Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 11/23/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Plans to Sink TPP. How Much Money is on The Line For The U.S. Chem Industry?
Nov 23, 2016 | Chem.Info
By Meagan Parrish
It appears that President-Elect Donald Trump is planning to make good on his campaign pledge to kill the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal. -
(ACC Mentioned) New API Oils on Shelves Dec. 1
Nov 23, 2016 | Go By Truck News
Thursday, December 1, the American Petroleum Institute’s new diesel engine oil standards, API CK-4 and FA-4, will begin appearing in the marketplace on licensed products and marketing materials. -
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics And Environment
Nov 24, 2016 | Plasteurope
Italy's Assocomaplast joins Operation Clean Sweep / Trade group pledges to reduce plastic waste from processingItalian trade association Assocomaplast (Milan; www.assocomaplast.org) and its 400 members operating in the plastics and rubber industry has joined environmental protection programme Operation Clean Sweep (OCS; www.opcleansweep.org). -
Chemical Byproducts Rulemaking Launched by EPA
Nov 24, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency is laying the groundwork for a negotiated rule clarifying chemical reporting obligations companies face when their manufacturing processes generate inorganic chemical byproducts. -
EPA Risk, Data Reporting Rules Advance Implementation Of Revised TSCA
Nov 23, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA has formally launched the rulemaking process for new reporting mandates for inorganic byproducts of chemicals and a separate rule to implement new procedural requirements for addressing risks from existing chemicals, advancing the agency's implementation of the revised Toxic Substances Control Act's (TSCA) regulatory mandates. -
EPA to Update Procedures for Chemical Risk Management Rules
Nov 24, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Revisions to Environmental Protection Agency procedures for issuing regulations governing chemical labeling, use or bans are in the works to reflect changes to the Toxic Substances Control Act. -
EPA Plans To Publish Final Formaldehyde Air Rule After Technical Delay
Nov 24, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA's toxics chief says that the agency plans to soon publish its final formaldehyde emissions rule for composite wood products in the Federal Register after several months of delay following technical issues that arose once EPA released a pre-publication version of the rule in July, which will allow the rule to finally take effect. -
OECD Reports On Global List Pilot Project
Nov 24, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The OECD has released a report on its pilot project assessing the potential development of a global list of classified chemicals. -
When Salt Is An Endocrine Disruptor, The Term Is Officially Meaningless
Nov 23, 2016 | Science 2.0
By Josh Bloom |
A new environmental claim about endocrine disruptors would seem to be an early Christmas gift for the fundraisers and lawyers at the Environmental Working Group and NRDC but the scientist employed at each of those groups likely feels a little dread. -
Authorities Should Disclose More Pesticides Data, EU Court Rules
Nov 24, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) Nov. 23 ruled that public authorities should disclose a wider range of information from pesticide safety assessments, a judgment that the EU chemicals industry said could compromise commercial confidentiality and deter investment in new chemical products. -
Danish Agency Updates Phosphorus Flame-Retardant Screening Report
Nov 24, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
The Danish EPA has updated its report on screening 28 phosphorus-based flame retardants that are potential substitutes for halogenated products. -
Gas Export Provisions Jettisoned From Energy Negotiations
Nov 24, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
A new House energy package lacks regulatory changes to speed up the Energy Department's approval of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, a House Democratic staff member and lobbyist told Bloomberg BNA. -
Final Push For LNG Export Legislation
Nov 23, 2016 | Platts
By Maya Weber
Backers of federal legislation to expedite LNG export approvals are making a final, energetic push to get the measure across the congressional finish line during the lame duck session this year, amid uncertainty about whether the altered balance of power in Washington will undercut the consensus behind the bill next Congress. -
Five States Sue EPA Over Cross-State Air Rule Update
Nov 24, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Five states want a federal court to overturn an Environmental Protection Agency rule that would require power plants in 22 upwind states to reduce their nitrogen oxides emissions (Wisconsin v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 16-1406, 11/23/16). -
Minnesota County Bans New Frac Sand Operations
Nov 24, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Wolski
Winona County Nov. 22 became the first Minnesota county to ban operations for hydraulic fracturing sand within its borders. -
Wyoming Plans Meeting On Fracking Groundwater Study
Nov 23, 2016 | Inside EPA
The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the state's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC) have scheduled a Dec. 8 meeting to outline for the public their final report detailing their findings on a groundwater pollution investigation that EPA previously linked to hydraulic fracturing. -
ND Republicans Demand Obama Approve Dakota Access Pipeline
Nov 23, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama and Devin Henry
Two North Dakota lawmakers and its governor are pushing President Obama to approve the Dakota Access pipeline and help law enforcement deal with protesters there. -
A Blade Strikes Steel, the Blast Shocks a Nation's Energy System
Nov 24, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Christopher Leonard
On Halloween afternoon, nine men arrived at a wooded ridgeline in rural Alabama. They parked their vehicles next to a gravel road, forming a loose circle of pickup trucks, a semi, and an earth-moving track hoe. -
U.S. Chemical Safety Board to Probe Exxon Baton Rouge Refinery Fire
Nov 23, 2016 | Reuters
By Erwin Seba
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board began a probe on Wednesday into a large fire the day before at Exxon Mobil Corp's Baton Rouge, Louisiana, refinery that critically injured four people, the agency said in a statement. -
Practitioner Insights: Adapting to Climate Adaptation: Implications and Opportunities for the Private Sector
Nov 23, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Norman Carlin and Brendan J. Hennessey
Preparing for a warmer world, with the prospect of more frequent intense weather, extended droughts and rising seas, is bringing a new focus on resilience for land use and development policies and public infrastructure projects. -
What Will Happen If America’s President-Elect Follows Through On Pledges To Tear Up Environmental Laws
Nov 24, 2016 | Economist
“LIKE ice water through the veins.” That is how a UN official, in Marrakesh for the UN climate summit that ended on November 18th, described the effect of Donald Trump’s electoral victory.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Plans to Sink TPP. How Much Money is on The Line For The U.S. Chem Industry?
Nov 23, 2016 | Chem.Info
By Meagan Parrish
It appears that President-Elect Donald Trump is planning to make good on his campaign pledge to kill the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal. In a recent video address where he outlined his first 100 days as president, Trump promised to pull the U.S. out of the deal on his first day in office. Trump has repeatedly called the deal a “disaster” and has pledged to rebalance trade agreements that could negatively impact jobs in America.
TPP is an ambitious agreement between 12 countries representing 40 percent of the world’s economy that is designed to bolster trade through lower tariffs and unified copyright laws. It has been signed but not yet ratified.
Analysts and politicians can’t seem to agree on whether or not TPP will be a boon for American businesses and workers, or an economic train wreck. Some estimate TPP could kill 448,000 jobs in the U.S. over a decade.
What is clear is that world leaders involved in the deal were disappointed at Trump’s announcement and said that if America withdrawals, it will effectively kill the deal. Some analysts are saying that China — who declined to sign TPP — could attempt to swoop in and fill the void with its own trade deals in Asia.
But Trump has also said that he wants to “negotiate fair bilateral trade deals that bring jobs and industry back” — indicating that there could perhaps be an alternative agreement.
Whichever way it goes, there is a lot of money on the line for the chemicals industry. The American Chemistry Council has expressed “strong support” for TPP and asked that it be quickly ratified by Congress.
Here’s how much the International Trade Administration estimates the U.S. chemicals industry could export to TPP countries under the agreement:
Japan: 100 percent of import taxes on U.S. chemicals exports would be eliminated immediately. The market size for U.S. chemicals including cosmetics, paints, rubber products, fertilizers and plastics = $7 billion.
Malaysia: 88.7 percent of import taxes on U.S. chemicals would be eliminated immediately, 92.8 percent would be eliminated in four years. Market size = $928 million.
Vietnam: 87.5 percent of import taxes would be eliminated immediately, 99.7 would be eliminated within four years. Market size = $465 million.
New Zealand: 83.2 percent of import taxes would be eliminated immediately, 89.5 would be eliminated within four years. Market size = $301 million.
Currently, many chemicals exports face high tariffs in TPP countries such as Vietnam where they are 27 percent on cosmetics, and Japan, Malaysia and Vietnam where tariffs on fertilizers and agro-chemicals are about 30 percent.
Click here to see a document showing all of the chemicals affected by TPP.
http://www.chem.info/news/2016/11/trump-plans-sink-tpp-how-much-money-line-us-chem-industry
-
(ACC Mentioned) New API Oils on Shelves Dec. 1
Nov 23, 2016 | Go By Truck News
Thursday, December 1, the American Petroleum Institute’s new diesel engine oil standards, API CK-4 and FA-4, will begin appearing in the marketplace on licensed products and marketing materials. This means consumers will be able to easily identify the API CK-4 or FA-4 category oils that are expected to be recommended in new owners’ manuals and by engine manufacturers.
Earlier this year, API’s Lubricants Group approved the new API CK-4 and FA-4 specifications to address the varying needs of engine technologies — aging, new, and in use, both on- and off-highway — and to help diesel engine manufacturers meet more stringent emissions requirements.
“December 1 is an industry milestone as it marks the first day new API CK-4 and FA-4 engine oils can be marketed and sold on retail shelves or in bulk,” said Kevin Ferrick, senior manager of API’s engine oil licensing and certification system. “The time between approval of the categories last winter and the first licensing on December 1 gave large, medium and small oil marketers the ability to test their new formulations and ready them for market. This signals the culmination of almost nine years of cross-industry collaboration in the development of the new standards.”
API CK-4 oils will replace current API CJ-4 engine oils and will be backward compatible with most applications where engine manufacturers currently recommend CJ-4. The new CK-4 oils will provide a number of improvements over CJ-4, including improved shear stability, oxidation resistance and aeration control.
API FA-4 oils will provide similar improvements over CJ-4 oils, but it is important to note that FA-4 oils are only intended for use in newer on-highway diesel engines. FA-4 oils will have limited or no backward compatibility with on- and off-highway diesel engines where engine manufacturers recommended CJ-4. While not specifically backward compatible, FA-4 oils are expected to play an important role in some current and new diesel engines by protecting those engines and at the same time helping them meet more stringent emissions requirements.
CK-4 and FA-4 oils are designed for different applications. This means technicians and consumers will need to check their owner’s manuals or with engine manufacturers to determine which oil is right for their vehicle. API developed two visually different API service symbol donuts so that consumers can easily distinguish between the two categories. The new API FA-4 donut features a shaded section to differentiate API FA-4 oils from CK-4 oils. The API CK-4 donut will look the same as the current CJ-4 donut.
To find out if you are supposed to use CK-4 or FA-4 oil, check with your owner’s manual and your engine manufacturer. You can also visit www.DieselOilMatters.com for more information about the new API CK-4 and FA-4 service categories and their use in on- and off-highway diesel vehicles and equipment.
These new oil standards were developed to better protect new and older engines, improve engine oil performance, and help engine manufacturers meet 2017 government emissions standards. CK-4 and FA-4 improve upon existing standards by providing enhanced protection against oil oxidation and engine wear, particulate filter blocking, piston deposits, and degradation of low- and high-temperature properties. The new categories are the result of several years of collaboration between engine manufacturers, API’s Lubricants Group, the Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association, and the American Chemistry Council.
http://www.gobytrucknews.com/new-api-oils-on-shelves-dec-1/123
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics And Environment
Nov 24, 2016 | Plasteurope
Italy's Assocomaplast joins Operation Clean Sweep / Trade group pledges to reduce plastic waste from processingItalian trade association Assocomaplast (Milan; www.assocomaplast.org) and its 400 members operating in the plastics and rubber industry has joined environmental protection programme Operation Clean Sweep (OCS; www.opcleansweep.org). Launched by US organisations the American Chemistry Council (ACC, Washington DC; www.americanchemistry.com) and the Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI, Washington DC; www.plasticsindustry.org), OCS sets out guidelines for reducing the accidental loss of plastic pellets, powders and flakes that occur during the manufacture of plastic articles.
Although discarded plastic packing, which often ends up polluting seas and oceans, is mostly attributed to consumers’ bad habits, another part of the problem is the release of plastic pellets from the production process that also end up as waste. OCS requires various players in the polymer chain, such as producers, transporters, storage operators and processing firms, to adopt a number of best practices. These include signing a formal commitment to making zero pellet loss a priority, as well as upgrading facilities and equipment and establishing compulsory operating procedures.
Assocomaplast joined the OCS programme during the “K 2016†trade fair held in Düsseldorf / Germany, from 19-26 October. In June this year, German plastic packaging industry association Industrievereinigungen Kunststoffverpackungen (IK, Bad Homburg; www.kunststoffverpackungen.de) said 37 of its members had been certified under the "Zero Pellet Loss" initiative (see Plasteurope.com of 24.06.2016). The China Processing Industry Association (CPPIA, Beijing, www.cppia.com.cn) is also a member of OCS (see Plasteurope.com of 10.06.2015).https://www.plasteurope.com/news/PLASTICS_AND_ENVIRONMENT_t235586/
-
Chemical Byproducts Rulemaking Launched by EPA
Nov 24, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency is laying the groundwork for a negotiated rule clarifying chemical reporting obligations companies face when their manufacturing processes generate inorganic chemical byproducts.
The rulemaking is required by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. No. 114-182), which amended the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), on June 22, the agency said in the rulemaking update posted online Nov. 22.
The statute required the EPA to work with electronics, vehicle and other companies that have manufacturing processes that produce inorganic chemicals—typically metals—to clarify reporting obligations they face under the Chemical Data Reporting rule. Under that rule, chemical and other manufacturers provide the EPA every four years with production volume and other information about the chemicals they manufacture.
The outcome of the negotiated rulemaking could make it easier for companies that make finished goods to recycle wastes with copper and other metals, Fern Abrams, director of regulatory affairs and government relations for the Association of Connecting Electronics Industries, previously told Bloomberg BNA. The group represents companies throughout the electronics industry supply chain, including those that design and make printed circuit boards for machinery and computers.
The Lautenberg Act requires the EPA to issue a proposed rule within three years of the law's June 2016 enactment.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100870838&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100870838&jd=100870838
-
EPA Risk, Data Reporting Rules Advance Implementation Of Revised TSCA
Nov 23, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA has formally launched the rulemaking process for new reporting mandates for inorganic byproducts of chemicals and a separate rule to implement new procedural requirements for addressing risks from existing chemicals, advancing the agency's implementation of the revised Toxic Substances Control Act's (TSCA) regulatory mandates.
The two new rules, announced in EPA's Action Initiation List (AIL) of regulatory efforts launched in September -- but only posted to the agency's website this month -- follow recent announcements that EPA has sent at least two other rules required under the updated toxics law for White House pre-publication review.
The reformed TSCA, which President Obama signed into law June 22, contains a host of provisions requiring EPA to develop new rulemakings to improve its oversight of existing and new chemicals.
The law updates the 1976 TSCA, which was seen as significantly flawed in terms of the authority it gave the agency to regulate potentially harmful substances. The revised law includes deadlines for the new regulatory actions, and many sources -- as well as EPA officials -- expect the rulemaking efforts to continue under President-elect Donald Trump's administration given the broad bipartisan backing for the law.
EPA's AIL says that it will take more than 12 months dated from September to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking on TSCA chemical data reporting requirements for inorganic byproducts under section 8 of the law.
“This particular rulemaking involves the revised TSCA section 8(b)(6)(A), which requires EPA to enter into a negotiated rulemaking and develop and publish a proposed rule within 3 years of enactment for manufacturers of any inorganic byproducts, when such byproducts, whether by the byproduct manufacturer or by any other person, are subsequently recycled, reused, or reprocessed,” the AIL says.
According to EPA’s first-year implementation plan issued earlier this year, the agency must issue a proposed rule under the negotiated deadline within 3 years from enactment, which is mid-June 2019. The rule appears aimed at addressing longstanding issues with the reporting process for inorganic chemicals under section. The problems date back to the George W. Bush administration's 2006 inventory update rule, which for the first time forced manufacturers to report on inorganic chemicals’ use and disposal, including metals, in volumes greater than 25,000 pounds.
In the rule, EPA subjected inorganic metals to the same reporting requirements as organic chemicals, failing to take into account what sources say are the nuances of the materials. Problematic for metals are the byproduct recycling requirements of the Obama administration’s subsequent chemical data reporting rule that require a manufacturer to report the fate of any substance that has to be removed from a byproduct by a reaction -- chemicals simply extracted are exempt from reporting -- which EPA then considers the manufacturing of a new chemical.
TSCA Regulations
The AIL also says that within 12 months or less from September, EPA will issue a final rule under section 6 of the revised TSCA, which governs existing chemicals already on the market. According to the AIL, EPA plans to issue a final rule to amend procedural regulations for issuing section 6 risk management rules to restrict chemicals the agency has found present an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment.
The final rule will amend an earlier EPA rulemaking under the previous TSCA implementing the procedural requirements under section 6. The new rule will revise “certain procedural requirements for rulemaking under section 6 of TSCA, including the requirement for a hearing, because TSCA no longer mandates those procedures.”
The final rule also makes minor conforming changes to the procedural rules for exemptions from the prohibitions in TSCA section 6(e) applicable to polychlorinated biphenyls.
The rulemakings are in addition to a number of actions EPA already has taken to implement the TSCA overhaul. For example, EPA has submitted for White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) pre-publication review two proposed rules for implementing section 6 mandates. OMB received EPA's draft “Procedures for Evaluating Existing Chemical Risks Under the Toxic Substance Control Act” on Nov. 10.
Section 6 of the 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.
OMB Nov. 7 received EPA’s proposed rule to develop a formal process for prioritization of chemicals for risk evaluation. The agency is also readying a proposal establishing a fee structure for collecting fees from industry to supplement the cost of certain TSCA activities.
EPA intends to issue all three proposals by mid-December, and final rules by June 2017, though it only has statutory deadlines for the prioritization and risk review rules. --
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-risk-data-reporting-rules-advance-implementation-revised-tsca
-
EPA to Update Procedures for Chemical Risk Management Rules
Nov 24, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Revisions to Environmental Protection Agency procedures for issuing regulations governing chemical labeling, use or bans are in the works to reflect changes to the Toxic Substances Control Act.
The agency is working on a final rule that would eliminate certain procedures the original 1976 TSCA required the EPA to use when issuing risk management rules under Section 6 of the law, the agency said in a brief description of the rulemaking posted online Nov. 22.
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. No. 114-182), which amended TSCA on June 22, no longer mandates those procedures, the agency said.
As an example, the agency said the Lautenberg Act no longer requires a hearing for Section 6 regulations while the original TSCA did.
This final rule also will make “minor conforming changes” to the procedural rules that exempt polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, from certain prohibitions in Section 6 of TSCA, the agency said.
The EPA expects to publish its final rule within a year, it said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100870845&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100870845&jd=100870845
-
EPA Plans To Publish Final Formaldehyde Air Rule After Technical Delay
Nov 24, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA's toxics chief says that the agency plans to soon publish its final formaldehyde emissions rule for composite wood products in the Federal Register after several months of delay following technical issues that arose once EPA released a pre-publication version of the rule in July, which will allow the rule to finally take effect.
The delay in formal publication of the rule is due to “technical issues when you incorporate by reference … It's a technical glitch that has taken longer than anticipated” to get resolved, said EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) Assistant Administrator Jim Jones in a Nov. 16 interview.
Incorporating by reference (IBR) is an Office of the Federal Register (OFR) method to reference material in the Register that may have copyright or other issues with being reprinted. “All agencies that want to require use of something that is not part of the CFR or the U.S. Code, they have to use [IBR],” says OFR staff attorney Miriam Vincent in a Nov. 21 interview. Vincent also authored the office's 2016 IBR Handbook.
Vincent declined to comment specifically on EPA's formaldehyde rule but explained that IBR generally is used when it is not efficient or practical for an agency to “create a whole new standard for industry to follow, but we can't print the actual content . . . for a variety of reasons, for example copyright.”
Other issues that would preclude publication might be pictures or diagrams that are not reproducible in the Register, or something that would require the use of color in the black and white Register, she said.
Rule writers wishing to IBR material must seek approval from Register attorneys before it can be published. OFR staff have 20 business days to review a draft final rule for compliance with IBR and make a determination, Vincent says. The standard being referenced must be maintained in the Register office, and the agency must demonstrate that the standard is “reasonably obtainable by the class of persons who will have to” comply with it, Vincent says.
Asked whether EPA completed the IBR approval process, an EPA spokesman said “the list of standards and methods cited in the rule (incorporated by reference) was subject to a required separate review and approval” by OFR, which was completed Nov. 17, “before the rule would be accepted by OFR for publication scheduling.” The spokesman did not respond to a query on what EPA was trying to incorporate by reference.
EPA's final rule sets emissions standards for composite wood products manufactured, imported, or sold in the United States and establishes testing requirements to ensure compliance. However, the text of the final regulation notes that it is not deemed effective until 60 days after its publication in the Register.
'Unfortunate' Delay
“The delay is unfortunate, from our perspective, to start the clock on implementation,” Jackson Morrill, president of the Composite Wood Manufacturers Association, said in a Nov. 22 interview with Inside EPA.
Morrill's group represents U.S. manufacturers who have been complying with EPA's pending standards for years, as California's Air Resources Board (CARB) issued similar standards in 2008 which broadly affected the domestic market. “Our concern is a lot of imports” do not meet the emissions standards,” he said. “We want a level playing field.”
Enforcement of the final rule will be the responsibility of EPA under President-elect Donald Trump, and Morrill said enforcement will be vital. “Just getting it out is not the end of the story. It needs some teeth to it,” he said.
Still, Morrill thinks there is reason for optimism, pointing to what he sees as a “pretty strong nexus with the incoming administration [and its comments on] ensuring a level playing field for U.S. manufacturing.”
Morrill and another stakeholder, Tom Neltner, chemicals policy director at the Environmental Defense Fund, both noted that the rule references industry standards, including ASTM standards which would be copyright protected. Definitions of certain composite wood products in the rule, such as hardwood plywood and medium-density fibreboard are based on ASTM standards, as are the emissions testing methodologies, they said.
Both Morrill and Neltner said they were puzzled at the delay in the rule's publication, and both said they were told that few changes have been made to the final rule compared to the draft rule.
EPA, for example, denied early August requests from another trade group, the Composite Panel Association, for a change to Section 770.45(f), among other issues. In the pre-publication version of the final rule, that section required that “Composite wood products and finished goods made entirely of composite wood products manufactured before the manufacture-by date must not be labeled as TSC Title VI compliant,” according to EPA's reply.
Neltner, who joined the group's request, explained that, “We thought manufacturers who were certified by a third-party as complying with the requirements of the rule should be allowed to let buyers and consumers know that on the label before the rule mandated compliance.”
EPA denied the requests in an Aug. 24 reply letter to the group. “While the Agency understands your concerns regarding these regulatory provisions, the Agency will not make any changes to the final rule and will publish in the Federal Register the final rule as provided in the July 27, 2016, pre-publication version,” wrote Erik Winchester, chief of the Fibers & Organics Branch within EPA's OCSPP.
Final Regulation
EPA in the July rule granted industry's requests to exempt certain laminated wood products while stopping short of some producers' calls to exclude a broader array of products. EPA approved an industry request to exempt products using low-formaldehyde glues, as well as no-added formaldehyde resins, from most of the rule's requirements.
But the rule appeared to reject some producers' requests that its exemptions for laminated wood products mirror those of the 2008 CARB rule, which more broadly exempts such products from regulation.
The exemption in the final rule for laminated products containing low levels of formaldehyde appears to strike a compromise between EPA's June 2013 proposed rule -- which industry argued would impose unwieldy requirements on fabricators of laminated wood products -- and industry requests to strictly mirror the CARB rule. The rule also allows producers to petition the agency to seek additional exemptions in some cases.
Formaldehyde is widely used in the manufacturing of building materials and household products, but exposure can irritate the skin, eyes, nose and throat. High levels of exposure can cause certain cancers.
In 2010, Congress amended the Toxic Substances Control Act to require that EPA issue an air rule “equivalent to compliance” with CARB's rule for pressed wood products produced or sold in the state.
Some domestic producers and healthy housing advocates have backed Congress' call for the EPA rule, arguing it is necessary to create a level playing field for domestic producers who comply with the 2008 standard against some importers who may not, and to reduce exposures. But the rule was significantly delayed from its 2013 deadline, in part due to questions of how to regulate laminated wood products.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-plans-publish-final-formaldehyde-air-rule-after-technical-delay
-
OECD Reports On Global List Pilot Project
Nov 24, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The OECD has released a report on its pilot project assessing the potential development of a global list of classified chemicals.
Accompanying the report are three case-study chemicals where non-binding agreements on classification have been reached. These are proposals for the classification and labelling of:dimethyltin dichloride (DMTC), nominated by Echa;dicyclopentadiene, nominated by the Russian Federation; anddibutyl phthalate for which the US took the lead.
The general conclusion was that the pilot project had demonstrated the possibility of moving towards agreement on proposed classification and labelling for substances in some cases.
In all three pilot substances consensus was reached on draft conclusions in a non-binding environment.
However, an average 38 days was spent drafting and updating reports per sponsor, and reviewers spent a further five checking them. So, the report says, the process is feasible only with the sustained commitment of time and resources by countries and other interested parties.
The results will be submitted to the Unece Subcommittee of Experts on the GHS of classification and labelling of chemicals. This will consider them in discussions on the potential development of such a list. The project was jointly run by Unece and the OECD.
The subcommittee agreed the procedures for the pilot in December 2014.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51222/oecd-reports-on-global-list-pilot-project
-
When Salt Is An Endocrine Disruptor, The Term Is Officially Meaningless
Nov 23, 2016 | Science 2.0
By Josh Bloom |
A new environmental claim about endocrine disruptors would seem to be an early Christmas gift for the fundraisers and lawyers at the Environmental Working Group and NRDC but the scientist employed at each of those groups likely feels a little dread.
Because the new endocrine disruptor is salt, and despite the perennially low quality science that dribbles from their websites, even they must realize how stupid it looks. Maybe even enough worry that remotely inquisitive individuals might wonder, "Hmm. Salt is disrupting my 'endocrines?' Huh?? Maybe the other endocrine stuff they write about is garbage too."Yes, indeed, which is pretty much what the American Council on Science and Health has been saying forever, or at least since this useless term was invented two decades ago.
Let's look at the evidence that led researchers at the Yale School of Forestry&Environmental Studies and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute to make their claim in something called the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. (1)
It is obvious that this is a gigantic mess, right up there with similar bizarre claims at the turn of the century by Tyrone Hayes, who just created scary screenshots and got a friend at PNAS to publish a paper using them with no peer review. Here's how.
The group looked at the ratio of female to male frogs as a function of tadpole development in the presence and absence of salt. They also threw in leaf litter from two different trees to simulate conditions near roads.
The graph on the left represents the experiment where the tadpoles are grown either with (gray) or without (white) salt. In the middle, maple leaves plus salt is compared to maple leaves alone, and on the right, the same with oak. Although the group suggests that salt may have "masculinizing" properties, it's all in the statistics. Here's why.
The salt vs water group (left) does seem to show that the ratio of males to females does go up when the tadpoles are raised in salt, but the data are not statistically significant, so you might as well be showing a photo of a toaster as evidence. When maple leaves are added, these "non-real differences" become even less real.
The two groups are essentially the same.
But, when oak leaf litter is used, there is a small difference between the two groups—roughly 0.52 vs 0.62, although this is the only experiment in which the data reach the level of statistical significance (asterisk).This is typical of garbage science studies. Council scientific advisor Dr. Stan Young, a world-class biostatistician, has seen this "funny math" many times. It is called multiple testing.
"The authors are asking a lot of questions, one at a time. But if you get to ask a lot of questions then the odds are that one might be statistically significant by chance alone. You have to count the number of questions asked, and then list the p-values. Then multiply each p-value by the number of questions to get the Bonferroni adjusted p-value. If the adjusted p-value is not less than, say, 0.05, there is nothing going on."
Stan Young, Ph.D.
So, I might as well just substitute another title, which would seem to be just as valid:
"Oak Leaves Turn Female Frogs into Male Frogs."
Another one for the junk science compost heap.
http://www.science20.com/pfired_but_still_kicking/when_salt_is_an_endocrine_disruptor_the_term_is_officially_meaningless-180707
-
Authorities Should Disclose More Pesticides Data, EU Court Rules
Nov 24, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) Nov. 23 ruled that public authorities should disclose a wider range of information from pesticide safety assessments, a judgment that the EU chemicals industry said could compromise commercial confidentiality and deter investment in new chemical products.
The Luxembourg-based court issued parallel judgments in two cases in which environmental advocacy groups sought to obtain documentation used by authorities in risk assessing glyphosate and other pesticides.
In the first case (European Commission v. Stichting Greenpeace Nederland, CJEU, No. C673/13 P, 11/23/16), the CJEU broadly rejected an appeal lodged by the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, against an October 2013 EU lower court ruling that said access should be granted to documentation about the risk assessment of glyphosate , the world's most-used herbicide.
In the second case (Bayer CropScience v. College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden, CJEU, No. C442/14, 11/23/16), the CJEU offered clarifications in a dispute referred from the Dutch courts involving German chemicals company Bayer and a Dutch environmental group that had sought access to documents related to pesticide authorizations in the Netherlands.
In both cases, the court said that a wider range of information on pesticide authorizations should be disclosed, and that commercial confidentiality provides limited grounds for withholding information.
The European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) said in a statement Nov. 23 that the rulings “set a potentially dangerous precedent for the protection of confidential business information submitted by companies for EU substance and product registrations and approvals.”
Aarhus Convention
Both cases relate to the United Nations Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. For decisions taken by EU bodies, the Aarhus Convention is implemented by a 2006 law (EU Regulation No. 1367/2006).
According to the Aarhus Convention, environmental information can be withheld on the grounds of commercial confidentiality, but if the information concerns “emissions into the environment,” any commercial confidentiality limitations should be “interpreted in a restrictive way.”
The CJEU Nov. 23 said that the concept of “emissions into the environment” includes releases of pesticides or biocides that are “actual or foreseeable under normal or realistic conditions of use,” and therefore information on pesticides should be disclosed if it enables “the public to check whether the assessment of actual or foreseeable emissions” has been done correctly by regulatory authorities.
Data should also be disclosed if it is “data relating to the medium or long-term effects of those emissions on the environment,” including studies on substance residues in the environment or how substances drift during their application, the CJEU said.
Green Groups Happy; Industry Not
In the case referred from the EU's lower court, the CJEU said the lower court should look again at the specifics of the case in the light of the clarification of the meaning of “emissions into the environment” to see if information on glyphosate should be disclosed. In the case referred from the Netherlands, the Dutch court will rule on the basis of the CJEU's interpretation of EU law.
CEFIC said the ruling would “make it easier for any member of the public and any competitor in Europe and abroad to access valuable commercial data submitted by business to EU authorities.”
Environmental groups welcomed the ruling. Franziska Achterberg, EU food policy director for Greenpeace, said the ruling had determined that “regulators must release all research used to evaluate the dangers of pesticides, and cannot keep it secret to protect industry interests.”
Hans Muilerman, chemicals coordinator for the Pesticides Action Network Europe, which was one of the parties in the case on glyphosate , said the ruling was a “landmark verdict” that meant it would be possible to “get all documents on chemicals, pesticides and industrial processes to check if the basis of environmental decisions made by the government is right.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100870852&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=497840000&searchid=28884150&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0
-
Danish Agency Updates Phosphorus Flame-Retardant Screening Report
Nov 24, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
The Danish EPA has updated its report on screening 28 phosphorus-based flame retardants that are potential substitutes for halogenated products.
The agency commissioned the report after identifying a lack of data on the environmental and health effects of phosphorus flame retardants that companies might use as substitutes for halogenated compounds. As a result, screening-level hazard profiles were developed that used an adapted version of Greenscreen, a product developed by US charity Clean Production Action (CPA).
Besides the screening profiles, the report includes a summary of:
· the compounds' product applications, substrates, end applications;
· whether they are additive or reactive;
· their commercial availability; and
· their flame retardancy.
Originally published in January 2016, the report has been updated following comments from industry and the CPA about the use of GreenScreen. These involve modifications made to adapt the product to suit European REACH and CLP/GHS regulations and use in consumer products. The EPA and CPA have also agreed a joint statement.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51183/danish-agency-updates-phosphorus-flame-retardant-screening-report
-
Gas Export Provisions Jettisoned From Energy Negotiations
Nov 24, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
A new House energy package lacks regulatory changes to speed up the Energy Department's approval of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, a House Democratic staff member and lobbyist told Bloomberg BNA.
The proposal remains cloaked in secrecy since House energy negotiators offered the measure, a severely truncated version of sprawling energy bills passed by each chamber in recent months, to Senate counterparts late last week.
The House bill, which countered a revised Senate proposal delivered in October, is likely a blend of non-controversial provisions, such as those related to minor federal land transfers and infrastructure energy efficiency, the observers said.
Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) have pushed hard to wrap up negotiations on the two energy packages before the end of this Congress, but House lawmakers, primarily Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), are signaling reluctance. Committee ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) is also a key negotiator.
The House passed an amended version of the Senate bill (S. 2012) in May, melding that measure with some original House measures. The bills, both of which are nearly 800-pages long, touch on everything from vehicle efficiency innovation to critical mineral production.
Senate staff didn't respond for comment, but the House staff member said Senate negotiators could be countering as early as Nov. 23.
LNG Overhaul Stripped
All versions of the energy packages, prior to the House counterproposal, included revised Energy Department processing of natural gas exports. The Senate bill would require an approval or denial 45 days following review, while the latest House version extended that time frame to 90 days.
No staff members would point to the motivation for stripping the language in the House countermeasure, but Democrats generally view more gas exports warily. “Pallone has always opposed the LNG provisions and will continue to,” one of his spokesmen told Bloomberg BNA.
The traditional energy industry has fiercely supported the export provisions, and their absence likely weakens interest in the legislation, Christopher Guith, senior vice president for policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy, told Bloomberg BNA.
“It's a huge disappointment for us and others,” Guith said. “It was a huge priority for so many companies and groups that were very committed to that language.”
Dropping Gas Provisions
Guith said dropping the gas export provisions may indicate a “lack of confidence in negotiations.” Some lawmakers may now aim to tack those LNG provisions onto defense authorization legislation, as the House did with its version of that bill (H.R. 4909) in the spring.
Following a formal conference Nov. 17 between the negotiators, the day before House members delivered their proposal, Murkowski said the gas export language may be on the chopping block.
Land conveyance provisions, which transfer federal ownership to private parties, are included in both bills, and those provisions are likely candidates for a potential final compromise, the House staff member said.
Both bills, for instance, direct the Interior Department to transfer the title of Colorado's Elkhorn Ranch and White River National Forest to the Gordman-Leverich Partnership. Conveyances for Colorado's Arapaho National Forest are also in both measures.
Energy Efficiency Provisions
Energy efficiency provisions may also be fertile ground for compromise, both observers said. Vehicle battery use, manufacturing innovation and green school retrofitting provisions are included in both bills, while the Senate version takes a far more aggressive approach toward strengthening building code efficiency.
After submitting the counterproposal on Nov. 18, Upton said that version is the best representation of “bipartisan consensus” in the chamber.
“We welcome any suggestions from the Senate and remain open to continuing to work with our Senate colleagues and concluding this conference in a productive manner,” he said in a statement.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100870846&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100870846&jd=100870846
-
Final Push For LNG Export Legislation
Nov 23, 2016 | Platts
By Maya Weber
Backers of federal legislation to expedite LNG export approvals are making a final, energetic push to get the measure across the congressional finish line during the lame duck session this year, amid uncertainty about whether the altered balance of power in Washington will undercut the consensus behind the bill next Congress.
Seven ambassadors from Central and Eastern European countries wrote November 14 to congressional leaders to urge that the bipartisan effort, which "has been gaining momentum steadily over the past few years, will see final resolution during the current session of Congress."
Central and Eastern European diplomats have played a strong role in making the case that US LNG exports are important to their nations' energy security. They have repeatedly pushed for the legislation as allowing for supply diversity to ease the dominance if not monopoly power of Russia's Gazprom in the region.
LNG trade groups, and some individual oil and gas companies, were also letting lawmakers know they were eager to see work completed this year, in spite of a Republican electoral sweep that could open the door to farther-reaching steps.LNG industry backs fast action on bill
The Center for Liquefied Natural Gas wrote November 15 to chairmen and ranking members of key House committees urging quick action to work out an agreement in conference with the Senate on a broad energy policy bill. Both the House and Senate versions contain provisions that would set a deadline for Department of Energy export approvals to non-Free Trade Agreement nations once a final environmental report is issued. The Senate version would set a 60-day deadline; the House version, 45 days. Another possible vehicle in the lame duck session is the National Defense Authorization Act; the House version of that bill also contains a similar LNG export provision.
The CLNG letter to the Hill said "it is extremely difficult for projects to make final investment decisions and arrange funding until the DOE approves a project's export application."
"The key point we want to stress today is the urgency of the issue," said CLNG Executive Director Charlie Riedl in a statement. "Global demand for LNG is increasingly being met by our international competitors, so every day we delay is a day lost for our industry."
LNG Allies and the group Our Energy Moment held a briefing in Washington November 15 in which congressional sponsors of the LNG legislation and the European diplomats discussed their strong desire to move something this year.
"I think it's critical we get this passed," said Senator John Barrasso, Republican-Wyoming, and a lead sponsor of the LNG legislation, who placed better odds on moving it in the energy policy legislation than the defense bill, which faces veto threats on unrelated issues.
"Russia doesn't spend a lot of time worrying about the environmental impact statements or the EPA. They use energy as a source of power, and we need to do the same thing."
Leadership priorities seen over next few days
But whether the House and Senate leadership would make the action a priority in the waning days was still unknown, as Washington was still sorting out the changed dynamics after the election. Barrasso said meetings of lawmakers on the Hill over the next two days would add clarity. One source of uncertainty is whether emboldened House Republicans will prefer to hold out and seek farther-reaching measures in the next Congress.
"I think we're in much better shape with President Trump coming into the White House," Barrasso told the gathering of Central and Eastern European diplomates, energy industry representatives and others November 15. "We've discussed, in a meeting with senators, energy security, energy independence, [and] using energy as a master resource. [Trump] gets it. But I think we still need to get this legislation done ... passed. We need some certainty that we've never gotten with this administration."
Industry advocates were eager that Congress would take advantage of a rare window of consensus to get a bill through.
Dan Easley of ExxonMobil asked what people in the room could do to help get the bill over the line, potentially in the defense authorization act, if an energy policy bill compromise does not get hemmed together in time. There is "a fierce urgency" to get it done, he said, and suggesting the legislation will have a practical effect on a number of LNG projects.
Some projects seen may see direct impact
Fred Hutchison of LNG Allies and Our Energy Moment, which arranged the gathering, pointed to the Magnolia LNG project as an example of a planned export facility that has had a final environmental report in place for a year, but still awaits DOE export approval for non-FTA nations.
The Golden Pass Product project is another export project that received a final EIS this summer, but is still awaiting FERC approval and DOE export approval to non-FTA nations.
Bill Davis, project executive at Gold Pass LNG, said on the sidelines of the meeting that the legislation was important to show the world that US LNG is in the game and that there is a defined process for approval. There has not been enough recognition that the US is in competition with others in the LNG sphere, he said.
James Markham-Hill, a spokesman for NextDecade, which is developing the Rio Grande LNG project, said in an email that codifying a review timeline would "increase US LNG's competitive advantage and avoid costly delays or worse." He noted that a recent review of DOE approvals for non-FTA approvals showed that a number could have received export licenses five to 11 months faster with a statutory deadline in place. While changes DOE put in place in 2014 sought to prioritize its focus on projects with a higher probability of moving forward, "shifting their review to after the [National Environmental Policy Act] process has been completed can lead to significant delays resulting in market uncertainty," he added.
Maceij Pisarski, Poland's deputy chief of mission, told the group November 15 that the legislation would allow for more American engagement in the region.
"This in itself would be a very positive factor in strengthening the stability and deterrence vis-a-vis aggressive actions undertaken by the Russian Federation not only in the field of energy" but also in the actions taken in Crimea and Ukraine, he said.
Representative Bill Johnson, Republican-Ohio, sponsor of the legislative efforts on the House side, said the legislation could help the US in future relations with Russia.
Noting that President-Elect Trump has expressed a desire in some contexts for cooperation rather than conflict, Johnson said the legislation was critical to giving him the leverage he needs in future dealings.
As a member of the House energy bill conference committee with the Senate, he said, "We're maintaining our position that the legislation needs to be there and needs to cross the finish line." He was more optimistic than Barrasso that the defense bill may still be a viable vehicle.http://www.platts.com/latest-news/natural-gas/washington/final-push-for-lng-export-legislation-26603954
-
Five States Sue EPA Over Cross-State Air Rule Update
Nov 24, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Five states want a federal court to overturn an Environmental Protection Agency rule that would require power plants in 22 upwind states to reduce their nitrogen oxides emissions (Wisconsin v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 16-1406, 11/23/16).
The petition filed Nov. 23 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by Wisconsin, Alabama, Arkansas, Ohio and Wyoming doesn't detail the states’ complaints with the agency's final update to its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which is intended to aid downwind states’ efforts to meet federal air quality standards.
However, in individual comments filed during the rulemaking process, the states questioned issues ranging from the agency's methodology for determining emissions rates and budgets to how reasonable the emissions targets are for states.
“The States will show that the Final Rule is in excess of the agency's statutory authority and otherwise is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and not in accordance with law,” said the petition for review. “The States ask this Court to hold unlawful and set aside the Rule, and to order such other relief as may be appropriate.”
886 Power Plants
The final rule, published in the Federal Register Oct. 26, establishes new state-specific emissions budgets to help downwind communities meet and maintain the EPA's 75 parts per billion ozone standards set in 2015. The rule, which will affect 886 power plants in the eastern U.S., is estimated to cost $68 million annually.
The states filed the petition even as some of the plaintiffs, including Ohio and Arkansas, saw more lenient emissions budgets in the final rule (RIN:2060-AS05) compared to the EPA proposal. Both Ohio and Arkansas said the EPA was unreasonably attempting to limit pollution inside the states.
Some states, including Wisconsin, said they shouldn't be included in the cross-state rule update at all. Wisconsin remained included in the final rule.
The EPA referred Bloomberg BNA to the Justice Department, which didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100870841&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100870841&jd=100870841
-
Minnesota County Bans New Frac Sand Operations
Nov 24, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Wolski
Winona County Nov. 22 became the first Minnesota county to ban operations for hydraulic fracturing sand within its borders.
The county board of commissioners voted 3–2 to prohibit silica sand mining, processing, storage and transport operations within the county's jurisdiction. Frac sand operations within the cities in the county will still be allowed to continue.
Kelley Stanage, Winona County organizing member for the Land Stewardship Project, told Bloomberg BNA Nov. 23 that because of the geological makeup of the southeast Minnesota county, silica sand is “all over the place.” Mining and processing facilities have located operations within southeast Minnesota, southwest Wisconsin and northeast Iowa, she said, to access the sand that is useful to hydrofracturing shale formations for oil and gas.
She said residents pushed the ban because of concerns about their health and safety. Airborne sand can cause silicosis, she said, while the chemicals used for mining sand can affect water quality. Residents also were concerned about the large amount of water needed for sand mining.
Stanage said the ban would take effect immediately. She noted, however, that representatives of the frac sand industry have said the ban could face a legal challenge. She said she is confident the ban can withstand such a challenge, as the county has the authority to prohibit land uses that threaten the health and well-being of its citizens.
Officials with the Minnesota Industrial Sand Council did not respond to phone calls Nov. 23.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100870850&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100870850&jd=100870850
-
Wyoming Plans Meeting On Fracking Groundwater Study
Nov 23, 2016 | Inside EPA
The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the state's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC) have scheduled a Dec. 8 meeting to outline for the public their final report detailing their findings on a groundwater pollution investigation that EPA previously linked to hydraulic fracturing.
“At this meeting DEQ and WOGCC will provide information regarding their final reports into the investigation of pits, well bore integrity and water-supply well palatability,” DEQ says in a Nov. 23 press release.
In the final report on the alleged water contamination of drinking wells near Pavillion, WY, which DEQ issued Nov. 10, DEQ said “it is unlikely that fracturing has caused any impacts to the water-supply wells.”
State researchers indicated that some inorganic compounds that were found over applicable drinking water standards are generally associated with naturally occurring salts, metals and radionuclides. Industrial applications may use some of these same compounds such as oil and gas drilling mud, which contains chloride and potassium.
The state-led study follows EPA's December 2011 draft report documenting its investigation of the alleged groundwater contamination near Pavillion, which represented the agency's first public acknowledgment that reported pollution of an aquifer was "likely" due to fracking operations.
Encana, the company whose drilling operations are closest to the aquifer, and other oil and gas trade groups and Republican lawmakers widely criticized the study, citing a host of concerns including that EPA's sampling methodology could have contributed to the contamination.
The agency in June 2014 announced it would drop its own study and instead support the state's ongoing investigation -- though EPA Region 8 in undated comments faulted some of the Wyoming study's draft findings, which the state floated in 2015.
http://insideepa.com/news-briefs/wyoming-plans-meeting-fracking-groundwater-study
-
ND Republicans Demand Obama Approve Dakota Access Pipeline
Nov 23, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama and Devin Henry
Two North Dakota lawmakers and its governor are pushing President Obama to approve the Dakota Access pipeline and help law enforcement deal with protesters there.
The politicians said both actions would help restore the rule of law.
A Wednesday letter from Sen. John Hoeven, Rep. Kevin Cramer and Gov. Jack Dalrymple, all Republicans, came in response to the latest violence between law enforcement and protesters near Lake Oahe, where the pipeline’s developer, Energy Transfer Partners, is seeking a final easement to build.
“We call on you again to direct the Army Corps of Engineers to approve, without further delay, the final federal easement for the Lake Oahe crossing of the Dakota Access Pipeline,” the members said.
The Obama administration this month said it had followed proper procedure when it approved the Lake Oahe easement for the pipeline, but that it wouldn’t issue it until officials consult further with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.
The members also said the Obama administration should support law enforcement policing protesters in the region.
“In the strongest terms possible, we recommend you provide federal law enforcement resources immediately to state and local agencies in order to maintain public safety, which has been threatened by ongoing — and oftentimes violent — protest activity,” they said.
They added: “These resources are essential to prevent further destruction on and surrounding federal lands.”
Standing Rock opposes the Dakota Access pipeline, warning that it threatens cultural sites and the tribe’s drinking supply. The 1,170-mile pipeline doesn’t run through tribal land, but goes under Lake Oahe on the Missouri River, which supplies their drinking water.
Because the federal government owns land around Lake Oahe, the Army Corps needed to approve the project before it pass under the lake. Regulators attempted to consult the tribe while assessing the project this year, but the tribe declined.
A judge signed off on the approval process this fall after the tribe sued over it, but the Obama administration said it wouldn't issue the easement developers need for the pipeline until it reconsiders the project.
The Republicans' letter comes after an escalation in controversial policing tactics in the region.
Tribal leaders have asked Obama to defuse the situation after local law enforcement dosed protesters with water canons in freezing temperatures on Sunday night. Law enforcement said the water was used to put out fires the protesters had started, and that it nothing more than a “mist.”
Even so, civil rights groups have raised objections about the actions there. In a statement, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights said it was “concerned with numerous reports and testimony regarding the use of military-style equipment and excessive force against protesters.”
“We call upon federal, state, and local officials and law enforcement to work together to deescalate the situation and guarantee the safety of protesters to exercise their First Amendment rights,” the commission said.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/307428-nd-lawmakers-governor-plead-with-obama-on-pipeline
-
A Blade Strikes Steel, the Blast Shocks a Nation's Energy System
Nov 24, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Christopher Leonard
On Halloween afternoon, nine men arrived at a wooded ridgeline in rural Alabama. They parked their vehicles next to a gravel road, forming a loose circle of pickup trucks, a semi, and an earth-moving track hoe. A driver turned on the track hoe and drove it down into a long stretch of grass that ran along a hillside—the right of way for the Colonial Pipeline, the largest gasoline pipeline in the U.S. Beneath the ground, a 3-foot-wide steel tube carried roughly 1.4 million barrels of gasoline each day to 50 million Americans in cities up and down the Eastern Seaboard.
The men were there to conduct repairs. Just over a month before, the pipeline had sprung a leak, forcing a shutdown that caused gasoline reserves on the East Coast to fall from 64 million barrels to 55.5 million, the biggest one-week drop in U.S. history. Prices spiked at the pump in many cities from Atlanta to Jersey City, N.J. The leak had been fixed temporarily with a bypass, and now the crew was excavating about five miles from the original rupture to rebuild the stretch that had failed. They worked for a local contractor, L.E. Bell Construction, that the pipeline's owner, Colonial Pipeline Co., had hired many times over the years.
Among the team was Anthony Lee Willingham, a 48-year-old track hoe operator who'd been with L.E. Bell for almost 30 years. He was familiar enough with the routine procedures of pipeline repair to have built a kind of muscle memory. If he was at the wheel—the company hasn't confirmed this—he would have known to operate the track hoe blade slowly, deliberately, without applying too much pressure. But somehow the blade struck steel, and the fuel ignited.
At that moment, not far down the gravel road, a farmer named Douglas Wright was at home playing with his granddaughter. The explosion shook the house to its foundations. Wright looked outside and saw a column of flame rising hundreds of feet in the air. Black smoke billowed into the blue sky. He told his wife to take their granddaughter and drive as fast as possible, then he headed toward the fire, thinking to check on some elderly neighbors. As he got closer to the site, he heard screams. Wright arrived to find some of the workers on the ground, severely burned, as their uninjured colleagues tried frantically to move them away from the flames. The track hoe was charred. The semi was obliterated, and the pickup trucks were on fire. Amid the wreckage was the body of Willingham. Authorities were unable to collect his remains until the next day.
Aftershocks quickly shuddered up the spine of America's energy system. When gasoline traders realized that East Coast reserves were once again threatened, they started bidding up the price of fuel. In a matter of hours, the cost of a gasoline futures contract for December shot up 15 percent, the highest jump since the financial crisis in late 2008. Merchants scrambled to secure supplies from tankers carrying imported fuel, causing the cost of cargo freight from the Atlantic to surge more than a third, to about $17 per metric ton, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
A Troubling Safety Record
The chaos revealed something millions of Americans had long been able to ignore: They depend on a single pipeline to deliver the gasoline that fuels their everyday lives. And that pipeline is operated by a single, little-known company with an increasingly troubled safety record. Built in 1962, the Colonial was the largest private-sector infrastructure project of its time. Roughly half of all refined fuel products used in cities from Georgia to New Jersey run through its 5,500 miles, which branch out from oil refineries in Texas and on the Gulf Coast to gas stations in America's most populated corridor. In 1999, Colonial Pipeline paid a fine of $7 million—the biggest ever at the time—for a massive spill in South Carolina. Four years later, it was fined $34 million, a new record, for spilling 1.45 million gallons of oil in five states.
At the same time, Colonial has benefited from an increasingly dense regulatory environment for pipeline construction, which has helped protect it from competition and make it something of a piggy bank for its owners, to whom the company returns annual dividends that typically total about $300 million. Colonial's pipeline consistently runs at 100 percent capacity, leaving gasoline refiners and fuel merchants, who pay transport rates in a manner akin to a toll road, vying for space. The company, headquartered in Alpharetta, a suburb of Atlanta, is privately held by a consortium of investors. The largest is Koch Industries, with a 28 percent stake; others include the private equity firm KKR, Shell Pipeline, and South Korea's National Pension Service.
Tight capacity and the millions of gallons of new oil supplies produced by the U.S. shale boom have made some operators and industrial customers eager to build additional pipelines. Companies that rely on the Colonial, including American Airlines, are among those pressing for expansion. But although pipeline operators maintain that moving fuel underground is cheaper and safer than moving it by rail, barge, or truck, resistance to more construction has grown fierce, and not just in liberal communities. In addition to ongoing protests by Native American and environmental activists over the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota, some deeply conservative Southern counties have opposed projects as well. Minutes after the explosion in Alabama, David Butler's cell phone started ringing. Butler is a local leader of Riverkeepers, an alliance of activists who protect watersheds and rivers around the country. As Riverkeeper for the Cahaba, which snakes between the sites of the Colonial gas leak in September and the explosion in October, he counts among his responsibilities testing for pollution and responding to reports of sewer leaks. Colonial had also enlisted him to help monitor for pollution from its line and with cleanup after spills.
Fires, A Spill and Calls for Help
The first calls were from neighbors, asking if he knew what had happened. Then Colonial got in touch and confirmed that the fire had begun with an explosion. The implications were dire: Hundreds of thousands of gallons of fuel could be pouring into nearby creeks and rivers, imperiling the Cahaba's 173 species of fish and mussels, 14 of which are listed as threatened or endangered. The waterway is also home to the rare Cahaba river lily, which attracts thousands of tourists after it blooms each May. (Local drinking water supplies were safe, since they're drawn from a river farther away.)
That evening, Butler arrived at the improvised command center Colonial had set up at a community building in the town of Pelham. After being cleared by security, he entered a large, gymnasium-like room where a disaster response team was working on a plan to contain the fire and assess the damage. Butler might have seemed out of place amid the fire department staff, pipeline personnel, and officials from the Environmental Protection Agency and other government bodies. With his dark beard, wiry frame, and casual clothing—he often wears jeans and a yellow Riverkeeper T-shirt—he typically looks like he's just finished a long hike.
That first night, Butler worked with Colonial employees and environmental contractors until roughly 3 a.m. to draw a map that showed where gasoline might be leaking into the Cahaba. One point of concern was a creek near the explosion that fed into the river. This small stretch of water is the isolated habitat of the oblong rocksnail, a species thought to be extinct until a small population was found in 2011. Butler and Colonial decided that in the morning they would test strategic points along the waterways for the presence of fuel.
As they worked that night, the fire was spreading along the hillside to nearby forested land. Alabama was in the middle of an historic drought, which had left the forest floor covered with dry tinder. About 31 acres of land were engulfed overnight. Butler considered it a stroke of luck that the fire wasn't encroaching on the suburban communities dotting the highways between the explosion and Helena, a town 21 miles south of Birmingham. Colonial had moved swiftly to shut off the flow of gasoline in the pipe, leaving it to burn itself out as firefighting crews doused the edges of the blaze and built earthen berms to contain the fountain of ignited fuel. When Butler arrived in the morning to start collecting water samples, the fire was largely contained, but it remained about 20 feet high.
As he went from site to site, the early indications looked promising: no oily sheen on the water, no odor of gas. He did, however, notice a somber air among the pipeline employees and contractors. They seemed almost embarrassed, he thought. Colonial had been having a very bad year in Alabama. The company had already reported five leaks from its pipeline in 2016, one less in 10 months than it had had in the previous five years. In late January, the Colonial had discharged about 126 gallons of fuel into nearby wilderness. Several smaller spills followed, culminating in the big leak in September, when 309,540 gallons of gasoline poured out of the line, filling local ponds and forcing the shutdown.
An Increasing Trend
Records from the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) show that nationally, the number of reported pipeline accidents has been creeping up every year since 2012, from 573 that year to 715 in 2015. The number of reported accidents along the Colonial has also been climbing (though not in a straight line), from 12 in 2011 to 27 in 2015. Their cost, too, has been increasing. Last year, incidents involving the Colonial led to $18.1 million in property damage and cleanup outlays, the highest total by far over the preceding decade. This year, the figure had already reached $75.6 million before the accident on Oct. 31.
Colonial refused to comment on what caused the September leak or why accidents are up sharply in Alabama this year. Malesia Dunn, a spokeswoman for Colonial, said that the company is looking into the causes of both major incidents and can't comment until the investigation is further along. The PHMSA has yet to determine the cause of the September and October incidents and wouldn't comment either.
Butler had worked with Colonial to contain the September leak. As bad as it was, he said, it could have been far worse. It had been discovered only by chance, by a state inspector who smelled gas fumes while doing unrelated work in the area. And because of the drought, the nearby ponds were low, which allowed them to become catchments for the spill. Had they been full, the gasoline might have flowed into the Cahaba.
Dunn wouldn't discuss why the company failed to discover the September leak, but she stressed that it has an extensive detection system in place. The system includes pressure-monitoring equipment and flyover inspections, as well as training for local officials about Colonial's operations, which lets them know “who to call if they see something,” she wrote in a statement. She added that a flyover inspection two days before hadn't spotted the leak.
After the September spill was contained, Butler said, he had jokingly told Colonial employees, “I hope I never see you again.” Now, as they once again raced to keep the Cahaba River safe from a gas spill, “it wasn't like, ‘Hey, great to see you,’ ” he said. “It's like, ‘Here we are again.’ ” Accidents like the ones on the Colonial have galvanized opposition to pipeline construction across the country. In North Dakota, protesters have built huge encampments and blocked roads to halt construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, a $4 billion project that would take crude oil from fracking wells in North Dakota to refineries and gasoline consumers in Illinois. Members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe argue that the pipeline's proposed route runs too close to the Missouri River, the source of their drinking water. On Nov. 15, hundreds of marchers closed down streets near the White House, while other rallies took place from Los Angeles to New York.
The Colonial's history suggests their fears are justified. The leak in South Carolina for which Colonial Pipeline paid its 1999 fine, for example, sent roughly 1 million gallons of diesel fuel into a local waterway, contaminating a 23-mile stretch of river and killing an estimated 35,000 fish, along with beavers, muskrats, and turtles. In settling with the U.S. Department of Justice, Colonial pleaded guilty to criminal neglect.
Over the past three decades, incidents like these, and the resistance they've spawned, have led to a much tighter regulatory environment for pipeline builders. Roger Williams, a pipeline developer from Wichita, said that in the mid-1980s he oversaw a project that laid 1,300 miles of pipe from Texas to California, crossing several states and a mountain range for good measure. At 85, he's now vice president for operations on the 178-mile Pilgrim Pipeline project, which would serve cities in New Jersey and New York. His team has spent millions just to get to the beginning of the permitting process, including money to hire herpetologists and other wildlife experts to examine the ecological impact of the new line. After more than three years of groundwork, Williams said, “we don't have one single permit yet.” In the meantime, the company has had to shut down a branch office in New York and lay off its staff. “They protect everything up there except human beings,” he said.
Opposition to Pipelines, Eminent Domain
New pipelines are being thwarted in the South, too. In May, Georgia's Republican governor, Nathan Deal, signed a moratorium on pipeline permits following intense public opposition to a proposal by Kinder Morgan for a 360-mile pipeline called the Palmetto. The line would have branched off from the company's Plantation Pipe Line, tracing a route through Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida, and serving cities with limited or no pipeline service, such as Savannah and Jacksonville. Opposition arose almost immediately, led in part by Tonya Bonitatibus, the Riverkeeper for the Savannah River. The Palmetto was to be buried beneath miles of marshy terrain that runs alongside sensitive rivers—wetlands that serve, Bonitatibus said, as the rivers’ “liver and lungs,” by letting pollutants settle out into sediment in the shallow, slow-moving water.
While some of the anti-Palmetto movement's concerns were environmental, their activism took on a conservative bent. Most of the resistance focused on Kinder Morgan's authority to use eminent domain to take property from landowners who wouldn't cut a deal with the company, a power granted to pipeline companies by a New Deal-era law intended to spur infrastructure development. “They were incredibly arrogant the entire time,” Bonitatibus said. “There was absolutely no way that Kinder Morgan should have access to eminent domain.”
Allen Fore, a spokesman for Kinder Morgan, said that on a typical pipeline project the company uses eminent domain sparingly, invoking it for fewer than 5 percent of landowners. He added that the company had also been prepared to push ahead with Palmetto without eminent domain. But the activists’ message carried the day, and Deal passed his moratorium with the backing of conservative state legislators. Even with financing and a customer base locked in, the regulatory uncertainty was too great for Kinder Morgan to carry on. “That, at the end of the day, was the problem of Palmetto—where you have a regulatory environment that shifts,” Fore said. “The playing field is not only altered, it's basically shut down.” In the days after the Alabama explosion, as Butler collected water samples, employees from Colonial and L.E. Bell raced to get gasoline flowing again. The lessons of the September shutdown were fresh in their minds. They knew that oil traders and wholesalers would be counting the minutes until the pipeline reopened.
The gravel road to the accident site was guarded by a rotating shift of Shelby County sheriff's deputies, who checked credentials and kept strangers and reporters away. Traffic was almost nonstop. Heavy trucks with the L.E. Bell logo came and went, along with vehicles from specialists and construction companies from around the Southeast. The men and women driving looked stoic, ignoring reporters as they passed by the entrance. At the site, workers prepared new sections of pipeline while fire crews sprayed smoldering tree stumps to prevent reignition. In the predawn hours of Nov. 4, four days after the blaze erupted, it finally burned out completely. The next day, the new section of pipeline was tested and prepared for use.
It Was a ‘Freak Accident’
Employees of L.E. Bell appeared shellshocked in the days after the explosion. Word of Willingham's death had spread quickly, and four of his co-workers were being treated at a burn unit in downtown Birmingham. Trays of food and gallons of coffee were sent to provision family members as they held vigil. Those who knew Willingham seemed mystified by the accident, none more so than Jeremy Slaton, his next-door neighbor and close friend. The two often shot rifles together on a grassy hillside near their homes. Slaton recalled that Willingham could hit a target from several hundred yards away. Willingham was a steady hand and a competent worker, he said, which made him doubt that a simple mistaken swipe of the track hoe blade had been entirely to blame. “It would take tremendous, tremendous force to put a back hoe, or a track hoe, tooth through a piece of pipe,” he said. “I'm thinking there's something else … something was hidden that caused this.”
Shortly after the accident, Colonial released a statement saying that a track hoe had struck the pipeline, but the company didn't confirm that Willingham had been driving or otherwise elaborate. The company and the National Transportation Safety Board are both investigating the accident, but neither would comment on their investigations or on the circumstances of the explosion.
Larry Bell, the owner and operator of L.E. Bell Construction, declined to discuss the explosion in detail because of the legal troubles surrounding it. He would say only that it was a “freak accident.” He said, “It had nothing to do with unsafe pipeline or workmanship. I'm not a betting man, but you'd win money on that.”
Bell lives on a large complex that also serves as his company's headquarters, on a winding country road near Heflin, an hour or so east of Birmingham. On the left as visitors enter is a giant warehouse and open lot. Next to that is a small office building, where visitors are greeted by a caged parrot. A sign taped to the front door shows a pile of cash below the caption, “This is the money you could've saved if you hadn't voted for Obama.” To the right of the office is a palatial house. The mix of home and business, Bell said, was “a country boy's way of doing stuff.” He was quick to point out that he and his wife were born poor and had been raised in a nearby small town. “We didn't have no rich aunts or rich uncles or daddies … but we had some good ones,” he said.
Bell dropped out of high school to work as a laborer on the Colonial in the early 1960s. He remembered when the pipeline ran its first gallons to fuel. His company now employs about 500 people, who help maintain the aging Colonial and other pipelines like it across the country. Colonial Pipeline, he said, goes “extremely overboard to make sure everything is done right and everything is safe.” He described pipelines as a necessity of modern life. “If we lined up trucks to transport our product from Louisiana and Texas to the East Coast, we wouldn't have any room on the interstate to run our cars,” he said. “Anything we do has got risk to it. There's nothing that man makes that does not have a risk to it.”
Dunn, Colonial's spokeswoman, wouldn't say what specific actions the company will take to boost reliability. “When incidents do occur, we investigate and determine the cause alongside government regulators, and take corrective actions based on lessons learned to minimize the likelihood of similar events happening again in the future. We are doing the same here,” she wrote in an e-mail. After each previous major accident, the company agreed to improve safety practices as part of its settlement with federal regulators.
This year's incidents appear to be affecting the company's bottom line. In 2015, according to Moody's, Colonial spent $163 million on capital investments, which includes measures for system reliability. This year the figure is almost double that, roughly $300 million. That's about the same amount the company has been returning to its shareholders in dividends in recent years, but Moody's notes that Colonial will reduce the payouts this year because of the accidents. Koch Industries declined to comment. It's possible that the presidency of Donald Trump will change the regulatory environment for pipelines, clearing the way for the Dakota Access to be completed and for the construction of the Keystone XL and other lines. But it's unclear how much impact even a determined White House could have, given that most pipeline battles are fought at the lower levels of government. Moreover, gasoline supply crunches won't likely persuade the environmental groups that pressured President Obama to kill Keystone XL and are now protesting the Dakota Access to back down from their objections. “My worries about ‘infrastructure fragility’ tend more towards, say, the effects of rapid sea level rise on the nation's coastal cities,” wrote author and activist Bill McKibben, co-founder of the nonprofit 350.org, in an e-mail.
Environmentalists’ fight, he pointed out, is about more than preventing leaks—it's a way to curb the construction of infrastructure that supports the oil and gas industry. “The imperative need is to wean the world fast off fossil fuels—this is the hottest year our planet has ever recorded, with record-low polar ice for the date, with massive droughts and floods,” McKibben wrote. “When we build new fossil fuel infrastructure we condemn the nation to another 40 or 50 years locked into the current way of doing business.”
For now, at least, the risks of climate change, water contamination, and species loss remain the trade-off for driving our cars and heating our homes. By Nov. 6, the Colonial was up and running again. Gas prices had barely been disrupted, leaving some 50 million people to forget once again what an important role a single tube of steel and the company that owns it play in their daily lives.
Butler's water tests from the accident site came back negative for gasoline. It was great news for him and the oblong rocksnail, but he wasn't celebrating. Instead, he was nervous that the next call from Colonial would be coming soon enough. The risk was always hanging out there, he said. “It's sort of a guillotine.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100870834&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100870834&jd=100870834
-
U.S. Chemical Safety Board to Probe Exxon Baton Rouge Refinery Fire
Nov 23, 2016 | Reuters
By Erwin Seba
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board began a probe on Wednesday into a large fire the day before at Exxon Mobil Corp's Baton Rouge, Louisiana, refinery that critically injured four people, the agency said in a statement.
A total of six people were injured in the blaze on the alkylation unit at the 502,500 barrel per day (bpd) refinery, the CSB said. Four of the injured remained in a Baton Rouge hospital burn center on Wednesday.
An Exxon spokeswoman said the company is working closely with agencies probing the blaze.
"An investigation into the cause of the incident at Baton Rouge is underway," Exxon spokeswoman Lauren Kerr said on Wednesday night.
"All appropriate agencies have been notified and we are working closely with them."
The fire broke out as work was being done to restart the alkylation unit, sources familiar with plant operations told Reuters on Tuesday. They declined to be identified as they were not authorized to speak with media.
"According to initial inquiries, flammable vapors were released during unplanned maintenance around a pump," the CSB said on Wednesday.
"Although there was no explosion, the release ignited and caused a large fire."
On Tuesday, Exxon said four people were injured in a "small fire" at the refinery.
The Chemical Safety Board has no regulatory or enforcement powers, but is tasked with determining the root causes of explosions or fires at U.S. chemical plants.
CSB Chairwoman Vanessa Sutherland said the agency had repeatedly investigated U.S. refinery fires.
"The CSB has investigated too many incidents at refineries across the country," Sutherland said in a statement on Wednesday.
"We continue to be concerned about the safety of oil and gas workers and their surrounding communities. The management of risk is an important part of any high hazard operation."
The Board also continues to work for a tougher regulatory system for safety at refineries and chemical plants, according to the statement.
(Reporting by Erwin Seba; Editing by Joseph Radford)
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-refinery-probe-exxon-batonrouge-idUSKBN13J0BP
-
Nov 23, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Norman Carlin and Brendan J. Hennessey
Preparing for a warmer world, with the prospect of more frequent intense weather, extended droughts and rising seas, is bringing a new focus on resilience for land use and development policies and public infrastructure projects.
These developments present implications and opportunities for the private sector. A climate adaptation project is in many ways like any other, requiring planning, financing, design and engineering, entitlements, construction, operation and maintenance. But its planning and objectives will incorporate resilience from the outset, with resistance to anticipated climate stresses taken into account at all stages.
The terms “climate adaptation” and “climate resilience” generally refer to the ability of society, infrastructure and ecosystems to withstand and recover from the consequences of climate change. In the early years of public concern with global warming, when climate scientists first suggested giving thought to adaptation, many environmental advocates and regulators viewed the subject with suspicion, as undercutting the effort to control greenhouse gas emissions. Today, that view has changed. High-profile and controversial initiatives, such as the Paris Climate Agreement and the Obama Administration's Clean Power Plan, emphasize emission reductions. But regardless of whether one believes that climate change is human-caused or a naturally occurring phenomenon, the prospect of more frequent intense weather, extended droughts and rising seas is prompting widespread concern, leading to renewed discussion on the need to prepare for a warmer world.
Much of the attention to date is at the government level, focused on land use and development policies and public infrastructure projects. But there are also implications and opportunities for the private sector. A climate adaptation project is in many ways like any other project, requiring planning, financing, design and engineering, entitlements, construction, operation and maintenance—but with resistance to anticipated climate stresses taken into account at all stages. In the near term, project developers and the construction and other industries can expect to benefit from increased public agency planning and investment to enhance climate resilience. More broadly, engaging with climate adaptation can provide companies, particularly those with infrastructure-heavy and development-oriented business models, with an opportunity to adapt their own plans, investments and activities to reduce vulnerability to a changing climate and to protect their long term interests through strategic business planning and project design.
Federal Efforts to Address Climate Adaptation
On Oct. 31, the Obama administration released a new report, Opportunities to Enhance the Nation's Resilience to Climate Change, describing federal efforts in this area to date and recommending, among other things, improved coordination with the private sector on knowledge, resources and strategies for addressing climate-related risks. The report discusses opportunities for action such as building climate adaptation into both public- and private-sector decision-making, establishing incentives and requirements to increase infrastructure resilience, evaluating the performance of resilience investments and supporting community adaptation efforts. On the same day, the administration launched the Resilience Dialogues, an online consultation service designed to connect private, governmental, academic, and nonprofit organizations, to enable sharing of technical and programmatic resources and help meet community resilience needs.
These developments build on prior federal efforts including a draft framework released in June by the Environmental Protection Agency, Evaluating Urban Resilience to Climate Change: A Multi-Sector Approach. The framework document proposes indicators for assessing the ability of urban environments to reduce the magnitude of harm and to more rapidly recover from both long-term climate change and extreme weather. The indicators show whether a location is prepared to withstand gradual changes, such as higher average temperatures, increasing wind strength and precipitation and sea level rise, as well as extreme events, such as hotter and longer heat waves, storm surges and flooding, droughts and stronger hurricanes. The framework will be utilized by federal agencies and also will likely serve as a model for state and local climate adaptation efforts. As such, it provides a reference point for developers seeking government permits and approvals for development projects. In addition, the framework may provide a useful model for businesses and developers to benchmark their own resiliency by evaluating specific risks, including vulnerability of below-ground infrastructure components to salt water intrusion or the effect of changing temperatures on project materials such as common asphalt formulations.
Climate resilience is also an increasing focus of government decision-making on infrastructure projects. In 2015, Obama signed Executive Order 13690, requiring federally funded capital projects to consider the potential for increased flood severity. Pursuant to the executive order, the Department of Housing and Urban Development is proposing new floodproofing standards for federally assisted and financed projects (81 Fed. Reg. 74,967). In addition, the long-awaited final guidance from the White House Council on Environmental Quality on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Effects of Climate Change in National Environmental Policy Act Reviews, issued in August, directs agencies preparing environmental impact statements or environmental assessments to consider opportunities for resilience and adaptation. In addition to the more conventional evaluation of project greenhouse gas emissions as a potential contribution to climate change, the guidance advises that environmental reviews consider the effects of climate change on the project itself, including its vulnerability to rising sea level, drought, high intensity precipitation events, increased fire risk or climate-related ecological change, at the time of project implementation and into the future. This guidance applies not only to projects directly undertaken by federal agencies but also to state, local and private projects that receive federal funding, permits, leases or other approvals.
Conversely, in some instances, climate adaptation has served as a rationale for precluding development. For example, the Obama Administration cited the need to preserve large contiguous areas of habitat in order to bolster resilience and help maintain connectivity against climate stresses when designating 87,000 acres of Maine north woods as a national monument and adding 139,797 square miles to a national monument off the coast of Hawaii.
California Takes the Lead
California, with more than 800 miles of coastline and facing a historic drought, has been an early adopter of climate adaptation planning. In 2014, the California Natural Resources Agency issued Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk, as an update to the state's Climate Adaptation Strategy. The document identifies sea level rise as a key threat, posing risks such as inundation of low-lying power plants and release of toxic chemicals from flooded facilities or land containing hazardous materials. In particular, this document stakes out the strong position that California “should not build or plan to build, lease, fund or permit any significant new structures or infrastructure that will require new protection from sea-level rise, storm surges or coastal erosion during the expected life of the structure, beyond routine maintenance of existing levees or other protective measures, unless there is a compelling need.” Climate risks should be taken into account in planning, siting, design, construction and maintenance, and risk-benefit analysis should be conducted at project inception to evaluate anticipated benefits against the cost of protecting the infrastructure over the project's lifetime.
Other state agencies also have been active in climate adaptation planning. The Coastal and Ocean Working Group of the California Climate Action Team (CO-CAT) has developed specific guidance for incorporating sea level rise projections into project planning and decision-making. The California Coastal Commission has issued guidance for addressing sea level rise in review of coastal development permits required for new development within the coastal zone. Permit applicants must project sea level rise for the expected life of the proposed project and analyze scenarios of sea level rise impacting the project over time based on considerations including geologic stability, erosion, flooding and stormwater, wave impacts and saltwater intrusion. The applicant also must address impacts on coastal resources and the landscape by the project under different rates of sea level rise, and consider alternatives and adaptation strategies.
The California Legislature has directed further action. For the state's own infrastructure, A.B. 2800 requires state agencies to take current and future climate change impacts into account when planning, designing, building, operating, maintaining and investing in state projects, and creates a climate-safe infrastructure working group to incorporate climate data into state infrastructure engineering requirements, including oversight, investment, design, and construction. For projects under local jurisdiction, S.B. 379 requires cities and counties to update their General Plans to address climate adaptation and resiliency strategies, including identification of climate change risks in the local geography, policies and objectives based on the vulnerability assessment, and identification and implementation of feasible resilience measures.
Louisiana's Threatened Economy
Louisiana is struggling with sea level rise and increased flooding, at a time when its budget deficit poses a challenge for substantial public investment in climate resilience. In the past, the region's extensive natural marshes, swamps, and barrier islands could accommodate rainfall and storm surge. However, with approximately 1,880 square miles of the state's coastline consumed by sea level rise over the past eight years, those natural mechanisms will need to be supplemented with mitigation and adaptation measures. A study by Louisiana State University and the Rand Corp. found the state's land loss could cause $5.8 billion to $7.4 billion in lost economic output. A report by America's Wetlands Foundation and the Entergy Corp., with the participation of global reinsurer Swiss Re, found that the Gulf Coast energy production region, extending from southern Texas to coastal Mississippi and Alabama, is vulnerable to growing environmental risk, with $350 billion in cumulative losses expected by 2030, driven largely by land subsidence and increasingly severe storm events. The report recommends a number of cost-effective regional measures to address the increased risk, including strengthening building codes; improving environmental infrastructure such as beach nourishment, wetlands restoration and levee systems; improving resilience of electric utilities and measures specific to the oil and gas industry, such as improved standards for offshore platforms and levees for refineries and petrochemical plants. Even if these efforts were put in place, however, there would still be approximately $14 billion in residual expected annual losses, only half of which would be covered by existing insurance. In a 2013 report prepared for the state Department of Natural Resources, the Louisiana Sea Grant Law and Policy Program concluded that requiring sea level rise and flooding be taken into account in siting decisions is critical to avoiding such damages and recommended the adoption of local regulations to ensure new development is not at undue risk from erosion, coastal land loss and storms. The report also recommended implementing hazard mitigation policies, reinforcing coastal wetlands, and requiring stricter planning and engineering before building new structures.
New York City's Ambitious Approach
According to a U.S. Department of Commerce report, the estimated costs to repair and replace damage caused by Hurricane Sandy in lower New York and New Jersey were $41.9 billion and $29.5 billion, respectively. In the storm's aftermath, the New York State Legislature passed the Community Risk Reduction and Resiliency Act, which requires projects that receive state funding and permit approval to consider the impacts of climate change during the planning process. Developers submitting permit applications must include a detailed analysis of how a project will respond to climate risks such as sea level rise or severe storm events. New York City has launched the East Side Coastal Resiliency Project, jointly funded by the city and the federal government, an ambitious effort to reduce flood risk to Manhattan's East Side due to coastal storms surges and sea level rise. This project includes a system of 10-foot-high berms that will extend along the east riverfront for approximately two miles, while constructing waterfront park access improvements to avoid walling off the neighborhood. The East Side project is intended as the first piece of a larger effort to enhance coastal protection across the city, potentially including protection of the subway system from saltwater inundation. Restoring the subway to operation following Hurricane Sandy cost the city approximately $600 million.
Conclusion
Adapting to the challenges of climate change also presents opportunities for the private sector. Most obvious is the prospect of participating in the development and construction of large-scale infrastructure, such as New York's East Side Coastal Resiliency Project and levee improvements in Louisiana, which are directly aimed at enhancing climate resilience. But new projects of all kinds, not limited to climate-adaptive infrastructure itself, will be subject to the policies and programs discussed above, as well as others being developed in Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington and other states and localities. It will not be long before successfully navigating a major project to approval and implementation requires taking climate adaptation into account at all stages.
As noted above, a climate adaptation project is in many ways like any other project, but it is also different, in that its planning, purpose and need will incorporate resilience from the outset. In fact, achieving adaptation objectives could constitute a benefit that may offset or justify other environmental consequences of a project. Moreover, proponents of projects in vulnerable areas, such as coastal zones, may benefit from taking a proactive approach to climate adaptation as they contend with project opponents who formerly shunned the topic as a distraction from greenhouse gas reductions but may now embrace it as a brake on development.
By actively engaging with climate adaptation, companies with infrastructure-heavy and development-focused business models may be able to create valuable new ventures. Moreover, the evolving suite of government climate adaptation policies present “out of the box” frameworks that companies can build on to develop their own policies and approaches to account for climate change in their businesses and projects.
Norman Carlin, a partner in Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP's San Francisco office, practices environmental and land use law, with a focus on environmental impact review and permitting under California and federal law for energy, transportation and commercial projects. He also advises clients on compliance with federal, state and local regulatory requirements for protection of the environment, and in particular of water quality and wetlands; and on environmental aspects of business transactions.
Brendan Hennessey is an associate in the law firm's environmental practice in the Washington, D.C., office. He focuses on complex environmental litigation, regulatory compliance, and environmental risk management in business transactions.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100870827&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100870827&jd=100870827
-
Nov 24, 2016 | Economist
The rest of the world will figure out a way to stay on course
“LIKE ice water through the veins.” That is how a UN official, in Marrakesh for the UN climate summit that ended on November 18th, described the effect of Donald Trump’s electoral victory. Her trepidation was widely shared at the two-week event—and justified. In a tweet in 2012 Mr Trump called anthropogenic warming a “hoax”. On the campaign trail he said he would abolish America’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and “cancel” the UN agreement to curb greenhouse-gas emissions adopted by 190-odd countries in Paris last year. But in an interview this week with the New York Times, he seemed to waver. Gathered in the ancient Berber city, representatives of those countries pondered whether America is about to forfeit the leadership on climate change it belatedly showed when Barack Obama helped bring about the Paris accord.
That deal, which came into force earlier this month, includes a commitment to limit the increase in the global average temperature to “well below” 2°C above pre-industrial levels. Given that the world has already warmed by approximately 1.2°C, this is hugely ambitious (see chart 1). With just a few weeks to go, this year looks likely to be the hottest on record.
Yet the measures the signatories vowed to adopt were comparatively modest. Most were self-proposed and voluntary cuts to their emissions of carbon dioxide, in particular those caused by deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. Most developing countries, which produce around 65% of global carbon emissions, promised to restrict their emissions to levels that, assuming natural gas continues to substitute for coal and the cost of renewable energy continues to fall (see special report), may require no special efforts. India, the world’s third-biggest producer of greenhouse gases (see chart 2, pledged to increase its use of energy from renewable sources. Overall, though, its target is estimated to represent a rise of 90% compared with current emissions.
By the summit’s close some of the Trump-fuelled anxiety had eased. That was in part because the talks demonstrated the value and durability of the Paris deal. As well as the overall target, it contains many useful provisions, on climate finance, technology sharing and the role of forests, for example. Over time, these could help countries make faster progress than now seems plausible. Past climate deals failed in part because they tried to impose mitigation targets on reluctant countries, rather than allowing each country to decide for itself what it thinks is achievable. The Paris agreement, by contrast, is sufficiently loose in its structure and modest in its aims to be able to withstand America, the world’s second-biggest carbon emitter, abandoning it.
American and other officials in Morocco downplayed that possibility. In a striking reversal of the two countries’ recent positions, Liu Zhenmin, China’s vice-foreign minister, coaxingly invited America not to shirk its environmental responsibilities; the UN’s early climate negotiations, he noted, had been supported by two Republican presidents, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. John Kerry, America’s secretary of state, said that, though he could not second-guess Mr Trump (who had no representative in Marrakesh), he had “learned that some issues look a little bit different when you’re actually in office compared to [during a] campaign”.
Mr Trump is indeed unpredictable. Since the election he has signalled a contempt for climate science by appointing a climate-change denier, Myron Ebell, to plan his takeover of the EPA, through which Mr Obama, in the absence of congressional support for environmental law-making, has issued much new green regulation. In the New York Times interview, however, Mr Trump suggested that he accepted the reality of anthropogenic warming and might not seek to withdraw from the Paris accord. He has now taken just about every position on climate change imaginable. As well as calling it a hoax—by the Chinese, with the aim of harming American manufacturing—he has said the world is warming but humans have nothing to do with it, that human activity plays a “minor” role in warming, donated money to a group lobbying for action to avert climate change and, in 2009, signed a public letter calling for cuts to America’s emissions, thereby creating “new energy jobs”.
Mr Trump’s view on climate change, it seems, is chiefly governed by what he thinks each audience wants to hear. That may be good news for the world. Public concern about global warming is rising in America; 64% of Americans say they are worried “a great deal” or “a fair amount” about it, and 71% say America should not withdraw from the Paris accord—including a majority of Republicans. As for scrapping the EPA, the share of Americans who like the breathable air and drinkable water the agency helps to safeguard is no doubt even higher. Mr Trump acknowledged this, too, in his recent interview: “Clean water, crystal-clean water, is vitally important.”
Abolishing the EPA, moreover, would require legislation that Democratic senators, though in the minority, could block. The main subsidies for wind- and solar-power generation, which made up two-thirds of new generating capacity last year, appear similarly beyond Mr Trump’s reach. They were extended last year by a Republican-controlled Congress; windy red states such as Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas are among their main beneficiaries.
Mr Trump could try to remove greenhouse gases from the EPA’s remit, though this would require the Supreme Court to reverse itself on a ruling from 2007. Or he could rescind environmental regulations brought in by Mr Obama, even if this would often be difficult. Many of these were mandated by legislation and have been tested by litigation, thereby accruing a legal standing of their own. For example, in order to get rid of a rule that curbs the amount of mercury and other toxic emissions from power plants, Mr Trump’s EPA boss would have to issue, in effect, a less exacting alternative, then defend it against legal challenges from environmental campaigners. That could take years.
But other rules are more vulnerable. They include a handful passed as executive orders—for example, one that mandates the energy-efficiency standards of federal agencies—which the new president could strike out. In addition, any regulation issued between Mr Trump’s election and his inauguration could be frozen, at least temporarily. Incoming administrations often threaten to revoke such “midnight regulations”, but rarely do so, to avoid the bother of having to replace them, as they must. But this could spell the end of Obama measures such as a rule issued on November 15th to control methane leakage from oil and gas operations on federal lands.
Emboldened by the prospect of a unified Republican government, Republican congressmen could get in on the act. Under a rarely used law, the Congressional Review Act, Congress can revoke any rule, with a majority vote, within 60 congressional working-days of its issuance. As Congress has not been terribly active in recent months, it could in theory scrap all regulations issued since mid-May.
Mr Obama’s most important environmental regulation is the Clean Power Plan, which seeks to limit carbon emissions from coal- and gas-fired power stations. It is considered crucial to America’s chances of fulfilling its commitment under the Paris accord to cut its emissions, by 2025, to 26-28% below their 2005 level. Mr Trump has promised to scrap the plan. It is currently stayed by the Supreme Court while a legal challenge by 27 states and some companies is mulled in the federal appeals court in Washington, DC. If that court rules against it, a Trump administration would not appeal. If it is upheld, its challengers would appeal to the Supreme Court, where the Trump administration might refuse to defend it. If it makes it through the Supreme Court, the Trump EPA could probably rescind and replace it.
But even this would not persuade many electricity companies or states to reverse the shift they are already making towards renewables and away from coal. The growth of renewables has helped cut America’s emissions from power generation by around a quarter since 2005. The main reason for that progress, an abundance of cheap shale gas, gives the lie to another piece of Trumpian bluster: the tycoon’s promise to pep up the coal industry.
America’s shale-gas revolution has made generating electricity from gas almost as cheap as generating it from coal (see chart 3). Once the costs of probable future environmental regulations are allowed for, new gas-fired power-stations look like better business than new coal-fired ones. This year is expected to be the first in which America generates more electricity from gas than from coal; 94 coal-fired power-stations closed last year and 41 more are expected to shut this year. Mr Trump has promised to make more public land available to miners; but access to coal reserves is not their problem. He probably could not intervene to reverse coal’s decline without actively handicapping renewables or natural gas.
All in all, optimists think the environmental damage caused by a one-term Trump administration could be relatively limited. Whether they are right, however, will depend on how much he attempts. Perhaps the biggest risk is that, having already abandoned some more prominent campaign promises—for example to wall off Mexico and deport 11m undocumented migrants—he could view a bonfire of environmental regulation as a relatively low-cost way to placate his disappointed supporters. Slashing funding for “politicised” climate research, as one of his advisers has said is on the cards, might please them, too.
Previous Republican presidents whose sympathies lay with the coal- and oil-men played by the rules, frets an environmental lawyer who fought them; perhaps Mr Trump will not. He could, for example, simply stop implementing environmental rules across the board, and let the legal battles rage. It seems unlikely. But so was his impending presidency.
Easy free-rider
The delegates in Marrakesh were comforted in part by a hope that Mr Trump would soon realise that withdrawing from the Paris deal would weaken his hand in every other international bargain he might wish to make. “If you renege on deals, you don’t get the one you want next time,” says James Cameron, the chairman of the Overseas Development Institute, a British think-tank. But if that calculation does not hold, progress under the Paris accord may not be as fast as it would otherwise have been.
Countries have until 2018 to work out how to tot up the results of their environmental efforts; in 2020 they will set themselves new, hopefully tougher, targets. This process would probably be less robust and more secretive without America’s involvement. Developing countries, whose unmet energy needs are still substantial, might find it easier to fudge their figures. And persuading other countries to raise their ambitions in four years’ time would be difficult with America standing idly by.
Not just leadership and motivation would be in shorter supply, but also money for green schemes. By 2020, $100bn a year is supposed to be available, most of it for cutting greenhouse-gas emissions and the rest for helping countries to adapt to climate change. Rich countries are supposed to pay almost all of it; the rest of them may balk if America fails to do its bit.
But some think large transfers from rich countries to poor ones are in any case becoming less important to international environmental efforts. Droughts, heatwaves and other extreme events are already more likely because of global warming, and the link between climate change and such disasters is becoming more widely accepted. Negotiations about paying for mitigation and adaptation efforts used to resemble talks between hostage-takers and those trying to free them, says Hal Harvey, an energy consultant: poor countries would demand money from rich ones in return for not exploiting their own ecosystems.
Now these countries are increasingly realising that they need to act to limit global warming for their own sakes, whether or not sweeteners are forthcoming. In Marrakesh 48 of the least-developed ones promised to supply their entire energy needs from renewable sources by 2050. Rachel Kyte, a UN energy official, says that many more are looking for help to set up energy-efficiency schemes and to work out how best to spend what money they have.
Slowing economic growth and falling demand for coal in China mean that it may already have passed the high point of emissions, about 15 years ahead of the date it promised under the Paris deal. By 2020 it plans to have tripled its solar capacity—already greater than that of any other country—to 143 gigawatts (GW); two years ago the world’s entire installed solar capacity came to 181GW. If this enables China to burn less coal, it will help tackle air pollution, a huge problem in its cities. According to research published last year, spending a day in Beijing does about the same harm to a person’s health as smoking 40 cigarettes.
Strenuous efforts by China to cut emissions would also mean vast domestic demand for clean-energy technology, which would help the country’s firms to consolidate their lead in supplying a fast-growing, and lucrative, global market. While Mr Trump occupied himself with a few unprofitable coal-mines, China could be taking a commanding lead in batteries, solar panels and wind turbines.
The cost of renewable energy has already come down a great deal in the past couple of years, and with greater economies of scale, will fall further. Even though government subsidies in some places, including Britain, are being chopped, renewable sources are making more commercial sense. In some places offshore wind energy costs just half as much as it did three years ago. And solar installations in the world’s sunniest spots now offer power at less than 3 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh)—cheaper than even the most economical gas plants. “With solar so cheap you might think it is a communist plot, but you’re still going to put up the panels,” says Mr Harvey. The volatile price of fossil fuels also makes them less attractive when planning new generating capacity.
For India, too, cheaper renewable energy will be a boon. Around 300m of its people, mostly in rural areas, have no electricity supply; off-grid solar installations would be life-changing. India has pledged to install 175GW of renewable capacity by 2022, most of it solar. This would mean doubling solar capacity every 18 months or so; it is roughly on track to meet its goal.
According to Arunabha Ghosh of the Council on Energy, Environment and Water, a think-tank in Delhi, India’s plans will not be affected if America pulls out of the Paris deal since they are in the country’s own interests. Extreme weather events linked to climate change already result in huge distress and enormous bills: in the 12 months to April 2014 central and state governments spent $92bn after floods, droughts and other disasters.
Support for continued climate action has emerged from other surprising quarters. Saudi Arabia recently announced new efficiency schemes for energy and water, which will make it easier to cut huge subsidies to both and thereby put further downward pressure on demand. Indonesia is also cutting subsidies for fossil fuels; until recently these absorbed a bigger share of public spending than either health or education, says Erik Solheim, the head of the UN Environment Programme.
The new climate crusader
Seven years ago, when climate talks in Copenhagen crashed and burned, Chinese intransigence was widely blamed. Its officials have not forgotten the experience. A chance to play the hero and rescue global environmental efforts would be appealing—though China surely wants America to stay involved. American and Chinese leadership has achieved unprecedented levels of international co-operation on climate in the past year. Though the deal struck in Paris was too modest, the hope that countries would increase their efforts over time was realistic.
That hope has been shaken by Mr Trump’s election, but not extinguished. The money governments and firms have already pumped into renewables and energy-efficiency programmes mean that progress will continue. Not everywhere will suffer the effects of climate change, from flooded streets and scorched fields to empty reservoirs and burning forests, equally. But even if Mr Trump reneges on America’s environmental promises, others will try to stop the worst of them.
http://www.economist.com/news/international/21710811-rest-world-will-figure-out-way-stay-course-what-will-happen-if-americas
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested