Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 10/12/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) Five Chemicals Fast-Tracked by EPA for Possible Control
Oct 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Five chemicals that the Environmental Protection Agency says pose particular hazards due to how long they persist in the environment, how they bioaccumulate up the food chain and their toxicity are being fast-tracked for action to reduce exposures to them, the agency announced Oct. 11. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Fast-Tracks 5 Chemicals Under New TSCA Law
Oct 11, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Gabriel Dunsmith
U.S. EPA moved today to expedite action on five chemicals following this summer's overhaul of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act. -
EPA Targets Five PBT Chemicals For Expedited Risk Control Under TSCA
Oct 11, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA is targeting five persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals (PBTs) for expedited review and control to reduce risks from exposures using its authority under the recently revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), saying the “well-documented” threats of the substances justify the accelerated regulatory effort. -
EPA Fast-Tracks Five Chemicals For Review Under Reformed TSCA
Oct 11, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
EPA has picked five chemicals for fast-track reviews under a section of the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act that targets a specific subset of chemicals. -
EPA Tackles Five of the Worst Chemicals Under the Lautenberg Act
Oct 11, 2016 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.
Today EPA identified five chemicals that will receive “expedited action” under the new Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act. -
EPA Announces 5 Fast-Tracked Chemicals Under New TSCA Law
Oct 11, 2016 | Morning Consult
By Jack Fitzpatrick
The Environmental Protection Agency announced Tuesday it has selected five chemicals to regulate on an expedited basis under the update passed in June to the Toxic Substances Control Act. -
EPA Sends Nanoscale Reporting Rule For OMB Review
Oct 11, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA has forwarded for White House review a final version of its Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 8(a) reporting rule for nanoscale materials, a long-delayed rulemaking that EPA has said will guide its future oversight of the novel materials, but will likely face continued industry pushback during the required review. -
EPA Seeks NAS Input On Microbiomes To Potentially Aid Risk Assessment
Oct 11, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA is seeking input from a new National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel on how to craft a research plan for understanding of interaction between chemicals in the environment and microbiota -- the collection of organisms in human tissues and fluids -- with the hope that the nascent concept could potentially improve risk assessment. -
Protests Rise as Energy Transfer Works on Dakota Pipeline
Oct 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Meenal Vamburkar
Energy Transfer Partners LP is moving forward with construction of the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline, rejecting the Obama administration's request that it voluntarily halt some work on the $3.8 billion project. -
Pipeline Attacks Confirmed In 4 States
Oct 11, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Mike Lee
At least four pipelines carrying crude oil from Canada into the United States were closed today after climate change activists attempted to completely block the flow of oil sands crude in a series of coordinated protests. -
More Regulation of Oil, Gas Extraction Expected: Attorneys
Oct 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Resource extraction will probably be more heavily regulated in the near term, an energy attorney said during a panel session at the American Bar Association conference on environmental law in Denver. -
Oil Glut Isn't Holding Back Energy Efficiency Gains: IEA
Oct 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anna Hirtenstein
The world is squeezing more from the energy it uses even though markets are awash in cheap oil and natural gas, a report from the International Energy Agency showed. -
When It Comes To Shale And The Environment, A Focus On Infrastructure, Not Just Fracking
Oct 11, 2016 | The Hill - Pundits
By Deborah D. Stine and Jared L. Cohon
When thinking about the potential impact of shale gas development on the environment, news often focuses on the hydraulic fracturing process itself that occurs underground, but the accompanying infrastructure needed at the surface to drill wells and extract, process, and transport the gas does not receive as much media attention. -
Two GOP Veterans Vie For Energy and Commerce Gavel
Oct 11, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Jennifer Haberkorn and Ashley Gold
The race to lead the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee is shaping up as a tight contest between one of the panel’s most senior members and one of the House’s most prolific fundraisers. -
Clinton’s Energy Independence Claim May Signal Likely Policy Path
Oct 11, 2016 | Platts
By Brian Scheid
Near the end of Sunday’s contentious and much-maligned presidential debate, Hillary Clinton made, arguably, the most revealing statement yet on the likely path of energy policy in her White House. -
Emails Show Clinton Camp Sought 'Reluctant Tone' On Fracking During Democratic Primary
Oct 11, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
A top Hillary Clinton aide in Colorado recommended that she adopt a "reluctant tone" on fracking and proposed tapping a liberal ally to slam Bernie Sanders' call for a ban on the extraction technology during the Democratic primaries, according to emails released today by WikiLeaks. -
Unpacking Clinton’s ’Secrets’ About Fracking
Oct 11, 2016 | Bloomberg Government
By Mark Drajem
During the Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton said: “By the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place.” That seemed far fetched back in March when Clinton was trying to fend off Bernie Sanders and his pledge to ban the practice. -
Refrigerant Deal Integral to Paris Climate Goals: Adviser
Oct 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By John Herzfeld
An “ambitious” global deal to phase down use of potent climate pollutant hydrofluorocarbons would be “the most significant and important step the international community could take” to meet the goals of the Paris accord on climate change, a White House official said Oct. 11. -
Ambition Of Global HFC Deal Could Hinge On Funding Levels, Sources Say
Oct 11, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
As top Obama administration officials join the final round of talks to craft a global phasedown of high global warming potential (GWP) hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants, financial support from developed nations will be key to bringing some of the more hesitant developing countries -- notably India -- on board with a more ambitious deal, sources say. -
UN Emission Credits Seem Set for Revival After 4-Year Slump
Oct 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mathew Carr
The value of emission credits will probably increase after a United Nations climate meeting next month, according to a law firm specializing in clean energy and the environment. -
N.Y. Companies To Pay Safety, Air Pollution Fines
Oct 11, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
Two New York businesses will pay a total of almost $200,000 in fines for violations of Clean Air Act and chemical safety rules, U.S. EPA announced this afternoon.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Five Chemicals Fast-Tracked by EPA for Possible Control
Oct 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Five chemicals that the Environmental Protection Agency says pose particular hazards due to how long they persist in the environment, how they bioaccumulate up the food chain and their toxicity are being fast-tracked for action to reduce exposures to them, the agency announced Oct. 11.
Two other compounds on EPA's PBT list will be examined through a full agency risk evaluation at the company's request.
“The threats from persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals are well-documented,” Jim Jones, assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, said in a statement today announcing the effort.
The chemicals are used as solvents, fuel additives, flame retardants and in the manufacture of other compounds.
The new law directs the EPA to expedite action for a few such chemicals that the agency had identified prior to the Toxic Substances Control Act being amended June 22 by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. No. 114-182), Jones told Bloomberg BNA today.
The announcement allows the EPA to skip the risk evaluation phase for these chemicals, he said. The agency must show that people and/or the environment are exposed to them, but it need not document a specific dermal, oral or other exposure level, Jones said.
Once the EPA makes its exposure finding, the Lautenberg Act allows it to move directly to risk management, Jones said. The law directs the EPA to “reduce exposure to the extent practicable,” he said.
Flame Retardants, Other Chemicals
The chemicals the EPA is fast tracking are:
• decabromodiphenyl ethers (DecaBDE), which is used as a flame retardant in textiles, plastics and polyurethane foam;
• hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD), used in the manufacture of rubber compounds and lubricants and as a solvent;
• pentachlorothio-phenol (PCTP), used as an agent to make rubber more pliable in industrial uses;
• tris (4-isopropylphenyl) phosphate, used as a flame retardant in consumer products and other industrial uses; and
• 2,4,6-tris(tert-butyl)phenol, used as a fuel, oil, gasoline or lubricant additive.
Although the EPA has not made the official exposure finding required by the Lautenberg Act, Jones said he expects it to be made.All five chemicals were already on the EPA's Work Plan list of chemicals it planned to evaluate for risks prior to passage of the Lautenberg Act. The chemicals would not have been on that list if the agency did not have evidence of exposure, he said.
The agency has three years from enactment of the Lautenberg Act to propose risk management rules for these chemicals. That means the agency has about two years and eight months to complete its fast-track review; “the clock is ticking,” Jones said.
Meanwhile, environmentalists are pushing for stricter chemical management. Veena Singla, staff scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council , said: “While the rest of the world is moving forward to eliminate the dangerous flame retardant chemical DecaBDE, the U.S. has fallen behind. Imports of this chemical in products continue today; we hope that today's announcement signals that EPA will finally put a stop to this toxic legacy in the making.”
And Andy Ingrejas, director of the Safer Chemicals,Healthy Families coalition, said: “Each of these chemicals persist in the environment and build up in the food chain, including in the human body, making them a priority public health threat. They are treated differently under the law. EPA goes straight to the question of how to eliminate exposure. We fought to have this provision applied to a broader group of chemicals, but the chemical industry resisted. Nevertheless, expedited action even against these five chemicals will be a win for public health.”
The chemical industry trade association, meanwhile, is seeking broader details on how analyses will be conducted by the agency to back its eventual chemical controls. The American Chemistry Council said, “We expect that, in addition to identifying the substances, EPA will make clear how it expects to conduct the additional analyses that will support an eventual decision on the measures that might be necessary to control exposures.”
Industry Pays for Fragrance Full Risk Evaluation
Due to manufacturers requests, the EPA will conduct full risk evaluations for one fragrance chemical, ethanone, which actually has two slightly different chemical identities, Jones said. The manufacturer—International Flavors and Fragrances Inc.—that requested the full risk evaluation is required to pay 50 percent of its cost under the Lautenberg Act.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=98769933&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=498678500&searchid=28593535&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Fast-Tracks 5 Chemicals Under New TSCA Law
Oct 11, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Gabriel Dunsmith
U.S. EPA moved today to expedite action on five chemicals following this summer's overhaul of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act.
The reforms mandate that EPA work to lessen exposure to particular persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) compounds. Such compounds build up in the food chain and can affect human health.
Environmental groups and the chemical lobby have kept a vigilant eye on the agency to ascertain how it will implement its new directives (Greenwire, Aug. 19).
"The threats from persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals are well-documented," Jim Jones, assistant administrator for the agency's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, said in a statement. "The new law directs us to expedite action to reduce risks for these chemicals, rather than spending more time evaluating them. We are working to ensure the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act signed in June of this year delivers on the promise of better protecting the environment and public health as quickly as possible."
The five chemicals are:Decabromodiphenyl ethers, which are flame retardants used in plastics, textiles and polyurethane foam.Hexachlorobutadiene, used to make rubber compounds and lubricants, as well as a solvent.Pentachlorothio-phenol, an industrial rubber softener.Tris (4-isopropylphenyl) phosphate, another flame retardant.2,4,6-Tris(tert-butyl)phenol, an additive for fuel, gasoline, oil and lubricant.
Environmental groups praised the move.
"EPA's announcement today is very important," said Andy Igrejas, director of the nonprofit Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, in a statement. "It signals what will soon be the first concrete public health and environmental improvements under the new Lautenberg Act. ... We fought to have this provision applied to a broader group of chemicals, but the chemical industry resisted. Nevertheless, expedited action even against these five chemicals will be a win for public health."
In a statement, the American Chemistry Council said it was waiting to see how EPA planned to regulate the five chemicals.
"Today EPA announced five PBTs that will undergo expedited rulemaking for risk management measures to reduce exposure to the substances to the extent practicable," the industry group said. "The law also requires EPA to conduct an exposure assessment to better understand sources and levels of exposures. We expect that, in addition to identifying the substances, EPA will make clear how it expects to conduct the additional analyses that will support an eventual decision on the measures that might be necessary to control exposures."
After EPA fully details exposure pathways and industrial applications for the chemicals, the agency plans to swiftly propose limitations on their use.
"These pollutants can transfer among air, water, and land, and span boundaries of geography and generations," EPA said in a statement.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/10/11/stories/1060044124
-
EPA Targets Five PBT Chemicals For Expedited Risk Control Under TSCA
Oct 11, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA is targeting five persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals (PBTs) for expedited review and control to reduce risks from exposures using its authority under the recently revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), saying the “well-documented” threats of the substances justify the accelerated regulatory effort.
The agency on Oct. 11 announced its plans to review the five PBT chemicals under the new law's expedited risk process, which allows the agency conduct a streamlined evaluation that only involves use and exposure to the substances without conducting a full blown risk evaluation. EPA must then take steps to impose limitation sufficient to reduce exposure to the “extent practicable” within three years of the law's effective June 22 date.
“The threats from persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals are well-documented,” EPA toxics chief Jim Jones said in an Oct. 11 press release. “The new law directs us to expedite action to reduce risks for these chemicals, rather than spending more time evaluating them.”
The five chemicals are: Decabromodiphenyl ethers (DecaBDE), used as a flame retardant in textiles, plastics and polyurethane foam; Hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD), used in the manufacture of rubber compounds and lubricants and as a solvent; Pentachlorothio-phenol (PCTP), used as an agent to make rubber more pliable in industrial uses; Tris (4-isopropylphenyl) phosphate, used as a flame retardant in consumer products and other industrial uses; and 2,4,6-Tris(tert-butyl)phenol, used as a fuel, oil, gasoline or lubricant additive.
Rather than conducting full risk evaluations as to whether the PBT chemicals present an unreasonably risk to human health or the environment as EPA must do for existing chemicals under section 6 of the new law, EPA may conduct an abreviated review under section 6(h) identifying where the chemicals may be used and how exposures may occur.
The new law allowed manufacturers to request by Sept. 19 that EPA conduct risk evaluations for PBT chemicals on EPA's 2014 TSCA work plan as an alternative to expedited action, the press release says. Industry made requests for two chemicals used in fragrance mixtures.
“PBT chemicals are of particular concern because they remain in the environment for significant periods of time and concentrate in the organisms exposed to them,” the press release says. PBT substances can transfer among air, water, and land, and span boundaries of geography and generations.
TSCA Authority
Section 6 of the new TSCA law directs EPA to categorize existing chemicals -- those already on the market -- as high or low priority, and then perform risk evaluations of the high priority chemicals.
But under section 6(h), EPA may act to restrict PBT substances where exposure is likely under the conditions of use to the general population or susceptible subpopulations or the environment on the basis of an exposure and use assessment.
For the five chemicals it has listed as targets for expedited action under section 6(h), EPA has conducted some assessment of the use and exposure potential in accordance with the 2014 work plan, but the agency plans to refine those assessments in support of regulatory action, and will make those documents public as part of an eventual rulemaking.
Possible regulatory actions under section 6(a) include restricting or prohibiting manufacturing, processing, or distribution in commerce; tying those restrictions to a particular use or use in excess of a specific concentration; warning labeling requirements; recordkeeping or testing mandates; limits on commercial use or disposal and other measures.
Under the revised statute, the agency has until June 2017 to develop criteria and a final implementing rule outlining how agency staff will prioritize as high priority those chemicals that "may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment," and as low priority those that do not meet that standard.
The rule is separate from a related regulation that EPA is developing that will outline the process through which the agency assesses chemicals to determine the risk that they pose to humans or the environment.
EPA also plans to by mid-December release its list of 10 work plan chemicals on which it intends to conduct risk evaluations, and must give priority to chemicals that are listed in the work plan as having a “Persistence and Bioaccumulation Score” of 3; and those that are known human carcinogens with high acute and chronic toxicity.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-targets-five-pbt-chemicals-expedited-risk-control-under-tsca
-
EPA Fast-Tracks Five Chemicals For Review Under Reformed TSCA
Oct 11, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
EPA has picked five chemicals for fast-track reviews under a section of the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act that targets a specific subset of chemicals.
All five are "persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic," or PBT, chemicals, which build up in the environment and last for long periods.
“The new law directs us to expedite action to reduce risks for these chemicals, rather than spending more time evaluating them,” said EPA chemical safety chief Jim Jones.
The five chemicals are: Decabromodiphenyl ethers (DecaBDE), which is used as a flame retardant; Hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD), a solvent used in rubber products and lubricants; Pentachlorothio-phenol (PCTP), used for industrial rubbers; Tris (4-isopropylphenyl) phosphate, another flame retardant; and 2,4,6-Tris(tert-butyl) phenol, an additive in fuels and lubricants.
EPA has until June 2019 to propose regulations limiting the exposure of these chemicals, and 18 months after that to finalize those rules.
The agency said two PBT chemicals used in fragrance mixtures would be excluded from the expedited reviews in response to requests from manufacturers.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
EPA Tackles Five of the Worst Chemicals Under the Lautenberg Act
Oct 11, 2016 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.
Today EPA identified five chemicals that will receive “expedited action” under the new Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act. The provision of the law requiring this action was a priority for Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families during the legislative debate. It applies only to a small number of the chemicals that are known to be Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic (“PBT”). These chemicals pose unique threats to public health and the environment because they do not break down in the environment and they build up in the food chain, including in the human body.
In response, Andy Igrejas, the director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, a broad coalition of health, environmental, labor and business organizations, issued the following statement:
“EPA’s announcement today is very important. It signals what will soon be the first concrete public health and environmental improvements under the new Lautenberg Act. Each of these chemicals persist in the environment and build up in the food chain, including in the human body, making them a priority public health threat. They are treated differently under the law. EPA goes straight to the question of how to eliminate exposure.
We fought to have this provision applied to a broader group of chemicals, but the chemical industry resisted. Nevertheless, expedited action even against these five chemicals will be a win for public health. We plan to stay engaged with the agency to help it identify all the sources of exposure that must be eliminated.”
http://saferchemicals.org/2016/10/11/epa-tackles-five-of-the-worst-chemicals-under-the-lautenberg-act/
-
EPA Announces 5 Fast-Tracked Chemicals Under New TSCA Law
Oct 11, 2016 | Morning Consult
By Jack Fitzpatrick
The Environmental Protection Agency announced Tuesday it has selected five chemicals to regulate on an expedited basis under the update passed in June to the Toxic Substances Control Act.
The agency will fast-track legislation on Decabromodiphenyl ethers, Hexachlorobutadiene, Pentachlorothio-phenol, Tris (4-isopropylphenyl) phosphate, and 2,4,6-Tris(tert-butyl)phenol.
The first chemical is used as a “flame retardant in textiles, plastics and polyurethane foam,” the agency said. The second is used “in the manufacture of rubber compounds and lubricants and as a solvent.” The third is “an agent to make rubber more pliable in industrial uses.” The fourth is “used as a flame retardant in consumer products.” And the fifth is “used as a fuel, oil, gasoline or lubricant additive.”
All five chemicals present “well-documented” threats, said Jim Jones, assistant administrator in EPA’s office of chemical safety and pollution prevention, in a statement. “The new law directs us to expedite action to reduce risks for these chemicals, rather than spending more time evaluating them.”
The original TSCA, passed into law in 1976, set such a high bar for federal regulators to prove that chemicals are dangerous that the EPA’s first rule on asbestos was ultimately ruled illegal by a court. Congress passed an update to the law in June. In August, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) urged the EPA to quickly take action on asbestos under the new TSCA law.
https://morningconsult.com/alert/epa-announces-5-fast-tracked-chemicals-new-tsca-law/
-
EPA Sends Nanoscale Reporting Rule For OMB Review
Oct 11, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA has forwarded for White House review a final version of its Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 8(a) reporting rule for nanoscale materials, a long-delayed rulemaking that EPA has said will guide its future oversight of the novel materials, but will likely face continued industry pushback during the required review.
The White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) Oct. 7 received EPA's rule, “Nanoscale Materials; Chemical Substances When Manufactured, Imported, or Processed as Nanoscale Materials; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements.” OMB review typically takes 90 days but can take more or less time depending on the rule, and OMB's website currently projects publication of the final rule sometime later this month.
EPA last year took comment on its April 6, 2015, proposed rule that would require a one-time submission of data on chemicals' properties to EPA six months after the final rule is issued. The rule also would require that companies that intend to manufacture reportable substances after the rule takes effect report to the agency at least 135 days before commencing manufacturing.
The proposal followed years of wrangling with the nano industry and White House officials over the rule's scope, and since its release industry has again called for EPA to reconsider major aspects, arguing that EPA failed to justify certain provisions, and exceeded its authority under the existing TSCA, though Congress recently overhauled that law.
The U.S. Small Business Administration also has argued the plan is overly burdensome.
At an annual chemical sector regulatory conference in Washington, D.C. early this year, industry officials reiterated calls for EPA to narrow the rule's scope by dropping the requirement for future reporting, contending the 135-day data review period exceeds EPA's authority under TSCA section 8(a).
But EPA officials suggested to the conference that only minor, clarifying changes were likely before release of the final rule. EPA's Jim Alwood downplayed the rule's potential burdens, noting that the TSCA reporting rule would require companies to submit only available data.
He outlined potential changes to the proposal that the agency is weighing in response to comments, though most focused on clarifying what substances would require reporting, rather than significantly changing proposed obligations.
EPA and other federal agencies have long struggled with how to assess and regulate nanomaterials, whose unique, technology-advancing properties may also present health and safety risks. The data collected under the rule will guide EPA's future policies on nanomaterials, including potential regulation of some substances found to pose risks to human health or the environment.
http://insideepa.com/news-briefs/epa-sends-nanoscale-reporting-rule-omb-review
-
EPA Seeks NAS Input On Microbiomes To Potentially Aid Risk Assessment
Oct 11, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA is seeking input from a new National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel on how to craft a research plan for understanding of interaction between chemicals in the environment and microbiota -- the collection of organisms in human tissues and fluids -- with the hope that the nascent concept could potentially improve risk assessment.
NAS committee members at a recent meeting in Washington, D.C., in response sought to define the scope of their charge and questioned EPA and others funding the new panel's work on the microbiome.
One panelist, Curtis Huttenhower, an associate professor of computational biology and bioinformatics at Harvard University's public health school, noted that "human health risk . . . is not necessarily well quantified in the microbiome yet," as he sought to clarify the agency's interest in the topic and the questions posed to the committee.
"The agency regulates using risk assessment as its primary approach," Tina Bahadori, National Program Director for EPA's Chemical Safety for Sustainability research program told the panel. "To get to that risk based approach, we need relevant measures of exposure and hazard information that's representative of the population."
She added, "Right now, the way that we do it, is we have some understanding of that hazard, primarily using animal tox testing and then we used scenario-based approaches, or sometimes if we're lucky, some measurements to get at exposure and extrapolate the dose."
Bahadori said that in-house research at EPA is "moving forward on both those domains . . . getting better markers of exposure . . . but as we develop those, we are still focusing on the parent chemical and not really focusing yet on the role of the microbiome, because we don't know how to do that. So the guidance from this committee will inform future research that incorporates the role of the microbiome in that interindividual variability."
The microbiome represents all the microbes inside the human body, which are exposed to the environment, creating the opportunity for better understanding human reactions to exposures.
EPA has tasked the new NAS committee with assessing "the state of the science regarding the health implications of chemical metabolism by microbiota and chemical exposure on microbiota diversity and function. It will also assess what is known about how effects might differ depending on, for example, life stage or interindividual differences," according to a proposal document.
NAS Meeting
Committee members at the Sept. 26 meeting asked Bahadori to define lifestages of interest, and Bahadori described a range from pre-conception to pregnancy, infancy and nursing, as well as the elderly.
"Some of this question for us might be . . . whether exposures are causing perturbations in the native microbiome are predisposing the developing fetus, for example, to a susceptible or vulnerable state," Bahadori said.
She added, "If there's a shift in the baseline . . . to an individual or the population, that would also be helpful [to know]. Not that I know what we'd do with it in a risk assessment. But until we know, we're not going to know. This is all informing research, not a risk assessment."
One of the panelists, Bill Nazaroff, an engineering professor in the University of California, Berkeley's civil and environmental engineering department, asked Bahadori about the scope of chemicals that the committee should consider in their deliberations, noting that there can be broad interpretations of what is a chemical.
"Our focus is on chemicals we regulate, chemicals under [the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)], all industrial chemicals, all consumer product chemicals, pesticides, biocides, and although we don't regulate pharmaceuticals per se, because of the influence on water, we're very interested in those as well," Bahadori replied.
Nazaroff also queried whether EPA's interest is only in adverse effects, or if the agency would also be interested in beneficial changes to the microbiome.
Bahadori replied that the interest is in "health effects and not just risks."
Another committee member, Pam Shubat, a retired supervisor to Minnesota Department of Health's risk assessment unit, questioned Bahadori about the time line that the recommendations should address.
EPA's Research
Bahadori said EPA's research is planned in four-year cycles, with the current plan running through fiscal year 2019. She noted that the current plan included some thinking about microbiomes, and one promising project has been funded. She added that she has just finished planning her 2018 budget, so "2019 is the first year we would affect change."
Since EPA requested the project, its research office has been joined in supporting the committee by EPA's indoor air division and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Representatives of both those offices also outlined their interests for the committee.
Laura Kolb, Scientific Analysis Center director in EPA's Indoor Environments Division explained that her group became involved in the project because of its interest in "clear recommendations for future research to better evaluate interactions [and] implications for risk reduction strategies."
She explained that her office is "particularly interested in the lung microbiome and airborne exposure to chemicals and research that may lead to exposure reduction strategies for contaminants that can cause adverse health effects.
Bahadori summed up EPA's questions to the committee as: "What research do we need to incorporate the complexity of human health and exposure? We're not asking you to answer that question, but what research can we do to answer those questions."
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-seeks-nas-input-microbiomes-potentially-aid-risk-assessment
-
Protests Rise as Energy Transfer Works on Dakota Pipeline
Oct 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Meenal Vamburkar
Energy Transfer Partners LP is moving forward with construction of the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline, rejecting the Obama administration's request that it voluntarily halt some work on the $3.8 billion project.
“Dakota Access looks forward to a prompt resumption of construction activities” the company said in an e-mailed statement after an appeals court decision cleared the way for construction to continue on one segment of the project that had been blocked by a legal challenge. While work can continue on a stretch of private land near Lake Oahe in North and South Dakota, construction remains suspended by federal order on another segment, preventing completion of the project.
The company's decision to resume work comes after several protesters were arrested trying to halt construction at the project earlier this week, and amid a broader effort Oct. 11 to shut down other pipelines bringing crude from Canada.
Securing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ authorization is the last hurdle for the $3.8 billion, 1,172-mile (1,886-kilometer) pipeline, which is almost 60 percent complete. Critics of the project are pressing ahead with protests despite the recent legal setback.
“This fight is far from over,” said Tom Goldtooth, executive director of the Indigenous Environmental Network, in a statement after the appeals court order.
Sioux Tribe
At the center of the controversy is the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which has said construction along one section would damage sites it considers culturally significant and pose an environmental hazard where the pipeline crosses the river. Industry groups maintain that Energy Transfer has correctly followed the permitting process, and that the Obama administration's last-minute interference is an unprecedented action that will affect other infrastructure projects.
Energy Transfer said it expects the federal government to eventually grant the permission it needs to proceed with construction crossing beneath the Missouri River. The pipeline was scheduled to be in service by the end of the year, and the company hasn't said publicly that it expects that deadline to be delayed. Last month, Chief Executive Officer Kelcy Warren said Energy Transfer would take its battle to Washington where it would meet with officials “to understand their position.“
Federal Review
Last month, a Justice Department attorney said the federal review of Dakota Access will likely be completed in weeks, not months. The Obama administration also began a series of consultations on Oct. 11 to consider whether nationwide reform is needed for the tribal consultation process on such projects.
Meanwhile, high-profile opposition to the pipeline continues. Neil Young lined the stage with Standing Rock tribal flags at a concert in California on Oct. 8. The Morton County Sheriff's Department in North Dakota said 27 people, including actress Shailene Woodley, were arrested on Oct. 10 during protests.
Pipeline Shutdowns
Protesters also prompted Enbridge Inc., Spectra Energy Corp. and Kinder Morgan Inc. to shut all or parts of pipelines bringing crude from Alberta to the U.S.
Enbridge shut lines 4 and 67 as a precaution after activists attempted to stop the oil flow on a Minnesota pipeline, company spokesman Graham White said in an e-mail.
Spectra shut the Montana section of the Express pipeline because of a tampered valve from people trespassing a locked facility, and is taking steps to restart the line. Kinder Morgan shut the Puget Sound section of the Trans Mountain pipeline.
Energy Transfer Partners owns the Dakota Access project jointly with Phillips 66 and Sunoco Logistics Partners LP. A joint venture between Marathon Petroleum Corp. and Enbridge Energy Partners LP, announced in August, will also take a minority stake in the pipeline.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=98769937&vname=dennotallissues&jd=a0k2p1g1t6&split=0
-
Pipeline Attacks Confirmed In 4 States
Oct 11, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Mike Lee
At least four pipelines carrying crude oil from Canada into the United States were closed today after climate change activists attempted to completely block the flow of oil sands crude in a series of coordinated protests.
The Climate Disobedience Center said it targeted all five major oil pipelines across the U.S.-Canadian border as a protest against the development of the Canadian oil sands and as a show of solidarity with Native Americans and others who are protesting an oil pipeline under construction in Cannon Ball, N.D. (Greenwire, Oct. 11).
It wasn't clear whether they were able to stop the flow of oil. Enbridge Inc., Canada's largest pipeline company, confirmed that it shut down two of its pipelines, Line 4 and Line 67, as a precaution after activists using bolt cutters broke into a valve station in Leonard, Minn.
TransCanada Corp. said the protesters were "unsuccessful" but the company temporary closed its Keystone line near Walhalla, N.D. Spectra Energy Corp. said it also shut its Express pipeline in Montana and worked with law enforcement in that state.
The activists trespassed on part of Kinder Morgan Inc.'s Trans Mountain pipeline in Anacortes, Wash., but the pipeline wasn't in operation today, a company spokesman said. Three people were arrested, the company said.
Three people were in custody after an incident at TransCanada's Keystone pipeline near Walhalla, but complete details weren't immediately available yesterday, Pembina County state's attorney Ryan Bialas said in an interview. The Climate Disobedience Center released a list of 10 people it said were arrested at the sites.
The pipeline companies characterized the protests as vandalism and said they were dangerous.
"The groups involved in this morning's activities claim to be protecting the environment, but their actions alone are inviting an environmental incident and put the safety of people, including themselves and potentially first responders and our employees, at risk," Enbridge said in a news release.
Afrin Sopariwala, a spokeswoman for the protesters, said the group consulted experts to determine which valves to target and promptly informed the pipeline companies.
As for whether they were successful, she said, "We turned the valves until they stopped turning. We believe they actually shut down."
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/10/11/stories/1060044129
-
More Regulation of Oil, Gas Extraction Expected: Attorneys
Oct 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Resource extraction will probably be more heavily regulated in the near term, an energy attorney said during a panel session at the American Bar Association conference on environmental law in Denver.
There will be “more of it,” said Rebecca Watson of Wellborn, Sullivan, Meck & Tooley PC, a law firm in Denver. “We have seen an onslaught of regulation at the federal level. We've seen a lot of regulation at the state level as well, such as in Colorado with the methane rule. So I think you are going to see more, particularly in the oil and gas arena.”
For example, she said, the Obama administration prefaced the Bureau of Land Management hydraulic fracturing rule by telling industry, “Hey, we've got all these concerns out here about oil and gas and fracking. At one time they said, ‘fracking is good, it's been helpful for the country. But we need to assuage the concerns of the public, which includes having a robust federal regulatory structure.’”
“You are going to see that impulse continued into the future,” Watson added.
Watson spoke on a panel session on emerging issues in resource extraction and regulation during the 24th fall conference of the ABA's Section on Environment, Energy and Resources Law. She said one of the biggest trends coming is more “elected officials trying to deal with public concerns through regulation.”
Citizens want to be heard at the local level, she said.
“But we're seeing a federalization of local issues,” she said. “If you start pulling away from local voices, and listen to more national voices, that doesn't help any development succeed.”
Another energy attorney, Barbara Green of Sullivan, Green & Seavy LLC in Boulder, Colo., said it's likely the renewable energy sector may face local governments using their land use authority to exert more control over activity just as they have tried to do with respect to oil and gas producers.
“I expect to see that in the communities I am familiar with in the West, but it depends on how the state positions itself,” she said. “If a state, for example, Colorado, positions itself with renewables as understanding the complementary exercise of local land use authority, that's one thing. But if they side with one industry against a particular local level of government, it could get much more heated.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=98769951&vname=dennotallissues&jd=a0k2p1m7q9&split=0
-
Oil Glut Isn't Holding Back Energy Efficiency Gains: IEA
Oct 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anna Hirtenstein
The world is squeezing more from the energy it uses even though markets are awash in cheap oil and natural gas, a report from the International Energy Agency showed.
Energy intensity, which measures the amount of fuel consumed per unit of gross domestic product, fell 1.8 percent last year, triple the average rate over the past decade and more than the 1.5 percent reduction in 2014, the Paris-based IEA said Oct. 10. Investment in efficiency measures totaled $221 billion last year, about 66 percent more than was spent on building conventional power generation.
The findings will help nations meet their ambitions of reducing greenhouse gases while limiting energy costs and spreading electricity to more of the poorest communities. The IEA has been prodding governments to put efficiency at the heart of their energy policies, saying it's often the cheapest way to achieve them.
“It's becoming increasingly clear that energy efficiency needs to be central in energy policies,” said Fatih Birol, executive director of the IEA. “All of the core imperatives of energy policy—reducing energy bills, decarbonization, air pollution, energy security, and energy access—are made more attainable if led by strong energy efficiency policy.”
Improving power plants and vehicles to burn less fuel and revamping power grids to transmit electricity can be cheaper than increasing supply. Two decades ago, surging energy demand led to a surge in pollution now blamed for causing global warming.
China led the pack of nations surveyed by the IEA in making efficiency gains, reducing its energy intensity 5.6 percent last year. That's more than the 3.1 percent reading over the previous decade. It invested $370 billion in efficiency from 2006 to 2014, saving as much as 497 gigawatts, equivalent to all of the country's installed renewable generation.
The efficiency gains came in spite of cheaper fossil fuels. The price of crude oil has dropped about 55 percent since its peak in 2014. An emerging glut of gas is leading to significant drops in cost, with tankers of the commodity in its liquid form seeking buyers.
Government policy setting standards on everything from cars to buildings to appliances has been the main driver behind the efficiency push, the IEA said. Most of the initiatives have been financed by private companies.
Stricter mileage rules on cars and light trucks led to an overall reduction of 2.3 million barrels of oil per day last year, which is the equivalent of 2.5 percent of daily oil supply.
The IEA estimated its 29 member countries saved enough energy between 2000 and 2015 to power all of Japan for a year, or 450 million tons of oil equivalent.
The institution says even those gains aren't enough to curb global warming. An overall decrease of at least 2.6 percent would be needed to reach the climate goals set out in the Paris agreement sealed in December, the report said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=98769923&vname=dennotallissues&jd=a0k2n8b2g6&split=0
-
When It Comes To Shale And The Environment, A Focus On Infrastructure, Not Just Fracking
Oct 11, 2016 | The Hill - Pundits
By Deborah D. Stine and Jared L. Cohon
When thinking about the potential impact of shale gas development on the environment, news often focuses on the hydraulic fracturing process itself that occurs underground, but the accompanying infrastructure needed at the surface to drill wells and extract, process, and transport the gas does not receive as much media attention. This infrastructure includes well pads, access roads and pipelines that move the shale gas from wells either to processing facilities and eventually our homes for heating, cooking and other uses, or to the manufacturing sector for liquid natural gas products.
This map from the Energy Information Administration highlights some proposed additions to the interstate pipeline network in the Appalachian basin. What it does not show are the land and water impacts associated with development at the well head or the pipelines that take the gas from wells to these interstate pipelines. One way to think about the system is that, while the map shows the veins, it does not show the capillaries leading to those veins.
In spring 2015, the Nature Conservancy and Carnegie Mellon University, with funding from the Colcom Foundation of Pittsburgh, convened a collaborative workshop to address the environmental challenges associated with shale gas development. More than 140 participants represented a diverse cross-section of energy and environment experts from academic institutions; local, state and federal government agencies; nongovernmental organizations and foundations; and members of the energy industry. The resulting report, "Advancing the Next Generation of Environmental Practices for Shale Development," developed a number of conclusions and recommendations that policymakers may find useful in thinking about this critical issue.
A comprehensive, landscape-scale planning process that incorporates regulatory predictability can address some of the impacts of shale infrastructure on wildlife habitats, water resources, and ecosystem functions while improving operational efficiencies (including potential cost savings).
Although this may seem commonsense, it is not easy to implement in the Appalachian region. Fragmented surface and subsurface ownership, coordination among operators (raising antitrust concerns), strong personal property rights and significant gaps in available data make landscape-scale planning more challenging than one might expect. In addition, it is important to understand that no matter where the infrastructure is sited, some natural resources will be impacted, and design and operational practices are necessary to minimize these impacts.
What can policymakers do about it? They can standardize regulations and requirements for activities associated with shale development that currently are different at each level of government, from local to county to state to federal. In addition, no single coordinating agency keeps track of development or impacts on the regional or watershed scale. If policymakers could develop a collaborative framework that would establish voluntary "leading" practices related to landscape-scale planning, incentives to encourage those practices and a third-party certification program to increase confidence in the practices, some impacts of shale gas siting and operations on ecosystems could be reduced, all while potentially realizing financial savings for companies.
As part of a landscape-scale planning process, placing linear infrastructure, including pipelines, in the footprint of existing corridors, such as other pipelines, electric power lines or roads — instead of undeveloped areas — can potentially reduce adverse environmental impacts and potentially lower overall construction and maintenance costs. The challenges to co-location of infrastructure are legal and safety concerns, competition among operators, landowner preferences, lack of coordination among different levels of government, and regulatory variation for one type of infrastructure versus another.
How can policymakers help? Policymakers can ask that agencies with different jurisdictions work together, in conjunction with stakeholders, to establish a multi-well approval process for drilling sites to facilitate co-locating infrastructure; develop, improve and expand upon existing best management practices; and educate landowners and other stakeholders about the benefits of co-location. Another option is for policymakers to establish pipeline transportation corridors that are part of a flexible, smart planning infrastructure as opposed to reviewing each activity on a case-by-case basis.
To facilitate these actions, we need better education of stakeholders so they understand the current scientific research, practices and regulations. Industry also needs a single, comprehensive, regionally specific, best practices manual. We need to support more research and data collection to better understand which practices on the ground are actually "best."
Overall, we need continued engagement of government at all levels; industry; academia; nongovernmental organizations; landholders; and all stakeholders. During the workshop, we found that many groups did not fully understand the concerns or situations each faced. More dialogue, encouraged and supported by policymakers, can help facilitate shale gas management practices that are beneficial for communities, ecosystems, and energy development.
Stine is associate director for policy outreach at the Scott Institute for Energy Innovation and professor of the Practice, Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University. Cohon is president emeritus, director of the Scott Institute, and University Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering & Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon. Cohon co-chaired the event on which this piece is based.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/300497-environment-impact-of-shale-must-focus-on
-
Two GOP Veterans Vie For Energy and Commerce Gavel
Oct 11, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Jennifer Haberkorn and Ashley Gold
The race to lead the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee is shaping up as a tight contest between one of the panel’s most senior members and one of the House’s most prolific fundraisers.
John Shimkus (R-Ill.), who has the most seniority on the panel, has been campaigning for the top job for months. His pitch to his colleagues is that his experience — he’s been on several subcommittees and passed a major chemical safety bill that the president has signed into law — proves he’s the best qualified to succeed outgoing chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), who is term-limited.
Story Continued Below
His top challenger is Greg Walden (R-Ore.), who leads the National Republican Campaign Committee. Walden says he’s been too busy trying to keep the Republican majority in place — and helping his colleagues hold on to their seats in an increasingly challenging year — to do a lot of active campaigning for the chairmanship right now. But he’s made clear he wants it, and if Republicans do limit their losses in the November election, Walden could make a convincing argument that he has earned the right to leapfrog over Shimkus for the job.
The Energy and Commerce gavel is one of the highest-profile House chairmanships, with jurisdiction over a wide swath of health care, energy and technology. The decision on who will wield the gavel will come down to a vote of the Steering and Policy Committee, which will be selected after the election.
The new chairman will have to confront a wide range of big issues, including how aggressively to continue to beat up on Obamacare, whether to pursue significant Medicare and Medicaid reform, and what's next for telemedicine and health IT policy. He’ll have to figure out how to deal with what some Republicans regard as an out-of-control FCC and a world of regulations that can’t keep up with rapid-fire change in technology. He’ll have to craft a detente between warring oil and ethanol producers over the future of biofuels.
Both Walden, 59, and Shimkus, 58, are well-liked on Capitol Hill. Both are seen as GOP team players, both reap substantial K street contributions from industries under the committee’s broad jurisdiction, and neither comes with out-of-the-mainstream policy ideas. All that means the race will likely come down to seniority versus fundraising might.
The Steering Committee encompasses both party and committee leaders, as well as members from each region of the country and several elected congressional classes. Both Shimkus and Walden have held seats on the committee in this Congress.
Shimkus, who was first elected in 1996, appears to have an edge with long-serving members for whom seniority is highly valued. And he could have one locked-in vote in his long-time Washington roommate, Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), who has a vote on the Steering committee
But Walden, who has served in Congress almost as long — since 1999 — likely has strong support among newer members, many of whom have gotten campaign donations and big favors from the NRCC chairman.
In addition to those two leading candidates, Joe Barton (R-Texas), who served as Energy and Commerce chairman for one term, plans to make a long-shot run for the job as well. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who is now the vice chairman of the committee, told POLITICO she doesn’t plan to pursue the top post.
For weeks, Shimkus has been meeting with E&C members and “everyone who might be in the room” on the Steering Committee, but he says he’s not asking for firm commitments or keeping a whip list.
“I am doing everything you would expect someone running for the chairmanship to do, which is meet with members, talk with members, help members, answer questions, should they have any,” he told POLITICO.
His pitch is that he knows policy, he sticks with leadership on tough votes and he has helped Republicans keep the majority. Shimkus points to his in-depth work on the bipartisan bill updating chemical safety standards, which President Barack Obama signed in June, as proof that he knows how to shepherd contentious legislation and get results.
But as Shimkus pursues his long game, Walden is intending to make a late push. If House Republicans overcome Donald Trump’s drag on the party in part because of Walden’s NRCC work, his colleagues could be ready to reward him.
“I’m focused on one major thing right now, and that’s to win as many seats as we can, and keep as big a majority as we can,” Walden told POLITICO.
House Speaker Paul Ryan has so far declined to weigh in publicly on committee jobs. But with four votes on the Steering Committee, the speaker could play an influential role.
Some Republicans expect Ryan to back Shimkus because of his seniority, noting that he supported Kevin Brady over the less-senior but well-liked Pat Tiberi (R-Ohio) in last year’s contest to chair the House Ways and Means Committee, the post Ryan vacated when he became speaker.
“Based on what he did with Brady and Tiberi,” one Republican lobbyist speculated, “I would expect he does the same with Shimkus.”
But Walden argues that seniority isn’t everything.
“Our conference has always been a meritocracy,” he said. “That is certainly something the speaker talks a lot about.”
“The conference, especially the Steering Committee, makes the ultimate decision,” Walden said, adding that his fellow Republicans will take stock of “the whole record.”
The outcome, though, may well hinge on the November election, Barton told POLITICO — and not just because of Walden’s NRCC role.
A lot of it depends on whether Trump wins or Hillary wins,” the Texas Republican said. “If we have a Republican House, Senate and president, the committee should be very active and try to reform some laws on the books.”
A Clinton victory coupled with a Democratic Senate means “it’s a different committee,” Barton added, pitching himself as an ideal match for a “proactive” Energy and Commerce if the GOP makes big gains, given his experience with the chairmanship.
K Street at the moment thinks Shimkus has the edge.
“Shimkus has done a significant amount of legwork already, while Walden is focused on holding onto the majority,” said one oil industry lobbyist tracking the race. “So Shimkus has got a jump on him, for sure."
Walden declined to speculate much beyond the November election.
“I’ll sort out the future after that, but I enjoy service,” he said. “I try and give to my district and the people who live there, and I like that work, I hope to be given the opportunity to continue on.”
Elana Schor contributed to this report.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2016/10/two-gop-veterans-vie-for-energy-and-commerce-gavel-133291
-
Clinton’s Energy Independence Claim May Signal Likely Policy Path
Oct 11, 2016 | Platts
By Brian Scheid
Near the end of Sunday’s contentious and much-maligned presidential debate, Hillary Clinton made, arguably, the most revealing statement yet on the likely path of energy policy in her White House.
“We’ve got to remain energy independent,” Clinton said. “It gives us much more power and freedom than to be worried about what goes on in the Middle East. We have enough worries over there without having to worry about that.”
Now, the statement may appear almost innocuous at first blush.
Every US president since Richard Nixon has spoken on the importance of energy independence, a notion which gained new life both after the September 11, 2001, attacks and amid the US shale oil and gas renaissance.
And Clinton’s use of the energy independence political catchphrase was quickly pointed to as one of two factual errors she made in the debate.
“US production is up and the share of imports is down, but that’s not the same as being energy-independent,” wrote Politico, which claimed that this and a reference to Donald Trump not apologizing were Clinton’s two “falsehoods” of the debate. (Donald Trump, Politico wrote, had made 13 falsehoods and six misleading claims during the debate).
It’s certainly difficult to think of the US being energy independent when it continues to import millions of barrels of foreign, and OPEC-sourced, crude oil.
This year, for example, the US is on pace to import an average of 7.85 million b/d of crude oil, including more than 3.15 million b/d of crude from OPEC nations, according to the US Energy Information Administration.
US crude imports in July averaged nearly 8.1 million b/d, the most since August 2013, according to EIA. US imports of OPEC crude have fallen from the nearly 5.42 million b/d peak in 2008, but are on pace to average more than 3.15 million b/d this year, up from 2.67 million b/d in 2015.
Imports have risen as US crude production has declined, to 8.7 million b/d in July from 9.6 million b/d in April 2015. As a percentage of total crude inputs into US refineries, production reflects a drop to 51% from nearly 60% in April 2015.
But if you want to use this as an argument that the US is now less oil dependent you also have to ignore that US refiners have been increasingly exporting refined products, and producers are now able to export crude. Total crude and petroleum products exports hit a record high 5.7 million b/d in May 2016, according to the EIA. That was up from just 694,000 b/d in March 1985, when the US produced 80% of the crude run through its refineries.
But was Clinton actually wrong?
It depends on how one wants to define energy independence.
In his 2011 book “The Quest,” Daniel Yergin wonders if energy independence is even a realistic goal when the US is “deeply enmeshed” in the world economy.
“Some argue that the term ‘energy independence’ is misconstrued and should be understood not as ‘virtually import-free’ but rather as ‘not vulnerable’,” Yergin wrote. “Generally, however, it is understood to mean self-sufficiency.”
Sam Ori, executive director at the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago, told S&P Global Platts this week that the idea of energy independence has become “kind of a myth.”
“Our economy is fully integrated in the global market by nature of the fact that we are such large consumers of fuels like gasoline and diesel, especially in transportation,” Ori said. “The price we pay for those fuels is set in a global market, and those prices are driven by all kinds of factors like geopolitics, supply interruptions, demand in China and so on.”
Kevin Book, managing director at ClearView Energy Partners, said that the idea of energy independence may be an antiquated one that can create risks of economic inefficiency.
“A 100% molecule-for-molecule supply-demand balance isn’t necessary ideal,” Book said. “Even resource-sufficient countries may export and import to minimize transportation costs and other factor costs.”
Book said that when Clinton was talking about energy independence she may have been referring to power generation and home heating, in which the US is nearly independent, but not transportation fuels.
In addition, Book said that rather than discussing energy independence, Clinton was likely signaling changes to US energy interdependence, or the changing role of US energy in a global market.
“Politicians, including Secretary Clinton, appear much more aware that supply interruptions anywhere in the world can impact oil prices everywhere in the world,” Book said. “Interdependence, however, doesn’t meet the usual definition of independence, which the situation where domestic resources fully satisfy domestic consumption.”
So, what if she did not misspeak? What if Clinton’s view is that, even with millions of barrels of foreign crude oil and other petroleum products coming into the US every day, that this nation is, in fact, energy independent?
Arguably, this could mean that Clinton believes that her White House will have no obligation to boost US fossil fuel production going forward.
Without the need to lower and ultimately end energy imports in a quest for what has long been viewed as the goal of US energy independence, Clinton may be likely to press ahead with regulations which could constrain production on federal lands and in federal waters. If Clinton views the energy independence goal as already achieved then there may be no reason for her to go beyond the status quo nor take any action to boost fossil fuel production.
This may best be seen in her potential plans to go further than even the Obama administration has on regulating fracking.
In a March debate with Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, her opponent in the Democratic primary at the time, Clinton outlined three conditions which would cause her to oppose fracking: when a locality or state is against it; if it causes methane release or water contamination; and if operators do not make chemical disclosures.
“So by the time we get through all my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place,” Clinton said in March.
The Clinton campaign this week did not respond to a request for further clarity on Clinton’s remarks.
Whether her energy independence comments were an error or a sign of a policy shift to come, we may have to wait until well after next month’s election to find out for sure.
http://blogs.platts.com/2016/10/12/clinton-energy-independence-policy-path/
-
Emails Show Clinton Camp Sought 'Reluctant Tone' On Fracking During Democratic Primary
Oct 11, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
A top Hillary Clinton aide in Colorado recommended that she adopt a "reluctant tone" on fracking and proposed tapping a liberal ally to slam Bernie Sanders' call for a ban on the extraction technology during the Democratic primaries, according to emails released today by WikiLeaks.
Brad Komar, a former aide to pro-fracking Gov. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), warned Clinton energy adviser Trevor Houser in February that the campaign should "watch our tone and not sound too pro-fracking" ahead of Colorado's Democratic caucus. Sanders, who slammed Clinton for not being committed to curbing fracking during their primary battle, ultimately prevailed in Colorado.
"I would prefer an ally (congressman polis and/or LCV) Who have strong bone fides [sic] on the environment to whack sander's [sic] for taking an irresponsible position and in doing so, threatening real progress on frack fluid disclosure and air quality regulations," Komar wrote to Houser about Sanders' fracking ban.
Komar added that on fracking, "a reluctant tone is a better fit for dem caucus goers."
Neither Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) or the League of Conservation Voters publicly criticized Sanders at that time.
During Clinton's paid corporate speeches after leaving the State Department, excerpts of which were also released by WikiLeaks, she praised the economic benefits of fracking. "I want to see us become the number one oil and gas producer while we also pursue a clean-energy agenda at the same time," she said during a Deutsche Bank speech in 2013.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Unpacking Clinton’s ’Secrets’ About Fracking
Oct 11, 2016 | Bloomberg Government
By Mark Drajem
During the Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton said: “By the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place.” That seemed far fetched back in March when Clinton was trying to fend off Bernie Sanders and his pledge to ban the practice.
Clinton’s comments in closed-door speeches, which were published by Wikileaks, hints at no kind of ban on the practice, and instead an appreciation of how the boom in oil and natural gas production has helped the U.S. According to her campaign’s helpful compilation of “flags” in her remarks, this is what we learned:Clinton says hydraulic fracturing has been a “windfall”;Clinton thinks of natural gas as a bridge fuel;Clinton supports rules to curb methane emissions from oil and gas production;Clinton wants local communities to know about the chemicals used in fracking;Clinton says there are some places where fracking can’t be done;Clinton favors some oil and natural gas exports
We already knew that Clinton promoted fracking around the world while secretary of state, and her campaign has had widespread support from the oil and gas industry. So, are these views revolutionary? No, and, in case there was any doubt, that’s just the point: When it comes to oil and natural gas, Clinton (if she wins) looks set to govern more like President Obama than Bernie Sanders.
https://about.bgov.com/blog/unpacking-clintons-secrets-fracking/
-
Refrigerant Deal Integral to Paris Climate Goals: Adviser
Oct 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By John Herzfeld
An “ambitious” global deal to phase down use of potent climate pollutant hydrofluorocarbons would be “the most significant and important step the international community could take” to meet the goals of the Paris accord on climate change, a White House official said Oct. 11.
Brian Deese, a senior adviser to President Barack Obama, said that the Obama administration remains optimistic that international talks continuing in Kigali, Rwanda, can yield the final agreement that thus far has eluded negotiators.
“Despite the twists and turns,” a deal is possible at the Oct. 8-14 talks to secure a formal amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer covering HFCs—refrigerant chemicals with a global warming impact far more potent than carbon dioxide, he said.
“The verdict's still out,” he said.
Though HFCs themselves do not deplete the ozone layer and were intended to replace those substances that do, they are potent greenhouse gases. Limiting their use would advance the Paris Agreement's goal of keeping global temperatures from increasing by more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-industrial levels, Deese said.
As the Obama presidency enters its final months, completion of an HFC deal would cap a “confluence of events” in an October already marked by crossing the threshold needed for the Paris accord's entry into force in November and reaching an international agreement on aviation emissions, the White House aide said.
Momentum Seen
More than 100 countries have backed the HFC amendment, and financing plans for developing countries to meet the costs of the phasedown have drawn support from donor countries and philanthropic organizations, Deese said, citing “momentum” from the Paris Agreement.
In the HFC talks, Deese said, China has encouraged progress by joining with the U.S. in pursuing an ambitious amendment with an early freeze date. In a statement issued at the Sept. 6 Group of 20 meeting in Hangzhou, China endorsed an early freeze date, an ambitious phasedown schedule and increased financing for implementation.
Deese credited cooperation between the U.S. and China as a key element of the milestone Paris and aviation deals. He said China “continues to be a very constructive partner on climate issues,” despite disagreements.
He pointed to “the value of a very frank exchange and a very frank dialogue” as an “enduring dynamic that hasn't changed much over the last year.” By identifying significant points of disagreement, the U.S. and China don't “let that get in the way of issues where we can agree,” he said.
Sets Blueprint
The aviation emissions agreement, Deese said, presents “a compelling blueprint for reducing emissions in a global manner, and will be a model for other sectors as well,” Deese said.
Looking ahead to unfinished business on climate, Deese said that, while not abandoning economy-wide approaches, the Obama administration is continuing to look to a sector-by-sector strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
He pointed to “climate-smart land management” in farming and forestry as an area for more work. Steps involving land conservation and use can yield valuable carbon reductions but “will require significant policy creativity in the future,” he said.
Deese spoke at a Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy program in New York moderated by the center's director, Jason Bordoff, a former White House climate aide.
Election Impact?
Asked by Bordoff how the outcome of the presidential election might result in a reversal of Obama climate policies, Deese said that “market forces, nudged by regulatory steps” had already moved in the direction of cleaner energy.
“I don't think that's going to change,” he said, but he added that “we will need more ambition and urgency over time.”
Wind and solar power energy tax credits have now been extended, and the Obama administration is still working with Congress on getting extensions of credits for other alternative energy sources, Deese said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=98769938&vname=dennotallissues&jd=a0k2p1g1z2&split=0
-
Ambition Of Global HFC Deal Could Hinge On Funding Levels, Sources Say
Oct 11, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
As top Obama administration officials join the final round of talks to craft a global phasedown of high global warming potential (GWP) hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants, financial support from developed nations will be key to bringing some of the more hesitant developing countries -- notably India -- on board with a more ambitious deal, sources say.
“Putting the resources for institutional strengthening, for policy support [and] for demonstration projects into the hands of the [developing] countries quickly is a requirement for the ambition countries want to see. The support has to be there to ensure compliance,” Durwood Zaelke, president of the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development (IGSD), told reporters on an Oct. 6 call.
Zaelke emphasized the significance of financial support from developed countries to aid developing countries' transition away from HFCs, noting the amount of money available directly correlates with the level of ambition developing countries would be willing to accept in a deal.
“Developing countries know what they have to do. They can calculate how challenging it can be,” Zaelke said, adding that “ambition requires support from the donor countries."
Negotiators from the United States and other countries started a meeting Oct. 8 that continues through Oct. 14 in Kigali, Rwanda, to hash out the details of a global phasedown of HFCs, which is being crafted as an amendment to the Montreal Protocol. Preliminary discussions during the first few days have focused on several proposals from countries on the potential speed of the phasedown.
The effort has the potential to limit global warming by as much as 0.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, and Zaelke and other supporters say the agreement could limit another half a degree of warming if energy efficiency of the refrigeration of appliances is incorporated in a serious way.
As such, any forthcoming amendment is being hailed as the first big step toward meeting the long-term temperature goals set by the Paris Agreement, which is slated to enter into force in the coming weeks.
Broadly, administration officials, as well as environmental and industry stakeholders, expect a deal to emerge from the week of negotiations, though the amendment's ambition remains an open question.
Zaelke and others say that despite ongoing questions about funding and the deal's ambition, the fundamental tone of that debate has them optimistic a deal will be struck this week.
Countries began to discuss the core of the amendment -- the baseline, freeze date and control schedule, as well as funding levels that developed countries will commit to the protocol's financial arm, the Multilateral Fund -- during the last round of negotiations in July in Vienna.
But despite progress during those meetings, some developing countries -- particularly India -- are still hesitant to agreezto the ambition level sought by the United States and other developed nations.
Funding Announcement
Nonetheless, as Zaelke and others tie the ultimate ambition of the deal to the level of funding made available to developing nations, a recent funding announcement from several donor countries and private philanthropists appears to have given the talks a boost in the run-up to the Kigali meetings.
The United States, along with 15 other developed countries and 19 private philanthropists, announced Sept. 22 they would provide $80 million in funding to developing countries to aid their transition away from high-GWP HFCs. The money from the countries -- $27 million -- will be added directly to the Multilateral Fund, while the remaining $53 million from the private sector will be used to create a separate fund geared toward helping developing countries improve and maintain the energy efficiency of the refrigeration and cooling products.
“It will change the dynamic,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said of the announcement. That sum “will be enormously helpful in getting countries to the table that might otherwise have been shy,” she continued on an Oct. 5 call with reporters, adding that it offers a “significant incentive for them to do early action” and will be “to our advantage considerably” in the upcoming discussions.
McCarthy, along with Secretary of State John Kerry, will lead the U.S. delegation to the talks, demonstrating the seriousness of the Obama administration's commitment to the effort. Along with the funding announcement, Kerry led more than 100 foreign ministers in a pledge Sept. 22 for an amendment with an ambitious phasedown schedule and an early freeze date for HFCs.
Sources believe that hesitant developing countries, especially India, have already begun to move closer to the ambition sought by the United States, due in part to the announced funding, as well as industry developments that will help speed the adoption of lower-GWP alternative refrigerants.
McCarthy said she expects the recently announced funding will “help us achieve aggressive freeze dates,” and that she envisions the United States and other countries will be able to reach agreement with India.
She cited U.S.-India cooperation on other climate efforts, including the Paris Agreement -- which India ratified Oct. 2, helping to position the deal to enter into force.
“There is a sequence of success in working with India to address climate change. We expect to carry that positive nature into these discussions,” McCarthy said, noting that there are “lots of opportunities” for the United States to work with India to help ease its transition away from HFCs.
Zaelke and others say they have seen recent signals from India that it is open to greater ambition and may be more willing to consider setting the amendment's baseline and freeze date for developing -- or Article 5 -- countries closer to the levels offered in a joint proposal during the Vienna meetings by the United States and other major developed countries, as well as the African countries, Pacific Island nations and several Latin American countries.
That proposal recommends a baseline for Article 5 countries of 2017-2019, and a freeze date of 2021. For developed -- or non-Article 5 -- countries, the proposal suggests a baseline of 2011-2013 and would require a 10 percent HFC reduction in 2019.
India's proposal offered at those meetings was an outlier, lagging behind the U.S. proposal, as well as plans from other Article 5 countries, by calling for a baseline for Article 5 countries of 2028-2030 with a freeze date of 2031.
'Signals Of Flexibility'
Nonetheless, several sources are optimistic India is willing to craft an ambitious amendment, pointing to recent “signals of flexibility” from the country's negotiators and stakeholders.
“What we're hearing from India is that there is a lot of attempt at understanding where the industry is -- what are the alternatives, what are the costs, what lines to draw to protect the domestic industry while considering the climate impacts,” said Bhaskar Deol, of the Natural Resources Defense Council in India.
He says India will be focused in particular on several elements of the deal, including how much support there will be for capacity building in Article 5 countries; how the agreement addresses technology availability and cost of alternatives; and whether and how the deal incorporates energy efficiency.
Paul Bledsoe, a former Clinton administration climate adviser, said the latter issue is significant not only for the extra emissions reductions it could yield, but also because a focus on energy efficiency in the deal has “shifted the terms of the debate,” making developing countries like India “much more likely” to agree to an ambitious phasedown.
This is because improving the energy efficiency of the refrigeration and air-conditioning sectors offers a “far bigger opportunity for India” than its HFC sector, which is relatively small, because it would help to drastically reduce the country's power demand, Bledsoe says.
He and others also note that to the extent that funding can be directed toward energy efficiency, such as the fund established by private philanthropists -- but also within the Multilateral Fund and ultimately the Green Climate Fund -- it could “jumpstart” investments within developing countries in this area.
'Drama of Kigali'
Despite signals from India that it is willing to move toward a more ambitious phasedown, sources still expect the talks in Kigali to be hard fought, though they note that the debate is not whether HFCs should be phased down under the Montreal Protocol but how quickly and in what way.
Zaelke says the deal that emerges this week could take many forms, as there are many elements of the amendment -- such as the baseline, the freeze date, the phasedown schedule and the level of funding -- that contribute to how ambitious it ultimately is.
“Negotiation has many points of compromise. I don't know how close we'll come to the most ambitious [proposal], but we're moving in that direction,” Zaelke said. “That's the drama of Kigali: How much ambition can we capture and with countries like India, will Prime Minister [Narendra] Modi continue to be a climate leader and push harder than his industry might want him to?”
He and others say, however, that Modi is not likely to “put his cards on the table” until the end of the discussions in Kigali, noting that India is a “tough, seasoned negotiating power.”
But, once the deal is struck, it would represent the first major climate agreement inked in the developing world, Bledsoe says, stressing that significance.
“The developing world will be the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change,” he said, noting that discussions on an HFC phasedown were initially prompted by many small island and developing nations. “An HFC amendment is the quickest, fastest way to provide relief from these climate impacts,” Bledsoe added.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/ambition-global-hfc-deal-could-hinge-funding-levels-sources-say
-
UN Emission Credits Seem Set for Revival After 4-Year Slump
Oct 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mathew Carr
The value of emission credits will probably increase after a United Nations climate meeting next month, according to a law firm specializing in clean energy and the environment.
Envoys will work to set rules for how existing credits can become usable under the Paris climate deal, which comes into effect on Nov. 4 after being ratified before schedule, said Lisa DeMarco, a senior partner at DeMarco Allan LLP in Toronto, who predicted the market's collapse four years ago. Emission-cutting projects may need to join national programs and pass regulatory hurdles before being eligible to generate tradable credits that nations can use to meet emission targets after 2020, she said by telephone.
Envoys at the UN meeting in Marrakesh, Morocco, on Nov. 7-18 will gain the authority to fix rules under the deal rather than just debate them. New measures could spur demand in a market that lost 98 percent of its value amid years of political paralysis and resistance from nations that rely on revenue from fossil-fuel sales. A UN accord to limit emissions from international air travel was formally adopted Oct. 6, adding to demand for credits.
“The market has been in a downward spiral for seven years,” said Renat Heuberger, who runs Zurich-based South Pole Group, a clean-energy-project investor. “Now the spiral will move in the other direction.”
Strong Rules
The chance that the political momentum will next month spill over into rules that are strong enough to spur investment in emission-reduction projects is about 50 percent, Heuberger estimated.
“We've had so much bad news where leaders were not leading that I think it's time for some good news,” he said in an interview.
Brazil is pushing for nations to be able to use existing Certified Emission Reduction credits from the UN Clean Development Mechanism set up under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to meet their national targets under Paris, according to an Oct. 2 submission. Japan seeks guidance “as soon as possible and no later than 2018,” according to its Sept. 27 submission.
In the existing UN market, developed countries with climate targets pay for emission-reduction projects elsewhere, earning CERs that they can use to offset greenhouse gas output at home. Under Paris, the limits and rules for all nations will be redrawn.
North American and EU envoys are likely to argue against any automatic eligibility for existing UN credits because the U.S. was not a party to Kyoto, Canada pulled out, and European countries are concerned about the environmental integrity of some Kyoto projects, said DeMarco, who has more than 19 years of experience in law relating to emissions trading.
“The Marrakesh meeting next month will be a lawyers’ meeting,” she said. After a UN climate meeting in December 2012 in Doha she forecast that credits would fall. They tumbled 50 percent the following week to 31 euro cents ($0.35) a metric ton. CERs for December were unchanged at 38 euro cents Friday on ICE Futures Europe in London.
The International Civil Aviation Organization, the UN's aviation agency, estimates that by 2025, airlines will spend $1.5 billion to $6.2 billion on emission credits generated by green projects annually. By 2035, they will spend $5.3 billion to $23.9 billion.
“The ICAO Agreement is historic because for the first time an entire global economic sector, which also happens to be one of the fastest growing greenhouse gas emitters, has agreed to use market-based mechanisms as a central plank of its strategy to reduce its carbon footprint,” said Hugh Sealy, a former chairman of the Clean Development Mechanism executive board, which overseas the biggest UN offset market.
“This could be a massive shot in the arm for the CDM,” said Sealy, a professor at St. George's University in Grenada, who supports use of existing UN emission credits beyond 2020.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=98769922&vname=dennotallissues&jd=a0k2n8b0g3&split=0
-
N.Y. Companies To Pay Safety, Air Pollution Fines
Oct 11, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
Two New York businesses will pay a total of almost $200,000 in fines for violations of Clean Air Act and chemical safety rules, U.S. EPA announced this afternoon.
Finger Lakes LPG Storage LLC, which stores liquefied petroleum gas for wholesale customers, agreed to pay $154,000 in penalties for failing to meet hazard identification and safety requirements, such as keeping updated and accurate piping and instrumentation diagrams, according to an agency press release.
The company, located in central New York, will also spend an estimated $158,000 to buy equipment and vehicles for three nearby fire departments, the release said.
Further west, Twin Lakes Chemical Inc., a chemical manufacturing plant in the Niagara Falls area, will pay a $40,000 fine.
At the time of EPA's inspection, the company was storing 32,000 pounds of phosgene, a toxic chemical used to make plastics and pesticides, the release said.
Once deployed as a chemical weapon during World War I, phosgene is a deadly gas at room temperature. Besides failing to meet hazard identification and safety requirements, Twin Lakes Chemical did not adequately "support, secure and label phosgene equipment and pipes," the release said, adding that the company has already addressed all of the violations and will also pay about $100,000 to buy hazardous materials equipment for the local fire department.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/10/11/stories/1060044126
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested