Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 3/3/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemicals Industry Groups' NAFTA Priorities Include Maintaining Duty-Free Trade
Mar 2, 2017 | World Trade Online
Trade associations representing chemicals companies from the U.S., Canada and Mexico this week outlined their priorities for a renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which include maintaining tariff-free trade for chemicals... -
(ACC Mentioned) Public-Private Partnership Launches Plastics-Recycling Push
Mar 2, 2017 | Hartford Business Journal
By Matt Pilon
State agencies, municipalities and various collaborators launched a campaign last week that seeks to educate state residents about available recycling programs for plastic bags and films. -
Senate Approves Perry for Energy Secretary
Mar 2, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Darius Dixon
The Senate on Thursday confirmed former Texas Gov. Rick Perry to be President Donald Trump's Energy secretary, elevating a non-scientist to oversee nuclear weapons programs, national laboratories and energy research and development... -
Industry Identifies Candidates for Possible EPA Toxics Chief
Mar 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
Industry sources say three former officials are possible candidates to head EPA's toxics office, though it is unclear whether the individuals are under consideration or whether industry representatives are hoping for experienced leadership to push through... -
(ACC Mentioned) States' Chemical Rules May Set Stage For Legal Tests of TSCA Preemption
Mar 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
Several liberal states' efforts to advance aggressive toxics laws could set the stage for legal tests over what chemical industry sources say are lingering unresolved questions on when the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) preempts state chemical... -
(ACC Mentioned) Is Polyurethane Foam a Dreamy Comfort or Toxic Nightmare?
Mar 2, 2017 | Green Future
By Ali Emerson
Even if you’ve never heard of polyurethane foam, odds are high that it’s somewhere in your home — and some reports suggest that it could endanger your health. -
(ACC Mentioned) Here's How Much Pee Could Be in a Public Swimming Pool
Mar 3, 2017 | Net Doctor
By Becky Fletcher
Even though the number of people who regularly swim is in decline, it is still one of the UK's most popular active pastimes -
Maine Agency Testifies Against Flame Retardant Ban Bill
Mar 3, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Maine's environmental protection department (DEP) has testified in opposition to a state bill seeking to ban the use of all chemical flame retardants in residential upholstered furniture. -
EU Limited in Regulating Nanoscale Chemicals, Appeals Board Rules
Mar 3, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Chemicals Agency Board of Appeal ruled March 2 that chemical companies operating in the EU are not required to provide specific information about the nanoscale forms of their substances. -
Mexico Energy Overhaul Favors U.S. Industry as NAFTA Changes Loom
Mar 3, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
The U.S. should ensure that any renegotiation of the North American trade pact, a favorite gripe of President Trump's on the campaign trail, preserves recent strides in U.S. access to the Mexican energy sector, a range of energy specialists told Bloomberg BNA. -
EPA Pulls Methane Information Request
Mar 3, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
EPA says more than 15,000 oil and gas companies no longer have to report detailed technical information about methane emissions from their operations. -
Power Sector Request In ESPS Suit Raises Prospects Of Delayed Ruling
Mar 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Doub Obey
Four power sector groups challenging EPA's Clean Power Plan are seeking to move pending challenges over the Obama administration's denials of their administrative petitions into the separate, already-argued litigation on the rule's merits... -
Oklahoma’s Earthquake Rate Slows, But Cushing Oil Hub Remains in Danger Zone
Mar 3, 2017 | Platts
By Meghan Gordon
The good news for Oklahoma is that the number of earthquakes stronger than magnitude 2.7 that hit the state last year fell by more than a third to 2,500, compared with 4,000 in 2015. -
Cracking Appalachia’s Ethane Code Part 2: Shell's Cracker Is 'Tip Of The Iceberg'
Mar 2, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
The Appalachian Basin's shale formations helped to birth the natural gas renaissance in North America, and the region now is poised to join the Gulf Coast as a major petrochemical hub, a group of experts said Monday. -
Exxon's New CEO Shifts Investments to Quick-Earning Shale Oil
Mar 3, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joe Carroll
Exxon Mobil Corp. is trading in long-term projects that pump oil over decades for U.S. shale drilling that can be switched on or off as crude prices change. -
730-mile Epic Permian-to-Corpus Pipeline in the Works
Mar 2, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Rye Druzin
A trio of companies hope to build a 730-mile-long crude oil and condensate pipeline from West Texas to Corpus Christi. -
(ACC Mentioned) GOP Senators Push Bill to Block Chemical Plant Rules
Mar 3, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
Chemical producers are a step closer to scuttling planned Obama administration security rules as an Oklahoma senator put forward new language to block the regulations March 2. -
(ACC Mentioned) Inhofe Bill Would Roll Back Disputed Safety Regs
Mar 3, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) has introduced a bill to scuttle new U.S. EPA accident prevention regulations for thousands of chemical plants, oil refineries and other industrial facilities. -
The Cybersecurity of the Infrastructure - A Challenge and an Opportunity
Mar 2, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Samuel Sanders Visner
Twenty years ago, the notion of national infrastructures enabled and endangered by the internet would have been hard to imagine -
(ACC Mentioned) Productivity Would Diminish Without Infrastructure Upgrades, Chemical Industry Report Shows
Mar 2, 2017 | Transport Topics
By Eugene Mulero
Failure to modernize the country’s freight network will likely prevent the chemicals industry from aiding in economic growth, according to a report by the American Chemistry Council unveiled on Capitol Hill a day after President Trump’s first address to Congress. -
Canadian Minister Discusses Paris Deal with Pruitt
Mar 3, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Hess
Canada's top environmental official talked climate action with U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt yesterday, according to a readout from the Canadian Embassy. -
Water Part of Infrastructure, Pruitt Tells Mayors
Mar 3, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid and Sylvia Carignan
Scott Pruitt told the nation's mayors he has a message for the White House: Don't forget storm drains, tunnels, sewers, pipes, service lines and treatment plants when looking to improve infrastructure. -
Former Administrators Say Proposed EPA Cuts Target Core Programs
Mar 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
Two former EPA administrators -- Gina McCarthy and Christine Todd Whitman -- are blasting the Trump administration's preliminary budget plan that would gut the agency, saying it targets core environmental programs and goes far beyond Republican attacks... -
'I'm Convinced We're Going to Win This,' Gore Tells Activists
Mar 3, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Jennifer Yachnin
The last time former Vice President Al Gore visited the Centennial State it was the eve of Election Day 2016, and the Democrat offered an enthusiastic message to residents as he campaigned for Hillary Clinton: Cast your ballots and support climate policies.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemicals Industry Groups' NAFTA Priorities Include Maintaining Duty-Free Trade
Mar 2, 2017 | World Trade Online
Trade associations representing chemicals companies from the U.S., Canada and Mexico this week outlined their priorities for a renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which include maintaining tariff-free trade for chemicals, updating rules of origin and improving regulatory cooperation. The American Chemistry Council, the Chemical Industry Association of Canada and the Mexican Chemical Industry National Association, in a March 1 statement , expressed their support for NAFTA but said they see its renegotiation as an opportunity to address...
§ Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.
Story can be found here: https://insidetrade.com/trade/chemicals-industry-groups-nafta-priorities-include-maintaining-duty-free-trade
-
(ACC Mentioned) Public-Private Partnership Launches Plastics-Recycling Push
Mar 2, 2017 | Hartford Business Journal
By Matt Pilon
State agencies, municipalities and various collaborators launched a campaign last week that seeks to educate state residents about available recycling programs for plastic bags and films.
The Wrap Action Recycling Program (WRAP) is the result of a collaboration that began last year between the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and the American Chemistry Council, an industry group that has opposed taxes and bans on plastic bags.
The educational campaign launches as Connecticut lawmakers are considering a 5-cent tax on single-use plastic bags. A bill cleared the the Environment Committee this week.
The hope is that more Connecticut residents will bring their plastic bags and films to a network of drop-off locations, such as grocery stores. More information on locations can be found here.
DEEP announced the launch of WRAP last week at a Price Chopper in Middletown, which accepts bags and wraps for recycling.
http://www.hartfordbusiness.com/article/20170302/NEWS/170309978
-
Senate Approves Perry for Energy Secretary
Mar 2, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Darius Dixon
The Senate on Thursday confirmed former Texas Gov. Rick Perry to be President Donald Trump's Energy secretary, elevating a non-scientist to oversee nuclear weapons programs, national laboratories and energy research and development at an agency he once wanted to eliminate.
Perry won support from every Republican and 10 Democrats, including Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.), as well as Sen. Angus King (I-Maine). The final vote to confirm him was 62-37.
Environmentalists and Democrats like Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) balked at Perry’s nomination, but the former "Dancing with the Stars" contestant turned out to be far less controversial than other Trump Cabinet picks that Democrats have resisted such as Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. Perry also helped smoothed his path by contritely rescinding his pledge to dismantle the Energy Department — uttered during his 2012 presidential campaign — and reversing course on years of comments dismissing climate change science and scientists.
Perry lacks the academic pedigree of his immediate predecessors, Ernest Moniz, Steven Chu and Sam Bodman, each of whom earned doctorates from elite institutions, but he brings substantial management experience from his 14 years running the Lone Star State. Perry’s supporters are quick to point to that tenure to argue that he will be up to the challenge presented by DOE's 17 national labs and 100,000-plus employees and contractors spread across the country.
While Texas is the nation's top producer of oil, natural gas and wind power, Perry has little experience with the work that accounts for two-thirds of DOE's budget: managing the U.S. nuclear stockpile, cleaning up Cold War-era weapons sites and supporting nonproliferation work.
Brian McCormack, an executive at utility trade group Edison Electric Insitute and Bush alum, is slated to be Perry's chief of staff, a source said.
The Trump administration has yet to announce Perry’s deputy at DOE but several sources have said that the job is expected to go to Dan Brouillette, who led the agency’s congressional and intergovernmental affairs office early in the George W. Bush administration, if he clears the necessary background checks. Brouillette's successor in that post was Rick Dearborn, who is now Trump's deputy chief of staff for policy.
Brouillette briefly worked for the House Energy and Commerce Committee and Ford Motor Co. before joining USAA, where leads the bank’s government and industry relations shop from Texas, in 2006. Former DOE officials have praised Brouillette, but tapping him would also mean that neither of the top two DOE officials would have a deep knowledge of the agency's weapons programs.
The remaining third of DOE's nearly $30 billion annual budget supports energy research and development, the creation of efficiency standards for things like air conditioners and the clean energy loan guarantee program that became a flash point in President Barack Obama's first term.
Trump's budget proposal to boost military spending by $54 billion at the expense of discretionary programs could take a big bite out of DOE. While the White House isn't expected to squeeze the agency's nuclear weapons and cleanup programs, DOE's science and so-called applied research programs that specialize on areas like nuclear energy could face significant cuts. The agency's $2.1 billion energy efficiency and renewable energy office, in particular, has long been a target of Republicans.
“During his confirmation hearings, Rick Perry promised to stand up for clean energy," said Jim Marston, the Environmental Defense Fund's vice president for clean energy. "With clean energy on President Trump’s chopping block, we’ll quickly find out if that promise will be Perry’s first 'oops' moment of his tenure at DOE.”
Still, Congress holds the purse strings. While Republicans on Capitol Hill are eager to curb rules run out of the EPA, there’s a deep bench of GOP lawmakers who like DOE programs, particularly if it means jobs back home, research dollars for their state’s universities or funding for decades-long efforts to clean up national security sites.
"Put it this way: These are just blueprints," Rep. Chuck Fleischmann (R-Tenn.), who is vice chair of energy and water spending subcommittee, said of Trump's overall budget goal. Like Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), who leads that panel, Fleischmann has a DOE national lab in his district.
"I'm going to continue to advocate, in my role as vice chairman of the energy and water subcommittee, for our national labs, for the critical missions that we do at Oak Ridge [national lab] ... for our nuclear cleanup missions, and for the Office of Science," he said. "These initiatives are great American initiatives, and I think we will start the process. Obviously, the administration will have a role, but so will the House and Senate appropriators."
DOE isn’t the tower from which Perry can follow through on Trump’s campaign promises to unleash an oil, gas and coal boom by dialing back Obama-era environmental programs.
Most Americans are oblivious to what DOE does. And during his confirmation hearing in January, Perry admitted to his own gaps in knowledge in the agency’s mission.
Perry spoke softly to senators who peppered him with questions on topics ranging from nuclear testing to natural gas exports to cybersecurity. But it was his opening statement disavowing his 2011 promise to eliminate the Energy Department — the name of which he forgot during his famous "oops" incident — that appeared to set the tone for the nearly four-hour hearing.
"My past statements made over five years ago about abolishing the Department of Energy do not reflect my current thinking," he said. “After being briefed on so many of the vital functions of the Department of Energy, I regret recommending its elimination.”
That statement appeared aimed at the many energy committee members who fear Perry may slash funding for the agency’s network of 17 national labs and curb DOE's research into renewable energy and climate change. Perry also gave a definitive answer disavowing aspects of a 74-point questionnaire the Trump DOE transition team sent to the agency seeking the names of employees who worked on climate issues, which former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said unsettled staff.
"I didn’t approve it. I don’t approve of it. I don’t need that information. I don’t want that information. That is not how I manage,” Perry told the committee, noting that the questionnaire went to the agency before Trump actually selected him to be energy secretary.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/03/senate-approves-perry-for-energy-secretary-145455
-
Industry Identifies Candidates for Possible EPA Toxics Chief
Mar 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
Industry sources say three former officials are possible candidates to head EPA's toxics office, though it is unclear whether the individuals are under consideration or whether industry representatives are hoping for experienced leadership to push through new chemical safety rules amid growing concern over Administrator Scott Pruitt's lack of experience.
The possible candidates to serve as assistant administrator of EPA's Office of Chemical Safety & Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) are Dimitri Karakitsos, a former Senate Republican staffer who helped draft the new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Jim Gulliford, who led EPA's toxics office during part of the Bush administration and Charles Auer, who retired from EPA in 2009 as director of EPA's Office of Pollution, Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), the staff-level office now directly responsible for implementing TSCA reform.
Pruitt's supporters fear that his lack of understanding of EPA may hamper his bid to steer EPA back to focusing on its core mission of clean air, clean water and cleaning up contaminated sites. Among their concerns is Pruitt's selection of Ryan Jackson, a former staffer for Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), as his chief of staff, who similarly lacks any EPA experience and has been hostile to the agency during his Capitol Hill tenure.
Chemical industry sources have also been concerned that the Trump administration's hostility to regulations in general would make it difficult for EPA to push through rules required by the new TSCA law. Industry officials generally favor adoption of the rules to help secure consumer confidence in their products and preempt a patchwork of state requirements.
They have sought and won public commitments from Pruitt that the agency would comply with the new law's regulatory deadlines though it is not clear whether the White House fully supports the commitments, especially given pledges from White House strategist Steve Bannon that administration nominees were selected to help “deconstruct the administrative state.”
Given his familiarity with the new TSCA law, Karakitsos has long been floated as a possible candidate for the slot. He was formerly the senior Republican counsel for the Senate environment committee where he was a principal drafter of the Senate bill that later became the foundation of the bipartisan chemical safety reform law passed last summer. Karakitsos did not respond to a request seeking comment.
One source pointed to Karakitsos' connection to Inhofe, the former chairman of EPW. Karakitsos would be a “perfect candidate in many respects,” given his work in drafting and negotiating TSCA, another industry source told Inside EPA last December.
Two industry sources also named Jim Gulliford as another potential candidate, who could be bolstered by his relatively extensive political leadership at the agency. He served as administrator of EPA's Region 7 from 2001-2006, and led EPA's toxics office through the end of the Bush administration.
Gulliford now serves as executive director of the Soil and Water Conservation Society, an Iowa-based non-profit focused on developing and improving ways to conserve land “that sustain its productive capacity and enhance the environment at the same time,” according to its website.
But while Gulliford would bring a wealth of experience to EPA, an industry source says that he had heard Gulliford “might be interested but wanted assurances.” Gulliford, the source said, reportedly asked how deep EPA's budget cuts would be and whether the toxics program would have the chance to do its job.
Gulliford, however, tells Inside EPA that that he has “had no contact with either the administration or the transition team.”
Another industry source named Auer as a possible candidate. He is currently a senior regulatory and policy advisor at the law firm of Bergeson & Campbell, which specializes in chemicals law. Auer did not respond to a request seeking comment.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/industry-identifies-candidates-possible-epa-toxics-chief
-
(ACC Mentioned) States' Chemical Rules May Set Stage For Legal Tests of TSCA Preemption
Mar 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
Several liberal states' efforts to advance aggressive toxics laws could set the stage for legal tests over what chemical industry sources say are lingering unresolved questions on when the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) preempts state chemical safety programs, with federal courts expected to have to resolve the uncertainty.
Speaking at the GlobalChem chemical policy conference in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 23, attorney Eric Gotting said it is unclear whether an EPA regulation under the new TSCA would preempt a state's chemical labeling mandates, its effect on tort claims, and how the statute's "grandfather clause" -- which exempts some pre-existing state chemical programs from preemption -- will deal with new rules crafted under long-standing state laws, among other issues.
"You're going to see how complicated this gets and how many different questions we're going to have to ask, and where [non-governmental organizations (NGOs)] and states on one hand and industry on the other are going to make their arguments. None of this is really that clear," Gotting said during a panel on TSCA preemption.
EPA officials have said that new agency Administrator Scott Pruitt is "engaged" on implementation of the toxics law, suggesting the Trump administration will not seek to significantly delay various new rules required under the updated TSCA -- including those that once finalized could trigger state preemption.
No cases over TSCA's preemption of state chemicals programs are currently pending because EPA is still early in the process of implementing its new powers. However, once the agency does take an action that would trigger preemption court battles will follow soon after, Gotting and other panelists said.
For instance, the Toy Industry Association's Owen Caine said state bills to restrict the use of flame retardants "are everywhere" despite EPA assessing risks to a number of flame retardants under its 2014 TSCA Work Plan. The agency did not include those substances on a Dec. 7 list of the first 10 chemicals the agency plans to evaluate under the new law, meaning they could serve as test cases since preemption does not apply as broadly to those 10 chemicals.
The American Chemistry Council's Rudy Underwood said formaldehyde, oxybenzone used in sunscreen, and perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) are also high-profile targets for state regulation.
Preemption Provisions
Under the new TSCA law, state requirements for chemicals are only preempted after EPA publishes the scope of a forthcoming safety assessment for a "high priority" chemical, and not all state policies are preempted.
Among other exceptions, states' reporting, monitoring and information laws can continue, as can hazardous waste and disposal laws as long as there is no direct conflict between the two. That will set up tests for whether state policies that regulators claim fall into an exemption truly qualify -- for instance, whether a requirement to put a warning label on products containing a certain chemical is "informational."
"If I were an NGO or a state, I would say, 'look, a warning has nothing to do with the manufacturing, processing, distribution, anything. It's just a warning. So we aren't even in the world of preemption.' But industry can come back and say, 'A warning can be a use instruction, and that goes to use. That's exactly what we're trying to preempt,'" Gottin said.
Mandates for reporting when products include certain chemicals could also be contested despite the reporting exemption, he continued, because they include an implicit mandate to test the products for those chemicals, and testing requirements are not exempted.
Similarly, he said, mandates to perform alternatives analyses for chemicals of concern could trigger preemption because they add a significant new cost to manufacturing a product when it includes a regulated chemical.
While the statute grandfathers state policies enacted before President Obama signed TSCA reform into law last June, Gottin said there will likely have to be a court ruling on whether that exemption applies only to rules that were in place before 2016, or if new rules crafted later, under state laws passed before the cut-off, also benefit.
Beyond the list of exemptions, TSCA allows EPA to grant waivers from preemption if states can show "compelling conditions" as long as it does not create an "undue burden" but gives little guidance to the agency on what test to use for those conditions.
Most prominently it is unclear whether the threat of a patchwork created by varying state regulations thanks to preemption waivers would pose an "undue burden" under the law, Gottin said.
Conflicting Interpretations
Even though there have been no rulemakings that involve preemption, and thus no opportunity for a court claim, Gotting said uncertainty on the law's meaning is evident in conflicts between Democrats' and Republicans' interpretations of the law's preemption language. Each party released its own lengthy analysis of the legislation shortly after it was enacted, and the two had sharply different readings of the preemption provisions.
Gottin said that among other issues, Democrats and Republicans were at odds over whether the reform law is meant to waive the doctrine of "conflict preemption," in which federal law takes precedence over state law any time the two pose conflicting requirements.
The TSCA reform law does not specifically address conflict preemption -- instead, it broadly waives forms of preemption not explicitly laid out.
But Gotting said that it is unclear whether that will be enough to convince courts to set aside conflict preemption.
Democrats said in their analysis of the TSCA law, entered into the Congressional Record last year, said that "this preemption clause made sure that even if there is a conflict, conflict preemption does not apply. That's not in the statute" in any clear way, he said.
He described a hypothetical where a state and EPA each set mandates for warning labels that apply to a particular chemical, and the state policy mandates specific phrasing -- such as using the word "danger" -- where EPA does not. The outcome of tort suits against chemical manufacturers to enforce such a mandate could turn on whether conflict preemption applies.
"Courts are going to have to figure out whether, if a judge's order says 'you should have used the word danger,' and EPA says 'you only need to use the word warning,' whether or not that toxic tort suit is preempted. That is, I think, going to be a huge battle in the courts," Gotting said.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/states-chemical-rules-may-set-stage-legal-tests-tsca-preemption
-
(ACC Mentioned) Is Polyurethane Foam a Dreamy Comfort or Toxic Nightmare?
Mar 2, 2017 | Green Future
By Ali Emerson
Even if you’ve never heard of polyurethane foam, odds are high that it’s somewhere in your home — and some reports suggest that it could endanger your health.
According to ISOPA (the European Isocyanate Producers Association), polyurethane foam is safe, sustainable, and altogether a bit of a miracle product. The American Chemistry Council says the same. The foam can be manufactured with various additives to create a range of consistencies. Because of this, it finds its way into most areas of our homes, from building insulation and TVs to computer equipment, bedding, soft furnishings, and even surfboards.
But in 2014, The Atlantic reported that “the U.S. system of chemical regulation is broken.” Because of those broken regulations, many household furnishings contain toxic chemicals, some of which have been linked to lower IQ scores, ADHD, and thyroid disorders. Polyurethane foam is one such culprit.
How can we be certain that the products we bring into our homes are safe?
What is Polyurethane Foam?
Polyurethane is made when methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) and toluene diisocyanate (TDI) react with polyols. MDI and TDI both need to be handled carefully during the manufacturing process. In particular, TDI is a suspected carcinogenic, is classified as very toxic, and is a known respiratory and skin irritant.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommends that workers avoid exposure to TDI. While the final polyurethane product is said to be inert, and therefore safe, this still means that up to 48,800 workers directly involved in the production of polyurethane are at risk.
First invented in the 1930s, the use of polyurethane for household items became widespread after World War 2. But what initially seemed like a miracle product had a downside — it was highly flammable. To combat this, manufacturers began to add flame retardants to polyurethane, and these chemicals are the cause of many of the health concerns about polyurethane foam mattresses, couches, and other home and office furnishings.
Why are manufacturers able to use dangerous chemicals in products like baby mattresses, couches, and children’s car seats? What laws do we have in place to protect consumers from these toxins?
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is the federal law governing the regulation of chemicals. Rather than controlling toxic substances, as the name implies, the act is actually little more than an inventory of chemicals used in manufacturing.
TCSA requires manufacturers to inform the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of any new chemical they wish to begin using. If the EPA has any concerns about the chemical, the agency can demand further information. The onus is on the EPA to spot potential problems, rather than on manufacturers to thoroughly test products before use.
When the EPA reviews potential “new chemicals,” it has the power to limit the uses of the substance — or it can refuse to add the chemical to the list altogether, thereby prohibiting its use. Only 2,500 chemicals were refused between 1976 and 1994. When TCSA was passed in 1976, over 60,000 chemicals in use at that time were grandfathered in.
Since that time, more than 20,000 new chemicals have been added to the inventory, and only 5,000 of those have been questioned due to safety concerns.
Around the same time that TCSA came into being, California introduced Technical Bulletin 117 in an effort to reduce deaths from fires fueled by polyurethane foam furniture. This bulletin introduced tough safety tests in which items had to resist an open flame for 12 seconds. In order to pass the test, manufacturers began to use flame retardants in their furniture, many of which had been grandfathered into the TSCA inventory without safety testing.
At first, everyone was happy: foam furniture on sale across the US now adhered to the strict California standard. As a result, lives were sure to be saved. Figures do indeed show that fire deaths in which upholstered furniture was a primary source of ignition declined by over 58% across the US after the introduction of TB117.
But then people began to associate health problems with their polyurethane foam furniture. Studies found that commonly used flame retardants were carcinogenic. One flame retardant, polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE), contributes to lowered IQ, increased hyperactivity in young children, and disrupted hormones during pregnancy. PBDEs have since been classified as persistent organic pollutants (POPs), and their production is restricted under the Stockholm Convention.
Due to growing concerns about PBDEs, they were banned by the state of California in 2003, and their sole manufacturer in the US voluntarily phased out production starting in 2004. However, a test of 101 polyurethane foam baby products carried out in 2011 showed that 80% of them contained chemicals the Consumer Product Safety Commission considered as a potential hazard to consumers. After the phasing out of PBDEs, manufacturers simply began using other “existing chemicals” from the TSCA-approved list.
Without the testing of suspect substances already on the TSCA register and an increased testing of new chemicals, toxic substances will continue to be discovered in our household products. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, signed in by former President Obama in June 2016, is a long-awaited reform of TSCA, but does it have the power to really improve matters for consumers and the environment?
Why Regulations Matter
The modernized act does have some improved powers. For example, the EPA is now required by law to begin safety reviews of 10 high-priority chemicals on the existing list within 180 days of the law coming into force. Within three to five years, the EPA is expected to begin reviews of 20 additional chemicals. Although this is a step in the right direction, with so many new chemicals coming onto the market, it might be too little too late.
If the EPA does have particular concerns about a new chemical, the new law gives the agency a streamlined route to demand testing. But unless outside pressure is brought to bear on the EPA, it may not begin the process as there is no requirement to do so.
One controversial aspect of the old TSCA was that manufacturers could demand that the ingredients of their chemicals be kept secret in order to protect their competitive edge. This lack of transparency does nothing to help consumers and scientists work out which chemicals are potentially dangerous.
The new law means that many ingredients can be revealed to first responders, state and local governments, and health providers. In theory, this should make it easier to decide whether to push for testing. However, manufacturers can still ask for confidentiality if the name of a chemical might reveal to competitors how it is produced.
While the new law clearly improves some aspects of TSCA, it is still not enough to make our homes and workplaces completely safe from toxic chemicals. The Union of Concerned Scientists points out that, under the new rules, it would take the EPA about 50 years to test the 1000 most dangerous chemicals on their list. The new law will also need plenty of extra funding, but so far it is unclear where this is expected to come from.
In addition to the improvements to TSCA, California recently reformed TB117 to TB117-2013. The new version takes away the requirement for foam to pass the open flame test, and now only requires it to pass a smoldering test. This change was made in response to evidence that most fires involving polyurethane foam furniture actually start as a result of smoldering heat sources. Requiring foam to pass the strict open flame test was seen as overkill and a likely contributor to the amounts of toxic flame retardants used by manufacturers.
Unfortunately, manufacturers do not appear to be moving quickly to reduce the amounts of flame retardants they use. Changing their suppliers and production methods would, after all, be expensive. One manufacturer actually went so far as to try to sue the Californian government to reinstate the open flame test, stating that “the new TB 117-2013 standard is a step backwards and will ultimately adversely affect fire safety for the entire nation."
Duke University currently offers a free testing service to identify which flame retardants are present in furniture you already own. But if you are buying new furniture that is labeled as “meeting the requirements of technical bulletin 117,” it may still contain toxic flame retardants, even if it has only been subjected to the smolder test. There is still no easy way for consumers to tell which chemicals different products contain.
For now, if you are concerned about limiting your family’s exposure to potential toxins, you have limited options. Testing your existing furniture and buying natural alternatives in place of new polyurethane foam are the only surefire ways to keep the toxins out, but with the prevalence of polyurethane products in today’s society, it is unlikely that anyone could avoid them entirely.
https://greenfuture.io/sustainable-living/spray-polyurethane-foam-toxic
-
(ACC Mentioned) Here's How Much Pee Could Be in a Public Swimming Pool
Mar 3, 2017 | Net Doctor
By Becky Fletcher
Even though the number of people who regularly swim is in decline, it is still one of the UK's most popular active pastimes. But with 2.5 million people swimming each week, according to an Active People survey – have you ever wondered how much pee could be in your local swimming pool?
Scientists from the University of Alberta, Canada, recently made it their mission to find out how much urine is in a swimming pool and found that a 91,500 gallon pool contained 5.8 gallons of pee. While a 183,000 gallon pool had around 17 galloons. To put this in to context, an Olympic-sized swimming pool holds around 660,000 gallons of water.
According to the scientists, the average swimmer passed 70ml of urine - about one-fifth of a soft drink can.
The research team tested two different sized swimming pools over three weeks for an artificial sweetener known as acesulfame potassium (ACE). ACE is used in a range of foods and drinks and passes through the body until it is expelled via urine. It is easily detected in varying amounts of water.
You might also want to keep your mouth closed and your goggles in a Jacuzzi. ACE levels were found to be high in hot tubs, according to the study. All 31 swimming pools and hot tubs tested in sports centres, hotels and homes were found to contain urine.
Interestingly, experts suggest that if a swimming pool smells strongly of chlorine it could indicate that there's more urine in the water. The American Chemistry Council write: "Pool smell is due, not to chlorine, but to chloramines, chemical compounds that build up in pool water when it is improperly treated. Chloramines result from the combination of two ingredients, chlorine disinfectants and perspiration, oils and urine that enter pools on the bodies of swimmers."
Experts also say that red, irritated eyes – typically associated with higher chlorine count – could actually be a result of fellow swimmers peeing in the water. When wee (which is sterile) combines with chemicals, such as chlorine, it can create byproducts that cause eye irritation and respiratory problems.
Study leader Lindsay Blackstock said:
"The high concentration of acesulfame-K, with 100% occurrence in pools and hot tubs, demonstrates the human impact on recreational water quality. Human urinary input into swimming pools is a public health concern, although urine itself is sterile. Urine contains many nitrogenous compounds such as urea, ammonia, amino acids, and creatinine. These compounds can react with disinfectants in swimming pools to form disinfection byproducts. Exposure to volatile disinfection byproducts, specifically trichloramine, in indoor swimming facilities can lead to eye and respiratory irritation and has been linked to occupational asthma. Although considered a taboo, 19% of adults have admitted to having urinated in a swimming pool at least once."
She added:
"We want to use this study to promote public education on appropriate swimming hygiene practices… We should all be considerate of others and make sure to exit the pool to use the rest room when nature calls."
Moral of the story? Pack your goggles and be mindful of other swimmers. Here's some other swimming hygiene etiquette you should always follow:
· Stay out of the water if you have a stomach upset
· Shower before and after you get in to the water
· Don't pee or poo in the water
· Don't swallow the water
· Take children on regular bathroom breaks
· Check nappies regularly
· Avoid pools if the water is cloudy or visibly dirty, has slimy surfaces or missing and broken equipment
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/healthy-living/news/a27761/heres-how-much-pee-could-be-in-a-public-swimming-pool/
-
Maine Agency Testifies Against Flame Retardant Ban Bill
Mar 3, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Maine's environmental protection department (DEP) has testified in opposition to a state bill seeking to ban the use of all chemical flame retardants in residential upholstered furniture.
Referred to committee on 26 January, the measure (LD 182) would ban the sale of residential upholstered furniture containing more than 0.1% of a flame retardant chemical, or containing more than 0.1% of a mixture that includes them.
It defines a flame retardant as "a chemical or chemical compound for which a functional use is to resist or inhibit the spread of fire." This includes halogenated, phosphorus-based, nitrogen-based and nanoscale flame retardants and "any chemical or chemical compound for which 'flame retardant' appears on the substance safety data sheet".
But in a 27 February hearing, Kerri Malinowski, DEP safer chemicals programme manager, said the measure would fail to accomplish its stated goal of protecting firefighters and would create "significant implementation burden on the department."
Ms Malinowski said that there could be hundreds of substances captured by the bill's flame retardant definition. And the burden of identifying these substance – and analysing them, if investigations become necessary – would be "tremendous".
She also said the measure fails to provide a mechanism to identify safer alternatives as replacements, does not address other sources of toxic substance exposure that firefighters face and could result in products being removed from the market or increasing in cost.
The DEP urged a no vote on the bill.Support for proposal
The measure, however, received the backing of several environmental and health NGOs, academics, and an alliance of firefighters.
Emma Halas-O'Connor, environmental health campaign manager at NGO Prevent Harm, testified that the measure would "end the pattern of regrettable substitutions that has played out in the upholstered furniture industry".
Residential furniture, she said, does not require flame retardants to meet flammability standards, and many manufacturers have already eliminated the use of the substances.
And although TSCA reform has given the US EPA increased ability to regulate chemicals of concern, she said its slow timelines and huge backlog of substances to address means that action on many of these flame retardants is still decades away.
"We hope more evaluations of flame retardants will happen at the federal level, but let's not wait around, leaving potentially hazardous chemicals with no proven safety benefit in our furniture," she said.
Maine is one of as many as 15 states considering flame retardant legislation this year.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53984/maine-agency-testifies-against-flame-retardant-ban-bill
-
EU Limited in Regulating Nanoscale Chemicals, Appeals Board Rules
Mar 3, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Chemicals Agency Board of Appeal ruled March 2 that chemical companies operating in the EU are not required to provide specific information about the nanoscale forms of their substances.
The Board of Appeal annulled a 2014 European Chemicals Agency decision that required a group of companies to provide more information in their REACH registration dossiers about the substance identity of nanoforms of titanium dioxide, which is used in applications such as paints and adhesives.
The Board of Appeal said REACH (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals) does not require companies to provide in their registration dossiers nanospecific substance identity information separately from substance identity information relating to the bulk form of the substance. The chemicals agency exceeded its powers by asking for nanospecific information, the board said.
Under REACH, “a registrant is at liberty to give a broad definition of the substance” that would cover bulk and nano forms, the Board of Appeal decision said.
The ruling could put pressure on the European Commission to clarify what information companies should provide about nanosubstances.
The “literal language” of REACH does not require companies to submit specific nanoform substance identity information, and the European Chemicals Agency “will not be able until the legislation is revised to ask for that information,” Herb Estreicher, a partner with Keller and Heckman LLP in Washington, D.C., told Bloomberg BNA March 2.
‘May Have ... Greater Chemical Reactivity’
In the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency notes that “chemical substances that have structures with dimensions at the nanoscale—approximately 1-100 nanometers (nm)—are commonly referred to as nanoscale materials or nanoscale substances. A human hair is approximately 80,000 to 100,000 nanometers wide.
“These chemical substances may have properties different than the same chemical substances with structures at a larger scale, such as greater strength, lighter weight, and greater chemical reactivity.
“These enhanced or different properties give nanoscale materials a range of potentially beneficial public and commercial applications; however, the same special properties may cause some of these chemical substances to behave differently than conventional chemicals under specific conditions,” the EPA says.
‘Underreported’ Substances
The European Chemicals Agency has said previously that nanosubstances were underreported in REACH registration dossiers, and has pushed for clarification of the information it can ask from REACH registrants on nanosubstances.
The European Commission, the EU's executive arm, carried out a consultation in 2013 on how the REACH annexes should be modified to better specify information requirements related to nanosubstances. The commission has said a number of times since then that a proposal to amend the annexes would be published, but no proposal has emerged.
David Carlander of the Nanotechnology Industries Association told Bloomberg BNA the Board of Appeal decision showed that regulators and companies were “still working on how to correctly manage and work with REACH.”
The decision may put additional pressure on the European Commission to propose the modification of the REACH annexes, Carlander said.
Estreicher said: “It may well be that this decision intensifies calls” for the REACH annexes to be adapted to account for nanosubstances.”
Next Moves
Estreicher added that although the Board of Appeal decision clarified that ECHA could not ask for nanospecific information related to substance identity, the agency could in principle ask companies to provide information on the environmental and health risks of substance nanoforms.
However, there is currently little evidence that the nanoforms of substances present different environmental and health concerns to the bulk forms of substances and consequently, the chemicals agency could be “hard pressed” to justify such nanospecific information requests, Estreicher said.
The agency told Bloomberg BNA March 2 that the Board of Appeal had made a “literal reading” of REACH and had ruled that the agency “has no competence to request substance identity related information on nanomaterials.”
The agency said it would “assess the reasons set out by the Board in its decision and consider its impact on the regulatory strategy for nanomaterials.”
“Nanomaterials require attention by authorities and generally a better understanding of the intrinsic properties of such materials is needed,” the agency added.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=106526042&vname=dennotallissues&fn=106526042&jd=106526042
-
Mexico Energy Overhaul Favors U.S. Industry as NAFTA Changes Loom
Mar 3, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
The U.S. should ensure that any renegotiation of the North American trade pact, a favorite gripe of President Trump's on the campaign trail, preserves recent strides in U.S. access to the Mexican energy sector, a range of energy specialists told Bloomberg BNA.
Unexplored oil and natural gas reserves in the Mexican areas of the Gulf of Mexico will likely fill the coffers of U.S. industry in the coming years after a historic competitive oil auction in December 2016, said the specialists, including a key architect of the North American Free Trade Agreement energy chapter.
Increased bilateral energy integration continues to provide a boon to U.S. natural gas and oil exporters. Amid rising U.S. domestic production, Mexican energy imports are plummeting, and U.S. refined petroleum and natural gas exports have increased dramatically during the past six years, the Energy Department said in early February.
“I know that a number of companies in Texas have some concern that that gets highlighted in any kind of discussions that take place in the future,” Deborah Byers, an energy specialist with Ernst & Young LLP based in Houston, told Bloomberg BNA.
President Trump pledged an overhaul to the trade pact on the campaign trail, calling it “the worst trade deal in history.” But the White House hasn't proposed any concrete changes to the deal since his inauguration, and U.S.-Mexican relations have degenerated to historic lows following the Trump administration's immigration rhetoric, border wall proposal and apparent plans to put in place a goods adjustment tax at border crossings.
Building on Increased Integration
Mexican crude oil exports traditionally have been the linchpin of bilateral energy relations, but the country is grappling with more than a decade's decline in oil production.
Mexico had less than $10 billion in energy exports—most of which was crude oil—to the U.S. in 2016, marking a roughly fivefold reduction since 2011, according to the Energy Department. Meanwhile, U.S. energy exports to Mexico spiked more than threefold between 2006 and 2011 before plateauing,, then slightly declining. The U.S. exported nearly $20 billion in energy products to Mexico last year.
U.S. natural gas exports are a critical portion of the shipments, based in part on Mexico's drive to cut down on harmful greenhouse gas emissions, the industry specialists said. But a professor and a researcher with Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy jointly penned an article that suggested Trump may cut off natural gas exports as a bargaining chip to coerce Mexican concessions.
That prospect has sparked debate, but Sarah Ladislaw, energy expert at the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington, described such a stance as likely bluster.
“I think that may be a little far afield for the administration unless they want to start a trade war,” Ladislaw told Bloomberg BNA.
The White House and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative didn't respond to Bloomberg BNA's request for comment.
An annulment of the pact would render U.S. natural gas exports more difficult due to current export policy to non-free trade agreement countries.
Meanwhile, Mexico's top trade negotiator, Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo, told Bloomberg L.P. Feb. 27 that his country would cut off NAFTA renegotiations if Trump insists on basic tariff hikes. Energy trade currently is covered in NAFTA's investment and services chapter, whereas tariffs are typically addressed in the market access sections of trade pacts.
Historic Mexican Reform
Mexico was virtually exempt from energy negotiations in NAFTA, which entered into effect in 1994. Mexico's Constitution prevented foreign development of domestic resources, but sweeping constitutional changes in 2013 liberalized the sector. Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex), the state-owned Mexican fossil fuel company, operated a 75-year monopoly in the energy sector until those constitutional changes were finalized.
And in early December 2016, Mexico awarded deepwater development rights to Chevron Corp., Exxon Mobil Corp., Total SA and China-owned CNOOC Ltd. in its competitive oil auction.
“Pemex has a well-documented, longtime decline in their production. That's not sustainable,” said Ernst & Young's Byers, pointing to the need for new development to increase production. “That money is going to come in [from] somewhere.”
Australia-based BHP Billiton Ltd. secured a joint venture with Pemex to develop the Gulf's Trion block—a leaseholding area for oil exploration.
Still, increased access and certainty could be on the table in future negotiations, said David Pumphrey, who represented the U.S. Energy Department in NAFTA negotiations and is now retired.
“Both sides would want to seek changes, and Mexico can't go back to the state-run energy industry it has had in the past,” Pumphrey told Bloomberg BNA. “I would want to look at that ‘What can we do to get more access and certainty in the oil and gas sector?’ I'd throw that in the hopper and see what they'd want in exchange.”
The current statute, in fact, would aid Trump's bid to renegotiate the deal as long as he garnered support from Republicans in Congress. Former President Barack Obama signed Trade Promotion Authority into law in 2015. That statute ensures expedited legislative procedures and an up-or-down vote in both houses of Congress for all trade agreements.
The law expires in mid-2018, but lawmakers could extend it for three more years.
Both Pemex and the Mexican Economy Ministry, which handles trade, didn't respond to multiple Bloomberg BNA requests for comment.
Bilateral Deficiencies: Pipelines
A reworked NAFTA conceivably could strengthen pipeline infrastructure on the U.S.-Mexican border and facilitate integration of electricity transmission, the energy specialists said.
Matthew Rooney, director of economic growth at the George W. Bush Presidential Center and a former State Department economic adviser, called for a comprehensive North American infrastructure plan aided by a financing center, pointing to NAFTA as a potential forum to execute that.
“Here you have enormous opportunities for cross-border integration,” Rooney said at a Feb. 27 event in Washington. “Mexico is a low-cost energy producer, and therefore there are opportunities for greater efficiency and reducing cost across the North American space.” The U.S. State Department's current vetting process for pipeline approvals hinders regional development, Rooney said, adding that pipelines should be presumed to serve the national interest.
But due to the energy overhaul underway in Mexico, Byers said the Mexican government is still putting in place a regulatory framework to approve such projects. “You're effectively having to stand up a [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]-type regulatory structure from scratch,” she told Bloomberg BNA. “There's a lot going on. Nothing moves as quickly as businesses want, but in my view, it's moving quite rapidly.”
A statement following a mid-February summit between Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called for “deepening” bilateral trade relations but didn't mention NAFTA outright. The statement, meanwhile, pledged a commitment to advancing the controversial Keystone XL pipeline and other energy infrastructure projects.
But a planned summit between Trump and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto never took place.
Peña Nieto canceled the summit over a border wall payment dust-up months in the making.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=106526021&vname=dennotallissues&fn=106526021&jd=106526021
-
EPA Pulls Methane Information Request
Mar 3, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
EPA says more than 15,000 oil and gas companies no longer have to report detailed technical information about methane emissions from their operations.
The move was announced via a Federal Register notice that will be published on March 7 but will take immediate effect.
It is the agency’s first step away from an Obama-era plan to regulate methane emissions from existing oil and gas operations. EPA in November directed oil and gas operators to respond to an “information collection request” on the topic that the agency estimated would cost companies, which are required by law to respond, about $42 million in total.
“By taking this step, EPA is signaling that we take these concerns seriously and are committed to strengthening our partnership with the states,” EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said in a release. “Today’s action will reduce burdens on businesses while we take a closer look at the need for additional information from this industry.”
EPA also noted it received a letter on Wednesday from eleven state attorneys general or governors, including new Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter, asking EPA to drop the "onerous" request.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Power Sector Request In ESPS Suit Raises Prospects Of Delayed Ruling
Mar 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Doub Obey
Four power sector groups challenging EPA's Clean Power Plan are seeking to move pending challenges over the Obama administration's denials of their administrative petitions into the separate, already-argued litigation on the rule's merits, raising the prospect of further delays to a long-awaited decision on the rule's legality.
But the Feb. 24 industry request -- from the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG), American Public Power Association (APPA), LG&E, and KU Energy, LLC -- is already running into opposition from environmentalists and other defenders of the regulation, who in a March 2 motion scoffed at the industry request as seeking an “extremely inefficient” and “unprecedented” process that would delay the effectiveness of the regulation.
“This Court granted expedited consideration to the petitions for review of the Clean Power Plan, heard from hundreds of parties and amici, and held a nearly seven-hour en banc oral argument over five months ago. Now, after full briefing and argument, and after months of judicial deliberation, a few of the challengers ask the Court for an extended delay to bring before the en banc panel run-of-the-mill issues raised in a separate case challenging a separate EPA decision to deny their administrative reconsideration petitions,” the environmentalists say.
A source familiar with the concerns of the rule's supporters says that the industry request to the court implies “months and months of further process” in the already-argued case, West Virginia, et al., v EP, et al. and believes that simple delay appears to be a major motivator for the movant's request.
This is because it provides the Trump administration, still wrestling with its approach to undoing the regulation, a longer window before the risk of a decision in West Virginia, which many observers have suggested could partially or completely back the Obama EPA's regulation.
While the court could also rule against the regulation, known as the existing source performance standards (ESPS), the source says that a ruling backing the rule even in part would be a jarring inconsistency with frequent statements by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt that the ESPS is an unlawful overreach by the agency.
The source also calls it “odd” that the industry request is being made by only four parties to the sprawling litigation, suggesting this means it is either a trial balloon or sign of disagreement between the parties on how to proceed.
EPA's stance on the move is not immediately clear, though the agency in a March 1 motion sought more time to weigh in on the issue, effectively postponing its response until after an expected executive order President Donald Trump is slated to sign next week that will seek to roll back the ESPS.
EPA in a March 1 response to the consolidation request temporarily punts on the matter, seeking a seven-day extension -- from March 6 until March 13 -- for all parties to weigh in on the original motion. “EPA has concluded that some additional time is needed in order to consider and prepare a response to the motion to sever and consolidate,” the agency says.
Once Trump issues the order, observers say they expect the administration to ask the court to delay issuing a ruling stemming from Sept. 27 oral arguments in the suit so the agency can proceed with its reconsideration.
But the power sector groups' request to consolidate their separate challenge to EPA's petition denials with the merits litigation could further bolster any delay, as any move by the court to grant their request would more broadly give the Trump administration additional time to develop its expected regulatory and political attack on the ESPS.
Industry Motion
In their Feb. 24 motion, the four power sector groups asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to sever multiple claims from their 2017 challenges to the rule -- focused on issues the agency has refused to reconsider in response to their administrative petitions -- and consolidate them with the main legal challenge to the rule, which was filed in 2015 and argued last September.
“[The claims] involve indisputably ripened post comment period objections to EPA's final emission guideline to address carbon dioxide emissions from existing electric utility generating units,” says the industry “motion to sever and consolidate.”
The motion references an EPA notification to the same court in January of its denial of numerous petitions for reconsideration of the issues related to the rule, now being handled as part of the legal case North Dakota, et al. v. EPA.
It seeks consolidation of relevant petitions for review on those issues, currently being addressed under the umbrella of the North Dakota case, with West Virginia, the main legal fight over the ESPS.
And it requests that parties to the West Virginia case be ordered to submit a proposed schedule for supplemental briefing on the newly ripened objections to the rule.
The parties requesting the court action have also each filed a separate “renewed nonbinding statement” of issues they want addressed in the supplemental briefing.
Specifically, a renewed joint statement of issues from UARG and APPA cites the need to review numerous issues based on changes to EPA's rule between the proposal and final stage, allegedly without sufficient notice under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
They include EPA's decision to “fundamentally change” the rule's emissions guidelines between the proposal and final stage; alleged Clean Air Act violations stemming from the agency's revised approach in its rule for calculating “building block 3”-- the contribution of renewables toward meeting ESPS mandates; and a shift in the final rule toward applying the Best System of Emission Reduction on the regional rather than statewide basis.
Other issues the document cites are provisions in the final rule on emissions leakage not included in the proposal; and alleged failure by the agency to allow proper notice and comment on several provisions -- including the rules reliability safety valve, its Clean Energy Incentive Program, and a requirement for federally enforceable backstop measures.
The consolidation motion characterizes the request by the four parties as a routine matter, noting in part that “[i]n the situation presented here, where the original petitions challenging the final EPA rule are still pending before the Court, Petitions for Review of the Agency's denial of reconsideration are routinely consolidated with those original petitions.”
Additionally, it argues that the February 2016 Supreme Court stay of the ESPS “anticipates that this Court would address and resolve all of the 'applicants' petitions for review' of the rule that might be filed, including as applied challenges to the Rule and post-comment period objections that are indisputably ripe as a result of requests for reconsideration being denied.”
But environmentalists say there is nothing routine about the request. “The relief requested here -- halting the Court’s consideration months after oral argument [in West Virginia] to consolidate separate reconsideration challenges -- appears to be unprecedented,” they say in their March 2 motion.
“We have found no case in which this Court, after setting a case for expedited adjudication, has reversed course after oral argument to take additional briefing on reconsideration claims, let alone only those of a small subset of challengers.”
Their response further argues that “[t]he effect would be to delay the Court’s resolution of the many issues properly presented and thoroughly briefed and argued before the en banc court.” And it argues that the court should consider the case on reconsideration issues separately from the main case, “as it routinely does.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/power-sector-request-esps-suit-raises-prospects-delayed-ruling
-
Oklahoma’s Earthquake Rate Slows, But Cushing Oil Hub Remains in Danger Zone
Mar 3, 2017 | Platts
By Meghan Gordon
The good news for Oklahoma is that the number of earthquakes stronger than magnitude 2.7 that hit the state last year fell by more than a third to 2,500, compared with 4,000 in 2015.
The bad news is the 2016 total is still astronomical compared to the two earthquakes the state experienced annually between 1980 and 2000.
A key question for Oklahoma regulators and for oil and gas drillers there is what caused last year’s decline: Was it mainly the result of state efforts to restrict drillers’ wastewater injections, which the US Geological Survey has linked to the increase in seismicity? Was it the slowdown in drilling activity from low oil prices? Or was it a combination of the two?
That answer could become clearer as drilling picks back up as expected this year.
One positive sign for oil and gas drillers in Oklahoma is that the promising SCOOP and STACK plays generate much less produced water than the Mississippi Lime, leaving producers with less wastewater to dispose underground.
But even if the Oklahoma Corporation Commission’s action to restrict wastewater injections by as much as 40% is the main factor behind the lower earthquake rate, USGS geophysicist Rob Williams still sees a reason for caution ahead.
He said the vast amounts of wastewater already pumped into the deep Arbuckle formation could still affect underground pressure and trigger damaging earthquakes.
“They’ve injected billions of barrels of water in that region in Oklahoma and southern Kansas over the past few years, and the lingering effects of those changes in the stress conditions may last several years,” Williams said in an interview this week. “The chances of having earthquakes is going to be high for a while. We can’t rule out a damaging earthquake in that region, even if there are severe restrictions on injection.
USGS said in a study this week that Oklahoma’s efforts to restrict wastewater injections appear to be curbing earthquake activity linked to oil and gas drilling, but large areas of the state — including key oil storage hub Cushing — remain at risk of damaging seismicity in 2017.
The agency’s 2017 earthquake hazard map shifted the highest-risk zone in Oklahoma to the Cushing-Pawnee area based on two strong earthquakes that shook that area last year: a magnitude 5.8 tremor near Pawnee on September 3, the strongest in state history, and a magnitude 5.0 near Cushing on November 7.
The November earthquake near Cushing didn’t damage any pipelines or oil storage facilities, but it was a wake-up call for the industry to check emergency procedures.
The Cushing-Pawnee area has a 10%-12% chance of a damaging earthquake this year, up from 5%-10% last year, USGS said in its 2017 hazard map.
The 2017 hazard map eliminated Dallas from the risk zone after giving it a 1%-5% chance of a damaging quake in 2016, but it added a small area in the Permian Basin with a 1%-2% chance in 2017.
About 3.5 million people live and work in areas with significant potential for damaging shaking from induced seismicity in 2017 — most of them in Oklahoma and southern Kansas, USGS said. That’s down from 7 million last year.
Oklahoma officials were encouraged by the USGS study but said they had more work to do to keep seismicity down.
“We’re going to continue to monitor it and see how things go,” Tim Baker, director of Oklahoma’s Oil and Gas Conservation Division, said during a news conference. “Obviously if we start to see an increase in earthquake activity and increase in volume, we will be ready to do something about it. But hopefully we’ll keep seeing trends that we’ve been seeing for the last few months.”
http://blogs.platts.com/2017/03/03/oklahoma-earthquakes-cushing-oil/
-
Cracking Appalachia’s Ethane Code Part 2: Shell's Cracker Is 'Tip Of The Iceberg'
Mar 2, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
The Appalachian Basin's shale formations helped to birth the natural gas renaissance in North America, and the region now is poised to join the Gulf Coast as a major petrochemical hub, a group of experts said Monday.
A webinar hosted by NGI’s Shale Daily, "Cracking the Ethane Code in Appalachia," delved into all sides of the petrochemical equation. Last spring a unit of Royal Dutch Shell plc made a final investment decision (FID) to build a multi-billion dollar cracker about 30 miles northwest of Pittsburgh, officially signaling that the region will be a major hub. Sited on 400 acres in Beaver County, adjacent to the Ohio River in Potter and Center townships, the project as designed would have capacity to produce 1.6 million metric tons/year (mmty) of polyethylene and 1.5 mmty of ethylene. Construction would require 6,000 people at its peak, while another 600 permanent employees would staff the facility when it becomes operational in the early 2020s.
Shell's project will not only be huge, but transformational in all ways, said an all-star panel of experts during the one-hour webinar. Joining NGI Associate Editor Jamison Cocklin, who was the moderator, were Consol Energy Inc.'s Don Rush, vice president of marketing, and James Cooper, senior petrochemical adviser to the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers trade group. Also joining in the conversation were Denise Brinley, special assistant to the secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED), and Danielle Sandusky, president of Denver-based Level 2 Energy, a risk management firm.
"Like anything, the more demand and takeaway capacity that exist for ethane, the more that is likely to be processed and sold in basin,” Rush said.
Pricing can be good on the supply side regardless, Rush said, but Consol attempts to take advantage "with some creative, fairly unique contracts that have allowed us to significantly catch some premiums. The Shell deal is another layer in the overall portfolio we have advantaged for our ethane, and there is incremental value in doing so."
As more liquids are transported out of Appalachia, Consol has remained flexible, giving it different options and different price exposure.
"Anytime we have a chance to bring new demand to the region, we take a real hard look at how we can do that," Rush said. Consol is "always looking for partners and different arrangements," and the Shell project will "further everyone else's understanding of the long-term benefit to the region and the United States of proper development of the Utica and Marcellus shales...It does give us further confidence that more things come after this."
For example, Consol expects the cracker to result in more "downstream opportunities" that set up shop close to the facility. "We're confident that those industries and many other demand centers will look to the cracker as a low-cost energy source. We can see it happening in a lot of other industries," including the fertilizer and ammonia sectors. "A lot of these U.S.-based plants have a global competitive advantage now...It should lead to more business here, and we hope it can be a major positive for the region. We hope this is just the tip of the iceberg to come."
The way Consol has set up its portfolio, "and likewise, the way that Shell is connected to multiple, different de-ethanization facilities and supplies they are putting, we are able to supply the Shell plant from West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio,” Rush said. “When the plant is in service, there will be a lot of different components that will go into position at that time..."
Depending on the economics at the time will determine which Consol assets are used for the Shell contract versus other contracts in the portfolio, Rush said.
Backyard Feedstock Bonus
A "quirk" in the petrochemical boom followed the shale revolution out of Appalachia, Sandusky said. Once gas production was in full swing, cracker capacity expansions followed by greenfield facilities, were put on the drawing board. However, even though Appalachia became the nation's No. 1 gas producer, nearly every single cracker expansion was for the Gulf Coast.
"Basically, what was set up were nationwide tiers of ethane recovery economics," Sandusky said. "Historically the best netbacks were going to the Gulf Coast plants. All of the processors down there extracting and recovering ethylene from the stream have the best economics because of the proximity to all the offtake facilities...
"The further you got away from that area, the transport costs and the lack of mobile market networks, the worse recovery economics...In the earlier years of the shale boom, Appalachian producers pretty much had one good option and that was the gas stream."
The addition in 2013 of the Mariner West 1 project to offtake ethane to Sarnia and Marcus Hook, as well as the Appalachia-to-Texas Express (Atex) pipeline to carry liquids to the Gulf Coast "didn’t really change the calculus that much just because they also brought on new supply with producers that signed up for long-term commitments," Sandusky said. "So you still ended up with an oversupply of the market, with the Gulf Coast being the most advantaged and with these tiers of netbacks the further you got away from the Gulf Coast."
Producers continue to ship on Mariner, Atex and various pipes because of the long-term commitments, "but in general, you are still talking about a solid 10-15 cent gap per gallon worse in the recovery economics for your Appalachian producer than somebody on the Gulf Coast," she said.
Now Appalachia ethane is by some estimates at around 300,000 b/d at the peak, "and it's projected to still grow,” Sandusky said. "The majority of that production is still going into the gas stream, but once you max that out and start shipping, you run into those transportation costs...that are a big disadvantage over somebody say, in the Eagle Ford Shale or somewhere on the Gulf.
"Depending on whether you are going to Sarnia or Marcus Hook or the Gulf, you are paying until the new cracker comes on, anywhere from 14-20 cents per gallon to ship a commodity that's worth 25 cents before you pay for the recovery itself and any storage fees. That can still leave you with a net negative, so at that point, once you've maxed out the gas stream and are looking at paying those transportation fees, having a local cracker, somebody in your backyard that's willing to pay you a market price for your ethane without having to pay for those fees, is going to be huge."
Shell’s facility should have an impact on Appalachian ethane prices, depending on when the facility comes online and relative to the ethane supply growth in the region, Sandusky said.
"There are some robust growth projections out there that suggest quite a bit of new supply. So by the time the cracker comes on, we could be in a situation in the early 2020s where we're sitting back at a point that where we have ethane for pennies on the dollar per gallon because we’re sitting at a point where we've maxed out the gas stream and potentially at that point maxed out the takeaway pipeline capacity. So, the local prices could be really depressed.
"If at that point you added 100,000 b/d to local demand, which could be a quarter or more of the local supply, that would probably have a pretty dramatic impact on prices."
However, drilling investments overall have been more conservative, with the dry Utica attracting dollars that otherwise may have gone to wet gas drilling, Sandusky said. "That’s the balance you are looking at and it could have a really dramatic impact."
Big Picture Economics
Looking at the bigger picture, the national demand for ethane is dramatic, Sandusky said. "We've got somewhere around 1.2-1.3 million b/d of ethane demand in the country. The economics overall have been pretty stellar, which has justified a lot of the investments in more crackers, expanding and upgrading capacity...with a vast majority of those in the Gulf..."
The Energy Information Administration in January estimated that ethane production could rise to 1.7 million b/d in 2018 from 1.25 million b/d in 2016. Expansions at existing ethylene plants contributed to a 170,000 b/d increase in ethane consumption between 2013 and 2016, the agency said.
By mid-2018, construction is expected to be completed on six ethane crackers and one is to restart on the Gulf Coast, which together collectively would be capable of using 450,000 b/d of feedstock. Ethane consumption is forecast to increase by 310,000 b/d between 1Q2013 and 4Q2018 as the plants ramp-up operations.
Depending on what projection is used for production, it could mean "pretty much the entire U.S. ethane market leaving none to go in the gas stream," Sandusky said. "You are looking at potentially being short overall. That in general is how the free market tends to swing...That does mean that Appalachian prices could get a bump in the near-term, especially if you are looking at those price lines taking recovery products away with producers looking at that as a sunk cost.
"Those volumes are going to flow without regard to transport costs to get there. You’ve got 10 years' worth of commitment for at least Atex going south to the Gulf...To draw additional barrels that would have otherwise been in the gas stream, the prices will need to get to the level where the producers will have to recover and put ethane on those pipelines to get to market."
The price needs to be equivalent to the gas price plus the cost to recovering it, Sandusky said. "You could grow Appalachian production past all the capacity of the pipelines...then you could start to see pressure back on local prices...But the other issue is that if the cracker economics start to fall apart, and you’ve got 2 million b/d of ethane being processed, the Appalachian market is going to be vastly oversupplied...You could see the pushback and the lid put back on prices.”
One Word: Plastics
How will Shell's cracker stack up against the burgeoning opportunity still at play along the Gulf Coast and in Canada?
"Basically we think that most of that demand will come from the surrounding area," Cooper said. Pennsylvania alone has more than 50 different plastics processing facilities, while Ohio has 75 to 80. There's also plenty of business in nearby New Jersey, Illinois and Michigan. "You've got all these different facilities right in that local area, within a short distance where it is feasible to ship...especially resins, since we are talking about nonhazardous materials, then you are talking short-haul over the roads...If you can move some things by barge, some things by rail, that's icing on the cake...
"The big gamechanger is having it so close," he said of the Shell facility. Having co-located products "makes Shell very competitive. It's why it was willing to entertain a multi-billion dollar investment."
The plastics industry continues to be a job creator across the Midwest and Great Lakes region into the Northeast market, Cooper said.
"Finished goods manufacturing has been taking place in that area for decades and decades, back when steel and iron ruled. You had all this raw material coming from the Great Lakes, and it made sense for finished goods to start up there. Some finished goods obviously did leave the country, unfortunately, but many stayed and retained their business here in the United States.
"So what happened was, there was this dislocation between the raw materials because of the production started coming out of the Gulf Coast...You still have all those finished goods up there that are robust businesses and they are having to ship their raw materials from long distances. Now it's all going to be co-located again."
Shell's cracker would only have so much capacity, Cooper said. "And there's so much demand out there. Shell’s going to do just fine. And the Gulf Coast producers are going to continue to do just fine as well. They are going to continue shipping resin up because Shell is not going to be able to fulfill all of the capacity by itself.
"What’s great is the United States is in a position right now, especially for ethylene, where we're very advantageous producer from an energy standpoint because we are energy intensive as an industry and also from the resin standpoint..."
Before the shale explosion, about 50% of U.S. ethylene was supplied using naphtha sourced from overseas facilities. "Over the course of the last few years, because of shale development, now 80% of ethylene comes from ethane," Cooper said. "That’s why we’ve got this tremendous advantage."
Check back Friday for part three of the three-part Cracking Appalachia’s Ethane Code series.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109601-cracking-appalachias-ethane-code-part-2-shells-cracker-is-tip-of-the-iceberg
-
Exxon's New CEO Shifts Investments to Quick-Earning Shale Oil
Mar 3, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joe Carroll
Exxon Mobil Corp. is trading in long-term projects that pump oil over decades for U.S. shale drilling that can be switched on or off as crude prices change.
Long a world leader in multi-billion dollar oil and natural gas developments that take years to build and even longer to profit, Exxon is diverting about one-third of its drilling budget this year to shale fields that will deliver cash flow in as little as three years, said Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Darren Woods.
Next year, U.S. shale will absorb 50 percent of Exxon's worldwide drilling budget, Woods said March 1 during his first public appearance since succeeding Rex Tillerson in January. Output from shale wells will grow an average of 20 percent annually through 2025 as Woods intensifies the company's focus on the Americas.
“The shift from long to short is really a reflection of the opportunity that has grown in the short-cycle business,” Woods said. “That part of the business isn't in discovery mode; it's in extraction mode.”
Exxon was a late-comer to shale, shunning it for the first decade of this century as a niche that couldn't generate enough output to make a mark on the balance sheet of a major international explorer. When Tillerson steered Exxon into shale drilling with its $34.9 billion acquisition of gas explorer XTO Energy in 2010, he conceded Exxon had missed out on the first wave of the fracking revolution.
Woods, a 52-year-old electrical engineer by training, joined Exxon as an analyst in 1992 and rose through the ranks on the refining and chemicals side of the business. In an appearance before analysts and investors at the New York Stock Exchange, he discouraged observers from assuming his background in the so-called downstream side of the business would tilt his decision making.
Using “past actions of mine as a rule book” to assess future decisions probably won't work, according to Woods. Exxon's leadership-development process prepares executives to oversee any part of the corporation, so that “when you go through that management process, you become fungible,” he said.
Woods deferred several times during his presentation to his main rival for the CEO's job, Jack Williams, to provide insight on the company's shale and other oil-drilling activities. Williams, a senior vice president and member of Woods’ four-person inner circle, oversees Exxon's oil production and refining business lines.
Cool and Controlled
The new CEO's relaxed, controlled demeanor harkened to that of his mentor, Tillerson, presenting analysts with a seamless leadership transition. Like his predecessor, Woods deflected questions about quarterly and annual financial and production metrics by stressing Exxon's multi-decade horizons on dividends, profitability and value-creation.
Exxon won't be “making decisions based on annual or short-term views,” Woods said.
The world's biggest oil explorer by market value will spend more than $5.5 billion this year to drill wells in the U.S. Permian and Bakken shale regions, among other so-called short-cycle assets, Exxon said in a March 1 statement. The Irving, Texas-based company is targeting annual output equivalent to 4 million to 4.4 million barrels of oil a day, excluding the impact of divestitures.
Investors may still be looking for more as Exxon “continues to struggle to showcase upstream volume growth over the near to medium term,” said Vincent Piazza, a Bloomberg Intelligence analyst. The company's production has fallen in four of the past five years and averaged 4.05 million barrels a day in 2016.
Exxon has never been more out of favor with analysts in its modern history. The proportion of ”buy” recommendations among analysts following the company is at its lowest since at least 1997, two years before the $88 billion Mobil merger. Seven analysts have the equivalent of a sell rating on the company, with five buys and 17 holds.
Key Platform
During his address, Woods spelled out Exxon's strategies for bolstering reserves, lifting oil and natural gas production, and increasing cash flow. A key platform of his address was Exxon's investments in the Permian Basin of Texas and New Mexico, the largest U.S. oil field.
Annual output from Exxon's Permian, Bakken and other U.S. shale holdings may reach the equivalent of 750,000 barrels a day in 2025, according to the statement. That would be more than the current output of Qatar.
Exxon agreed in January to pay as much as $6.6 billion in an acquisition that will more than double the company's Permian footprint. In its biggest transaction since the XTO purchase, Exxon agreed to hand over $5.6 billion in shares, plus as much as another $1 billion in contingent cash payments for rights to drill the Permian's Delaware region.
Profitable @ $40
When the transaction closes, Exxon's Permian asset base will hold the equivalent of 6 billion barrels of crude, an asset that's worth $324 billion at current oil prices. Wells drilled in the acquired area will generate “attractive returns” even if crude drops back down to $40 a barrel, Exxon said when the deal was announced on Jan. 17.
West Texas Intermediate crude, the U.S. benchmark, has averaged about $50 for the past six months.
Woods takes over as Exxon faces some tough challenges in recovering from a market collapse that erased more than $154 billion in Exxon's discounted future cash flows as fields that prospered during the oil bull market became money losers. At the same time, Woods removed the equivalent of 3.3 billion barrels of untapped crude from the books last week in the biggest reserves reduction since at least 1999.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=106526054&vname=dennotallissues&fn=106526054&jd=106526054
-
730-mile Epic Permian-to-Corpus Pipeline in the Works
Mar 2, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Rye Druzin
A trio of companies hope to build a 730-mile-long crude oil and condensate pipeline from West Texas to Corpus Christi.
The so-called Epic pipeline would have a maximum capacity of 440,000 barrels per day of crude oil and condensates, a form of ultralight crude oil. The pipeline would take crude from points in Orla, Pecos, Crane and Midland in West Texas’ Permian Basin and transport it to an affiliate’s terminal in the Port of Corpus Christi and other drop-off points in the area, according to a news release.
It is being built by San Antonio-based TexStar Midstream Logistics, Connecticut-based Castleton Commodities International and Texas-based Ironwood Midstream Energy Partners.
Ironwood maintains its engineering and operations in Dallas while its business development and finance units are based in San Antonio.The companies are currently bidding out the first 200,000 barrels of pipeline capacity and have not said how much it will cost to build the pipeline or when they plan to start construction. The companies say the pipeline will be operational by the first quarter of 2019.
“TexStar and its partners are excited to extend our business into the Permian Basin, where we see tremendous opportunity and continued growth,” said Phil Mezey, CEO of TexStar. “TexStar has a proven track record of building crude oil pipelines in emerging areas and looks forward to expanding upon its relationships with producers to make the project a success.”
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2017/03/02/730-mile-epic-permian-to-corpus-pipeline-in-the-works/
-
(ACC Mentioned) GOP Senators Push Bill to Block Chemical Plant Rules
Mar 3, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
Chemical producers are a step closer to scuttling planned Obama administration security rules as an Oklahoma senator put forward new language to block the regulations March 2.
Calling the Environmental Protection Agency's changes to its risk management program for high-risk chemical facilities “executive overreach,” Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) filed the resolution (S.J. Res. 28) in the upper chamber. Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) introduced a companion resolution, H.J. Res. 59, in the House Feb. 2.
EPA published the regulation, “Modernization of the Accidental Release Prevention Regulations Under Clean Air Act” (RIN:2050-AG82), in December 2016. Among the changes are to require facilities with large quantities of specified chemicals to coordinate with local agencies, investigate near-misses and hold community meetings after safety lapses.
Advocacy groups including the Environmental Justice Health Alliance, representing residents who live near chemical facilities, have pushed lawmakers to allow the regulation to remain in place, warning the EPA's changes “place very little new responsibility or costs on industry, but can help to prevent future disasters.”
Inhofe said in a statement March 2 the regulation “puts our chemical facilities, surrounding communities and our national security at risk, while doing nothing to actually improve safety.” He added that because the regulation would require chemical facilities to disclose additional information, it would make it too easy for harmful actors to target the plants.
Joining Inhofe as co-sponsors of the resolution were Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.).
Texas Origins
Cornyn's home state of Texas played a pivotal role in the regulation when 15 people were killed, including 12 emergency responders, in a fertilizer plant explosion in West, Texas, in April 2013. His office did not respond to a request for comment on the resolution.
Speaking on the Senate floor the next day, Cornyn said the response to what happened showed “the resilience of a tight-knit, self-sufficient community in the aftermath of a terrible tragedy.”
Cornyn and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R) toured the blast site later that week.
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board later found a lack of planning and communication with the facility — among the issues the EPA regulation is intended to address — contributed to the fatalities because the town was unaware of the risk of what was stored at the plant.
The EPA said plants covered under the existing program, which dates to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, saw 1,500 accidents reported by facilities in the risk management program in the past decade.
The 1996 Congressional Review Act provides a method for using resolutions that must be passed by both chambers and signed by the president to cancel rules issued in the final months of an administration.
If approved, the CRA action would not only rescind the regulation but also bar “substantially similar” rulemakings in the future.
Industry Applauds
In a statement March 2, the American Chemistry Council praised the resolution.
“For many years, RMP has been, and continues be an effective accident prevention program that enjoys the strong support of the chemical industry,” the trade group said. “Both the House and Senate resolutions would block EPA's misguided changes and maintain the successful aspects of RMP that existed before EPA's approved its new rule.”
Aides to Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, had no official comment on the resolution.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=106526055&vname=dennotallissues&fn=106526055&jd=106526055
-
(ACC Mentioned) Inhofe Bill Would Roll Back Disputed Safety Regs
Mar 3, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) has introduced a bill to scuttle new U.S. EPA accident prevention regulations for thousands of chemical plants, oil refineries and other industrial facilities.
The bill, S.J. Res. 28, would use the Congressional Review Act to overturn the final rule, which was published in January. The measure is a companion to H.J. Res. 59, dropped in last month by Rep. Markwayne Mullin, another Oklahoma Republican. A copy was not immediately available.
EPA issued the regulations — officially known as "accidental release prevention requirements" — in response to a 2013 Obama administration executive order after an explosion at a Texas fertilizer storage and distribution facility killed 15 people, most of them firefighters.
They are intended to strengthen efforts to head off accidents; better protect first responders from chemical exposure; and do more to keep the public informed of potential risks at plants. They would apply to as many as 12,500 facilities that have to file risk management plans (RMPs) under the Clean Air Act.
Industry groups have slammed the added requirements, saying they will impose substantial new costs in return for no discernible safety benefits. They have also objected that the new public disclosure requirements could allow terrorists to access sensitive information.
In a news release yesterday announcing his bill's introduction, Inhofe derided the new requirements as a "midnight regulation that puts our chemical facilities, surrounding communities and our national security at risk, while doing nothing to actually improve safety."
Welcoming the measure was the American Chemistry Council, which said in a statement that it "would block EPA's misguided changes and maintain the successful aspects of RMP" that were already in place.
The CRA is a 1996 law for repeal of recently promulgated regulations by simple majorities in both the House and Senate. Earlier this week, more than two dozen environmental justice groups urged congressional leaders to leave the regulations in place (E&E News PM, Feb. 27).
Co-sponsoring Inhofe's bill are four other Republicans: Sens. John Cornyn of Texas, Jerry Moran of Kansas, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, and Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso of Wyoming.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/03/03/stories/1060050878
-
The Cybersecurity of the Infrastructure - A Challenge and an Opportunity
Mar 2, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Samuel Sanders Visner
Twenty years ago, the notion of national infrastructures enabled and endangered by the internet would have been hard to imagine. Today, it’s hard to remember a world without Internet-Protocol (IP) enabled banking, health care, entertainment, even our increasingly “smart” energy and transportation systems. IP technology surrounds us, and while we have grown more capable in developing that technology into infrastructures, we continue to fall behind in protecting our work.
Our adversaries have noticed. The use of offensive computer operations tools against the Ukrainian power grid, the explosion of a German steel mill’s blast furnace, and ransomware unleashed against San Francisco’s public transportation system show how vulnerable critical infrastructures have become. A 2016 attack against France’s TV5 shut down the network’s 12 channels. A cyber attack against Aramco destroyed the hard drives of 75 percent of that company’s computers. Suspected malware on the laptop belonging to an electric utility employee demonstrated how vulnerable critical infrastructure like electric power is to even the most basic cyber attacks.
Why this is happening? Cybersecurity exploits and attacks are within reach of many countries, and some armed movements that cannot realistically mount physical attacks against the United States and its allies. The theft of information, or damage to information systems, represents behavior short of war, not always likely to be subject to retaliation. The challenge of attribution complicates significantly a decision to retaliate, while giving the aggressor significant freedom of action. We may not be seeing “cyberwar,” but we’re certainly seeing a rising level of cyber conflict and normalization of cyber weapons as instruments of statecraft–pursuit of a country’s national interests without armed conflict.
What we need: We must place as much emphasis as possible on the cybersecurity of the IP-enabled critical infrastructures. We should increase research and development to understand the cyber vulnerabilities of these infrastructures and develop tools and techniques that make them more secure and resilient. Infrastructure investments should include analysis of current, emerging, and prospective cyber vulnerabilities and account for the resources necessary to manage those threats. While such vulnerabilities and threats can never be eliminated completely, we can, through astute risk management, achieve a level of confidence that allows us to know that our infrastructures will endure, and that they will be sufficiently resilient to maintain their capacity to serve us.
Getting there: Some steps are underway. Companies such as ABB are conducting research and analysis on the cybersecurity vulnerabilities and features of the power grid. A “smart grid consortium” among the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Laboratories is conducting research on ways to build a new, more secure national electricity infrastructure. Some experts have even called for a separate, secure, Internet-like infrastructure to serve the nation’s critical infrastructure.
All of these steps are necessary, but they’re not yet sufficient. Now, at the advent of a new federal administration focused on large-scale change and significant infrastructure investment, there is a real opportunity to alter the narrative. Consider the following:
· Cyber Investment Tax Credit. Congress routinely creates economic incentives for corporations to pursue certain beneficial activities, a measure overdue for investments in cybersecurity and resilience, especially those in direct alignment with government and industry standards.
· Cyber Qualification for Infrastructure Investment. As the incoming administration evaluates infrastructure investments, it should enforce cyber standards for every project. Anything that connects to a network must include a comprehensive plan for protection.
· Dedicated Budget Allocations. Those making investments to rebuild our national infrastructures, and those who represent the public interest in approving such investments, should consider steps that embed cybersecurity. For example, if we plan to spend $1 trillion dollars on infrastructure, the cost of embedding the cybersecurity necessary for greater resilience might range from three to five billion dollars. If ten percent of the infrastructure investment is used for information technology, then three to five percent of the information technology investment would be used for cybersecurity, following the rough rule of thumb used in industry to allocate cybersecurity resources within IT investments.
It should be possible for the world’s greatest country to develop a national infrastructure investment scheme that ensures enough funds are made available to harden and make more resilient the country’s critical infrastructures. Congress, the White House, and the private sector must work together to make possible this investment in critical infrastructure cybersecurity and resilience. Indeed, the failure to do so would represent a negligent regard for our national interest and a boon to our adversaries. Let’s not let that happen.
The author is Senior Vice President and General Manager, Cybersecurity and Resilience, ICF, and former Chief of Signals Intelligence Programs, National Security Agency.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/321987-the-cybersecurity-of-the-infrastructure-of-the-united-states
-
Mar 2, 2017 | Transport Topics
By Eugene Mulero
Failure to modernize the country’s freight network will likely prevent the chemicals industry from aiding in economic growth, according to a report by the American Chemistry Council unveiled on Capitol Hill a day after President Trump’s first address to Congress.
Over the next 10 years, the industry could experience an additional $23 billion on equipment to address congestion and delays. The industry also could spend $29 billion by 2025 for more expedited shipments, according to the report, which was prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers.
“Unless resolved, logistics shortcomings across primary modes of transportation will greatly affect the chemical industry and its customers,” the report said. Trucks were found to be the primary mode used by the industry. However, researchers determined that requirements on drivers’ age, hazmat endorsements, security tests, limits on driving hours-of-service and military credentials have complicated the distribution of chemicals along freight corridors.
“Chemical producers have struggled at various times with a shortage of skilled and certified drivers,” the report said. “Most industry experts do not see the driver shortage improving any time soon.”
For the report, researchers surveyed 68 chemical companies. With nearly 275 new projects and more than $160 billion in U.S.-based capital investment projects announced since 2010, the chemical industry is growing.
“The U.S. business of chemistry is growing like never before, but limitations across all modes of transportation are getting in the way of fully realizing this American manufacturing success story,” American Chemistry Council president and CEO Cal Dooley said.
http://www.ttnews.com/articles/basetemplate.aspx?storyid=45132
-
Canadian Minister Discusses Paris Deal with Pruitt
Mar 3, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Hess
Canada's top environmental official talked climate action with U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt yesterday, according to a readout from the Canadian Embassy.
Minister of Environment and Climate Change Catherine McKenna called to congratulate the former Oklahoma attorney general on becoming EPA chief.
McKenna emphasized Canada's commitment to meet its obligations under the Paris Agreement on climate change and to take advantage of the economic opportunity offered by the shift toward clean energy, the embassy said today.
McKenna and Pruitt discussed the importance of the broader Canada-U.S. relationship, including trade ties.
Canada is the United States' largest energy trading partner, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Based on the latest annual data from the U.S. Census Bureau, energy accounted for about 5 percent of the value of all U.S. exports to Canada and more than 19 percent of the value of U.S. imports from Canada in 2016.
McKenna and Pruitt agreed on the importance of building on the long-standing environmental cooperation between the two allies to enhance air and water quality, particularly along the border and at the Great Lakes. The pair also agreed to meet soon.
Mention of the Paris Agreement is notable.
Under former President Obama, Canada coordinated with top U.S. climate officials. For instance, Jonathan Pershing's first international trip as the special envoy for climate change was a visit to Ottawa (E&E News PM, April 12, 2016).
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who has prioritized climate action in his administration, visited the White House last month. Neither he nor Trump mentioned climate during the trip, though they did talk energy infrastructure, including building the Keystone XL pipeline (E&E News PM, Feb. 14).
McKenna has stressed the need for bold action to meet Canada's climate pledge.
Canada committed to a 30 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from 2005 levels by 2030 as part of the Paris Agreement, which its Legislature ratified in October.
Data show Canada will have a hard time meeting those targets due to its booming energy sector, though leaders last year announced plans to price carbon as part of a pan-Canada climate policy aimed at delivering steeper cuts in emissions (Climatewire, Oct. 3, 2016).
McKenna, an advocate for carbon pricing, expressed optimism after Trump's election that his administration would come around on collaborating with Canada on climate.
The Trump administration has been engaged in an internal debate over whether to remain within the Paris Agreement, after Trump said as a candidate that he would exit the deal.
Pruitt has deferred to the State Department on whether or not the United States will continue to participate in the international deal to curb climate change.
During his confirmation process, Pruitt said that if the United States sticks with the deal he would "work with all involved agencies to ensure that commitments made on behalf of the United States are achievable and consistent with requisite legal authorities delegated by Congress."
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/03/02/stories/1060050855
-
Water Part of Infrastructure, Pruitt Tells Mayors
Mar 3, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid and Sylvia Carignan
Scott Pruitt told the nation's mayors he has a message for the White House: Don't forget storm drains, tunnels, sewers, pipes, service lines and treatment plants when looking to improve infrastructure.
The newly confirmed EPA administrator said in a speech to the U.S. Conference of Mayors that he recognizes the need to include water as part of Trump's proposed $1 trillion infrastructure package. He is participating in President Donald Trump's infrastructure team on the afternoon of March 2.
“We will talk about how to include water infrastructure along with roads and bridges,” Pruitt told the nation's mayors, as he outlined the agency's priorities.
“We know we have a water infrastructure issue,” Pruitt said, adding that “we know that when it goes wrong, it goes wrong badly.”
The National Association of Clean Water Agencies, which represent publicly owned wastewater and stormwater utilities, was pleased with Pruitt's support for water infrastructure “on par with other infrastructure sectors like highways, bridges, and airports.”
“We need the federal government to be a full partner in supporting our water infrastructure, which will create jobs and improve public health and the environment,” said Adam Krantz, the association's chief executive officer, adding that the partnership is vital for the upcoming budget discussion and any future infrastructure package.
Allaying Concerns
At the start of his talk, Pruitt attempted to allay concerns about reports that the White House is planning to propose cuts to the EPA state and tribal grants budget by 30 percent in fiscal year 2018, which begins Oct. 1.
He acknowledged that states and cities have relied upon the state revolving fund programs that municipalities use to improve water infrastructure, and EPA funds through state and tribal grants.
The state and tribal grants program also includes grants to remediate brownfield sites, and reduce air pollution in areas with the highest ozone and particulate matter levels. It also would include funding for the fledgling Water Infrastruture Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) that Congress created in 2014 to provide Treasury-backed credit for loans for water projects that cost at least $20 million.
“I want to communicate a message that brownfields, the Superfund program, water infrastructure—the WIFIA grants, state revolving funds, are essential to protect,” said Pruitt, drawing a round of applause from the assembled mayors who stayed after breakfast to listen.Pruitt reaffirmed his support for brownfields programs, which he termed a “tremendous success, but also committed the agency's resources toward addressing the more than 1,300 Superfund sites across the country. “Some of those sites have been on the list for several decades. That just shouldn't be.”
Benchmarks for Ozone Non-Attainment
On ozone attainment, Pruitt said he wants to hear from the mayors on how to set benchmarks to move past the 40 percent non-attainment across the country.
After his talk, Mayor James Brainard of Carmel, Ind., asked Pruitt to urge the White House not to remove the exemption for municipal bonds that are used to finance water infrastructure. “This is critically important for us,” he said.
Pruitt said he had not heard about that particular exemption in conversations with members of Congress, but would keep it in mind. He said the EPA was drawing up a document of water infrastructure needs that he would share with the nation's mayors and the White House this afternoon.
J. Christian Bollwage, mayor of Elizabeth, N.J., told Pruitt he would share success stories of brownfield site cleanups that the U.S. Conference of Mayors has culled together. Pruitt said he wanted to hear “more stories” about brownfields, but also about Superfund programs.Funding Dogs Superfund Cleanups
Pruitt said the EPA's Office of Land and Emergency Management will identify obstacles that are preventing the remediation of these sites that would create jobs, benefit communities and protect environment as well.
Local activists and representatives said hurdles to cleanup amount to a lack of funding.Dan Serres, conservation director at Columbia Riverkeeper, is a member of the Hanford Advisory Board. The board keeps tabs on the cleanup work at the Department of Energy's Hanford site, a Superfund site contaminated with radioactive waste from production operations decades ago.
“Hanford is thought of as this nuclear wasteland, but the Columbia River flows through 40 miles of it,” Serres said.
One of the EPA's responsibilities at the site is to ensure cleanup actions protect the river, and the agency can't afford to waver in the time or funding it provides, he said.
“There is going to have to be … a vigorous commitment to continuing the cleanup at Hanford. Without that, we're going to see serious contamination problems worsen,” he said.
Without appropriate funding, Serres said federal agencies are choosing to leave contamination in place rather than thoroughly remove it. At the same time, remedial actions that are taken are delayed, he said.
“There's regional consensus around cleaning up Hanford correctly, and doing it quickly, because the stakes are so high,” he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=106526030&vname=dennotallissues&fn=106526030&jd=106526030
-
Former Administrators Say Proposed EPA Cuts Target Core Programs
Mar 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
Two former EPA administrators -- Gina McCarthy and Christine Todd Whitman -- are blasting the Trump administration's preliminary budget plan that would gut the agency, saying it targets core environmental programs and goes far beyond Republican attacks focused on allegations the agency has been too aggressive on climate change.
“Now I understood that this administration was likely not supportive of climate initiatives,” McCarthy said during a joint March 1 appearance with Whitman on MSNBC. “But this is going to the heart of our air and water protections.”
Whitman, in a similar vein said, “The agency is about protecting human health and the environment. And we don't want to lose that in an effort to ensure that the regulations in place are the ones the administration wants . . . and that any overreach has been addressed.”
The joint appearance comes in the wake of preliminary Office of Management and Budget plan that proposes to cut EPA's overall budget by 25 percent, and also seeks to eliminate 20 percent of the agency's staff and 30 percent of its grant funding.
But the plan has already sparked deep concern among state environment officials who echoed McCarthy and Whitman's concerns. They warned the proposed cuts would also undercut commitments by Administrator Scott Pruitt to ensure states have adequate resources as he seeks to give them additional responsibilities. And in a March 1 letter, state environmental commissioners urged the administration to increase state grant funding above current levels.
McCarthy's remarks criticizing the proposed cuts were particularly scathing.
“This is going to the heart of how EPA protects public health and American families,” she said, citing the proposed cuts as a dire threat to the agency's basic mission of ensuring “you can turn on your tap water and expect to have clean drinking water” and “provide cleaner air” for children suffering from asthma attacks.
“This is about a bipartisan issue that was embraced 47 years ago when EPA was established by [President] Richard Nixon,” she said.
McCarthy underscored additional concerns about the impact of the budget plan on staffing levels. “People have to realize that this budget proposal that is being put on the table would take the staffing levels at EPA back to where they were 40 years ago,” McCarthy said, adding that the impact on agency scientists appears to be even greater.
“We are talking about 42 percent of our [EPA] scientists potentially losing their jobs this year,” McCarthy said. “This is not just disagreeing with the science and wanting to deny it. This is telling half of the scientists that they are no longer welcome in the premiere environmental science agency in the world, the [EPA].
Whitman's comments were a bit softer in tone but just as broad, and included a rebuke to congressional critics of alleged EPA overreach, including but not limited to climate change.
“You can always take a look at the regulations and find that balance, but you have to remember that this administration was very active going through regulatory route because they couldn't get anything through Congress,” Whitman said. The former Republican governor supplemented that observation with reference to the landmark Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. EPA, which “settled” the issue of EPA's responsibility to regulate carbon and meant the agency had “no choice” but to act.
Both administrators said they were “skeptical” about EPA administrator Scott Pruitt's agenda, with Whitman in particular expressing doubt that he could overrule skepticism from Trump over the agency. “It is not going to be up to him . . As administrator, you carry out the policies of the president,” she added.
“It is going to be a very difficult time for EPA,” McCarthy said.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/former-administrators-say-proposed-epa-cuts-target-core-programs
-
'I'm Convinced We're Going to Win This,' Gore Tells Activists
Mar 3, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Jennifer Yachnin
The last time former Vice President Al Gore visited the Centennial State it was the eve of Election Day 2016, and the Democrat offered an enthusiastic message to residents as he campaigned for Hillary Clinton: Cast your ballots and support climate policies.
Nearly four months later — in the wake of Republican Donald Trump's upset victory for the White House — Gore returned to Colorado yesterday with a more caustic message but, perhaps surprisingly, no less optimistic.
"Our political system, our democracy in the U.S. has been hacked," he said in welcoming remarks to 1,000 individuals gathered here for a training session of Climate Reality Leadership Corps. The three-day event marks the 34th training session for the Climate Reality Project that Gore founded in 2011.
He later added, "Even though our democracy has been weakened, even though the special interests seem to be in control, even though the polluters have found ways to take control of the agenda-setting process and policymaking process, nevertheless, the ultimate power still does lie with the people — if the people are awakened and aroused and become determined to take back control of the policies that will shape our future."
During his brief welcoming remarks, and a subsequent two-hour presentation on "The Climate Crisis and Its Solutions" — an updated version of his Oscar-winning 2006 documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" — Gore didn't actually mention President Trump by name but repeatedly alluded to the new administration and its ties to the fossil fuel industry.
Along with other speakers, including former Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter (D) and Climate Mama founder Harriet Shugarman, Gore also stressed that despite the political shift in the White House, climate activists could continue to influence policies worldwide.
"I'm convinced we are going to win this," Gore said. "But the real challenge is winning it fast enough to minimize the regrettable, unrecoverable damage that we would not want our children and grandchildren to look back on years from now."
Ritter, who serves as director of the Center for the New Energy Economy at Colorado State University, similarly lamented the Trump administration's decision to remove mentions of climate change from the White House website and the president's vows to abandon the Paris climate agreement.
"It seemed like we were going, in a way, where our momentum could not be reversed as it related to our global action on climate change and clean energy," Ritter said. "There was an election on Nov. 8. The results of that election were to a lot of us a sense that progress at the federal level was going to be halted."
But Ritter stressed that activists should focus their efforts on pushing climate policies at the state and local level.
"What I believe ... is that you will not stop the momentum that we as a nation are making on clean energy transitions in America: either in the electric systems, the transportation system or in industry," Ritter said.
He pointed to some 4,000 bills dealing with energy or climate policy at the state level.
"If you're feeling bad about what's happening in Washington, D.C., I think I do have some good news to offer. And that's that there are other places where there is movement, where there's momentum," he said.
Later, he said, "If we can't get to Congress, if we can't get to the new Cabinet, if we can't get to the president, we can get to state legislatures, we can get to governors, we can get to mayors, we can get to city council people. We can move an agenda at the state and the city level."
Ritter went on to tout the fact that 45 percent of all coal-fired generation in the West is set to be retired in the next decade or so, with nearly two-thirds of the remaining coal-fired plants shuttered within 15 years.
But Ritter noted that climate activists cannot ignore those communities where coal mining or power generation has served as a primary industry.
"I think we have to think about how we take care of the people in those communities and the economic viability of those communities as a justice issue," he said.
In the meantime, the Climate Reality Project appears to have seen an uptick in interest since the November election.
More than 2,600 individuals applied to participate in the Denver training session, up from 1,600 applicants from the last event in Houston in August.
"The urgency has always been there, but suddenly people have woken up," Shugarman said.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/03/03/stories/1060050884
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested