Regulations: A Solution in Search of a Problem" to his hearing. The panel is titled "A Solution in Search of a Problem: EPA's Methane Regulations."
The purpose of the hearing is to examine the impact of EPA's recent regulatory activity, according to the committee. Witnesses will also discuss implementation, economic and other associated issues of the methane rules at the national and state level.
American Petroleum Institute's Erik Milito, who has pressed Congress to "re-examine the avalanche of new regulations" on methane, will also testify. Milito has argued that, combined with regulations from the Department of the Interior, EPA regulations could drive more energy production off federal lands and make consumer electric bills more expensive.
Environmentalists have argued that the costs are small compared with the benefits for the climate.
EPA is due to distribute a request for information to owners of existing oil and gas equipment by Oct. 30.
Schedule: The hearing is Thursday, Sept. 15, at 9:30 a.m. in 2318 Rayburn.
Witnesses: Erik Milito, director of upstream and industry operations, American Petroleum Institute; Bernard Weinstein, professor and associate director, Southern Methodist University's Maguire Energy Institute; and Anthony Ventello, executive director, Progress Authority.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/09/12/stories/1060042633
-
DOE Awards $13 Million for Research to Reduce Methane
Sep 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Pittsburgh-based PPG Industries and the University of Colorado Boulder are among 12 recipients of $13 million for research aimed at developing ways of mitigating methane emissions from natural gas pipeline and storage infrastructure, the Energy Department announced.
The multi-year projects also will look to better quantify the sources, volumes and rates of emissions from methane—a potent greenhouse gas that is a primary component of natural gas.
“Improving our ability to measure and minimize methane emissions will help us to safely and efficiently use our nation's natural gas resources, and at the same time address environmental and infrastructure challenges as we work to meet our commitments on climate change,” Franklin Orr, the Energy Department's under secretary for science and energy, said in a statement.
The funding comes as natural gas is expected to provide a third of the nation's total electric power generation this year, leading to increased concerns about related methane emissions.
Methane is an extremely potent greenhouse gas with an impact 25 times greater than that of carbon dioxide when measured over a 100-year period, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
“While natural gas has lower carbon emissions than some other energy resources, the associated methane emissions—if not addressed—could undermine the environmental benefits of expanded use of this abundant domestic resource,” the Energy Department said.
According to the department, seven of the projects will be focused on natural gas leak reduction technologies.
The remaining five projects will advance methane emission quantification research that is intended to better measure and understand methane emissions derived from the natural gas supply chain, the department said.
Other recipients of the funds include privately held Oceanit Laboratories Inc., the non-profit Gas Technology Institute, and Houston-based GSI Environmental Inc.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=96905708&vname=dennotallissues&fn=96905708&jd=96905708
-
(ACC Mentioned) 15 Years Later: Coast Guard, Local Entities Have Changed Since 9/11
Sep 11, 2016 | The Facts
By Jessica Kuhn
As the twin towers came crashing to the ground 15 years ago today, it remained unclear who carried out one of the most devastating attacks on U.S. soil in the nation’s history.
When details began emerging in the days, weeks and years following, it became apparent Sept. 11, 2001, would change America forever.
Echoing throughout it all seemed to be the question of how to protect the homeland, and in Brazoria County, a lot of the focus shifted to the waterways and the massive chemical complexes that make up the Brazosport skyline.
ON THE WATER
Changing up parts of its mission and overall approach, the U.S. Coast Guard moved to the forefront of maritime security — an important factor to a county bordered by the Gulf of Mexico.
“Following the events of 9/11, there was a piece of law that was approved and enacted called the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002,” said Coast Guard Lt. Nicholas Kross, executive officer of the Maritime Safety and Security Team-Houston. “Basically, it created Maritime Safety and Security Team functions as part of the Department of Homeland Security layered strategy for protecting the nations seaports and waterways.”
While military personnel at bases such as Station Freeport still play a role in overall maritime security, Kross said Maritime Safety and Security Teams — or MSSTs — were developed to provide supplemental protection.
“MTSA of 2002 mandated the requirement for increased security at seaports located throughout the nation,” he said. “Following the development of the MSSTs, the objective was to provide a robust force package to increase and enhance security throughout the nation’s seaports.”
With more than 10 Maritime Safety and Security Teams positioned throughout the U.S., Kross said the deployable, specialized forces maintain the ability to rapidly respond to any imminent or ongoing threat.
“If local Coast Guard units had search and rescue, law enforcement or things they had to do offshore, they would not be able to respond and protect the ports as well as they could if there was an emergent threat there,” he said. “The creation of the MSSTs, or the deployable, specialized forces, allows the MSSTs to come in and primarily focus on that mission while the local units can do what they are assigned to do.”
Because of the specialized mission, Kross said Maritime Safety and Security Teams receive training typical Coast Guard units don’t.
“We have our boat operators that are qualified to operate our vessels tactically, which is a heightened level of qualification that is used to protect certain assets within a port, whether moving or stationary along with law enforcement and chemical biological radiological nuclear training,” he said. “We also have some special capabilities like explosive-detecting K-9s and a remote operating vehicle that we can use underwater.”
Still, both Kross and Station Freeport commander Chief Warrant Officer Parker Daugherty said the average Coast Guard unit plays a vital role in keeping the area’s waterways safe.
“We mainly look for anything out of the ordinary,” Daugherty said. “We have really good partnerships with our port partners, like Dow Chemical and Freeport LNG. If they see something, they will call us.”
Similar to how police officers patrol certain designated areas, the commander said just maintaining a high profile on the water could help deter anyone from considering a malicious attack.
“It’s just getting out and projecting the presence,” he said. “Being seen, but also trying to keep it at random. We don’t go out the same time every day and patrol the same areas.”
Prior to 9/11, Daugherty said the Coast Guard hadn’t really defined the Ports, Waterways & Coastal Security mission.
“Obviously, after 9/11 that changed,” he said. “We initiated that and started escorting certain vessels inside and out and doing random maritime critical infrastructure and key resources patrols. A lot of that stuff was established after 9/11 and some of it took a few years.”
BUSINESS SECURITY
Like the military, Dow Chemical Co. spokeswoman Trish Thompson said 9/11 made the company’s commitment to providing security and safety to its sites, products and communities even more critical.
“After 9/11, we conducted security vulnerability assessments at our sites globally, including the Texas Operations site in Freeport,” she said. “We assessed the potential risk at each site and voluntarily implemented security upgrades to address those risks.
Thompson said Dow took those steps in 2002, five years before the Department of Homeland Security created the Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards.
“We continue to work closely with government agencies around the world to help develop risk-based security performance standards for the chemical industry, and have been a proponent of risk-based regulations,” she said. “Our sites worldwide meet Dow’s stringent standards, which are based on the American Chemistry Council’s Responsible Care security code. These proactive steps have significantly increased the security and safety of our sites as well as that of the communities around our sites.”
At Dow, the company’s comprehensive approach to chemical security includes regular security assessments; applied technology, including electronic surveillance; vehicle barricades, routine patrols and strengthened perimeters; ongoing reviews and drills of security; emergency response and crisis management plans; partnering with local law enforcement and emergency responders; and promoting employee and community awareness.
“We have a very highly trained Emergency Services and Security team here at the Dow Texas Operations site, but every employee is a part of our security system,” Thompson said. “We have strict requirements for entry to our sites for our visitors and service providers so this adds another layer of protection to our facilities. We also work closely with local law enforcement, and we benefit greatly from their skills and expertise.”
POLICING THE REGION
Reiterating the significance of working together, Brazoria County Sheriff Charles Wagner said the relationship with chemical plants’ security forces has been vital to keeping the county and its residents safe.
“We have one of the largest ports and the largest spectra chemical complex in the world, and we need to make sure those places are safe or are the safest as we can make them,” he said. “When 9/11 happened, I was on the phone with the heads of security for multiple companies seeing what they needed me to do and they are asking ‘what can I do to help you?’”
Before Sept. 11, Wagner said nobody was too concerned if someone stopped on the side of the road and started taking pictures of one of the plants.
“Now, if someone stops and starts taking pictures, you can almost bet a patrol car is going to pull up there and ask what they are doing,” he said. “I was at a public function … and a comment was made about the construction with the largest free-standing crane in the world, somebody said you might want to stop by and take some pictures. I stood up right after that and said if you stop and start taking pictures, one of my people are going to stop and find out what you are doing and tell you to erase the pictures. At that, one of the Dow officials stood up and said, ‘Thank you, sheriff, because I was fixing to say please don’t do that.’”
The sheriff said his department, as well as most area police departments, have developed special training programs on the chance Brazoria County falls victim to a terrorist attack.
“We are the first line of defense, and if anything happens locally, it is us,” he said. “Just like in New York with the World Trade Center, it was local law enforcement, fire and EMS that were there immediately taking action. We are the front-line security for anything that happens, whether it be a bank robbery or attack by a foreign entity that comes in.”
GOVERNMENT FOCUS
Looking out for Brazoria County at the national level, Congressman Randy Weber, R-Friendswood, said protecting the homeland remains a priority for the House of Representatives.
“As the world evolves, and technology advances, ways to wage terror attacks on the U.S. and our allies becomes more accessible,” he said. “My colleagues and I have been conducting hearings, taking meetings and debating on the House floor on major pieces of legislation that will help protect our great country. If anything has changed, it is how members of Congress respond quickly to finding smart solutions in combatting terrorism on the homefront.”
Weber believes Congress has been very proactive in its efforts to prevent anymore terrorist attacks against the U.S.
“I have introduced legislation that would help provide much-needed security and accountability to our southern border,” he said. “It would also help in the effort to prevent terrorists from reaching our homeland.”
The U.S. taking a proactive approach to protecting its homeland is essential, Weber said.
“It’s critical that we have a strong military, an air-tight border, an impenetrable cyber-security system and a hardened grid,” he said. “If we don’t take the critical steps to ensure our nation’s security, we can easily guarantee that terrorists will find and exploit the holes in our security to wage an attack on U.S. soil.”
Weber said there have been 12 terror attacks in the U.S. including one of the deadliest since Sept. 11, including last summer in Orlando, where a radicalized Muslim American murdered 49 people at a gay night club.
“Unfortunately, the House cannot ensure the safety of our nation alone,” he said. “The Senate needs to act and the president needs to work with Congress. However, that hasn’t been the case, especially when it comes to border security. If our borders are porous, then there is no guarantee. Terrorists could be smuggled across the border and wreak havoc on our homeland.”
Still, Brazoria County residents can do their part by staying alert and reporting anything out of the ordinary they see, Weber said.
“Be vigilant and do not be afraid to air your concerns to law enforcement or your elected representative on the state and federal level,” he said. “Your safety is of utmost importance, and you should not be ashamed to air your concerns. Your life depends on it.”
http://thefacts.com/free_share/article_b6c2f7ee-8b73-5d1c-982f-0af1ccb9cb94.html
-
If We Can Fix TSCA, We Can Fix The OSH Act
Sep 12, 2016 | Reg Blog
By Jamie Conrad
Earlier this summer, President Obama signed a sweeping overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the law governing how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) evaluates and regulates chemicals. It is a noteworthy occasion any time our deeply polarized Congress can do more than name post offices. Passage of TSCA reform was a particularly remarkable accomplishment because TSCA had not been significantly amended since it was enacted in 1976—even though everyone agreed that the statute was dysfunctional.
The law that protects workers—the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act—is six years older, and only marginally more effective. The TSCA rewrite gives hope for—and ought to inspire—a similar effort to make our workplaces safer and healthier.
Several features of TSCA ensured that it could never work effectively. In a sort of Catch-22, EPA usually had to conclude that a chemical could present an “unreasonable risk of injury” before it could require testing to determine the chemical’s hazardousness—a requirement that could potentially require years of EPA rulemaking procedures. Furthermore, the “unreasonable risk” standard conflated questions of harm to humans or the environment with the potential economic impacts of any restrictions EPA might impose, an overwhelming mix of apples and oranges.
Worse still, when regulating a chemical, EPA had to choose only the “least burdensome” restrictions to impose on industry, a requirement that tripped up government’s effort to regulate asbestos. Any restriction also had to clear trial-like public hearings.
Most fatal to the pre-amendment TSCA, the law did not require EPA to assess or regulate any number of chemicals by any specific date—so EPA rarely did.
However, the new law fixes all of these problems.
When it comes to workplace safety, though, the OSH Act, at least as interpreted by courts and the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), creates similar challenges for sensible regulatory policy. The Act requires that a workplace hazard present a significant risk of material health impairment and that OSHA demonstrate that any proposed standard would substantially reduce that risk. OSHA also has to show that any proposed standard is economically and technologically feasible to comply with, which it substantiates to six-digit industry classifications. Like the old TSCA, the OSH Act requiresOSHA to hold public hearings before any new standard can be adopted.
These requirements have most notably hobbled OSHA in regulating inhalation hazards. In 1970, Congress required OSHA to adopt several hundred privately derived standards. To date, OSHA has been unable to update more than a handful of these, meaning that most are now almost half a century out of date.
Both EPA and OSHA made their respective situations worse in a variety of ways.
For example, both agencies initially overreached by pushing “no safe dose” arguments about asbestos and benzene, respectively, and got slapped back by courts.
Both agencies then overreacted to those decisions, essentially developing what psychologists call “learned helplessness.” EPA stopped trying to regulate existing chemicals; OSHA became resigned to taking decades to issue standards. Both agencies also effectively painted themselves into regulatory corners through their own statutory interpretations. EPA could justify requiring testing without findings of potential harm if it made alternative findings about production and exposure—but its interpretation of that provision made it barely useful. Even more remarkably, OSHA has imposed upon itself a host of rulemaking procedures—for example, post-hearing briefs—that are not required by law (or even by the agency’s own regulations).
The OSH Act also suffers from flaws that TSCA did not. Most appalling are its criminal penalties. Under its criminal liabilityprovision, an employer who willfully violates an OSHA standard and thereby kills an employee can get, at most, six months of jail time or a $10,000 fine. If the employer does it again, those sanctions are simply doubled. The U.S. Department of Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources Division recently assumed responsibility for prosecuting OSHA criminal cases because sanctions can be so much greater under environmental laws; for example, if a workplace violation involves a knowing release of a hazardous air pollutant, “merely” endangering employees (without killing anyone) can result in a 15-year jail term or a $1 million fine for an organization.
OSHA is also relatively more disadvantaged politically. EPA benefits from strong support by a host of prominent, savvy environmental groups, largely sympathetic media, and powerful allies in Congress. OSHA’s only real allies are unions (who are steadily shrinking in size and influence) and, to a lesser degree, public health academics. As a practical matter, the field of workplace safety and health law is subsumed within the combative and static field of labor law. Industry lawyers used to showing EPA a certain degree of respect are usually shocked by the derisive way many OSHA practitioners treat OSHA.
An amended OSH Act could be oriented primarily toward codifying common best practices on a periodic basis. The concepts of risk and feasibility are necessary to workplace safety and health regulation, but feasibility could certainly be handled more efficiently, potentially on a by-exception basis. Although OSHA should not be forcing technology, its standards need to move out of the vacuum-tube era. Although a new statute will not necessarily solve OSHA’s internal cultural problems, it could inspire a more can-do culture and a sense of urgency.
The prospect of TSCA reauthorization was airily dismissed for years. And yet industry and environmentalists—and Republicans and Democrats—have managed to agree on major changes to the way we study and restrict chemicals. A similarly intensive and even-handed focus on OSHA and the OSH Act could begin to produce some consensus on what features of the law, and what practices of the agency, need to change for OSHA to be able to do its job. We should all want safer workplaces.
http://www.regblog.org/2016/09/12/conrad-if-we-can-fix-tsca-we-can-fix-the-osh-act/
-
Federal Court Venue for Prisoner Exposed to Toxic Chemicals
Sep 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
A prisoner exposed to toxic chemicals in a privately operated Department of Homeland Security detention center must pursue his injury claims in federal court, a federal court said Sept. 7 (Shaker v. Akima Glob. Servs., LLC, S.D. Fla., No. 16-cv-20146, 9/7/16).
Akima Global Services LLC—the operator of Krome Detention Center in Miami—made a sufficient showing that it has a government contractor defense.
That is enough to sustain removal of the case to federal court under the Federal Officer Removal statute, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida said.
Mahmoud Shaker was a prisoner in a voluntary work program at KDC in September 2015, when Akima Global, acting under the direction of DHS, instructed him to enter a storage room where he was exposed to toxic substances, the court said.
Shaker alleged that the fumes caused him to collapse and that a large quantity of chemicals fell on him.
The court rejected Shaker's argument that Akima Global had such extensive control over the voluntary work program that it didn't act under the direction of DHS.
Judge Marcia G. Cooke issued the ruling.
Esquenazi Law represents Shaker.
Cozen O'Connor represents Akima Global.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=96905696&vname=dennotallissues&fn=96905696&jd=96905696
-
NAFTA Official Says TPP Could Benefit From Environment Office
Sep 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Emily Pickerell
Environmental issues in the Trans-Pacific Partnership would benefit greatly by having a standing organization to turn ideas into actions, according to a top official from a similar environmental organization established by the 1993 North American Free Trade Act.
The NAFTA-related Council for Environmental Cooperation, or CEC, has been able to effectively organize efforts such as the protection of monarch butterflies and a catalog of pollutants because of its permanent office in Montreal and a dedicated staff to carry out the ideas of the respective environmental ministers, Cesar Chavez, its executive director, said in an exclusive interview Sept. 9 with Bloomberg BNA at the organization's annual meeting in Merida, Mexico.
The organization has a council of its own, comprised of the Mexican and Canadian environmental ministers and the U.S. head of the Environmental Protection Agency, who discuss policy issues that the CEC will address. It also has an advisory committee made up of a range of private and nongovernmental experts, in addition to a secretariat that handles administrative issues and conducts environmental investigations.
“It is important because when you come from the environmental field, you are always preaching on already converted people,” said Chavez. “The ones we have to convince are the ones in the financial or trade fields. That is why it is important to bring these players in. They are indispensable.”
The theme of the CEC's annual meeting has been addressing climate change and its impact on a reduction in biodiversity, an area where the organization has been able to leverage its contacts across North America to provide information exchanges on the latest scientific developments, according to Chavez.
Providing Prospective on Environmental Issues
The TPP is a trade agreement among 12 countries, including the U.S. and Mexico, that some have praised for having an environmental chapter in the main body of the agreement, unlike NAFTA, which dealt with environmental issues in a side chapter.
While it includes a council of top-level ministers, it does not have a permanent office to oversee implementation of environmental goals—a mistake, in Chavez's view.
“The secretariat is a place where ideas come and take shape. We are the implementers and provide feedback, and we may help the ministers in providing feedback,” he said. “You have the advantage of having someone who will reflect your thoughts back to you, to provide some more perspective.”
The TPP, however, has added an important feature for addressing environmental issues that is missing in NAFTA: the inclusion of both environmental and trade ministers involved in the high-level environmental council.
Given that NAFTA will continue to be in effect even if the Trans-Pacific Partnership is ratified, Chavez anticipates the CEC continuing its work of focusing on North American environmental issues.
“I expect we will continue working between the three countries in a coordinated way, and later in the year, we will know more about the future these agreements,” Chavez said. “The ministries are helping us to let us know what they think the relationship should be.”
Renewed Focus
The original focus of the Council for Environmental Cooperation was on the impacts of trade, but it has since expanded its focus into mitigating climate change, where it works to share available data.
“We are not claiming or saying we are going to solve the problem, but we can do two or three things, such as harmonizing the information available on climate change information,” Chavez said.
He also sees opportunities for it to address the interaction between energy production and environmental issues, where conflicts over pipelines and the potential of renewable energy trade within North America are becoming increasingly important.
“If we manage to work together environment and energy, then we are heading in the right way, but it still has to be developed,” said Chavez, calling the relationship between the two one of the most pressing environmental issues. “It is one of the most important areas of coordination that is also an area of opportunity.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=96905712&vname=dennotallissues&fn=96905712&jd=96905712
-
Obama Eyes Big Finish On Climate
Sep 10, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Obama is hoping to complete two more international agreements to fight global warming in the coming months, shoring up his climate change legacy.
His landmark Paris agreement is certain to go down as one of the most consequential — and controversial — global pacts of Obama’s presidency. Now, he's also pushing world leaders to agree to cut down on greenhouse gases from refrigeration and from commercial aircraft.
That would help seal Obama’s legacy of securing sweeping agreements with world leaders to fight climate change as part of his second-term global warming agenda.
But the deals to reduce hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and aircraft emissions also add to Obama’s reputation for making major policy decisions through unilateral action, and are sparking new anger from Republican critics.
Like the Paris agreement, both climate actions are being negotiated under existing treaties, and would not likely require the two-thirds votes in the Senate that the Constitution mandates for treaties.
The HFC and aircraft agreements target specific sources of earth-warming greenhouse gases, but each deal could put a significant dent into climate change in its own way.
“The Paris agreement establishes a durable framework for country actions addressing climate change in a comprehensive fashion, whereas these other two agreements deal with discrete slices of the problem,” said Elliot Diringer, executive vice president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.
“The president has significant powers to fashion agreements with other countries, and has used those vigorously to strengthen the international response to climate change."
Obama previewed the cooperative agreements in 2013, when he rolled out his Climate Action Plan to guide his second-term climate agenda. International pacts were a key piece of the agenda.
To environmentalists and Obama’s supporters, significant progress on HFCs and aircraft emissions would wrap up a strong climate legacy.
“He really has made climate change one of the top policy priorities of his second term, and he has accomplished a remarkable amount,” said Paul Bledsoe, a consultant and former climate change aide in President Clinton’s White House. “I think Obama will be looked at as the key turning point figure in American climate protection.”
HFCs are used in refrigeration and air conditioning, and came into use over the last two decades to replace ozone-depleting substances following the Montreal Protocol ozone treaty.
But HFCs are potent greenhouse gases, and now world leaders are planning to amend the treaty at an October meeting in Kigali, Rwanda, and phase down their use.
A 2013 study estimated that a successful reducing HFCs could avoid 0.5 degrees Celsius of global warming by 2100. That would be a significant chunk of the 2-degree warming limit scientists believe would stop the most catastrophic effects of climate change.
A few weeks before the Rwanda meeting, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the United Nations body responsible for regulating commercial aviation, will meet in Montreal. Representatives are likely to approve an international greenhouse gas emissions market for airlines. It would complement a set of standards for newly built aircraft that ICAO is also set to approve.
Commercial airplanes account for just under 2 percent of worldwide emissions, but it's the fastest-growing sector in terms of emissions.
“So achieving zero net emissions growth post-2020 will put a significant dent in the problem,” Diringer said.
Implementing the HFC standards and the aircraft emissions limits domestically would require new regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency.
Reflecting his strategy with the Paris agreement, Obama and his deputies have used nearly every diplomatic meeting to push world leaders — especially the biggest countries — to come on board with both the HFC and aircraft agreements.
At the recent G20 summit, Obama’s joint statement with Chinese President Xi Jinping committed both countries to seek strong outcomes for the climate negotiations. And Secretary of State John Kerry made a point to get Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s buy-in on HFCs at a late August meeting.
But conservatives see the push as another example of Obama moving toward major new policies without congressional approval.
“It compounds our concerns with the trouble of executive policymaking absent any input from the Senate,” said William Yeatman, a fellow at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute.
“As a body of work, that’s troubling. That’s a lot of policy,” he said, referring collectively to the two pacts and the Paris agreement.
But unlike many of Obama’s regulatory actions, the major domestic industries affected by the emissions plans are supportive of the administration’s work.
Lobbying groups are working alongside the administration and the international bodies to make sure that the agreements are effective, but also not too harmful to their industries.
“Industry has a desire for certainty. Whether it is certainty in the good, certainty in the so-so or certainty in the bad, it’s still certainty,” said Francis Dietz, spokesman for the Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute.
“It helps in planning, it helps in allocating research and developing dollars, it helps in building or remodeling factories.”
Companies would replace HFCs with more environmentally friendly chemicals, which the EPA has already started to approve.
For airlines, the goal in working with the administration is to get a worldwide system for a global industry.
“U.S. airlines are strong supporters of a global sectoral approach to aviation climate change policy under ICAO,” said Vaughn Jennings, spokesman for Airlines For America.
“As aviation is a global industry, with airlines operating internationally and aircraft manufacturers selling their aircraft in international markets, it is critical that aircraft emissions standards be set at the international level and not imposed unilaterally by one country or set of countries,” he said.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/295260-obama-eyes-big-finish-on-climate
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested